Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to ask some questions and make some comments on the speech of the hon. member for Mercier. As always, she takes a very pessimistic outlook on this legislation.

For the record, Canadians from coast to coast to coast participated in what was perhaps the most extensive consultation process in Canadian history. Over 100,000 people participated. The hon. member for Mercier was a very active member of the human resources development committee that was looking at the modernization and restructuring of Canada's social security system. The hon. member heard what I heard. She heard what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister heard.

What Canadians were saying was that they wanted an unemployment insurance system, a social security system that would help the most vulnerable in our society, that would help Canadians find jobs and keep their jobs and to do that in a sustainable fashion. They realized the skyrocketing costs of unemployment insurance from $8 billion in 1982 to $20 billion in 1992. They realized the distortions which exist in the marketplace where 38 per cent of benefits are directed to 14 per cent of the firms and represent 12 per cent of the people. They realized that all these things needed to be changed because the status quo simply was not serving the people it was supposed to serve.

Throughout this process we engaged Canadians in a serious debate about the issues. If we look at the objectives and clearly analyse the EI bill which was tabled, we find that those objectives are met. The hon. member said that this is a regressive piece of legislation. She should rethink, re-read and re-analyse what is in the legislation.

The hon. member does not talk about the progressive measures found in the legislation. Over 500,000 Canadians who were excluded and marginalized by the Unemployment Insurance Act will now be covered by the legislation. Part time workers count. Every hour, every dollar, every effort which they make will be rewarded under the legislation.

The hon. member did not talk about the family income supplement which will allow people to receive up to 80 per cent of their average earnings. The hon. member did not talk about that because it is too positive to mention. She did not talk about the people who are included in the legislation. She did not talk about the fact that low income Canadians will be able to earn $50 without being penalized or taxed back. She did not talk about the fact that by reducing premium rates for business, job creation will be enhanced. Employees will be helped because they too will participate in the employment insurance fund.

The hon. member tried to depict the federal government as a government which imposes its rules and regulations upon the provinces. That is not the case. The legislation is quite open. It says that the federal government will negotiate with the provinces on wage supplements, top ups, self-employment assistance, skills and loans. It will also work together with the provinces on job corps partnerships.

Why is the hon. member continuing, like every member of the Bloc, this misinformation campaign? They are trying to confuse Canadians. Canadians know that the employment insurance program which was introduced speaks to the number one issue facing Canadians, and that is job creation. Over 100,000 jobs will be created directly as a result of measures taken by the bill.

I am quite surprised. The hon. member knows that the province of Quebec has historically benefited from the unemployment insurance program and it will continue to do so under the employment insurance program. She also knows that she will benefit from the $300 million transition fund in high unemployment areas.

I have a simple question for the hon. member: Why does the Bloc Quebecois continue this misinformation campaign? Why does it not tell the real story to Canadians?

[Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue.

I would like to reiterate some of the important issues that I raised earlier on. This debate is about two major things: first, the recent Dayton peace agreement in light of the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans; and second, to consider Canadian support for these efforts by participation in a multinational military implementation force under NATO command.

The residents of York North, like Canadians everywhere, want to see this crisis resolved. They have watched civilians on both sides of the conflict suffer unnecessarily. They have seen fellow Canadians risk their lives participating in humanitarian missions. They view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope. They support Canadian participation in the implementation force.

Canada has a long tradition on the world stage in relation to peacekeeping. We know that under the leadership of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who presented the concept of peacekeeping to the world in response to the 1956 Suez crisis, we are indeed world leaders.

Canada has taken part in almost every United Nations peacekeeping operation since 1956 and many other missions outside the organization. As of November 1, 1995 more than 1,600 personnel are deployed in 13 missions making Canada the sixth largest troop contributor.

Since the end of the cold war, the nature of conflict has changed. It has become more regional and complex. The need for peacekeeping forces is increasing rather than decreasing. Peacekeeping forces, whose original missions were to monitor ceasefires, are now working on the maintenance and re-establishment of peace, delivering humanitarian aid, supervising elections and monitoring human rights abuses.

The parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia want peace. They have fought and suffered for several years. They are tired of the carnage and are prepared to pursue their goals through negotiations and political means. They have signed a complex agreement setting out the compromises and frameworks they are prepared to live with.

After more than four years of bitter fighting, peace may finally be at hand in the former Yugoslavia. The people of the region have endured terrible hardships. There could be no accurate measure of their suffering or loss. The effects of this conflict will be seen for years to come. Citizens will bear the emotional scars of being witnesses to the atrocities of war, of having had loved ones die in their arms from causes so simple and so possible to prevent: starvation, hypothermia, dehydration.

The land is scarred from years of battle. Bombs, chemical spills, mines and neglect have taken their toll. The infrastructure has been eradicated. It was only recently that electricity was restored to Sarajevo. Roads, buildings, sewer systems, the fundamentals that we as Canadians take for granted must be rebuilt.

What is critical to any peace process involving the use of peacekeeping troops is that the military component must be accompanied by a strong, viable political process. In the former Yugoslavia we now have a strong peace process. The Dayton peace agreement points the way clearly to a new political reality designed to end the fighting and conflict in that region.

What is required militarily is a brief period of stability to allow the implementation of the political steps agreed upon. The international community has laid the foundation for a strong peace process. The Dayton peace agreement points the way clearly to a new political reality designed to end the fighting in that region.

The Dayton peace agreement calls for, among other things, country-wide elections to be held within nine months. Free elections would be a tremendous step forward in the former Yugoslavia. A truly democratic election process that produces a government and a leader supported and chosen by the population would go a long way to ensuring the cohesiveness of the country.

Free elections require stability, freedom of movement and freedom of information. We must counteract nearly four years of war and hate. The groundwork must be laid to ensure that elections are feasible. One way of ensuring a successful election is to provide residents with a commitment to personal security.

Canada's efforts to re-establish peace in the former Yugoslavia are extensive. Over the last four years Canada has played a significant role in the international community's efforts to deal with the war in the former Yugoslavia. These efforts have been carried out primarily through the United Nations and NATO. Not only have Canadian military personnel helped prevent the conflict from spreading to other parts of the region and from becoming more brutal, they have also saved countless lives by assisting and delivering humanitarian relief supplies and preventing more massive assaults on civilian populations.

In September 1991, Canada led the call for the United Nations Security Council to deal with this situation. Since then Canada has contributed one of the largest contingents to UN forces in the former Yugoslavia. As the mandate of the UN forces evolved over the course of the conflict, so did the tasks performed by Canadian troops. Their duties have ranged from traditional peacekeeping functions such as monitoring ceasefires to more challenging roles such as establishing humanitarian airlifts, repairing schools and supporting hospital workers.

With the peace process now moving into a new phase, the Canadian forces are ready if necessary to serve with an implementation force. The peace implementation force plan calls for roughly 60,000 personnel. This plan covers the military aspects of the peace agreement negotiated in Dayton. It will be implemented after a UN Security Council resolution is passed authorizing the mission. The objectives of the implementation force are as follows:

First, to ensure compliance with the military aspects of the peace agreement. This would include, in particular, the withdrawal of forces to their respective territories as set out in the agreement, and the establishment of agreed lines of separation of those forces.

Second, to create secure conditions for the withdrawal of UN forces currently in place.

Third, to create secure conditions for the conduct of other non-military tasks associated with the peace agreement. The UN, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe will be among the organizations carrying out civilian duties. All our NATO allies will be participating, with the exception of Iceland which has no armed forces. Among non-NATO nations, 19 including Russia, have indicated a willingness to contribute.

Finally, the plan calls for the replacement of the implementation force with non-NATO forces after 12 months. This transfer would occur regardless of whether the peace agreement has been fully implemented. Citizens of the former Yugoslavia view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope. Canadian involvement in the implementation force would allow this ray of hope to shine.

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

I am aware of that and you will get a seven-minute comment from me.

This debate is about two things: the recent Dayton peace agreement in light of the international community's continued effort to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans, and to consider Canadian support for peace efforts by participation in a multinational military implementation force under NATO command.

Like Canadians everywhere, the residents of York North want to see this crisis resolved. They have watched civilians on both sides of the conflict suffer unnecessarily. They have seen fellow Canadians risk their lives participating in humanitarian missions. They

view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope and they support Canadian participation in an implementation force.

Canada has long been an active player on the world stage. In the spring of 1945 Canada and 49 other nations gathered together to draft and adopt the charter of the United Nations, an international body created to prevent military conflict.

Since that day Canada has played an important and influential role in the operation of the United Nations.

It was, after all, our own Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who presented the concept of peacekeeping to the world in response to the Suez crisis of 1956. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Canada has taken part in almost every single United Nations peacekeeping operation since 1956 and many other missions outside the organization. As of November 1, 1995 more than 1,600 personnel are deployed in 13 missions, making Canada the sixth largest troop contributor.

My question is simple. Why would the Reform Party try to break down this very important Canadian tradition of helping a country during a very important crisis?

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address some of the key concerns that-

[Unemployment Insurance, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be asking what the government has already done to create jobs in Canada. We have done a great deal. I have outlined a number of measures we have taken already.

I find it extremely surprising that a member of the Reform Party, the same party that does not support the summer job action plan of this government, which has created over 44,500 jobs, would get up and claim to be the defender of young people in this country.

It is abundantly clear to the people of Canada that the Reform members of the opposition have abdicated their responsibilities to give young people a chance.

[Unemployment Insurance, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming abundantly clear that the Reform Party simply does not understand even the measures that were taken in the past budget by the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance has already reduced payroll taxes. Measures that will be announced later on by the minister will speak to the issue of job creation, which is an important and fundamental pillar of the jobs and growth agenda. Not only has this government created over 500,000 jobs, but we are modernizing the delivery services. We are engaging the private sector, working together in partnership with the government through things like national

sectoral councils and youth internship programs, which have created over 30,000 jobs for young people.

We are modernizing the system and we are creating the climate that will speak to the issue of job creation.

[Unemployment Insurance, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear to those individuals who have been active participants in the debate about restructuring Canada's social security system that the Unemployment Insurance Act as it is today does not reflect the reality of the workplace. It is for this reason that the government embarked on a very ambitious project to modernize Canada's social security system with three major objectives.

The first objective is to help Canadians find and keep jobs by providing them with not only income support but also a set of tools that will allow them to get back to work quickly. The second objective is to provide protection for the most vulnerable in our society. I know how the Reform Party feels about that. The third objective is to develop a system that is sustainable.

The announcement the minister of human resources will make today will be something Canadians have been waiting for and it will address those three objectives.

[Manpower Training, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member gets the impression that we are not willing to reform Canada's social security system. Just as a reminder, it was the federal government that embarked on this very important legislative process to modernize Canada's social security system.

I want to tell the hon. member, who is extremely concerned about the role of the provinces in this particular case, that the provinces will be brought in as very effective partners, along with local stakeholders, to make sure that the type of training Canadians need is in tune with the times and will get Canadians back to work very quickly.

[Manpower Training, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we will shortly be tabling a new Unemployment Insurance Act here in Canada in response to what we heard from hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want basically a modern system, a system that is sustainable, and a system that will provide Canadians with a set of tools to get back to work quickly.

Part and parcel of what Canadians are calling for is greater decentralization and empowerment of local communities to make the decisions that best suit their local realities. The objectives that Canadians have set will be of course honoured in the new employment bill.

[Child Care, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the same way that we have honoured our job creation program, that we have lowered unemployment, that we have increased exports, that we have increased the gross domestic product, we will continue to honour all the commitments made in the red book.