Jesse Flis

[Bosnia, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are all pleased to welcome the Dayton peace agreement, bringing an end to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

I think I speak on behalf of everyone in the House when I say we congratulate all of the participants who had anything to with helping bring about this peace accord.

The peace accord is one thing but a lasting peace, the post-peace accord period, is sometimes as important or more important than the peace settlement itself. There will now be a period of reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation. We will be monitoring this post-accord period very closely to see what part Canada can play together with its allies.

[Canadian Polish Congress, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Polish Congress is an umbrella organization that unites over 240 organizations representing Canadians of Polish origin.

The congress is active in many areas, from helping to successfully resettle newcomers to the promotion of excellent relations with ethnocultural groups across Canada.

Throughout its history, the congress has participated in the development of a strong and united Canada, often providing input and advice to federal and provincial governments through briefs and through personal input.

I am therefore pleased to announce that the Canadian Polish Congress Council has chosen Ottawa as the site of the 1995 annual meeting this week. I welcome the delegates from all provinces and regions, who are beginning the council meeting with a visit to the House of Commons.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Davenport on the subject of Canada's position on nuclear testing.

I can assure the hon. member that today, November 21, 1995, Canada's position on nuclear testing rests on a bedrock of Canadian tradition in support of a comprehensive test ban treaty. On this issue, as the hon. member said, our position has been consistent and clear. It remains unchanged to this day: no testing by any nuclear weapons state.

The government has repeatedly stated Canada's deep commitment to the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. Such a treaty should prohibit all nuclear testing regardless of size, in all environments for all time. For Canada, this remains our most important and immediate arms control and disarmament priority.

Last week, in the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly, Canada voted in favour of a resolution strongly deploring nuclear testing. Canada was also a lead co-sponsor of the resolution which calls for the early completion of an effective CTBT. Together these resolutions represent Canada's firm position on testing.

Canada played a leading role in securing the indefinite extension of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons last May. The indefinite extension of the NPT provides the foundation for real disarmament.

Among the decisions agreed by all the countries of the NPT review conference, was the need to complete a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty no later than 1996.

Canadian actions since then have been calibrated to ensure that everything possible is done to meet the commitments taken in May and to reinforce the integrity of the non-proliferation treaty.

Canada's active role in the CTBT negotiations in Geneva and our efforts to develop the necessary political support for the early conclusion of the CTBT within multilateral fora such as the OAS and the recent Commonwealth heads of government meeting have been buttressed by the welcomed announcements made by the U.S.A., U.K. and France that they support a zero threshold comprehensive test ban treaty. A zero threshold CTBT would ban all tests for all time.

We believe that these public affirmations by three of the five nuclear weapon states will greatly assist the negotiations in reaching an early and successful conclusion to the CTBT.

In conclusion, let me repeat yet again that Canada's position on nuclear testing is clear and firm. We oppose all testing and remain committed to a CTBT in 1996.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosedale and the chairman of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will agree with me that Canada and the U.S. share common objectives of democracy, human rights and market oriented reforms in Cuba. However, we differ on the best way to achieve such goals. Canada favours engagement and dialogue.

Currently there is legislation before the U.S. Congress which would extend the U.S. embargo against Cuba. When the legislation was first introduced in February, the Canadian government examined it and found provisions which could be harmful to Canadian interests. We made our concerns known to both the administration and Congress. As well, businesses and other groups on both sides of the border have opposed the legislation. Many other countries have also expressed concerns over the legislation.

Canada's key concerns related to proposals which would restrict imports of sugar and sugar-containing products from countries which import sugar from Cuba and which would allow U.S. citizens to make claims in U.S. courts against foreign companies investing in property expropriated by the Cuban government. This approach to claims would be contrary to generally accepted principles of international law and could have repercussions on international investments beyond Cuba. The proposals would restrict entry into the U.S. of officers of certain foreign companies which have business dealings with Cuba.

What is the current situation? Different versions of the bills have been passed by the House and the Senate and these now have to be reconciled in a conference committee. Canadian efforts were successful in having the proposed sugar restrictions removed from both versions of the bills.

Our other key concerns have been partly addressed. While the version of the bill passed by the Senate removes the provisions on investment claims and temporary entry, these remain in the House version of the legislation. Canada is continuing to press for the controversial provisions dropped from the version passed by the Senate to not be reintroduced in any final version of the legislation.

It is not clear when the conference committee will present a reconciled version of the legislation or if the common bill would be able to muster enough votes to pass both the House and the Senate. If passed, the final stage would be to send the bill to the President for his consideration. As the hon. member knows, the U.S. administration shares many of Canada's concerns. The U.S. Secretary of State has told Congress that he will recommend that President Clinton veto the bill if an unacceptable version is passed. Should the objectionable provisions be reinserted, Canada would urge a presidential veto of the bill.

I compliment the hon. member. I know he has many connections, communications and dealings with colleagues in the United States. He has also been playing a very important role in helping us to keep a Canadian foreign policy, while letting the United States keep its foreign policy in relation to Cuba.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Thank you for the correction, Mr. Speaker.

I was pleased that the member talked about the disabled because it was this government in the early 1980s that set up a special task force across the country to look at how obstacles could be removed for the disabled. The work of that task force is benefiting many handicapped people today. By removing the obstacles they are no longer handicapped.

The Reform Party criticizes the bill because it does not solve any problems with the Canada pension plan, for example. We all agree there are problems with the plan. The Reform Party knows perfectly well the government takes these problems seriously. I object very strongly to the Reform Party's suggestion that the Canada pension plan is about to collapse.

The government is preparing a working paper which will set out options for reforming the CPP. We will present those options to the provinces which share responsibility in this area. With their goodwill we will negotiate a new and better plan which will meet the needs of seniors not only today but in the future.

Bill C-96 is not about pension plans. It is an administrative bill to establish a department. The Reform Party then takes advantage of this debate to decry the federal plan for gender equality. We make no apology for advancing women's equality by examining initiatives related to economics, autonomy, poverty, employment, education and training. However, this has nothing to do with Bill C-96 which is an administrative bill to establish a department.

The Reform Party members criticizes this bill because it does not radically transform post-secondary education into its strange vision of the future. However, it knows full well that Bill C-96 is not about changes to post-secondary education at all. It is an administrative bill to establish a department.

The Reform Party criticizes Bill C-96 because it does not change the Constitution and prevent the federal government from fulfilling its responsibilities for labour market programs. Even if we wanted to do that, the Reform Party knows full well that one does not amend the Constitution through an administrative bill to establish a department.

The Reform Party and Bloc Quebecois criticize the bill for intruding into provincial jurisdictions and then complain that the bill does not radically alter areas such as education where the provinces do have jurisdiction. Opposition knows full well this has nothing to do with Bill C-96.

Opposition members can try to side track the debate on this bill, throw up smoke screens and parade their own pet theories on every issue under the sun, but lets us keep one thing clear. It has been said many times that Bill C-96 deals with consequential amendments to a variety of legislation related to the reorganization of government departments. That is all it does. It is not intended to change the world.

This does not mean the world does not need changing but let us keep a proper perspective on the task at hand. The task at hand is providing Canadians with a department that supplies them with essential programs and services, a department that has been remarkably successful over the past few years in bringing our labour market and social programs out of the past and into the 21st century.

Bill C-96 is about the department that launched one of the biggest grassroots consultations on social programs ever seen in this country, with more than 100,000 Canadians taking part.

It is this department that made the first major changes to the Canada student loans program, changes the Reform Party seems to have ignored. As a result of these changes over 13,000 high school students are getting special grants to pursue their education. One hundred thousand underemployed graduates, twice as many as before, are getting expanded interest relief. The program is costing taxpayers less while students are getting a better service.

It is this department that is pioneering an approach that puts programs and services into the hands of local communities with tools and resources that can be customized by communities to meet their needs.

It is this department that is building the most decentralized service delivery network in any government moving from 450 to 700 points of service, moving it to rural communities across Canada; people can get help where they live.

It is this department that is providing Canada's seniors with four times as many offices where they can get personal service. This is what Bill C-96 is about. It would be useful if the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois would talk about the bill and look at what is really going on in the department.

When the member for Calgary Southeast complains that the bill does not eliminate overlap and duplication between federal and provincial services, she should look at the real progress the department is making in building new partnerships with the provinces, with the private sector, with communities across the country. Look at what we are doing in the real world; the work with provinces on pilot projects that test the joint delivery of federal and provincial programs. These are designed specifically to improve efficiency and eliminate overlap and duplication.

Let us get constructive and talk about moving forward that effort. Let us encourage the provinces to join with us in the new agreements that will clarify roles and responsibilities, as we have invited them to do. Let us look at the very essence of Bill C-96, the focus on a better integration of programs and services that is so critical to this effort. By passing Bill C-96 without delay we can move on to address these concerns more efficiently.

Let us not hold up change on the pretext that change is not happening fast enough to suit the Reform Party. Let us not pretend that change is not taking place right now. Everyone in the House knows that real reform in our social and labour market programs is taking place and will continue to take place.

Bill C-96 does not do everything but it is an important step toward getting the architecture right, establishing a department that can provide the highly integrated, focused programs and services Canadians need.

Of all the comments on Bill C-96 from the Reform Party, I can find only one based on fact. Bill C-96 does not require an annual report to be tabled from the Department-alleluia.

Members of the Reform Party appear to be equivocating on this issue. For example, they praise the decision to eliminate the annual report from the department of public works as a move towards greater efficiency, and yet they condemn the elimination of annual reports from Heritage Canada. Let us hear some consistency from the Reform Party.

The government's own view is clear. We want to handle the question of annual reports in the most efficient manner. Section 157 of the Financial Administration Act calls for the elimination of annual reports when the information they provide is duplicated in public accounts or the estimates. That applies in this case. Members of the House will still have access to the information they need to monitor departmental spending through these other resources.

For a party that professes to want grassroots control over programs, the members opposite seem surprisingly tied to the old ways of doing things, or to doing nothing. Bill C-96 is not a defence of the status quo or of outmoded ways of doing things.

The government does not pretend that by passing this bill it can achieve everything it wants to achieve overnight. It is one step along the way. It would be foolish to hold back, to block this important step forward simply because it does not do everything at once. It would be equally foolish to block this step forward because we are afraid of change.

Whatever the Reform Party may think, Canadians want change. We saw that in the referendum, we see it post-referendum, and the government has addressed this. The old ways no longer work. By bringing about change, it does not mean it has to be constitutional change. The way we share services with provinces is a good place to begin.

The government is giving Canadians change, not just rhetoric. With this bill we can move forward. With this bill we can get on with the real challenge of building a more efficient, effective form of government for Canada.

I remind the official opposition and the Reform Party of the realities of today. When I was seeking a job in 1956 after I finished teacher's college, there were about a dozen boards of education that wanted my services. One board was hiring 600 teachers at a time; another, 500 teachers. Boards were recruiting teachers in England, in Australia, in New Zealand. Today teachers graduating with much higher qualifications than I had cannot get a teaching position. They can hardly get their names on the supply list.

There was a time when teachers complained because they did not pay unemployment insurance. The government of the day insisted that teachers should pay unemployment insurance. As a teacher, I supported that move because you never know when you might be unemployed and this is an insurance scheme. Teachers then started paying UI. Today many teachers are benefiting from that.

Because of the changing nature of the workforce and the competitiveness, more and more workers are going to have to move from province to province and require training and retraining. I hope we can count on the official opposition and the Reform Party to give this bill speedy passage.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that we are debating Bill C-96 but we are also debating the amendment to the bill put forward by the hon. member for Mercier.

That party objects that the bill does not give full and alone jurisdiction over human resources development. That phrase frightens me. Again it shows that the official opposition is pushing its hidden agenda of separating so that it has full powers, full control over human resources and other things.

I draw the attention of the official opposition to recent post referendum polls, which state that 61 per cent of Quebecers want to remain in Canada and 78 per cent of Quebecers want to see major changes to the way the Canadian federation works. It is through bills such as this that hopefully through provincial federal co-operation we can get more people to work.

Last week I had a town hall meeting. There was a qualified veterinarian in the audience. He was from another country. Sadly, he is on social assistance. He does not have a job in Canada.

Two weeks ago I saw a switch from the official opposition to the Reform Party when the member for Calgary Southeast debated this bill and said very little about it. She talked about pensions and everything else.

I was pleased to hear the member for Edmonton Southeast at least talking about the purpose of government being to help the most vulnerable people in society. He talked about the disabled.

[Mrs. Hilda Simanavicius, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today in the House of Commons to pay tribute to an outstanding member of my constituency of Parkdale-High Park.

Mrs. Hilda Simanavicius has recently returned from Lithuania where she was involved in a program to improve the management and administration facilities of a consulting service within this eastern European country. Mrs. Simanavicius' initiatives were in conjunction with the Canadian Executive Services Organization known as CESO and the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business.

This organization provides advisers to businesses in emerging economies in central and eastern Europe, often with the help of volunteer Canadian men and women who are enthusiastic about sharing their knowledge with others who are in need.

I would like to thank Mrs. Simanavicius and other Canadian volunteers from CESO who are working to improve economic markets and the quality of life of others around the world. Hers is a shining example of the goodwill and benevolence for which Canadians have come to be recognized.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the words of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. He was very clear in his presentation.

The member began by stating that the referendum gave a clear message to the federal government. Yes, it did send a very clear message. The clear message is that the majority of Canadians in Quebec do not want to separate from Canada. That is the clear message and that is what we should be working toward.

However, the Bloc Quebecois keeps pushing its hidden agenda, which it tried to hide during the referendum. The agenda was complete separation. The sooner the Bloc Quebecois accepts this, the sooner all three parties and the independent members in this House can start working together and continue building the strong, beautiful country we have.

Yesterday we heard about the hospital closings in Quebec. That is going to hurt my family in Quebec. Why did that come out only after and not during the referendum? It would have hurt the hidden agenda of separation.

We are bringing in a bill which deals with administration rather than any substantive reform. It does not entail new organizational changes as the Bloc Quebecois tries to make us believe. It does not introduce new statutory powers or affect federal-provincial jurisdiction. I do not know why that would concern the Bloc. The bill draws together portions of the former departments of employment and immigration, health and welfare, secretary of state and all the former department of labour. Think of the savings this will bring to Canadian taxpayers. Why not pass those savings on to the people who are looking for jobs and the people who have to be re-educated?

I was an educator for 27 years. I have learned and am learning more so that education does not stop at the end of grade 8, at the end of grade 12 or at the end of university. Education is becoming a lifetime process. We are also learning that people with good professional jobs are not going to keep them for a lifetime. They are going to go through two, three, four jobs in a lifetime. Therefore they have to be retrained.

Because of the kind of environment we are in, we have to give workers the freedom to move from province to province. If they are forced to move from one province to another or they do it of their own free will, why should they be hampered because one province has a program different from another province? Why should they not be able to move from one program to another from province to province? I cannot understand why speaker after speaker from the Bloc are against this federal-provincial operation of working together to save taxpayers money, to keep building this beautiful country.

I have talked to many diplomats. I will not mention any names or countries but they are shocked at what has happened to our country. Canada is always used as a model and an example when countries move to more democratic forms of government. Now they are so let down. We are letting them down because the model they

worshipped, the country to which immigrants from all over the world want to come, is quarrelling within instead of working together.

I do not want a response, although I probably will get one. I want to leave a very clear message. The referendum did affect everyone in this House. We were elected by the people and the kind of comments I am hearing do not represent the majority of the people living in the province of Quebec. They showed that in the referendum.

Bill C-96 is not changing any statutory powers. It is not taking any powers away from Quebec or from any other province. This bill is an attempt to work together, to give programs and services more efficiently at less cost to the taxpayers.

I hope I have made my message clear. The Bloc is trying to resurface its hidden agenda and we are not going to accept it.

[Mining Exploration And Development, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice after question period today asked me if I would respond to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce on his initiative and his perseverance to establish a permanent international court.

Events such as those in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia have amply demonstrated the need for a permanent international court to try individuals responsible for those most atrocious crimes of all: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The end of the cold war and a new found political will permit the international community to consider the establishment of such a court as a worthwhile and serious idea.

The permanent international criminal court would serve two crucial purposes. First, an important deterrent to criminal acts is the knowledge that perpetrators will be persecuted either by national authorities or by an international court.

Second, the establishment of such a court responds to desire for justice on the part of victims of these offences, thus permitting the international community to contribute meaningfully to the maintenance of peace and security by discouraging reprisals or other acts of vengeance.

Canada is at the forefront of efforts to create this court. The Department of Justice together with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence have been participating this year in two meetings of an ad hoc committee created by the General Assembly of the United Nations to review the major substantive and administrative issues arising out of the draft statute for the court.

In accordance with the recommendations the ad hoc committee will be presenting this fall to the general assembly, Canada is now pushing for the convening of an international conference to negotiate the creation of the court.

We are very proud of the contribution Canada is making toward the establishment of the court as well as our current work on cases to be tried by the ad hoc courts for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. I hope this satisfies the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who, I say again, has shown leadership on this issue.

[Nuclear Testing, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the international community and the hon. member should know Canada's position on extending indefinitely the ban on nuclear testing. He heard the explanation of why Canada is supporting the resolution while withdrawing its co-sponsorship.

Canada felt the wording was not strong enough. Canada registered its objections at the time when France was intending to set off another nuclear test. That is well known. The hon. member is trying to score political points over nothing.