1993-06-16

['Hear, hear.']
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before officially starting the day, I would like to say a few words about our pages in the House of Commons. On behalf of all members, I would like to extend our sincere thanks to all our pages for the dedication and zeal with which they performed their tasks, in the course of a year that has given them a chance to see Parliament in action and during which they made life so much easier for the members and the Chair.

It is always invigorating to see young people seated by the Speaker's chair. I hope some of them may one day return to the Commons to occupy their own seats.
I ask hon. members to please join me in wishing the pages success in their studies and their future careers.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Although they are leaving us I know they take with them great memories and experiences of Canada's Parliament, experiences they will share with others.



Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, as a former minister of youth I certainly appreciate your talking about young people today.
I am pleased to announce that a unique initiative for Canada's young people is beginning its 1993 edition. This program, now in its third year, is called Global Vision: Our Competitive Advantage. Global Vision's aim is to create a trade corps of young Canadians, ultimately enhancing a trade culture in Canada. They will commence studies at the University of Western Ontario on July 10.
I am also pleased to announce that parliamentarians from both sides of the House have recognized and put aside their partisan differences to see the value and importance of the initiative.
Parliamentarians for Global Vision is and has been the major sponsor for three years, along with various corporations, community and government ministries, provincial and federal, and particularly the minister of trade.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, this week, June 13 to June 19, marks the second annual Public Service Week pursuant to my private member's bill which was given unanimous consent in the House and royal assent on June 4, 1992.
Never before have those who worked for the people of Canada more needed and deserved a sign of respect in the face of a government that has continued to browbeat and stomp its own employees into the ground in its desperate search for scapegoats to blame for its own mismanagement.
The government that preaches partnership and co-operation has instead created confrontation and conflict with its own employees, undermining morale and destroying productivity. Those who work for the people of Canada are looking forward to a change of employer,

just as the Canadians they serve are looking forward to a change of government.


NATIVE EDUCATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, last week I was in Norway House and met with the council there. One of the things I found out was that 80 native children would like to go on to post-secondary education but do not receive any funding from the federal government.
When we have high unemployment and high welfare rates I think it is time the government reversed its policy, removed the cap and made sure these students, 80 of them who would like to go on to community colleges or universities, have that chance.
The minister of Indian affairs is in the House. I hope he takes a look at this letter, looks at these 80 potential students and provides funding for them so they can get off the welfare cycle and go to school.


MAGAZINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings -Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud the initiative of the federal government in the establishment this spring of a task force to review necessary measures to enhance its policy in support of the Canadian magazine industry.
Magazine publishers, such as the ones responsible for Equinox in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, have concerns about the future of their industry. The task force will ensure the instruments within the current policy framework that have fostered the development of the industry are up to date and effective.
The Canadian magazine industry is an important economic sector and is a vital part of Canada's culture and identity. The purpose of the task force is to propose measures that will enable the government to effectively carry through on its policy objective of ensuring that Canadians have access to Canadian information through genuinely Canadian magazines.
The task force has recently delivered an interim report to the Minister of Communications. My constituents look forward to the positive results from the interim report.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST LEGISLATION
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, as this Parliament comes to an end the Tbry record demands review. In the last election the Prime Minister said he would introduce a conflict of interest bill. He had no choice since so many of his MPs were caught in scandals.
On November 8, 1989 the Tories introduced conflict of interest legislation which the Prime Minister promised would be clear cut and brutal. The only thing brutal about this bill is that almost four years after being introduced the government has never even called it for debate. What an example of Tory dedication to clean government.
The Conservatives have also seen fit to abandon legislation which would restrict the actions of lobbyists. No doubt the hordes of consultants and advisers who worked for free on the various Tory leadership campaigns are smiling today. In return for their backroom support and cash donations the government and the new Prime Minister will once again turn a blind eye to their practices.
A new broom sweeps clean. The Liberal broom is on the way.


TREES FOR THE FUTURE
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, today I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Jocelyn Pepin, owner of the Pepin IGA supermarkets in Lebourgneuf, Quebec. On Saturday, May 31,1 was with Mr. Pepin and his dynamic team when 400 trees were planted as part of environment month. Another 125 IGA grocers did the same, so that altogether 50,000 trees were planted across the province.
People have become very environment conscious and initiatives like these can be used to revitalize vacant spaces and public places. This five-year program is proving to be very beneficial for all concerned and I urge the public to remain involved and use this project to plant trees for the future.
*

June 16, 1993


ALBERTA ELECTION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate Laurence Decore on a clean and dignified campaign in Alberta.
Edmontonians chose Liberals to fill all 18 seats in the capital city area. The Conservatives may have won the election but they certainly did not win my province's heart. I hope my fellow Albertans will not suffer too much under further Tory rule. At least they will have the opportunity to elect a new Liberal government next fall.
The Liberals won 32 seats in all. That is 23 seats more than before the election and the most since 1917. The Tories may have more seats but the Liberals have a much larger victory. I am confident this victory is a sign of things to come.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, for several years my New Democrat colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby and I have been writing to the ministers responsible for the status of women and health and welfare about a heart-breaking case.
Helen Davis was married for 33 years and had eight children with her husband. She divorced him when he became a physically and mentally abusive alcoholic, but later she moved back in with her former husband to take care of him when he developed cancer. She has been denied a CPP survivor's pension because the government says she did not live with her ex-spouse for one full year before his death.
Survivor's benefits should be prorated to correspond to the number of years the couple has spent together. That this woman is forced to live in poverty after so many years of service to her family and to Canada is outrageous and an insult to women, particularly homemakers and seniors.
I urge the government to change this unfair policy now.


CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP CONVENTION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I want to extend my congratulations to each of the candidates in this past weekend's Progressive Conservative leadership convention.
Before and during the convention period all the candidates put forward their positions on party and public policy issues. As the economy is such a pressing issue, I am grateful that so much time was spent on proposals to stimulate the economy while maintaining our goals of reducing the deficit and increasing business opportunities.
I want to thank all five candidates for their contributions to the leadership process. Each of them worked hard to present their ideas to party members, and as a result of the debate which followed our party is stronger for it.
I have talked to many colleagues and many members who supported various candidates. All recognize the value of party solidarity and unity. I look forward to working with my colleagues in support of our new leader. We extend to her our best wishes and support in the future.


DISABLED PERSONS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, the record of the Conservative government over the past four years has been dismal, particularly as it affects the disabled community. The $158 million budgeted by the National Strategy on the Integration of Persons with Disabilities works out to be approximately a loonie a year for each person with a disability, hardly something to brag about.
This government, while claiming concern for the disabled community, under the direction of the then Minister of Justice and soon to be Prime Minister, chose to scrap the Court Challenges Program which was so vital in protecting the rights of Canadians with disabilities. As well, the cap on Canada Assistance Plan payments put in place by the government has reduced the ability of the provinces to maintain and create programs for people with disabilities.

Tributes
It is obvious the Tory commitment to the disabled rings hollow. Disabled Canadians do not want hollow gestures. They want recognition and integration into a society in which they can become full partners.


THE MEMBER FOR CALGARY CENTRE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I rise today to pay tribute to a very special person within our caucus, our party and this honoured place. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will give me leave to mention the name of the government House leader, the hon. Harvie Andre.
This great bear of a man has been our leader in the House of Commons since February 1990. Before that he held many important positions in cabinet, including that of Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and associate defence minister, and he has been the longest serving minister responsible for Canada Post.
[Editor's Note: And the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence having entered the Chamber.]


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the House will agree with me that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka should finish his statement.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, he earned his Ph.D. in chemical engineering when he was only 26 years of age.
He has proudly served the people of Calgary Centre since 1972 and represented the interests of Albertans for over 20 years. Our pit bull once wondered why it was better to know Harvie Andre than to be Harvie Andre. That is easy to understand as he is so influential around the cabinet table.
All I know is that I am glad to say I know Harvie Andre, and on behalf of our colleagues I would like to say thanks.


TRIBUTES
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I know the world-wide audience tuned in through CNN and C-SPAN will be delighted to have learned so much about Harvie Andre.
On June 21, 1957 the cabinet of the newly elected Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, was sworn in, to which Mr. Diefenbaker welcomed the Hon. Ellen Fair-clough as Secretaiy of State, thereby making her the first woman in Canadian history to become a member of the federal cabinet.
In the same month of June, 36 years later, I am honoured to enter the House today with the hon. Kim Campbell, who on June 25 will be sworn in as Canada's first woman Prime Minister in 126 years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: She is our first elected Prime Minister from British Columbia. She brings to the post of Prime Minister very impressive skills, a strong dedication to public service, a sharp sense of history and a very powerful love of Canada.
The leadership of a modem democracy in these difficult economic times is a great challenge. The most important responsibility of a Canadian Prime Minister as all members of the House know and as prime ministers of any political party have learned is the preservation and enhancement of Canadian unity.

Since I took on the responsibilities of Prime Minister of Canada nearly nine years ago, national unity has been my constant concern. Although we did not succeed in completely rebuilding the unity of Canada's constitutional family, I have always felt that Canadians everywhere have a profound love for and a fierce pride in their country. Whether we are from Bonavista, Baie-Comeau or Burnaby, whether we speak French or English, we all share the immense privilege of being Canadian citizens.
Canadians place great expectations and properly so on the shoulders of their elected leaders of all political
June 16, 1993

parties, leaders of the opposition, leaders of the House and leaders of the government. These must be borne seriously and serenely in sometimes quite difficult circumstances.
The member for Vancouver Centre has already demonstrated great poise, sound judgment and clear vision of public policy in three portfolios. I think she is marvellously equipped to discharge the responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister with efficiency, decisiveness and compassion.
I know I speak for all members of the House irrespective of politics when I say that all members and all Canadians wish her Godspeed and well.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be leaving this House and Parliament today. I can say that I would normally miss the members of the opposition but I have a feeling I will be seeing a lot of them. Some of them will be leaving with me too, including some who do not expect to. Public life is not always as rewarding as some people think. Imagine, 10 years of sparring across the aisle with Tobin and I do not even get a gold Timex.

I would also like on behalf of us all-I know he has been retained elsewhere because of an important commitment, but he should be here shortly-to congratulate the hon. member for Sherbrooke who won the respect and affection of thousands of Canadians during these past months. Members of this House are familiar with the remarkable qualities of the Minister of the Environment. I know they will also want to congratulate him on the dignity, the intelligence and the sense of principle with which he conducted his campaign for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.

He and Michele waged a superb campaign that we will always remember for its class and eloquence and his extraordinary contribution to the public policy debate. On behalf of all members, I wish the Minister of the Environment every success.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Tributes


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is my last day in the House of Commons as Prime Minister of Canada. I have been very privileged to have been accorded the opportunity of serving with all of you. We seek to defend the interests of Canada in different ways and in different political parties but the commonality of our approach in the most important values is that at the end of the day everyone in the major political parties in this House has sought to defend their beliefs that Canada is and Canada must remain the finest united country in the entire world in which to live.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would like to thank all members of my party who stood with me in difficult moments and worked so tirelessly to try to meet the commitments we made to Canadians. We did not always succeed but all of us always believed in Canada as do all members on the opposite side. I wish to extend my best wishes to all members of the opposition parties.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition will miss me. He usually does. By the way I think he too has been booked in Winnipeg or elsewhere today, but I just wanted to tell him that I am leaving Kim my briefing book and page one has just one word of advice: duck.
I will always keep fond memories of this place and all the friends I have made here. I will often think of you, my friends, Nunziata, Langdon, Audrey and Nelson. What will you be doing in retirement, Nelson?


Mr. Riis:: Any ideas?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was not you; it was someone else who spoke harshly of the Senate, was it not?


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have to admit to not only respect and admiration but a great deal of affection for my hon. friend and all members of the House who have served Canada so well. I will think of you often, especially when I am sitting comfortably in my office between 2.15 p.m. and 3 p.m. every afternoon, knowing that another session of brilliant questioning and thoughtful and compelling answers will be beamed out across the nation in both official languages to an eternally grateful nation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

June 16, 1993
Tributes


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, I wish to join the Prime Minister in extending my warmest congratulations to the Minister of National Defence on her splendid victory last Sunday. I do so on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition who, unfortunately, had a number of commitments outside Ottawa today and has asked me to act on his behalf. I do so as well on behalf of all my caucus colleagues and of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I also would like to congratulate the four other candidates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. They all conducted a very good campaign. They showed great dignity and a strong sense of democratic principles. I would like to mention particularly the performance of the Minister of Environment, which reminds me of that of another distinguished colleague in this House, who happens to have the same initials-


Martin Brian Mulroney: John Crosbie?


André Ouellet: -and who in 1984, won the hearts of many Canadians-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Thank you, Andre.


André Ouellet: -during another leadership race, but not for the same party.

I would like to single out the tremendous achievement of the member for Vancouver Centre in winning the support of her party. Not only will she become the leader of her party but, if I understand correctly, she will also be serving as Prime Minister of Canada in a few days.
This is a great achievement. However I advise her not to get too comfortable in her new job.


An hon. member:: Summer job.


André Ouellet: As many have said it might only be a summer job.


Mr. Beatty:: Don't count on it, Andre.


André Ouellet: She now has a prerogative that only she can exercise, and that is to go to the Governor General, ask for dissolution of this Parliament and call an election. I want to assure her that she will have the support of
those of us on this side of the House for such an initiative.
What the current Prime Minister said in similar circumstances as Leader of the Opposition in 1984 could be our feelings exactly. We are ready, willing and more than able to deal with the writ.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We were.


André Ouellet: Yes and we are. I am sure she will not abuse her peculiar situation, will respect traditions and conventions and will want to allow the people of Canada to duly elect a new government at the earliest opportunity.
In closing I would like once again to welcome the member for Vancouver Centre to the House as the new leader of her party and wish her both health and happiness in her future.
I did not realize I would not only have to respond to the Prime Minister on introducing the new leader of his party to the House but would have to listen to his last words in this Parliament.

We were friends years ago, when I went to school with the Prime Minister. Since then we have seen each other on various occasions, and especially in this House. On behalf of our party, I would like to wish him a happy retirement with his wife and children. I am sure, as he said earlier, that he will not be able to resist watching Question Period. There will indeed be some very good questions, because they will be put by members of his own party.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that the work he has done as a member and a parliamentarian has been extremely important. That is something we ought to recognize on occasions like this. Beyond the rivalry that exists among political parties, there are feelings of mutual friendship and respect which are very important. Although we are glad to see him go, we will remember a lot of nice things about him.
We wish you the very best.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the Prime Minister designate to the House.

June 16, 1993	COMMONS

I would like to congratulate her also on her election as the first female Leader of the Conservative Party. It is nice to have company.
Leadership races as we know are extremely challenging and the hon. Prime Minister-designate demonstrated good humour and determination throughout. We certainly congratulate her on her achievement.

The same could be said of all the candidates in this leadership race. I wish to congratulate them on making the effort. Politics is a very demanding profession, and although I realize politicians are not always popular, it is quite honourable to want to lead a party and help lead the country.
I suppose one could say there is the spirit of fellowship. However I guess that term is no longer appropriate. In the spirit of friendship I would like to remind the new Conservative leader that winning her party's leadership is just the beginning.
There are many challenges ahead. I look forward to debating with her the policies of the party she represents. I ask her to quickly act on her own policy of inclusiveness and call a federal election as soon as possible after June 25 so all Canadians can have a say. That will be very inclusive of all Canadians.
I suppose the question will be whether Canadians are ready for their first female Prime Minister. I say yes and this time they will have a very clear choice. We look forward to it.
Finally I say to the outgoing Prime Minister that he recognizes, along with prime ministers of all political parties, that no prime minister is ever as popular as when he is retiring. I want to extend to the outgoing Prime Minister, his wife, Mila, and their family my true best wishes. It is a difficult path. I know that everyone does their best in this role and they do it in the interest of the country. We may disagree but we do not disagree with the motivation to work on behalf of the country.
I just want to say that we appreciate the fact that the outgoing Prime Minister had a difficult task and he did it
Tributes
in his view in the interest of the country. We wish him and his family the very best for the future. Though the Prime Minister will be leaving this place, his spirit will most certainly be here in the woman who has been chosen as the leader of the Conservative Party.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister-designate. I wish you the veiy best in your new position.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today with a great sense of history to thank my colleagues and my supporters for providing me with the opportunity to be the first woman who will be sworn in as the Prime Minister of Canada on June 25.
I want to pay tribute to those of my colleagues who were also candidates in this wonderful race. Before I do so I might say that the convention was a very exciting one and there were members of other parties who attended. I had a moment of really extraordinary emotional enthusiasm and euphoria when I was sitting in the stands in my section at the Civic Centre and I saw the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway racing toward me with a great smile of enthusiasm. I wondered whether my appeal was really so wide. Alas, he was only accredited as an observer.
The hon. member for Halton-Peel, the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the hon. government Whip and the hon. Minister of the Environment played extraordinary roles as candidates in this leadership campaign.

I think it is particularly important to stress the role played by the Minister of the Environment. It was truly a race. It was a real opportunity for our party to show Canadians the wealth of talent that exists in our party. I want to congratulate all the candidates but especially the Minister of Environment, who will continue to play a central role in our party, in our government and in this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

June 16, 1993
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: I would like to speak for a moment about the history of women in our party. Recently I was reading the history of the House of Commons and was interested to learn something I had not known before. It was Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Conservative Prime Minister and the first Prime Minister of Canada, who stood in the House and proposed that votes be given to Canadian women. It was in fact a Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, who presided over the enfranchisement of women in Canada. Another Conservative Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, appointed, as the Prime Minister said, the first woman to be a Privy Councillor and cabinet minister in the country.
Two Conservative Prime Ministers are in the House. The right hon. member for Yellowhead and the Prime Minister have also contributed to a number of firsts for women in the country in terms of cabinet portfolios. I am therefore honoured as a member of my party and a member of the House to be entrusted by my party with this leadership and to be able again to make history for women and for our party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: This is an emotional time for all of us on this side of the House and I think elsewhere. It is the last day in the House of Commons of our colleague and friend, the Prime Minister of Canada.
I want to say that when the Prime Minister announced his retirement there were many tributes paid in the House. Over the course of the coming months and years there will be many analyses of his initiatives and of his policies. I simply want to say again that the personal qualities of the Prime Minister were what touched so many of us on both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister and his family have made an extraordinary impact on this city. The presence of Brian and Mila Mulroney and their family has been a warm and friendly one in Ottawa. I know they are going to be missed not just by those of us who have had the pleasure of working with them, but by all the people in this city who have been touched by their grace, charm, warmth and wonderful devotion to the country. I thank them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel most sincerely for his comments. I want to say that I am looking forward to working with him and all his colleagues, but especially the Leader of the Opposition. I greatly admire his personal qualities, and I must say I have done so since I was a teenager. I particularly want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his calling right after my election as the leader of my party. I look forward to working with him.

I also want to thank the hon. leader of the NDP for her kind comments and to pay her a tribute as the first woman to lead a national party in the country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: All women have watched with admiration as the hon. member for Yukon has redefined the role of party leader, has been willing to assert her own point of view and has defined what it means to be a woman in that position of leadership. I want to tell her I admire her very much. I hope the burden of my admiration is not too much for her, combined with that of Bob Rae and Roy Romanow, and that she will be able to withstand it.
I want to conclude by saying that should the House meet again before the next election I will have the honour of taking that historic seat by virtue of the support given to me by the members of my party. I really look forward to the opportunity to take that historic seat as Prime Minister of Canada by virtue of the support given to me and my party by the people of Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, yesterday Canadian peacekeepers concluded 29 years of successful and outstanding peacekeeping on the island of Cyprus. We honour today those peacekeepers who
June 16, 1993

concluded those 29 years of successful peacekeeping in the best traditions of the Canadian forces.
In view of that tradition, it was disturbing to hear last night on CBC reports of the infiltration of white supremacists into the Canadian forces. Several witnesses gave personal testimony to that effect. In fact, CFB Esquimalt did an investigation into white supremacy and the infiltration of white supremacists on the west coast of Canada.
I wanted to ask the Minister of National Defence and I will now ask whoever is representing her in the House of Commons when she was briefed on this report that was done by her department and what she did as a result of that briefing.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, every allegation of racism is investigated.
In terms of the situation in Victoria, of the five individuals involved two in fact were dismissed and three were counselled that this type of behaviour was totally unacceptable, that if they were to perform or show evidence of that kind of activity in the future they would be dismissed from the Armed Forces in keeping with the policy of the Armed Forces.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the minister has said in the absence of the Minister of National Defence over the past few months that adequate policies were in place. Yet this investigation was done a year ago and never revealed to the Canadian public. Mr. McAleer operates a racist hotline in B.C. on which he advises white supremacists how to infiltrate the Canadian forces and use them for their own purposes.
In view of that obviously adequate policies are not in place. The government has known about this serious situation for months but has done absolutely nothing to stop it except evasion and obfuscation. Why has it done nothing to stop the infiltration of white supremacists into the Canadian Armed Forces?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the government has. I do not know why the hon. member makes the assertion that adequate policies are not in place. Adequate policies are in place.
Oral Questions
The fact that we have speed laws does not mean we are not going to have speeders from time to time. We have adequate policies in place. From time to time unfit people do apply for the Armed Forces. When their activities are determined or discovered they are asked to leave.
The Minister of National Defence said earlier and in fact she has asked, and regulations are being drafted, that questions of racist activities, attitudes and organizations be made a more formal part of the initial recruiting procedure, more so than it has now. This is being done now in keeping with the strictures of the Canadian charter of rights.
It is totally wrong for the member to suggest the policies are inadequate. The policies are adequate and when this behaviour is discovered it is dealt with.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, we do not know how widespread it is but we do know that a couple who operate a printing business in B.C. have claimed they met personally with over a dozen white supremacists, some of whom have now spread all across Canada to various units of the Armed Forces. They are reluctant to come forward publicly unless they have an assurance that something serious is going to be done.
I want to ask the minister on behalf of the government a question. In view of the mounting evidence that racists are using the Armed Forces which are outstandingly competent and recognized so all over the world, will the minister now institute a public inquiry into the matter?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member on the one hand acknowledges the competence of the Canadian Armed Forces and then on the other hand says they are not competent to deal with this issue and there should be a public inquiry. He should make up his mind.
Of course they are competent and of course it is dealt with. In fact this incident involving these five particular personnel was dealt with and dealt with appropriately. Two were dismissed and three have been counselled. Should they behave in that way any more they will be cashiered. I do not know what the hon. member wants unless it is pre-trial hanging.

June 16, 1993
Oral Questions


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, this is not youthful folly. I want to assure the House and the government that members of the Canadian forces are as alarmed about this disturbing revelation as we in the Official Opposition are and as the government should be.
The substance of the issue is that members of supremacist groups are deliberately infiltrating the Canadian forces. They are using military facilities for training grounds and they are using barracks for contact points.
When did the government know about this? What did it find out about it and what did it do about it?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in an answer to his colleague, the policy of the Armed Forces is well known and the retired rear admiral knows that.
He is questioning the competence of the Canadian Armed Forces to deal with undesirables in their ranks. They in fact are dealing with the undesirables in their ranks when they are discovered. They are dealing with it properly and in keeping with our traditions of justice, but they are dealing with it.
It is simply a false assertion to suggest that somehow there is a complicity, an acknowledgement or a wink-wink, that we do not mind if racists and white supremacists are infiltrating, to use that phrase, the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no evidence to support that accusation other than the comment on television by some white supremacist. When one thinks about it, it is in the interests of that kind of individual to spread that malicious, false information.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, the disturbing thing about this is that these racist members have been told to keep a low profile. They do not attend meetings and they keep out of sight so they are very hard to recognize.
There is evidence that a well organized group is infiltrating the Canadian forces throughout Canada. Civilians are being threatened by these groups. They are afraid to even speak to the authorities for fear of repercussion. The base military police have completed an investigation but the base commander will not make the information public.
Will the government undertake to make public the investigation findings to expose this cancerous element of Canadian society serving undercover in the Canadian forces, of which there is plenty of evidence?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, with due respect, I wish the retired animal-admiral-


An hon. member:: Party animal.


Harvie Andre: -the retired admiral would bring forward his evidence.


An hon. member:: There was a television program on it.


Harvie Andre: I saw the television program and that is an example of the kind of journalism I will not miss when I leave this place.
He just suggested that these individuals were told to keep a low profile. By whom? Is the implication that the military told them to keep a low profile? Of course not. If the military discovered them it would kick them out.
What is the hon. member suggesting beyond what is in place now? The regulations are in place. When this type of behaviour is discovered the individuals are dealt with. The policies are there to try to prevent to the extent humanly possible these types of individuals getting into the Canadian Armed Forces because they are not needed, not required and not wanted.
When they are discovered there and discovered to be acting in an improper manner, belonging to these groups and evidencing behaviour that everybody recognizes is improper, they are dealt with. The Canadian Armed Forces are in my view the finest military establishment in the world and I have every confidence in them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ECONOMY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Clearly today we have wished the Prime Minister well, but sadly I am not sure the country has fared so well.
June 16, 1993

Canadians today, after nine years of Conservative government, will be asking themselves several questions. Are we better off in terms of health care? Do we have a better educational system? Do we have fewer unemployed? Do we have less poverty? The answer to all those questions is no. Do we have a higher debt? The answer to that question is yes.
While there will be an election soon and we will hear many promises, there is still an opportunity for this Prime Minister to make some changes now.
Will the Prime Minister commit to not proceeding further with the NAFTA bill, the trade bill between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, so Canadians can have their say during a federal election? Will his government give Canadians back some hope and bring forward a real plan to get Canadians back working?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I urge my hon. friend to read a speech made yesterday in Washington by the premier of Ontario, the Hon. Bob Rae. In a very effective and impressive speech he indicated that matters such as productivity and economic growth would drive recoveries and that his government had learned that we cannot borrow and spend our way to prosperity, that we must control costs and generate true growth in the private sector. This is exactly what we are trying to do.
I urge my hon. friend in her own self-interest because I am out of here now. I am not a politician. I am a statesman so I am trying to help her. I say with affection for her to read Bob Rae's speech. I think she will find upon reflection good cause to repudiate many of the policies that her party, not her, has foisted upon her from the thirties and the forties.
We are now in the nineties. It is time to understand that true growth can only be generated through the private sector and a re-energized country. That is what we have done.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, it is difficult, even impossible, for the Prime Minister to defend his government. He refused to answer questions on Canada's present situation, but it was this government's responsibility to set policies. We have 1.5 million unemployed people, 2.2 million on welfare and 4.2 million poor people here in Canada. All these people do
Oral Questions
not need rhetoric, they need jobs. It is because of the government that we have such a disaster here in Canada. They need a fundamental change.
Does the Prime Minister really believe that he and his Quebec caucus can hope to defend an economic policy which has put almost half a million Quebecers out of work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I would be very interested to know what my friend considers to be the criteria of success for the economy of a large industrialized country like Canada. Does she believe that the inflation rate is important? I submit to her that the inflation rate in Canada today is the lowest in 30 years. Does she believe that interest rates are important? They are at their lowest level in 20 years. Does she believe that the economic growth rate is important? The rate of economic growth and the rate of employment growth in Canada are the highest of all the G-7 countries, of all the large industrialized countries in the world.
Of course, we have just been through a difficult recession, it is true. We see the effects all over and we deplore them. People are facing the same realities now in France, England or Germany. It is like that almost everywhere. But Canada is coming out of this recession strengthened and greater, with a tremendous capacity to generate lasting new prosperity for our nation's young people. I am not saying that it is perfect, but the most important elements of an economy are found in Canada, number one in the world.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I am shocked the Prime Minister in leaving office would not want to recognize the real pain across the country from coast to coast to coast of unemployment and of poverty which has radically increased during the last nine years. There is great pain across the country. The Prime Minister is leaving this government and leaving Canada with the highest number of unemployed ever in the history of Canada and the highest debt ever in the history of Canada.
I said earlier that the Prime Minister does have one last chance to do something. Will he not take advantage of the announcement of the minister of trade that he is not going to run in the next election, that he is going to

Oral Questions
retire, and retire the disastrous North American free trade deal along with the trade minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, in his quite remarkable speech delivered yesterday in Washington, Premier Rae indicated that his government realized it could not isolate itself from the currents of international affairs and from the trading, economic and fiscal responsibilities that exist in North America.
I hope I am not being presumptuous; my mother tells me presumption is still a sin, but as a result of that I expect an early endorsement of NAFTA from the Government of Ontario.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Oh, come on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hope I did not offend my hon. friend, but I want to tell her this. If you are opposed to NAFTA, you are opposed to free trade. Audrey, you know what happened in that election. If you are opposed to NAFTA you are trying to roll back progress. You are trying to take Canada back to the protectionism of the thirties, the forties and the fifties.
We favour a modem, vigorous outgoing approach that will generate new wealth and new jobs for all young Canadians.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I have in my hand a copy of a letter from B'nai Brith to the minister, dated May 6, asking what she intended to do to eliminate racism in the Armed Forces. So far, this letter has not been answered. Why is the minister refusing to look into this matter? Why is she neglecting her duty as minister?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, of course the minister has not refused to deal with it. As for the letter, I suggest to the hon. member had it been given to Canada Post it would have been delivered and answered by now. It must have been sent some other way.
In answer to her colleagues and her seatmate, I have explained the policies of the Canadian Armed Forces are clear. They are there. It is unacceptable for members of the Armed Forces to exhibit, show, demonstrate or act in a way that is racist or white supremacist. A number of other activities are prohibited as well. That comes with the privilege of wearing the uniform of the military of Canada.
The policies are in place and are being implemented. That does not mean incidents are not going to happen any more than it means, as I said earlier, that just because there are speeding laws there are not going to be speeders from time to time.
The reality is that policies are in place. They are being implemented by a very professional Canadian Armed Forces and there is no reason for the public to be overly concerned.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, this is no laughing matter and it has nothing to do with Canada Post. On behalf of all Canadians who are upset and disturbed about racism, I would like the Prime Minister to answer this question, please.

A year ago already, a defence department investigation in British Columbia revealed that neo-Nazi groups had infiltrated our military. This government's inaction is totally unacceptable. When will the minister launch a public inquiry on neo-Nazi infiltration of the Armed Forces? Through her negligence, will she allow these undesirables to receive military training at our taxpayers' expense?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member keeps making the false accusation that nothing was done. There were five individuals involved. They were dealt with. Two are no longer with the Armed Forces. Three were counselled. The matter was dealt with. I wonder why the hon. member feels it is reasonable to keep suggesting nothing was done when something was done.
An accusation has been made by a white supremacist on television that there are others. I suggested to her seatmate as I suggest to her: Provide some proof and I
June 16, 1993

guarantee the Canadian Armed Forces will follow up that evidence and take the necessary action.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The government House leader fails to take seriously the nature of the question being raised today.
Only three weeks ago in Ottawa, the nation's capital, we saw a near riot between members of the Heritage Front and those who oppose that philosophy. We saw people being injured and we saw arrests being made. We saw a subsequent demonstration a short time later in Toronto.
Organized racism is real and visible in Canada. Notwithstanding the excellent reputation of the armed forces, regrettably it is apparent that it is real and visible within our military organization as well.
On April 26 the Minister of National Defence announced a military commission of inquiry behind closed doors "to provide insight into the problems experienced by the Canadian forces in Somalia". That was a beginning.
We now understand as a result of allegations brought not by a supremacist but by two people in small business who run a print shop in Victoria that as many as a dozen members of a supremacist organization have visited them seeking paraphernalia.
We are asking the minister and the Prime Minister the following: Will the military commission of inquiry announced by the Minister of National Defence be expanded to a full and open public commission of inquiry into the use of the military by white supremacist organizations in the country? Will the government move to put an end to this cancer in Canadian society?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to have it both ways. He wants to suggest he has confidence in the military and he wants to have a public inquiry, a kind of witch-hunt, based on allegations for which there is no evidence.
We are talking about 70,000 uniformed personnel. Given the numbers involved, from time to time people do apply who really should not apply and should not be permitted in the armed forces. When they are discovered they are dealt with.
Oral Questions
The policy is there. It is very clear. The Minister of National Defence has stated that racism and racist attitudes are completely unacceptable in the Canadian forces. The Canadian forces do everything possible to ensure that policy direction is followed.
If the hon. member has evidence where in fact this is not happening he should produce that evidence. I assure him that it will be dealt with.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence announced the military probe in April. She cited four reasons for the probe. She did not mention at the time that last summer in Victoria there had been a full SIU investigation into racist activity, white supremacist activity, in the military in that region.
In a Times column, military spokesman Major Don Roy confirmed a full investigation and made clear that no result of that investigation would be made known unless somebody successfully petitioned for it under the Access to Information Act.
I believe Canadians believe as I do, that we ought to have an open public commission of inquiry to end now the spread of this cancerous racism in Canadian society and in particular any use of our military for these despicable beliefs and activities.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend and I share many things, including the view that racism is of course a profound evil and the bane of the existence of any so-called civilized society. Unfortunately we are a country of 28 million people and we are going to have our share of kooks, nuts and racists. This in no way reflects the great and quite noble traditions of Canadians.
I remember when I came in as Prime Minister one of the things that struck me was the fact that for decades requests had been made for a royal commission of inquiry into the Nazi war crimes and the fact that Nazi war criminals might be living in Canada. I shared the view that this was a horrible thought to consider, and we immediately appointed a royal commission. I think prosecutions ensued.
Another matter came up. I remember my hon. friend's active and constructive participation in the question of racism directed against Japanese Canadians. For 40 years Japanese Canadians had suffered extreme damage. It was a profound racist act by the Government of Canada. This government came in and corrected it with the help

June 16, 1993
Oral Questions
of all members of the opposition. I thank my hon. friend for it.
That is the kind of leadership all political parties tend to follow in Canada. Those two instances were powerful signals to those kooks and nuts in Canada that they were a tiny minority and would be dealt with vigorously and effectively by a vigilant citizenry.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns jobs and provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Before I ask this question I wish to thank the Prime Minister for reminding all Canadians that citizenship is treasured and no one should ever lose it because of race.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: On this last day of the Prime Minister's leadership in the House I want to remind him of a letter sent to him on May 27, 1993 by the premier of British Columbia relative to a recent panel on logs from the province of British Columbia.
The Prime Minister received this letter from the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Harcourt. It expresses concern over the fact that under a section of NAFTA which has been passed by the House there is risk that the provinces will lose jurisdiction of control of resources, specifically control of whole logs and the export control of whole logs without the application of secondary or tertiary manufacture which leads to jobs.
Before the Prime Minister leaves office can he assure all British Columbians that the signed North American free trade agreement will not in any way take away provincial jurisdiction of the control of the export of whole logs from my province of British Columbia?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend is asking whether under
NAFTA the provinces lose jurisdiction over the control of natural resources, in this case logs, the answer is no.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister take that position.
Now I want it clearly understood that because of that position the Prime Minister is prepared to send a letter to the President of the United States and the President of Mexico interpreting that the statements now coming out of Washington, D.C., vis-a-vis B.C. logs are totally incorrect and the panel's decision is incorrect in suggesting that the province does not have jurisdiction over those logs. It will say clearly to all Canadians, particularly British Columbians, that no province will lose jurisdiction under this act and, if that is so, the act will not be implemented as it is presently written.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend knows that in the past with regard to free trade and again with regard to NAFTA, questions of culture were raised and the answer was no. There were questions on whether we were going to export all our water and the answer was no. There were questions on natural resources. Questions on Canadian blood were raised and the answer was no.
My hon. friend knows the answer to his question. I gave him the answer. He asked whether I am prepared to write to the President of the United States and the President of Mexico. I am so confident of the position I have just given my hon. friend that I am prepared to resign on this question.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Timing has always been his problem, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday in Question Period in response to a question I put, the minister said in Hansard that a decision had been made concerning the feasibility of sending more soldiers or other Canadian military forces to Bosnia.
Considering that this is the last day on which the House will be meeting for some time it is very important
June 16, 1993

that we understand what that decision is so Canadians will know exactly the seriousness and the implications of that decision.
I want to ask the minister: Are we sending more troops to Bosnia? Will the mandate of our troops which are presently in that territory be changed in order to become more of a combat role? Where will the resources and equipment come from, considering that the defence minister has always said there is no more capacity for peacekeeping?
Concerning the serious implications for our troops and their families I hope the minister will be able to respond directly to these questions.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, before I answer the question, which I will as usual in a veiy precise manner, let me just say there has been a lot of talk today in the Chamber about women, the leading role they have played and their role in the House with the leaders of two national parties being women.
I recognize that you are not the first woman to occupy that chair, but I do think on this day I would like to acknowledge what a great job you have done as well.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Barbara Jean McDougall: In response to the hon. member's question, let me just say that I apologize for not checking the "blues" because that is the opposite of what I said. What I said was that the decision had not been made.
I had always said that we are close to the end of our capacity to send people, that we would look at what we had. We have not reached a decision because we have had no request from the United Nations to be a part of that additional troop. However it is well aware of the limits of our capacity to provide additional troops and resources, and that if we were to do so it would be small rather than large. My answer was intended to be that we had not yet reached that determination.
I apologize to the hon. member and the House for not checking that Hansard was correct.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
If the minister is saying that Canada has decided not to send troops, may I ask specifically what our intention is
Oral Questions
for the troops that are already in Bosnia? Will we be agreeing to a change in their mandate as outlined under the resolution passed by the security council and contained in the report by the secretaiy-general, which in effect says that the troops will now be asked to provide military protection to civilians in these safe havens and clearly substantially alters the mandate and rules of engagement by troops?
If we are going to make that commitment what will we be doing to make sure that our troops are properly equipped and given the proper resources? It is quite clear from all reports that the present troops there are not adequately equipped to meet the kind of task that the UN has now set out for the UN protective force in Bosnia.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, before we get the precise description from the United Nations as to what might be required of Canadians who are doing such an excellent job in Bosnia and in Croatia it is very difficult for us to say what we might do by way of additional resources or equipment for them.
Let me assure the hon. member and Canadians that we have never yet sent troops to accomplish a mission for which we have not equipped them adequately, and we will do that again. We will not allow our troops there to be inadequately equipped. We have never done that and we will not do it now.


TOBACCO SMUGGLING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Almost every night machine gun fire is heard and speedboats are running the rivers at full speed in the dark with their lights turned off pursuing criminal activity. I am not describing life in Sarajevo or Mogadishu. I am describing the practice of tobacco smuggling on the St. Lawrence River near Glengarry in my riding.
I want to ask a question of the Solicitor General on the last day of this Parliament. What precisely does the government intend to do to stop this illegal activity which endangers the lives and safety of my constituents? What is he going to do to ensure that we stop losing billions of

Oral Questions
taxpayers' dollars in this terrible process that is going on right now 50 miles from Parliament Hill?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend that the situation is serious. The government has been moving on several fronts to deal with it. I am not in a position to reveal all of those on the floor of the House of Commons. Suffice it to say, we have increased funding to provide for increased surveillance on the policing side of things as well as on the customs side of things.
I might also say that with the opposition's help we have recently amended the proceeds of crime legislation to enable us to move on another front.
I make no bones about it: It is a serious situation and it is one that we are moving on. We are making an effort to try to improve the situation.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I remind the minister that at the present time there are only 24 RCMP officers to patrol the whole area, including ports of entry, and to take care of the criminal activity that is going on.
Will the minister commit his government and particularly the Minister of National Revenue to stop cutting back on customs positions at the very least? We should add to the complement of people who are there now so we can bring back some safety and some sanity before people get killed as they did three years ago when we had the insurrection at Akwasasne.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I am in a position to advise my friend that steps are being taken to supplement the number of customs and RCMP officers on the scene.


CHRISTINE LAMONT
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Two weeks ago, a home was levelled in Managua by an explosion of a stash of missiles. Investigators of the blast found a stash of documents and fake IDs. Apparently six pieces of the IDs had a picture of Christine Lamont,
some with her name and others with a fictitious Lisa Lynn Walker.
Could the minister tell us what she believes to be the significance and the reality of this information?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, late last week we learned of the article in the Managua newspaper Barrica-da which featured photographs of Christine Lamont's ID cards. The article itself described documents that were found with a large arms cache that was discovered recently in Managua.
The newspaper claimed that the documents concerned plans to kidnap a number of prominent Latin American business and political leaders. At the same time Nicaraguan authorities informed our ambassador that there were 306 foreign passports found with the arms cache, including three Canadian passports. They asked Canada to verify the authenticity of the Canadian passports. The passport office has confirmed the authenticity of two passports issued to Christine Lamont in Ottawa in November and December 1988 and one passport issued to David Spencer at the same time. One of the passports had been altered.
I want to say that this development does not affect our approach to the Lamont-Spencer case. We will continue to be governed by our respect for due process and fairness to all Canadians imprisoned abroad. We will continue to press Brazil to ratify as quickly as possible the transfer of offenders treaty which would allow Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer to return to Canada to serve their sentences.
That treaty has passed the lower house of the Brazilian congress and is now under consideration in the senate. I also want to assure all hon. members that while we are proceeding with that process, we will provide all possible consular services to Miss Lamont and Mr. Spencer and monitor prison conditions as we do for others who find themselves in this situation abroad.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who on June 10 said that she was engaged in
June 16, 1993

extensive consultations about improvements to be made to the student loan program and that the program was to be enhanced to provide students with increased support.
Is it not a fact that the National Advisory Group on Student Financial Assistance had been ignored for a year and finally had to demand a meeting which was granted on June 2? Among other things at that meeting, rather than consultation, they were told that the student loan limits would be unchanged and that the government's promise to remove the 3 per cent tax would not be fulfilled.


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the first comment I would make is that the hon. member in a statement in the House yesterday, June 15, claimed that I had already met the advisory group in question, which means that he was not up to date. I do not need to wait for the hon. member's recommendations. I met that group because I thought it was very important to continue the consultations first begun by my predecessor.
The consultations were held when my predecessor occupied the position. I have consulted as well and the government is about to review the student loans project. We are aware of the needs of the program and we have made the commitment. Personally, I am very proud and very pleased with the consultations I held a few weeks ago with the advisory group in question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I have a letter in my possession which was widely circulated that constituted a demand for a meeting that was finally held on June 2. The question was why so long and why so little as a result.
Is it not true that the reforms which have been proposed by the government, which have not yet been tabled, are widely opposed by virtually every university sector represented on the advisory group because it neither enhances nor increases student support? In fact it does not do anything more than restrict accessibility still further, especially for part-time students.
Why can the government not engage in real consultation to produce a program that recognizes the reality of
Oral Questions
students, for example the fact that student loan limits have not been changed since 1984?


Monique Landry: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but my colleague is very badly informed. I had what I thought was a very good meeting with the advisory group. Of course, I told them about the changes I wanted to make, carefully explaining to them that the changes desired by the government were intended first of all to improve the program for students so that they could have more money every week and to reduce the cost of the program for them.
I think that this government has been very consistent in its student aid. The program has served students very well over the years. We are trying to improve it so as to give them better access to education. I must say that I am very proud of our achievements in the whole area of support for students in recent years.


FISHERIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.
It has been over two months since the minister announced his aid package for east coast fishermen. Fishermen and women in Cape Breton are still waiting for approvals to their applications, the applications themselves and in many cases details concerning the program.
These people are very concerned about how they are going to make their payments on their boats and how they are going to support their families.
Would the minister in order to expedite this program agree to decentralize the administration of this program so authority for approving programs and applications could be given to local officials of Fisheries and Oceans and Employment Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, there is no delay with reference to the administration of this program. This is a complicated program involving trying to assure assistance goes to certain fishermen of the maritime area.

June 16, 1993
Tributes
We are dealing with an area where there is a mixed stock fishery, where most fishermen are licensed for more than one species and where they are not restricted for the most part just to the catching of groundfish. It is a program to try to compensate those who are primarily dependent on groundfish stocks for their livelihood. It is quite a complicated situation.
As I told the House yesterday we have received 458 applications, I think it is so far, by June 15 of which 161 have been approved. I do not have the information right before me. With respect to the hon. member, these are fishermen I am talking about. We have received another 1,199 applications from fish plant workers; 722 are in process; 397 have been approved; 80 so far have been declined. We have approved 43 fish plants, I think, as being eligible under the program, so everything will proceed much more quickly in the future.
We have to remember the program only becomes operative if plant workers find they cannot get work this year and their UI runs out, or a fisherman discovers that he cannot catch fish in the area where he normally fishes and this is found to be so by the department of fisheries, where he is not going to be able to qualify-


Some hon. members:: Time.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a complicated situation and already the NDP members have very little patience. They do not want to hear how anyone applies for the program, how they get assistance-


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Do not pretend to be interested in this subject at all, if you are not prepared to listen to the answer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We may get the end of that answer on a supplementary by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, the minister does not get it. This is not the time for bluster. People are hurting out there. Some of them have had no income for months. They would like to go fishing if they could but there are no fish out there.
Why does the minister not recognize just what the problem is? They are looking to the minister for some help. Does he get his jollies out of making them beg some more? Why does he not get a hand on this one, go into the department and straighten it out once and for all? It is going nowhere unless he puts a firm hand on it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if this was a time for bluster the hon. gentleman would be gone with the wind.
Neither is it a time-as somebody just down from me whose name I will not reveal said-for sanctimoniousness. This is the time for trying to give assistance to those who need assistance for the reason that the groundfish fishery is not what it should be. The stocks are not there.
As I just explained to the previous questioner we have a very complicated situation where not all fishermen are going to be eligible; just those who were dependent upon groundfish and cod primarily. This is very difficult.
It is all in place. I hope we will be to handle it and perhaps improve the program if we find this is inadequate. I trust the government will then take steps to improve it but it is a very complicated situation.


HON. JOHN FRASER
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, today it is my pleasure to rise to pay tribute to one of our most distinguished colleagues, one of the most distinguished members of the House, our friend and colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South, the Speaker of the Chamber, the Hon. John Fraser.
Most of us know him simply as Mr. Speaker for that is the role that he has played with great humour and skill over the last seven years. Like many of us, I have also been privileged to know him as a colleague, a friend and as a member of the party of which I am a member.
On behalf of the party and on behalf of the Government of Canada I am therefore happy and proud to salute the remarkable contribution that he has made to the institution of Parliament and in advancing Canadian democracy.

June 16, 1993

The Hon. John Fraser has been a member of the House for almost 21 years and sat for almost 11 years as a member of the opposition. As an opposition member he was a principled individual who pursued the important issues that concerned him most and those which were of concern to the people and the region he represented.
Most notable among these issues was the environment which I suppose stems from the fact that he really is a great outdoorsman. He is an avid hunter and fisherman, an ardent skier. One of his daughters is a world champion.
It is important to note that in his campaign of 1972, long before the environment was a popular issue, it was one of the principal elements of his personal electoral platform.
As Minister of the Environment in the government of the right hon. member for Yellowhead he was the first Canadian minister to begin acid rain treaty negotiations with the United States. It was this vision and groundwork which helped our government to conclude an historic acid rain agreement with the United States some years later, an accord which helps to safeguard our national heritage for future generations. The establishment of a national park on South Moresby Island and the Greening the Hill program are just two more examples of the kind of leadership the hon. member for Vancouver South has shown.
I have every reason to believe that even in his retirement from this place he will continue to speak out publicly in favour of sustainable development, environmental protection and its enhancement.
As the first elected Speaker of the House of Commons, the hon. member from Vancouver felt that it was critical to move immediately to gain the trust and support of his fellow parliamentarians. That he did, and he did it with great flourish, commanding the overwhelming respect of all members of the House in landmark decisions that were seen as fair to all sides.
John Fraser reveres the institution of Parliament and has a profound understanding of the role that it plays in the maintenance of our democratic society and the enrichment of our democratic principles. He more than anyone else in the Chamber has helped to maintain the reputation of the House of Commons as a place for
Tributes
vigorous but dignified discussions of the nation's business. He was always concerned about the dignity and the decorum of the House.
It is also fair to say, and I am sure that this would be supported by all members of the House, that he was fair-minded and always went the extra distance to give every member the benefit of the doubt, sometimes to the exasperation of members on the government side. However his combined abilities, with his wit, his humour and his keen sense of timing, were very important in the discharge of his difficult task as Speaker of the House.
This is the legacy the Speaker of the House of Commons has left to this institution and all Canadians. As parliamentarians and as Canadians we owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know all members of the House will want to join with me to pay tribute to John's scrupulous impartiality, the soundness of his judgment and his sense of humour which was often biting but never unfair.

John has been consistently sensitive and sympathetic to the cause of linguistic and cultural equality, as reflected in the proceedings of this House.

I will always remember John Fraser as a passionate Canadian, a man who believes in a united, generous and tolerant Canada, who has a zest for life, is a great defender of this institution, enjoys the vigour of debate, and is a man filled with emotion and compassion. These are the principles he believes in and they are the reasons for his unwavering dedication to public life and our way of democracy.
As a Canadian, a fellow parliamentarian and a friend I would simply like to say thanks to the hon. member for Vancouver South. I would like to thank him for setting such a high standard for those who will follow him and thank him for demonstrating to all of us the meaning of the words honour and commitment.
The hon. member for Vancouver South is a true Canadian patriot. This place is richer, better and more effective as a result of his presence and his years of service. Though we all regret that John could not be with us today, we will all join in wishing with him and his

Tributes
family that he will soon be able to continue putting his remarkable talents at the service of his fellow citizens.
We wish him and his family, his wife Cate and his three daughters, on behalf of all of the members of the government side all the very best in their future endeavours. I join with my other colleagues in the House of Commons in sending John Fraser our sincere best wishes and congratulations and sincere thanks for a job well done.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, it is a great pleasure for me to join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to our Speaker, Mr. John Fraser.
You will recall that just before the House adjourned for the Easter recess, the hon. member for Vancouver South announced he would not run in the next election. This announcement marked the end of a political career of more than 20 years, during which our hon. friend took part in the proceedings of six Parliaments.
Although this announcement did not necessarily come as a surprise, I must admit that I was sorry to hear it because throughout his career he was a truly exceptional parliamentarian as reflected in the level of his commitment to the Canadian people, his courtesy to all members of this House and especially to me when I was a minister and he was in the opposition. He would take part in the business of parliamentary committees, not with opposition and obstruction uppermost in his mind but with a very open, positive attitude to try and improve bills and make a contribution to the work of Parliament. We are losing a great parliamentarian.

This is a reflection upon both his stout highland ancestry and his resolute Christian upbringing. The character instilled in him early marked him with a vigorous sense of justice and fairness which, fuelled by a not altogether unapparent streak of Scottish stubbornness, add up to the quality that we call the courage of one's convictions.
His commitment to public service first manifested itself in overseas duty with the Canadian army in Germany in the less secure world of the post-war era. On his return to Canada he entered upon a distinguished career in the practice of law which led to his emergence as a true leader of the multicultural community on the lower mainland of British Columbia.
His first attempt to be elected to the House of Commons was a natural outgrowth of his status in the community, but it came in 1968, a year that while propitious for Canada as a whole was not particularly kind to his political party.
I want to briefly remind the House that this is probably one of the last occasions for the Deputy Prime Minister to speak in the House. He is probably the most prestigious member of what we call the class of '68. While I am here to pay tribute to our Speaker I cannot resist the temptation to also salute a great parliamentarian who has had a very distinguished career. We will certainly miss him a lot and I want to wish him well in the future.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: I was saying that our friend, the member for Vancouver South, was unable to make it in 1968. However a few others entered Parliament in 1968 who represent the class of '68, a very prestigious class. Some of them will not run again. I particularly want to single out the member for Algoma, the member for York Centre, the member for Edmonton North and the member for Regina-Lumsden. Like the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance they will not be running in the next election, have made substantial contributions to the Canadian Parliament. They have served their constituents well and have been very respectful of this place. I want to pay tribute to all of them on this occasion.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


André Ouellet: Fortunately our good friend was able to run four years later and his political fortunes were better then. The great Liberal member of Parliament of the day, Arthur Laing, had been elevated to the other place which probably made things easier for Mr. Fraser.
June 16, 1993

However to his credit I want to say that he was successfully re-elected in every election in a riding that was considered to be very volatile. It is a tribute to him that his constituents were faithful and loyal in all five successive elections.

I want to stress his outstanding contribution to national unity, as reflected in his interventions in Parliament. It clearly demonstrates his tolerance and broad understanding of the cultural and linguistic groups in our country. He always exerted a very healthy influence on strengthening and maintaining Canadian unity. He was also one of the first parliamentarians, as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned earlier, to take a stand on environmental issues at a time when very few people were discussing these questions. He was, without a doubt, a brilliant proponent of protecting and promoting our natural heritage.

While his political party did not avail itself of the opportunity he gave it to make him its leader, he did serve in two administrations, first as Minister of Environment and later as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It was in this latter position that he came into what must have been the most difficult period of his public service, in any case certainly the most controversial. However even those who were critical of his role understood that what led him into difficulty was in no way related to any wrongdoing or incompetence. On the contrary, it was entirely his desire to protect the most vulnerable of his department's clientele, the low paid and often unemployed workers in the industry.

His political opponents, as I said earlier, never interpreted his resignation from cabinet as an admission of guilt. On the contrary, they saw it as an expression of his deep-seated views on parliamentary democracy, a gesture that unfortunately is becoming increasingly rare nowadays. If he had decided to end his political career at that time, we would have remembered him as a man who, despite the duties of his position, had the courage to remain faithful to his principles.

It was for that very reason, principle before office, that his political career did not end there. Before many
Tributes
months his colleagues in the House of Commons were in search of such a person to be their Speaker. After some hesitation, he was persuaded to allow his name to stand. From a field of candidates that included a number of other talented and respected parliamentarians he was chosen by his peers, the first time since new rules were approved by Parliament to elect our Speaker, to preside over their deliberations and be the principal advocate of their democratic rights.

The seven years he spent as Speaker of the House of Commons were not among the most tranquil years of his life. Although he did not have to maintain order in a Parliament consisting of unruly minorities, he nevertheless presided over this House during periods that I would describe as particularly intense, with some very difficult debates, including free trade and the constitutional issue.
In fact, the intensity of those debates and the increasing deterioration of the economic fabric of this country have exacerbated national tensions and made for a very charged atmosphere in a House that has never been known as a haven of peace and quiet.
During these years, his patience and impartiality served the House of Commons well.

Like many of his predecessors he has from time to time been called upon to defend the rights and freedoms essential to the maintenance of democratic government. On occasion he has persevered against faceless bureaucracy and the tyranny of his majority. It is no easy task to describe in simple terms the central role of the Speaker of the House of Commons in preserving the delicate balance of a democratic system. History alone can provide judgment on how successful any Speaker has been.

When all this is history, and I say this without presuming to dictate the views of historians, I believe John Fraser will be referred to as one of the five best Speakers in the history of the Parliament of Canada.

June 16, 1993
Tributes
Although it is unfortunate that illness prevents our Speaker from being here this afternoon-I hope he will be able to watch this debate on television-we are all happy to hear he is convalescing at his mountain cabin, away from the telephone. We hope he will get well soon. We also hope that with his competence and wisdom, he will make a brilliant start on the next stage of his distinguished career.

We do not know what he has planned or even if he has planned anything next, but most of us have no doubt he will find some way to continue to serve his community. We are all certain he has not yet reached that happy age when a man can be idle with impunity.
We wish to thank him for his stellar service and wish him, his wife, his daughters and his entire family nothing but the best in the future. It was John Bunyan who wrote that a democracy was primarily an attitude of mind, a spiritual testament in which politics was the greatest and most honourable adventure. John Fraser's substance and style over more than 20 years have helped make these words ring true today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus to pay tribute to one of the most outstanding parliamentarians and speakers this country has witnessed. A distinguished colleague and friend to all of us, the hon. John Fraser loved this place.
Sharing a west coast constituency with John Fraser resulted in one of the highlights of my political career and that was spending many hours seated beside John Fraser as one of the two national airlines transported us across the country. One thing one would notice was how people responded to John Fraser. He was a friend to all. It did not matter where we stopped en route or who was on board; there was always a steady stream of individuals passing by his seat to greet him, enter into conversations with him and just indicate the respect they held for him as a constituent person, the Speaker of the House and a parliamentarian per se.
We acknowledge his contribution over 20-some years to his constituents. The fact that he was returned year after year demonstrated how people felt about the way John Fraser served his constituents. One of the most interesting aspects of the time I have known John Fraser was travelling in Vancouver with him and seeing people
from all parts of the city greet and thank him for various services he had provided for them, their families or friends. He was really an outstanding constituent person.
He loved this place. If there is one person who personifies being a parliamentarian it is John Fraser. I often thought that John Fraser looked the way a parliamentarian was supposed to look. Every day he entered the House as Speaker with grace, dignity and commitment. He enjoyed the debating back and forth in the House of Commons. He always said this was not an easy place for people with thin skins or weak hearts. It was a tough place in which to debate, and of course he experienced that on both sides of the House.
What made him special in his position as Speaker were his wit and humour, ability to deflate tense situations and reluctance to ask anyone to leave the Chamber. He would ignore people for long periods of time and not recognize their interest in seeking the floor. In that way over the years he elevated the conduct of members and the way work was done in the House.
I also note how much he has assisted individuals in a personal way. He has an incredible intelligence system that is able to identify when individuals are having difficulty in a committee or having difficulty not getting recognized in Question Period. In many cases he could identify difficulty on a personal level. We could always count on John Fraser sending us notes at the right time or inviting us back to his chambers for a chat, a coffee and cookie or whatever as he discussed our issues of concern.
I also pay tribute to the team that worked with him, not only those who assisted him in his duties as Speaker but his wife, Cate, and his three daughters. On many occasions as the duties of the Speaker required hosting groups and delegations, inviting people over for discussions and so on, his wife, Cate, was always with him. His appreciation of her support and that of his three daughters was really something to behold. He never missed an opportunity to comment on his family. That says a great deal about John Fraser as a person.
We will remember John Fraser as well in the House for the early work he did when he was Minister of the Environment and some of the early initiatives he took in combating acid rain. We remember his behind the scenes work on South Moresby Park. As Speaker he was not able to work up front but we all appreciated the
June 16, 1993

tremendous effort he made to ensure the park became a reality.
We remember all the work he has done in terms of greening Parliament Hill. All sorts of changes on Parliament Hill reflect his sensitivity toward environmental issues and his appreciation of the outdoors. He certainly is an avid outdoorsman. I remember many occasions when we tried to reach the Speaker we could always find him in rather different places. He would be in some small mountain cabin or some encampment up in the mountains of western Canada pursuing his favourite hobby of fishing.
I know that one of his major disappointments was not being in Kamloops for the grand opening of the world fly-fishing championships. He looked forward to playing a part in that for at least a year, but because of his illness he was unable to be there to welcome his fellow fly-fishers from around the world to Canada and Kamloops to participate in the championships.
I will close because I know there are others who want to pay tribute to John Fraser. I simply want to say that Canada is a better place because of John Fraser. The House is a better place because of John Fraser. He personified all that is great in a parliamentarian. Being the first elected Speaker, he very quickly rose to that occasion and very quickly developed the respect and support of all members of the House.
I want to simply say we wish him well. We wish his wife, Cate, and his three daughters well in the years ahead. We are all friends of John Fraser. We will see much of him in public service. As others have indicated, there was no one who possessed more of a sense of service to the public than John Fraser which he demonstrated throughout his entire life.
I wish him well on behalf of our caucus. May he have many years of excellent fishing ahead.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, on this important day of adjournment I would like to add a few words in honour of our colleague and friend, the Speaker of the House who cannot be with us today.
John Fraser has represented the riding adjacent to mine for 20 years. He has been a true friend to every
Tributes
member of the House but in particular to those of us in the British Columbia caucus. We came to know him closely and have missed him these past few years as he has presided over the whole House. We have been able to continue to share his friendship. In his quiet and helpful way he was always there for us. I know he has been there for all members of the House.
I remember first learning of John Fraser many years ago when I was organizing a conference on the environment at the University of British Columbia. I learned of this rather strange paradox: a Conservative who cared about the environment. I learned about this great man who was the environmental critic for the Conservative Party at that time but who had also led a great crusade against the proposed damming of the Skagit River between southern British Columbia and Washington state.
John's first love was preserving the waters and the natural resources, the fish and wildlife, and enjoying the outdoors as a true sportsman. It is his compassion and dedication to those environmental values which above all else has made the Speaker a great Canadian and one who has made a great contribution to our children and our way of life.
The Speaker, it may not be recalled, was a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1976. I am sure he was glued to his television set last weekend as the great national convention unfolded. I am sure but for his larger duties he wished he could have been there on the convention floor in the heat and excitement of that occasion.
Our Speaker as a British Columbian, a Canadian and a great historian would have been proud from his soul to his mind and throughout his being to see a leader selected as the first woman leader and Prime Minister of Canada from British Columbia.
We all enjoyed those warm and cordial times in Mr. Speaker's office. Other members have other recollections. I remember attending a Christmas dinner with Speaker Fraser in his quarters where he invited his larger family. It was a very unusual experience but one that showed his desire to reach out and bring many friends together with his family.

June 16, 1993
Tributes
I remember as a young member of Parliament not being on the aeroplane that the member for Kamloops spoke of, but having the Speaker who was a minister of the Crown at the time carry home my infant daughter and escort my wife to our home in Ottawa because there was no one else there for her but Mr. Fraser. I remember him campaigning for me in my first election and fighting off the hordes that were supporting the Liberal Party. There were not that many left in western Canada but he came to campaign in my riding and ended up suffering from a dog bite because of the way in which he pursued his diligent work on my behalf.
I wanted to say a few words of gratitude because Mr. Speaker cannot be here with us today. We know he has had recent difficulties. To Cate and the family, the daughters, and to John especially, we are very grateful for his fellowship. We wish him good health. This House is poorer today for his absence, but we know that in his heart and soul Mr. Speaker is indeed here with us today and for that we thank him.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Although I have known John Fraser longer than any other member of the House I almost felt listening to the testimonials that Speaker Fraser could very well have been completely rehabilitated and perhaps grace the chair before the tributes stopped. My tribute will be very short. I have a letter that I wrote to him. I really do appreciate the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister, on this adjournment for the summer recess with the obvious potential for election coming, did raise the tribute to John Fraser.
Just before I read my short letter I want to make a comment to the Deputy Prime Minister who has been an old colleague and a friend of mine. We have unfortunately grown apart in these past couple of years, perhaps with his heavy duties trying to keep the ship of state on course and I in my position trying to sometimes put some reefs in the path of the ship of state.
The interesting thing from the Deputy Prime Minister has been alluded to by the member from Papineau- Saint Michel. I was in the class of 1965 but then there is the class of 1968. The member for Algoma is the one
who brought this home in a tribute to him not too long ago in the Commonwealth Room at his 25-year recognition. The public wonders about how members stay around here. I am an exception to a point. I bet this will be news to you, Madam Speaker, that of 96 who came in here in 1968, in view of defeats and announced resignations, there are only 2 who have indicated that they will reoffer. They are the members for Yorkton-Melville and Davenport. In that period 94 of 96 have bitten the dust one way or the other. There are only 2 to come back. In terms of the class of 1968 I think they have added a lot. Certainly the Deputy Prime Minister has added very much.
It is John Fraser whom I say I have known longer than anybody else here. I practised law with him in British Columbia before either of us ever became members of Parliament. I remember him on the Brockton Oval playing English rugby while I had come in from the east to tell the westerners how to play English rugby because that is all we played back there.
I am obviously not going to repeat everything about friendship and I am not going to talk about carrying his daughter home or who carried whom home in some of our relationships. However the fact of the matter is that this is the letter I wrote to Speaker Fraser and I want to read it. It is short. It covers the essence of an awful lot that has been said here today:
Dear John,
The curtain is about to ring down on this Parliament-and none too soon-and sadly your stewardship comes to a close. Hopefully, you may grace the Chair in a 'brief' summer-September session (if politically correct!) of the new Government, so that Members could pay public tribute to your historic term as our first elected Speaker. But seriously, your health is more important than any public accolades-especially from some 'honourable members' who may have caused some Speaker stress and strain!
So "prenez la garde" and follow the Standing Orders of the Medical Journal and your doctor-for the Hansard record already shows that you graced the Chair with dignity, diligence and the special delights of subtle Scottish humour. Your calm in the jungle of partisan procedural harangue defined new dimensions of common sense and diplomacy-the tender ego of parliamentary warriors was rarely bruised, just directed down the Byzantine byways of Beauchesne to the pastures of parliamentary peace!
Thanks for a job welldone-and all the best to you and Cate.
June 16, 1993

I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to a friend, a great parliamentarian and our first elected Speaker. It was an honour to serve under him.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Madam Speaker, I hope that Mr. Speaker, wherever he is, perhaps at home recovering from his recent difficulties, is watching today. I hope, Madam Speaker, you will forgive me if sometimes I say Mr. Speaker because I will actually be referring to Mr. Speaker whom I hope is watching and not to the Chair.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Allow me to interrupt the hon. member for a minute. It may answer his question. I was told a little while ago that our Speaker was told about today's tributes to him. I think you will recognize this because I could not have made this up. In answer he said: "I am very intrigued but also quite terrified. I do not have any control over this".


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, as people rose and as we saw more than one tribute being paid today to the outgoing Prime Minister and now to the Speaker and the class of 1968 and who knows who will be next, I was reminded of a story that Tommy Douglas used to tell after he was given particularly glowing introductions. He used to tell the story of the widow who was sitting at her husband's funeral with her young daughter. In the middle of the eulogy she instructed her young daughter to run up to the front and have a look in the casket to see if it actually was her father lying there.
I was reminded of that story because it often seems that we do say an awful lot of good things about each other after spending many years saying an awful lot of bad things about each other in this place.
I think the career of Mr. Speaker is a good example of that because we all remember the great trouble that he fell into. It has not been mentioned today, but I will mention it because it points to something good about this place. As a result of the famous tuna scandal he had to resign his ministry at that time. I think it was an expression of the sense of the whole House that sometimes politics is very unfair to individuals who are caught in circumstances that are not entirely of their own making.
Tributes
It was the sense of the whole House that this sometimes happened. When that happened to the member for Vancouver South and we had the opportunity as the House to rehabilitate him, so to speak, by electing him our Speaker in what was an unexpected election at that time in 1986, we did so. He became the first elected Speaker of the House. It took 11 hours of balloting. I think he exercised that new role well.
I have sometimes felt, and I have said this to him personally, that he had more authority than he sometimes chose to use because he was the first elected Speaker of the House. However, I know that in his own mind he always felt he was operating within what he saw as the appropriate limits of the authority which the House had given him.
I think it is appropriate that we pay tribute to him today. We are all sorry that he cannot be here but:
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agtey.
Robert Bums also said:
O wad some power the giftie gie us, To see oursels' as ithers see us!
On occasions like this Mr. Speaker and others have had a chance to see themselves as others have seen them over the years and I think that is only appropriate at the end of a long and distinguished political career.


Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I want to join with the Deputy Prime Minister and others who have paid tribute to Speaker John Fraser. It may be appropriate for a McLean and a Fraser to have a moment of anecdotal history.
I belong with John Fraser to the failed class of 1968. This was not often used in North America but John came and helped me write my first political speech in the riding of Victoria. Whether it was the one he used in Vancouver shortly thereafter, he at least won the nomination. I did not win the nomination. However he introduced me to public life. Coming back from years of living in Africa, he encouraged me to come and bring some international concerns into the political forum and into the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
I think back to his international interests and his concerns. Much has been made of his environmental

June 16, 1993
Tributes
concerns and we know of his leadership there. I remember him coming to the House in the early 1980s at the time of the nuclear threat. I found that one of his environmental interests was tightly knit to his concerns for nuclear war and nuclear weaponry. We collaborated in trying to keep that issue alive with many of the NGOs.
I think the member from Fort Garry has touched on his love of verse. In my family home in Victoria over the hearth are the words: "Lang mai yur lum reck". I think we are echoing to John: "Long may your chimney smoke".
We heard him at his best at the prayer breakfast as he talked about wisdom and living and many of us wish we had half a measure of that wisdom. We wish him health and to be speedily returned to be among us.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker,I would like to say a few words, and I will be very brief. If there is anyone in this House who knew John Fraser in times that were occasionally very difficult, it was certainly the member for Ottawa-Vanier. You will recall that I was the Liberal Party Whip for a caucus that consisted of 40 members when there were 211 or 212 government members. It was not easy to consider the rights and privileges of members when faced with situations that were sometimes difficult, both for the Speaker and for members.
During my seven years as party Whip, I had to deal with the Speaker of the House, Mr. Fraser. We were friends before, but we became good friends during those few years between October 1, 1986 and today. I want to tell hon. members that the reason I appreciated Mr. Fraser may have been because I have Scots blood. My mother was a Leslie and my Gauthier side seemed to appeal to the Scot in Fraser.
He had a sense of humour and a sense of duty. He also was quick to recognize a situation where one might need his help and advice. I want to thank him most sincerely for all the help he has given the members of this House, especially opposition members, because he was there to protect us, and I say this also to you, Madam Speaker, and to all those who were part of his staff. I want to say thank you very much on behalf of the members for whom I was for some time the embodiment of party discipline. Whips being what they are, they sometimes have a difficult job to do. However, I simply want to say to John
Fraser: John, thank you very much! John Fraser is a good man.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I know that my friend will be able to speak in a moment. I am pleased to be able to rise from the dentist's chair where a few moments ago I had a tooth jerked out. I would not have missed the opportunity to say something even it is just through the Chamber and a television camera to John and Cate.
The Speaker is not only a very good friend of all of us in here; he is a very good friend of all Canadians of any political persuasion.
I recall in particular two instances that I would like to remind the House of that demonstrated the vision the Speaker demonstrated from the chair which drew hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians back into a feeling that this place has a heart and can in fact act in the best interests of everyone at once.
On a day almost six years ago a motion came to the floor of this House about Gwaii Haanas which is known to many of us as South Moresby. Although it was a private member's motion in my name, my friend from Winnipeg Birds Hill being almost as crafty as the Speaker himself figured a way of rewording it so that it could in fact be adopted by the House unanimously.
It was put by the Speaker and it was adopted, as I am sure many members on the government side recall. It was a miracle that it was passed. As Miles Richardson, president of the Haida Nation said, perhaps for a brief moment that day the spirit of the aboriginal peoples of this continent hovered over the Chamber as the miracle of that motion passed to protect the area of Haida Gwaii in perpetuity.
It was also a bit of a miracle in that the motion that passed was unconstitutional. No private member can present a motion that ultimately would cost the government over $100 million, but it did on that day and great fruit has been borne of it.
Another motion passed more recently that I am sure John in particular remembers well was the one that flowed from the Brundtland commission. It was put in the House in good faith last year by myself and was subsequently amended by the present Minister of the Environment who narrowly missed becoming prime
June 16, 1993

minister three days ago. Along with the co-operation of the member for LaSalle-Emard, the three parties came together and with the assistance of the Speaker put a motion to set aside 12 per cent of Canada in co-operation with the provinces and territories in perpetuity. That in good faith is now under way.
Without the inspiring involvement of the Speaker, such a momentous activity could not have been accomplished. In fact the first legislature on the planet to pass a 12 per cent resolution was this Parliament with the help of the Speaker.
There is one thing the Chamber might want to do, and I leave this in your hands and all of our hands. A wonderful photograph of Winston Churchill hangs in the Speaker's office that many of us have looked at many times as we have sat talking about privilege or about this or that, particularly environmental matters. It has occurred to me on occasion that a piece of the Speaker is very much like Winston Churchill. We should honour the Speaker by making sure that particular photograph is transmitted on behalf of all of us to him, perhaps to hang at Whistler where I think he sits today.
Just as the Speaker felt a very special emotion when he saw the movie A River Runs Through It, I close my remarks by reminding John and Cate as they watch that there is a river of friendship that runs through this place to him. We thank God and we thank the great spirit that his health is good and will be for a long time. We wish him and Cate and their family good health from all of us in this place.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, everything has pretty well been said, but I felt I wanted to rise to pay tribute to our Speaker.
The Hon. John Fraser and I are of the class of 1972. When we were first elected I believe there were about 55 PCs, which was a great influx in those days. Of the class of '721 see a couple here. Only 11 are left, and of that 11 only three have said they are not retiring. In my particular case, I probably will be leaving this Chamber after 21 wonderful years.
I can think back on many of the great things that our colleague, John Fraser, did. I was involved from 1981 on in representations against acid rain and Speaker Fraser of course, as has been stated time and again, was and is
Tributes
one of the great environmentalists. We went cap in hand to Washington on occasion, not too successfully.
Be that as it may, an acid rain treaty was finally signed in March 1991, and I know the Speaker had a great deal to do with that. I certainly wish him all the best in his retirement.
We were in his chambers a few weeks ago. He had a reception there and he said: "You know, Stan, I am 61 now and you were 61 when you were first elected to the House of Commons which is rather a coincidence".
He was one of the great Speakers, with all due deference to you, Madam Speaker. I wish John, Cate and the family all the best in the future. This House of Commons, or as it is sometimes know, the Common House, will certainly be the loser when he is no longer here.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words to a fellow Scot.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: John Fraser has already been eulogized but I want to assure everybody who is still watching this particular part of Parliament that the Speaker is very much alive and is doing very well in spite of the things that have been said about him here today.
I want to talk a bit about the rugby experience shared by my friend the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I too not privileged to be on the same side as the Speaker, and I want it to go on the record that he was the dirtiest player that ever played on the rugby field. I want that understood.
He was tough, he was hard, but there was a part of him that was especially important for British Columbians and for Canadians. The constituency that he represents is a microcosm of all races, creeds, cultures, and religions of people living in the province of British Columbia.
Like other parts of the country we have had problems regarding racism. His election and his service to every single person who asked for it in that constituency was a paragon of virtue in terms of interpreting what the role of elected members should be. There is not a single place in the city of Vancouver that John Fraser can walk

June 16, 1993
Tributes
into where he is not instantly recognized and immediately appreciated.
There is not a single member of any religious group in his riding-he has the largest Sikh temple in the province of British Columbia-where he is not appreciated for his commitment to the citizens of this country by manifesting service to the citizens of his constituency.
Would that all of us were able to emulate his graciousness, his openness and understanding of the differences that make us Canadians from coast to coast, we would have half the problems that we have now.
I am honoured to have served with him. I am honoured to have been his opponent. I hope that the many future years he still has in his life will be as enjoyable as he deserves right up to this point as well.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me a few minutes to say a word about our illustrious Speaker, John Fraser. He has been a long-time friend. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka mentioned, he came in with quite a large number of MPs in 1972 and when he entered this place he was destined for great things in the House of Commons.
He has been loved and respected by members on both sides of the Chamber. I think it can be said that he is respected and admired by Canadian people who have watched him over the years. They saw in him a large element of fairness, a large element of promoting good decorum in the House of Commons. Nothing was more effective in the Chamber when there was a bit of a ruckus going on and members went on for some time without settling down and being quiet for him to stand and say "the Canadian people are watching you". It did not take the House very long to come to order.
He was elected by members from all parties in the House of Commons and he was respected by all of them.
The reason he was such a successful Speaker and so well liked was that he had long experience on both sides of this Chamber. He sat in opposition for some time and he sat in government.
He had a real feel for what members were thinking out here on the floor. He could read the opinions and feelings of MPs and he would act accordingly. That is very essential for someone who occupies the chair in this House. As a result of the fact that he had that feeling he, knew how to handle difficult situations with a sense of decency and in a way by which he gained the respect of members of the House.
He is a great environmentalist, as many people have mentioned today, and he always will be. He also has a very in-depth understanding of the military community of Canada. He has a great respect for militia units across the country. He has always held them in very high regard.
He had a real feel for Parliament, not only for the MPs and others but for his staff. He treated his staff with decency. He always made sure they were recognized for the good and diligent work they did in this place and on the Hill in general. As a result he earned their respect in return.
Another great quality he had was that in spite of his busy schedule he always had time to set aside a few minutes for someone who wanted to talk to him about a problem or bring an issue to his attention.
He is a great admirer of Winston Churchill, as has been mentioned on the floor of the House today. He also has a love of history. He has a great knowledge of Canadian history and Commonwealth history. That gave him another perspective that was needed in this place. He knew the traditions of Parliament going back for centuries.
In late 1978 I had the distinct pleasure of going to the Middle East, particularly Israel, with him. While we were there we had many meetings. We were in Egypt's parliament and we met the cabinet and the Prime Minister of the day. He was right at home in that element, even at that time long before he had exercised a position of real power in the House.
I want to say to John Fraser as he watches this eulogy in the House of Commons today, no doubt with his wife Cate and his family, that we wish him a speedy recovery. As one who has had a very successful recovery I wish him every success in the days ahead. We hope he will go on to
June 16, 1993

offer his services to his home community, to his province and to his country for many years to come. He is certainly going to be missed in this place but John Fraser, the first elected Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, will never be forgotten by any of us.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House today to the fact that a week from tomorrow, on June 25, will be the 25th anniversary of the election of 1968 when some 96 members of Parliament were first elected.
This was a very historic election. Some 64 Liberals, 16 Progressive Conservatives, 9 New Democrats and 7 Creditistes were first elected. There are members who are still in the House who were among that group of 96 members of Parliament first elected in 1968, including the Deputy Prime Minister. That group also included the former Leader of the NDP, Mr. Broadbent, the former leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, Mr. Andre Fortin, who was unfortunately killed in a very sad and tragic accident, the former Speaker of the House, Mr. Jerome, the former Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Lincoln Alexander, many judges, four or five senators and a number of provincial party leaders.
There are only six members left in the House today. The member for Vegreville who is the Deputy Prime Minister, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, the hon. members for Yorkton-Melville, Regina- Lumsden, York Centre, Davenport and me. After this Parliament, as was mentioned earlier this afternoon, only two members will be running again in the next election. They are the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and the hon. member for Davenport. We congratulate them on their tenacity, stamina and political longevity.
I might mention in passing that the Speaker of the House, Mr. Fraser, ran in 1968. Unfortunately he was not elected at that time but he has often extended great hospitality to the class of '68. There was the annual dinner and reception, sponsored by the Speaker and his wife, Cate. I want to extend my good wishes to them today as tributes are being paid.
We also often adopted the hon. member for Papi-neau-Saint-Michel. He was not exactly in the class of '68 as he was actually elected in a by-election in November 1967. However he has always hung around
Tributes
with the gang. Our theme song this afternoon might be They're Breaking up that Old Gang of Mine because after this election there will probably be only two in the House.
As we look back on that election in 1968, we were just coming off the centennial celebration. Clearly the country was in a mood of great confidence and great determination. There was a certain esprit de corps which we did not really have last year. I hope the country will regain that esprit de corps when the new Parliament, the 35th Parliament of Canada, is gathered together this fall or early next winter. Even though we have many problems in this country, with that kind of spirit, confidence and enthusiasm I think we can overcome those problems.
To my colleagues who were elected in 1968 and other friends throughout the House I extend my very good wishes. Being here these last 25 years has been one of the most exciting, challenging, stimulating and rewarding experiences of my life. I am sure that is true for every other member, especially those who are retiring with this Parliament.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before we continue I would like the House to allow me to say a few words about our dear friend and Speaker, John Fraser. I would especially like to say two words, and they are: Thank you.
I first knew John Fraser in cabinet in 1984.1 have been one of his deputies since 1986.

John Fraser was first and foremost a great Canadian. With his loyalty and fairness, his sense of duty, his sense of humour and patience, he has set a very high standard for his successors in the years to come. As a parliamentarian and an environmentalist, he has always shown tremendous dedication, generosity, understanding and warmth.

It has been an honour to know you. Sebastien and I will always feel privileged to be counted among your friends. To you, to Cate and to the family, we wish you all the good times you so dearly earned and so richly deserved. Godspeed.
Hon. colleagues, I would feel remiss if I did not follow the tradition today and in our Speaker's name invite you all to his chamber for the usual goodbye.

Tributes
[Translation\
As of now-and I would have said this earlier, but I didn't really have a chance to interrupt this very moving and appropriate tribute to our Speaker-members are invited to partake of some refreshments in the Speaker's chambers.


CLASS OF '68
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to prolong the tributes, but as a member of the class of '681 wanted to join with the member for Algoma and my good friend from Papineau-Saint-Michel to pay tribute to the distinguished class of 1968, those who survived and those who went on to do other things.
In looking over the occupations of the 96 members who came to the House of Commons on June 25, 1968 we can see that they covered a wide cross-section of Canadian society. There were railroaders-and I mean real true railroaders-union leaders, mayors, businessmen, farmers, fishermen, lawyers, professors, doctors, stock brokers, administrators, the odd automobile dealer and people from the professions. They really brought quite a broad perspective of views and opinions with them to the House of Commons and obviously brought their views and concerns which reflected the regions from which they came.
There were a number of firsts that were achieved by the class of '68. Three stand out in my mind. Lincoln Alexander, who later went on to become the Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Ontario, was the first black person elected to the Parliament of Canada. That was really quite a thrill, certainly for him and particularly for us because he was a member of our party.
Len Marchand, who is now firmly entrenched in the other place and has been a great member of Parliament, a great public servant and now a tremendous senator, was the first Indian to ever be elected to the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, and I have to say this because he would be too modest to say it in his
remarks, at the time he was elected was the youngest member to have ever entered the House of Commons. I think he had to quit school and come down here to take on the job.
There was a lot of attention with respect to the variety of members who came here in 1968, but there was clearly a lot of focus on these three members.
I had a chance to go through a number of the people who comprised the class of '68. It is really interesting and noteworthy to consider where they are and what they are doing today. I have already mentioned Lincoln Alexander, who went on to become the Lieutenant-Governor. The member for Oshawa, the Hon. Ed Broadbent, went on to become the leader of the New Democratic Party.
We had people like Judd Buchanan, who is pursuing a distinguished business career; Walter Carter from Newfoundland, who is now in the Newfoundland legislature; Louis Comeau, who I believe is the CEO for Nova Scotia Power; Eymard Corbin, who is in the Senate; Bud Cullen, who went on to become a minister and is in the Federal Court today; Pierre de Bane, who went on to become a minister and a member of the Senate; Alastair Gillespie, who went on to become a minister; Phil Givens, who is the former mayor of Toronto and is a very colourful individual who never really got used to this place and went back to Toronto; our good friend Joe Guay, who was a great parliamentarian and a great committee member and went on to become a minister and a member of the Senate; and there was Speaker Jerome, a very distinguished member of the class of '68 who was a very distinguished Speaker of the House and then went on to become and is presently the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court.
Otto Lang who was dean of law at the University of Saskatchewan had a very distinguished career here. John Lundrigan was a very colourful member of the class of '68. He went on to become a member of the Newfoundland government. There were people like Mark MacGui-gan and Patrick Mahoney who are now in the Federal Court. I could go on. Keith Penner is now with the National Transportation Agency. Frank Moores went on to become the premier of Newfoundland. Mark Rose.

June 16, 1993
I know my hon. friend across the way gets a little annoyed about reminiscing, but one of these days he will have a chance to reflect on 25 years of service.
What we have here is a pretty good cross-section of what the House of Commons really represents. Yes, there are some who have passed on and we think of them. We think of their families. We remember our friendship and the association we had together in this place.
As others have said in their remarks, I think what we really want to say is that these members contributed greatly to the institution of Parliament. We value the friendship that was made during the course of our association with them.
We all recognize that we believe in the profession of politics. We believe in this institution. This really is the main hall of the preservation of our democracy and our freedom. All of us can be enriched by the valuable contribution the class of '68 rendered to this institution and indeed to the House.
I want to add my congratulations to those who are here, those who have survived and those who have contributed not only to this institution but in their other walks of life in pursuing the goals and objectives of building a better Canada.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join my colleagues from Algoma and Vegreville and others in reminiscing. I have been thinking not only about those still here from the class of '68 but also those that no longer are here.
What made me think about it is that in the spring of 1969 members of the Press Club challenged the House of Commons to a softball game. What they did not know was there were many good country ball players in the class of '68.
Gerry Cobbe, a Liberal member from Portage who is now deceased, played first base. Jack Homer was catcher but he was not in the '68 class. Rocha LaSalle was an excellent glove man and shortstop. I played second base. John Skoberg from Moose Jaw, another railroader and former colleague, played centre field and galloped around catching flies. My colleague from Yorkton-Melville was pitching. In fact he had a no-hitter going for six innings.
Tributes
The Speaker of the day, Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, was a great baseball fan. He set up a temporary backstop on the front lawn of the Parliament buildings. He always showed up at the games. He stood behind the backstop rooting for the MPs. I want to tell this story of how I got an extra question in Question Period.
I made a circus catch on a foul ball. I was playing second base and I caught it out behind first base. Of course I went ass over tea kettle in the course of doing that but when I got back to the bench Mr. Lamoureux came around and said: "Mon collegue, for that catch you get an extra question in Question Period".
That was in June. In late September or October I was selected by my caucus to ask the lead-off question. It concerned box cars, grain movement and so forth. I put my first question and the two supplementaries we are allowed. Then Real Caouette of the Ralliement Credi-tiste who was sitting over here rose to his feet to ask questions as the lead-off questioner for his party.
I leaped to my feet saying: "Mr. Speaker, point of order". In those days one could interrupt anything with a point of order, even Question Period. I think the rules were better then. I said: "You will recall, Sir, an event that occurred last June and I have a further supplementary question". He smiled and said: "The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on a further supplementary question". That is how I got four questions in.
Tbmmy Douglas and Stanley Knowles in particular went nuts trying to figure how the heck I pulled that off until I told them it was on account of a foul ball.
The hon. member for Vegreville, a dear friend and colleague, has mentioned a number of people who used to be here. He was interrupted when he mentioned our good buddy Mark Rose. Mark is now the agent general for British Columbia in London, England.
All of the members who were here at that time have gone on to better and greater things. I think a lot of that was because of the schooling they received in this place.
Sir, it has been an honour and a privilege to serve the people in our constituencies, to serve our country and to battle royal here in a partisan way, democratically. Yet, Sir, you will have noticed it takes a heck of a lot longer, twice as long, when we are being nice to each other than it does when we are fighting over something but that is

June 16, 1993
Tributes
okay. We do not do this very often, maybe once every four or five years.
In any event it was a wonderful afternoon. All of us appreciate it. Those of us who were picked out and marked on this occasion appreciate it all the more.
I also want to add my personal tributes to the hon. John Fraser, another dear friend and I hope he will be a fellow goose hunter.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, as the only member of the class of '68 who has not spoken this afternoon, I just want to say a couple of words. It has been quite the experience serving 25 years in this place. One does not believe how quickly time goes.
I remember that when I was first elected I had only been to Ottawa once. I had hitch-hiked through here in blue jeans and sandals in the summer of 1967. I stopped at the Centennial Flame and took a picture of the place, never expecting that I would be back a year later.
As someone who had just turned 22 during the campaign, it was quite the experience to walk into this place and see the likes of Pierre Trudeau. In those days he was like a rock star when he travelled this country. Down in this corner there was John Diefenbaker who was a monumental figure in the House of Commons. There were Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and David Lewis in my party. Indeed there was Real Caouette who sat where the hon. member for Nickel Belt sits today. Those were really very historic figures. It was really quite a time to be elected to the House of Commons.
One also wonders about the casualty rate in this business. As a friend of mine said, 96 of us were elected. Only six of us are here now and only two of us are planning on seeking re-election. It does make one wonder about the casualty rate.
Before I sit down and in case this Parliament does not come back, I would like to pay a special tribute to my colleague from Regina-Lumsden. We were both elected in 1968. We call him very fondly by the name of Benji or Boxcar Benjamin. He has meant a lot to our party. He has meant a lot to me personally. We have been friends for a long, long time.
As a 19-year old kid, back around 1965 I very shyly- and I am still a shy country boy-walked into his office one day and introduced myself to him. He was the provincial secretary of the party, the CCF in those days. He is one of the people who got me involved in politics. He got a number of others involved in politics in those days as well.
On behalf of my party I want to say to you Les, my good friend, that we are going to miss you when this Parliament returns. I am sure my friend from Regina East feels the same way. We also say thank you for your service. We thank Connie for her support and service of us and the party. We honour her here today as well.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would say in closing that Les Benjamin is one of those people who even when things are tough never gives up the fight. He has a good sense of humour and brings some levity to this place. He makes politics a real joy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to echo my colleague's comments regarding Les Benjamin. I want to thank Les for all the years and the tremendous amount of sage advice he offered regularly not only personally to our caucus but to Parliament and the country in general.
I also want to pay tribute to a colleague in the other House who has represented Kamloops for many years. First elected in 1968, Senator Len Marchand was the first Indian member of Parliament to be elected to the House of Commons. Mr. Marchand represented his constituents extremely well. As a member of Parliament he made the people of Kamloops very proud to be represented by him.
Senator Marchand is admired and respected by all who know him. He is supported by a caring and loving family.
I also want to recognize of course his contribution not just to his constituents but to the residents of British Columbia generally and to Canada for the excellent work he has also done in the Senate of Canada.
June 16, 1993



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third annual report on Canada's export of military material. This report covers the year 1992.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 49 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to go to petitions before going to motions. Since this may be the last sitting day before the summer, it would give hon. members who have petitions a chance to present them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many constituents in Ottawa-Vanier.

The petitioners are concerned with the standards of education in Canada. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament in co-operation with the provinces to establish Canada-wide standardized testing for students.
Routine Proceedings
These people have tabled several petitions. I believe the objective is to improve the education of our children and I support the petition.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour under Standing Order 36 to present 27 petitions duly certified and containing 26,966 signatures of citizens from Burlington, Hamilton, Ancaster, Dun-das, Stoney Creek, and several other towns and cities in Canada.
The petitioners support Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy in her efforts to have killer cards stopped from being imported into Canada. We applaud the efforts of the Minister of National Revenue for his statement in support of this action.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the law to prohibit the importation, distribution and sale and manufacture of killer cards.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present quite a stack of petitions, literally thousands of names from communities throughout all of western Canada including some of central Canada who are very concerned about the North America free trade agreement and its clauses that make the interbasin transfer of water possible in order to sell water into Mexico and the United States. They oppose this strongly and are asking the Canadian government to seek a negotiated exclusion for Canadian rivers and lakes to ensure that our water will not be sold to the United States or Mexico.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The second petition calls for a review of the Young Offenders Act. These petitioners point out a whole range of concerns which they have, again reflecting the signatures of hundreds of people all from the constituency of Kamloops who want the Young Offenders Act to be revisited and changed to more adequately reflect the original intent of the legislation.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings NATIONAL SOLIDARITY DAY


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, that calls upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268 which is an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal people of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
I have another petition here, Mr. Speaker-
Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have been asked to present petitions. Mr. Speaker. I think we could find ample time to allow people to present petitions. If my hon. friend is asking me not to present petitions on behalf of my constituents I will tell him to forget it, that is my job.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't pay any attention to them, Nelson.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Again, this petition calls upon the House of Commons to restore VIA Rail service, particularly where it was eliminated along the north shore of Lake Superior.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Lastly, Mr. Speaker, a petitioner asks that I present this petition calling upon Parliament to amend the Income Ihx Act of Canada to exclude child support payments from the taxable income of custodial parents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I will have to suspend presentation of petitions, and I apologize. According to the motion that was adopted, the House was to proceed to petitions before motions. I would like to dispose of the other items, since members with reports to present were expecting to be called immediately. As a courtesy and out of respect for the traditions of this House, I would prefer to dispose of the other items on the orders of the day.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian group of the Interparliamentary Union which represented Canada at the Interparliamentary Symposium on Parliament, Guardian of Human Rights, which was held in Budapest, Hungary May 19 to 22, 1993.



PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 341 have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation from the Canadian Parliament which travelled to Venezuela and Colombia from May 9 to 18,1993.



MULTICULTURALISM AND CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, through you I want to wish the Speaker of the House a speedy convalescence.
Today, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship. The report, Study of the implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in federal institutions, is the result of about two years of work, during which committee members painstakingly examined how federal institutions are adjusting to the ethno-cultural and racial diversity of this country.
The committee noted that most central institutions of the federal government are now aware, not only of the close relationship between multiculturalism and our Canadian democratic principles, but also of the psychological, socio-cultural, economic and political benefits of a harmonious integration of members of ethno-cultural minorities within our great Canadian nation.
While stressing the progress made by federal institutions by implementing the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the committee has also raised fundamental questions about managing the ethno-cultural diversity of this country and maximizing the benefits of that diversity.
June 16, 1993

The Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship requests the government's response to this report, pursuant to Standing Order 109.



HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I have reports from two standing committees to table if I may.
First I have the honour to present in the usual format as well as in the alternate formats of Braille, computer disc, large print and an audio cassette the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons entitled Getting Back on the Road, Passenger Transportation and Persons With Disabilities.
In accordance with its unique mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(b), the committee has examined the question of transportation for disabled persons, including consideration of specific sections relating to disabled persons of the report from the National Transportation Act Review Commission entitled Competition in Transportation Policy and Legislation in Review. This report was presented to the House by the Minister of Transport on March 9, 1993.
In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
In keeping with the subject matter of this report from the standing committee and recognizing the tributes that were paid today to Speaker Fraser, I would like to recognize the fact that while he was indeed very committed to issues of environment and the military, his Scottish heritage and other matters, we should not forget that he had a very long-standing interest in the subject area of disability. He and his staff on the Hill have gone a long way to make Parliament Hill much more accessible than heretofore. We want to extend that congratulations to him.
Routine Proceedings



HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, I have the honour to table in both official languages the ninth report of that committee entitled Disclosure of Information to Emergency Response Personnel.
The committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is not to quarrel with the committee report that the hon. member had just introduced, but the representative from the New Democratic Party on that committee submitted a minority report. This minority report is not a quarrel with the committee report but simply encourages legislative action to be taken.
Since we are trying to move this quickly today I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent of the House to simply have this minority report appended to the original report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



BILL C-301 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-301, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (financial information) without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings



BROADCASTING ACT


David Kilgour: for leave to introduce Bill C-458, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and the Radiocommunication Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this is a bill that would amend the Broadcasting Act and Radiocommunication Act and ensure that they not infringe on the basic rights of Canadians to communicate in a free and democratic society.
The law as it stands now leaves, in my view, too much room for different interpretation and imposes too many restrictions. For example, it states that applicants wishing to broadcast religious programming as part of basic cable service must offer diverse points of view on the issues of public concern. It also states that they can be exempt from this if offering their services to those willing to pay for it on cable.
In a sentence, it would appear to be unfair and unrealistic to impose on religious broadcasters an obligation to also present different points of view. Nor does it seem fair in my view in an open society to deny a licence to religious programmers producing mainly in another country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Kilgour moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



PIONEER MONUMENT ACT


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-459, an act to honour the immigrants and pioneers who have come to Canada from the four comers of the world by placing a monument on Parliament Hill to recognize their contribution to Canadian society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, on the Hill we have monuments which recognize individual contributions of Canadians. My proposal is to recognize the collective contributions made by immigrants who have come to Canada from all corners of the world as well as by the pioneers who helped to build the country that we know today as Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Rodriguez moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1987 MEASURE TO AMEND

Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-460, an act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to introduce a private members' bill. This bill is an act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987. The purpose of this bill is to alter the definition of Canadian as it applies to air carriers in the National Transportation Act. This bill proposes to change the required percentage of voting interests owned and controlled by Canadians from 75 per cent to 51 per cent. The purpose of this amendment is to allow more foreign investment in Canadian air carriers in order to maintain competition within Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Thorkelson moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
June 16, 1993

Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Scott Jon Thorkelson: for leave to introduce Bill C-461, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The purpose of this bill is to give the courts the power to cancel or change a prohibition order related to vehicle licences that have been revoked for more than five years and to take this power away from the National Parole Board.
This will ensure that any cancellation or change will take place in a public setting in order to facilitate public discussion and debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Thorkelson moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



NATIONAL NEIGHBOURHOOD ACT


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-462, an act respecting national neighbourhood day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Routine Proceedings


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a private member's bill respecting national neighbourhood day.
Constituent Daniel Latour of Pointe Claire, Quebec, first came to my office last year looking for recognition of this worthwhile day. This year we collaborated in several promotional ventures with other members of Parliament and with my constituents in order to encourage its celebration in all ridings.
National neighbourhood day was first held in the summer of 1991 on the second Sunday in June of that year. Joannie Halas of Winnipeg organized a party to salute her neighbours and encourage Canadians across the country to do the same.
Last year it was estimated that 10,000 parties were held across Canada and the numbers for this year which took place last week are still being counted. National neighbourhood day affords all of us the opportunity to appreciate our neighbours and encourage community safety and crime prevention.
I believe it is an event that should be recognized annually across Canada by designating the second Sunday in June as national neighbourhood day, a nonstatutory holiday. It is for this reason that I ask the House to support this project in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Layton moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with over 2,700 signatures to stop taxing child support payments in the hands of custodial parents.
The government system of taxing child support payments is a major contributing factor to the poverty of women and children. Two-thirds of single parent families headed by women are poor, while Canadian taxpayers provide higher income divorced fathers with huge tax breaks to the tune of $2.5 billion.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
This petition was signed in a short period of time mainly by residents of British Columbia but also from all across Canada. It shows the overwhelming amount of support for changing this unfair tax policy.
I also want to recognize the very diligent work done by my colleague and friend, the member for New Westminster-Burnaby on this issue. I am honoured to submit this petition on behalf of those 2,700 petitioners.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour this afternoon to present two petitions to the House of Commons from a number of people in and around the federal riding of Elk Island. These people live in communities of Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, Ardrossan, Beaumont, New Sarepta, Leduc, Edmonton and St. Albert.
They call upon Parliament to change or replace the Young Offenders Act with legislation that will be a stronger deterrent to youth crime. These people are most concerned with repeat violent young offenders and recommend harsher penalties including work camps. In cases dealing with theft or property damage, they suggest financial repayment to victims of crime.
These Canadians want laws that are seen to support victims of crime rather than insulate offenders from accountability.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of over 350 constituents who are deeply concerned about the so-called killer cards.
These cards published by Eclipse Comic Books, True Crime Trading Cards and other publishers feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters. My constituents do not want these trading cards in their community. They strongly oppose the importation of them into Canada and support the government's efforts to seize any and all shipments at the Canada-U.S. border. In this regard, I give my full support to my constituents.
These cards add nothing positive to Canadian life. Instead they contribute to violence. Therefore the petitioners ask Parliament to amend the law to prohibit the
importation, sale and manufacture of killer cards into Canada.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition. It comes from many residents of Ontario.
They are concerned that stray animals are not properly protected and to that end they want an amendment to the cruelty to animals act to provide greater protection to these animals.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I present today an additional over 40,000 signatures which petition the House to change the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act.
It is in memory of Ryan Garrioch, a young man who was murdered in a school yard in Calgary. On this day I would particularly like to pay tribute to the parents who took a personal tragedy and have attempted to turn it into something that they believe will be of social benefit to Canada. That should be acknowledged in this Chamber on this last day.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 too would like to present a large number of petitions representing thousands of petitioners from the Calgary area who are concerned about the Young Offenders Act.
These petitioners request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age.
I too would like to see the age reduced to reflect the wishes of most of my constituents.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by many constituents of mine in Sarnia, Corunna, Brigden and Point Edward. It has been certified correct as to form and content by the clerk.
These constituents call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and people of Canada, and also to accept the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of
June 16, 1993

the provinces, with the territories being given the status of one province.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition signed by many residents of the city of Regina in my constituency. They say that we are increasingly becoming a culture of violence and violence has become an ordinary part of our children's lives.
Part of this culture is a serial killer board game which comes with a bag of 25 babies, the point of which is to murder as many defenceless children as possible. The laws of Canada do not deal with materials portraying torture, rape and murder as fun, including serial killer board games.
Your petitioners request that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent degrading material such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I also want to introduce a petition with thousands of signatures calling for a ban on the serial killer board game. As the previous speaker said, the game comes with a body bag, 25 babies, four serial killer figures, the object of which is to commit murder. The person with the highest body count is the winner.
This is not in the interest of our youth. It is not in the interest of our Canadian society. I ask the House to ban this very offensive game.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and honour to present these certified petitions on behalf of the residents of the riding of Macleod.
These petitioners, which number in the hundreds, call for the harmonization of certain standards and procedures between Canadian and the United States meat and pork laws. They suggest that harmonization would reduce the possibility of the United States placing trade restrictions on Canadian products, thereby increasing
Routine Proceedings
the proper functioning and confidence in the beef marketing system in North America.
They point out that this confidence will encourage producers to make the investments necessary for us to remain competitive. These principles incidentally are embodied in Bill C-406 which I have introduced in the House and which has the signed support of more than 20 private members.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present four petitions to the House.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.
The acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments should be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a similar petition.
The petitioners are mainly from my riding of Regina- Qu'Appelle and most of them are residents of Fort Qu'Appelle.
The petitioners ask for a referendum binding upon Parliament to accept or reject the two official languages. They state that the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendment should be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with a majority vote in the majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present another petition which has also been certified as correct.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
These petitioners ask the Government of Canada to maintain barley under the Canadian Wheat Board. They are concerned that removing barley from the Wheat Board will further weaken it.
They call on Parliament and the government to keep barley under the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present today a petition, certified correct, which I received from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.
This petition deals with the issue of redress for injustices committed against Ukrainian settlers by the Government of Canada during and following the First World War.
This petition is signed by many Edmonton residents in my riding. I would urge the government to respond to their concerns.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is identical to the ones just presented by the member for Peterborough and by the member from Regina East. It deals with official bilingualism and calls for a referendum with respect to it in exactly the same terms as the previous petitions.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the second petition presented under Standing Order 36 contains the signatures of many thousands of Albertans and other Canadians on the proposed round-up, auction and slaughter of wild horses in the national wildlife park at the Canadian Forces Base Suffield.
The petitioners call for a number of other things such as a long-term management plan, legal protection for wild horses and citing the importance of horses to my part of the country.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I too have three petitions to present on behalf of the people of Huron-Bruce and from the Wingham area.
The petitioners request that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent
and degrading material such as serial killer board games can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Murray Cardiff: My second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from the Zurich area of my riding.
The petitioners are asking to establish a peace trust fund which would allow Canadian taxpayers who for reason of conscience or religion choose to redirect a portion of their taxes paid to government away from military uses and used in a fund where the resources would be redirected to peace, education, research, humanitarian and other peaceful purposes.


Murray Cardiff: The last petition is similar to other petitions that have been presented today.
The petitioners ask for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada. I will not go through the rest of it due to the pressure of time and because it has been stated before.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from the P.E.I. Atlantic Mission Society of the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
The petitioners believe that the use of marijuana causes physical, psychological and financial implications leading to an increase in crime, family breakdowns, further addictions and many other serious problems resulting from drug abuse.
Therefore, these petitioners call on Parliament to urge the government not to legalize the use of marijuana in Canada.
I present this petition on behalf of my colleague, the member for Hillsborough.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on Ukrainian redress and internment, signed by many people from my riding.

June 16, 1993

The petitioners ask for the government to quickly conclude this ongoing negotiation. They seek the recognition that they so rightly deserve, given the conduct and treatment which they and their ancestors received, particularly during the First World War.
I petition and urge the government to move as quickly as it reasonably can in this regard.


Harvie Andre: That, when the House adjourns on the day of adoption of this Order, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 20,1993 at 11 a.m.; and
That, at any time during such adjournment of the House, the Speaker may, after consultation with the government, cause the House to sit for the sole purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill or bills, and following each Royal Assent, the Speaker shall, each time, further adjourn the House forthwith until Monday, September 20, 1993 at 11 a.m.
He said: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly this will be the last time I speak in this Chamber. After 21 years in Parliament sitting on both sides of the House, in various capacities for many hours, one approaches a time like this with mixed feelings.
I remember in the early days we sat till 10 o'clock at night. I sometimes wonder if I have not spent more time in this Chamber than I have spent in any other room anywhere in the country, including my bedroom at home. So it has veiy much become a part of my existence and I am going to miss it. But all good things come to an end.
This is near the end of a parliamentary career for me and it is near the end of this session of Parliament, and indeed near the end of this Parliament.
I thought I would talk briefly about what we have accomplished in this session of this Parliament, which has run from May 1991 to June 1993. It has been quite momentous. We have had the constitutional initiative, the referendum, things that dominated the agenda in 1992. I thought the House would be interested to know that during that time there were 138 government bills introduced, 124 were passed at third reading in the
Routine Proceedings
House of Commons, 107 received royal assent, and I am sure the rest will receive royal assent soon.
A total of 265 committee reports were tabled in the House. Sixty of them asked for a government response, 41 of those were responded to and the remainder are not overdue as the reports are later. One hundred and forty six private members' bills and motions were debated; 36 were votable, four were passed and assented to.
Until recent years that figure would have been zero because in my entire time in opposition I think there might have been two private members' motions that actually got adopted. So changes are occurring. There were five motions carried so we had a total of nine so that a quarter of the votable bills and motions in fact were passed by this House.
Questions on the Order Paper: 537 of which 511 were answered.
Petitions, not counting the ones today: 5,100 of which 4,722 were answered. It has been by any measure productive.
My staff did a little assessment of the number of bills passed each year since 1984 and the days spent on each bill. It was kind of interesting that the average seems to be around 3.5 days spent on each bill in the House if we look at House time.
Recently there have been some accusations that I have been prone to stifle debate but since January to June of this year there were 3.6 days spent on each bill. Compare that for example with 1992 when it was 2.5 days. In fact we have spent a little more than a day longer on each bill this year compared with last year. The data do not support any suggestion of cutting off debate.
I wonder if the House might be interested in knowing how our time is spent each day in the House. I wonder if people are aware that of the time spent in the House 60 per cent is on Government Orders and the remainder is not. Of the total time, 42 per cent is actually spent on government bills. Supply days which are opposition days take 12 per cent and 6.4 per cent is on budgets. Oral Questions take up 10.3 per cent of our time. Private Members' Business takes 8.6 per cent. Routine Proceedings, petitions, et cetera take 5 per cent. Members' statements take 3.5 per cent. Adjournment proceedings

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
take 2.1 per cent. Other things like throne speeches, points of order, points of privilege, Speaker's rulings and so on take 10 per cent.
The accusation that the government dominates is not borne out by the facts. The facts show that the time spent on government bills represents only 42 per cent of the time this House is in session.
If we look at supply days, oral questions, Private Members' Business-admittedly those are split-members' statements, adjournment proceedings and so on I think we find that indeed the amount of total time taken by the government side of the House which has the majority of members is in the order of 55 per cent to 60 per cent. The remaining 40 per cent to 45 per cent is taken up by the opposition.
The agenda is set by the opposition. In fact any suggestions that are sometimes made that government and government only runs this institution or controls all the time is not borne out by the evidence.
One of the interesting concerns that this House has dealt with over the last couple of years has been restraint bills because the deficit has been and is a problem. We have had successive budgets bringing forward cuts to various government programs. In this session alone, from May 1991 to the session we are now just ending, there were 11 restraint bills and every single one of them was voted against by the opposition. For five of them time allocation was required because there was no willingness to end the discussion or the debate.
I thought it was instructive for the House to know this when it comes to concern about the deficit. There is a general suggestion on the opposition side: "Yes, we think the deficit is too high". Each and every measure without exception has been vigorously opposed by opposition members. If they have been making other suggestions for cuts they must be making them in a closet somewhere with the doors closed because I have not heard about that. Have they-


An hon. member:: Tell us about the helicopters.
The hon. member shouts about helicopters. His party agreed unanimously with the report that in fact the helicopters should be purchased.
The hon. member is from Kingston which I understand has a few military votes. Would he stand up in Kingston and say he is in favour of cutting the defence budget by the $400 million a year that is in fact for the helicopters? Would he stand up in his constituency and tell the young recruits at Royal Military College that they will be sent out in frigates that are not going to have a helicopter on them because his party does not believe in them? Is he going to stand up in Kingston and tell his military people that they are expected to go on search and rescue missions in rough weather which is where they are needed with 30-year old helicopters because he is opposed to modernizing these helicopters? Is he going to go to Halifax where there will be several hundred jobs produced in building these new helicopters and say he thinks they should not have these jobs because he is opposed to those helicopters?
When he and his party are prepared to do that then they will have the right to stand up and say that they dispute this decision. Until then everything else is intellectually dishonest.
What happened on these restraint bills? Apparently people say that the Liberals are in favour of deficit reduction. Their leader in Alberta walked around with a clock. He is worried about deficits. He had a clicking counter. We hear that all the time yet they voted against every single bill.
How much time did we spend on it? In the House we spent 162 hours debating restraint bills or 61 days. We spent 55 days in committee or 82 hours. A total of 116 days was spent debating. The average time we spent per bill was 10.5 days. That is because the opposition members said that they were opposed to each and every specific cut we made: "Is the deficit a problem? Yes, we have to clear the deficit".
I say that if one seriously wants the people of Canada to vote Liberal in the next election then one will have to do better than that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The deficit keeps going up.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member says that the deficit keeps going up. What is his suggestion? It is to vote against every restraint bill and every cutback bill. There is only one other alternative to cutbacks and that is to raise taxes. Is he going to have the intellectual honesty? Is the opposition going to have the intellectual honesty to say it is in favour of raising taxes? Is it going to be honest enough with the people of Canada? It cannot
June 16,1993	COMMONS DEBATES	20929
have it all ways. It cannot vote against every restraint, suggest no others, say the deficit is a problem and not raise taxes. That is impossible.
The hon. member has more integrity than that and I am sure he will be ashamed when he thinks about what he is saying now. He will be ashamed to his core when he thinks about what he is saying now. He knows that intellectual honesty and integrity is not a requirement to be an active Liberal or a prominent Liberal.
We have had a very productive session. It amazes me when I read the front page of The Ottawa Citizen, that great newspaper in our national capital. It said that a number of bills have died on the Order Paper. It is about 0.6 per cent of the bills introduced.
It never would occur to that organization to say it was a very productive session. That might be the truth but I think that any reporter who did that would be fired by the editor because good news is not tolerated. What they must do is denigrate, criticize and ridicule every Canadian institution. We give Geminis to people who produce films saying the Canadian Air Force contributed more to the misery of German civilians than it did to fighting Nazism. We award millions of dollars to people who produce films that say Billy Bishop was a liar and a fraud. We run newspapers in this country that do nothing but criticize continuously and have nothing good to say about this country. I am not talking about the government, I am talking about everything. I think they do serious damage to this institution.
I will miss this institution. I am proud of the 21 years I have spent here. I think this is a worth-while place to be. It is an important place to be. It is an important job, but my goodness it is sobering to talk to people who might consider running to replace me and hear what they say about this job. They say: "Just a minute now. You want me to give up my career, give up my relationship with my family, fight to win an election to come to Ottawa to get abused, be accused of being a thief, to be accused of being interested in nothing but pork barrelling and fraud and be treated with the contempt that the media treats all politicians. Why would I do that? Do you think I am crazy? Why would I do that?"
Routine Proceedings
When we hear that answer a few times we stop and think. I do not care what party we are talking about, if the good people in this country are taking that kind of message from what they read and see, then where does that lead us? Is that going to lead to improved representation? Is that going to lead to a stronger House of Commons? Is that going to lead to better government? Is that going to lead to a better country? The answer to all those questions is no.
If there is one disappointment I have, particularly in the last three years as House leader, it is that we have not been able to turn around that question of how people view this House and how we are viewed as politicians. On both sides of the House, with precious few exceptions, the men and women I have had the pleasure to work with are honourable, decent and well-meaning. They are here at considerable financial sacrifice as well as sacrifice in terms of their families and other obligations without exception on both sides of the House.
Yet to read what is written about us is to believe we are all overpaid, greedy, selfish, dishonest and do not give a damn about anything except our own welfare. That has not been my experience, not in 21 years. I despair sometimes at what these critics are doing to this institution and this country.
I wish for once they would stop, think a little bit and take a little responsibility for what they write. They should check the facts and not get so excited when they catch somebody tripping up. This condemnation of politicians is gotcha journalism. We hear members of the national press gallery saying that all politicians are liars. What is an individual like that doing reporting to the people of Canada? What is an individual like that doing? That is one of my disappointments.
I think it is a serious problem. I do not have an answer or a solution. I hope the next Parliament will have the wisdom to find a solution because a solution needs to be found to that particular problem.
Mr. Speaker, that being said at the end of the day what counts is how we feel about ourselves; all of us, that side and this side. Do we feel good about ourselves? Have we done the best we can do? Speaking personally, I feel pretty good. I do not claim perfection. God there are a lot of things I said I wish I had not said. There are some things I did that I wish I had not done. I wish I had been a little more careful about the feelings of those who were

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
at the receiving end of some of my attacks. I perhaps have not been as sensitive as I should have been. I assume everybody has a hide of beef as thick as mine and that is not always true.
On balance there is really no finer occupation or finer thing we can do than serve our fellow citizens of this great country in this wonderful institution. For that I am eternally grateful to my constituents of Calgary Centre who honoured me with six elections in a row. To my friends on both sides who I have enjoyed and still enjoy, I hope we will be friends afterwards and I thank them for the experiences.
The table officers and those in the House of Commons are professionals. They have been superb. I have had absolutely no complaints at all with the Clerk and others in terms of the House of Commons. It has been a wonderful experience. I hope when all is said and done others can reach the judgment that it was worth while for me to be here. In any event it has been marvellous.
This is a better institution with better people than is sometimes recognized if the only source of information comes from some in the national press gallery. It is a great institution and it has been a pleasure to have been a part of it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, following the speech of the government House leader from Calgary Centre, I must say that being from the same class of 1972 I had to work with the member from Calgary Centre for several years. Although we sometimes disagreed I think that most of us have kept respect for each other and I would like to tell him that this place will miss him.
We hope he goes on to a career that will give him the chance to use his great qualities again. I am positive that whatever activity he takes upon himself to do will be done with the utmost care and devotion. I know it is not an easy job to be government House leader. He had to get the job done.
I had a friend here some years ago. His name was Walter Baker. He was in the Ottawa area and was also the government House leader. Walter was a good companion. I liked him and used to kid him. I would say: "Walter you are a heck of a nice guy. It is the gang you hang around with I cannot stand". Sometimes we get into partisan politics but that is part of the process I guess and part of the game.
The minister is right. This House of Commons is probably going to adjourn and the next election will probably result in a lot of new faces around here. I will stand again for election and I hope the people of my riding of Ottawa-Vanier will have confidence in me again. I like and enjoy what I am doing here. I hope their confidence will be renewed. I also believe there is no greater calling than to serve one's constituents. Like many others in this place I have grown to like the House and the people who work here.
I do think we get a raw deal sometimes from the press that says members of Parliament are here to further their own aims and feather their own nests. Sometimes there are people you would not trust to invite to supper.
Like the minister I have been here 20 long years. I sincerely hope that we can change the image in the next few years so that the people of Canada have respect and understanding. The job is not easy. It is sometimes challenging, but it is sure as heck rewarding to the extent that some of us want to come back here and repeat the experience. To those who are leaving from the class of '72, and the member for Calgary Centre has announced he will not run again, I say have a good trip and God bless you all.
I have to address on the adjournment motion some of the items to which the minister alluded at the beginning of his speech. That is the record of this government, the record of this Parliament. It sometimes is good to look back on these things to see where we were at and where we are going.
Last weekend we had the Tory leadership convention of which, Madam Speaker, you were one of the co-chairmen. I congratulate you. I think you did a very nice and very good job. Not alluding to your presence but to all the rhetoric that was put out, I thought for a while we were being fed a lot of historical revisionism by the Tories. Some of them have short memories. Some of the
June 16, 1993

Canadian people who were deeply affected by some of the government's decisions, in my view, have not kept the same kind of memories that the minister alluded to a few minutes ago.
We did not hear a lot about high unemployment in Canada or a doubling of the national debt. We did not hear of the weakening of our national institutions. It is no surprise that Canadians have lost confidence in this Conservative government and have lost it for some time now. We are hoping and praying for a quick election so that we can replace it.
There will be a new Prime Minister in this House come the next election. We hope that the situation will improve with the election of a new government and a new Prime Minister.
The new Prime Minister who will be sworn in on June 25 next, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, will have a hard time trying to distance herself from the past record. I do not think it is that glorious a record that she will want to run on it. As a matter of fact, there are rumours now that she may recall the House in July to come in with a throne speech and possibly a budget.
The time is short. The Prime Minister-elect to be sworn in on June 25 will want to get some kind of momentum going on her own and for that we wish her good luck, but we do not think that there is enough time now for her to do this at this juncture.

Although the new Prime Minister will have to try to dissociate herself from her predecessor's policies, the fact remains that the policies which she herself preached in her leadership campaign reaffirm her commitment to continue the Conservative government policies we have known since 1984. One of her backers in the leadership race, Minister Wilson, was the father of the GST, one of the taxes Canadians hate most.
It is not surprising to us that most of the front bench ministers and some long-serving members of this House are leaving for other occupations. I think they got the message. Clearly, they have no chance of being reelected and they will leave it to others to run for office.
Routine Proceedings

Obviously, the Tories are afraid to now go to the polls. They will hesitate to the end, flying in the face of the usual tradition that we have an election every four years.
I do not want to dwell too much on that because it is a difficult situation when the record's as negative as the one of this government. To run on such a record is sometimes defeatist in itself. Let us take a look at the record.
Canadians will remember the expression jobs, jobs, jobs in 1984. That was the Prime Minister telling Canadians that his government would create jobs, jobs, jobs. The outgoing Prime Minister has, in my view, a government which mismanaged the economy into the worst recession since the early 1930s. Despite the boom years of the mid 1980s it succeeded in giving us an unemployment rate in 1992 of 11.3 per cent, a high of 11.8 per cent in November, up from 10.3 per cent in 1991. As of April of this year, 1993, the unemployment rate in Canada is
11.4	per cent. Forecasters say that the experts tell us that it is unlikely that the unemployment rate will fall below 11 per cent in 1993.
Meanwhile the average rate of unemployment in the industrialized world, with all the other comparables in all the other industrialized countries with which we compare ourselves, is less than 8 per cent. We are leading on unemployment, yet we must remember jobs, jobs, jobs.
What caused it? A great effect was had on the job employment of Canadians by the free trade agreement with the United States. Free trade was an issue in the 1988 election. We were told at the time that free trade would be the end-all and be-all for the economic future of Canada and there would be jobs, jobs and jobs. The government promised at that time there would be some work force adjustment programs which we never saw. The government had promised that there would be some kind of consideration for those jobs which would disappear to the United States.
We know now that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have given up looking for work and are waiting at home for economic renewal. Money has run out for training courses in some areas. There were
400,000	manufacturing jobs that were lost since 1989. A

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
great majority of those were in my province of Ontario. It is expected that two-thirds of these 400,000 jobs will never return. Many of those were good paying jobs.
In 1992, 61,822 people and 14,317 businesses went bankrupt.

That is 4.8 per cent more than in 1991. For the third straight year, we have had a record number of bankruptcies. Madam Speaker, I ask who in 1988 promised to reduce unemployment insurance premiums considerably and to raise UI benefits? The Conservatives. Who said that UI premiums would go down? That is false; premiums were increased twice. Changes to the UI Act reduced eligibility for benefits.
Since the Conservatives took office in September 1984, taxes increased 38 times. In 1991, Canadian households paid $21.8 billion more in income tax, not counting transfer payments, than they would have if the tax system had remained as it was in 1984. The corporate share of federal income tax revenue went from 13.2 per cent in 1984-85 to 10.4 per cent in 1990-91. The richest 1 per cent of the population pay less income tax after the first phase of the Conservatives' tax reform than they did in 1984. The rich pay less today than they did in 1984.
A study by Canadian Business Economics, published recently under the title Taking Stock of Tory Tax Reform, revealed that the average family now pays $1,884 more in taxes, not including the GST, than when the Conservatives took power.
No wonder Canadians have lost confidence. Today, more than two million Canadians are living on welfare. In my own province, Ontario, one person in ten depends on welfare. In 1991, two million Canadians went to food banks, and 40 per cent were children under the age of 18. Canada has more food banks than McDonald's restaurants. An estimated 3.8 million Canadians were living below the poverty line in 1990, at the beginning of the recession. In 1990, 60.6 per cent of women heading single parent families were living in poverty. In my own riding, 20 per cent of the families, in other words, one family out
of five, is a single parent family, and the vast majority of these live below the poverty line.
Most of the poor have a full-time and a part-time job. They have to work to make ends meet, to try to find some way of meeting the often substantial needs of their family within an economic framework that offers them very little.

There was no progress in the war against poverty during the Mulroney era. Poverty has increased among children. Between 1989 and 1990 an additional 171,000 children joined the ranks of the poor. All together
1,105,000	children or 16.6 per cent lived in poverty in 1990. The numbers have probably increased since then. Again, this is unacceptable for everyone including, I would hope, all those Tories over there.
In 1988 the government promised to spend $6.4 billion to create 400,000 new day care spaces by 1995. Instead the day care promise was abandoned, making it even more difficult for Canadians to escape the cycle of poverty.

Who eliminated the federal co-operative housing program in 1992 and cut the budget for subsidized housing? The Conservative government.
Last Saturday in my riding, I had the privilege of attending the official opening of a housing co-operative, the Cooperative Desloges, located in the eastern part of my riding. Ontario is the only province that still has a co-operative movement. It is the only province in Canada where people can still have access to a co-operative housing program. Now that the federal government has abandoned and abolished the program, Ontario is the only province where co-operative housing is still feasible. In fact, I must say that the Conservative government's record in this respect is pitiful.
In 1983, the Prime Minister promised to reduce the national debt and the annual deficit. Every year, and the Public Accounts are there to prove it, the forecasts were way off the mark, to the tune of several billion dollars. Today, we have an annual deficit of nearly $34 billion. We have a national debt of around $460 billion. That is a lot of money, and Canadians have every right to expect
June 16, 1993

members and governments to answer the following questions: Where are we going? What are we going to do? There are things we can do.

The present Prime Minister failed to take advantage of the boom years of the mid-1980s and take control of that debt. Instead he and his government became obsessed with inflation, a problem that we were told at that time existed in Toronto but nowhere else. As interest rates were held high to put the brakes on growth, the engine slowed in Toronto but much of the rest of the country withered.
The Tories intentionally created the first made in Canada recession. Once they had created it they refused to recognize its depth, leading us to our current situation.
They also tried to put much of the blame on global forces and economic slow-downs in other countries. Some economists place the blame squarely on this government's shoulders.
A recent study by the Institute for Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto says that higher federal taxes and the fight against inflation precipitated the recession in 1990 and were the main causes of the sluggish recovery.
In 1991 the recession worsened as the impact of the U.S. slow-down was felt and the goods and services tax was implemented. Imagine that. At the worst moment they came in with a consumer tax which added 1.5 points inflation and did the same thing as if one were to step on the gas and use the brakes at the same time. It does not go very far.
Madam Speaker, I notice you are giving me a signal that I only have one minute left. I wish I could have gone on to further explain how this government has been really incompetent and unable to cope with the challenge of the 1990s. I know that a lot of members of my caucus would like to address this adjournment debate tonight.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment for the purpose of consideration of this adjournment
motion.
Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All members opposed to the motion will please rise?
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Fewer than 15 members having risen, the motion is therefore carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to participate in this adjournment debate. I listened with interest to my colleague from Calgary Centre, the government House leader. I would actually echo many of his remarks in terms of this institution. In many ways people have gone out of their way to criticize and ridicule the parliamentary system and have accused members of all sorts of dastardly deeds, most of which are completely inaccurate.
However it is not a perfect system and we ask ourselves what system would be better. I think we would all agree that there are a number of reforms we would like to see incorporated in our parliamentary system. At the top of the list would be to abolish the existing Senate and replace it with something more reflective of a democratic system, certainly an elected Senate. There could be a whole number of changes to the way this institution is run.
A committee has been working on these reforms for the last few weeks. It has now submitted a report and the Standing Orders are being drafted to reflect these changes, which will create a much more inclusive House of Commons in which the role of backbenchers will be elevated, more people will be included in decision making and Question Period will be run in a more appropriate way to the needs of governments of the 1990s. Certainly the call for reform is there.
I wanted to think of something nice to say about my friend from Calgary Centre whom I have had the pleasure of working with for many years. A number of things actually come to mind. The one thing about the member for Calgary Centre is that one never wonders where he stands on an issue. One is never perplexed in terms of his position or in wonderment about his point of view on literally any issue or topic.
He is very straightforward, frank and honest, and as a result he is an easy person to deal with in that respect. As a House leader who was always in a position to carry on negotiations with the hon. member for Calgary Centre I always appreciated his frankness and openness and his

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
willingness not to debate or discuss but at least to share his view as to how events ought to proceed in here.
I wish him well. In many ways he has served his government well. He was given a tough task to move very unpopular legislation through the House of Commons. He did that well. We would certainly criticize the way he has done many things but he has fulfilled the terms of his job description, which is to move government legislation expeditiously. As a result of his approach, to a large extent, more legislation was passed in this Parliament than in probably any other Parliament in Canadian history.
I wish his wife and his family well. Whatever the member for Calgary Centre does in the future I know he will do it with the same dedication with which he has applied himself to serving his government and the House of Commons. I wish his family Godspeed and wealth in their years ahead.
To turn to the task at hand, and that is to discuss this adjournment debate, it is rather a sad day for the country when we are wrapping up this parliamentary session with a number of things that spring instantly to mind. One is that in my judgment Canadians have become very frustrated with the Government of Canada. One of the reasons they have become frustrated is because in many respects this government has changed the face of our country.
In 1988 when the Prime Minister was campaigning across the country he came to Kamloops, as did the member for Yellowhead and a whole set of ministers. They said that if we passed the free trade agreement then we would create jobs, jobs, jobs. What they did not tell us was that those jobs were going to be created in the United States. We thought they meant they would be created in Canada.
As a result it is fair to say that Canadians would have to answer no to the following questions today: Nine years after the present government was first elected in 1984 is my life better today in terms of its future than it was then? Is my job, my career or my profession more secure than it was in 1984? Do my children more obviously have
a good future than back in 1984? Is Canada a more productive and dynamic place than it was in 1984?
The polls tell us that. Canadians are very uncertain about the future. They show that 70 per cent of Canadians are unsure whether they are going to have a job in the immediate future and whether there is any economic security for them and their families. There is probably nothing worse than a society in which people are actually worried and are wondering whether they will be able to provide for themselves and their families in the future. That undermines a lot of the confidence people have in their government institutions and other institutions, be they trade unions or chambers of commerce. People are questioning whether these agencies, organizations and so on are able to provide for them as in the past.
There are four million Canadians who would normally be working at a decent job and who presently are not because they are either fully out of work, jobless, or they are significantly underemployed, working only a few hours a week. No wonder we have a deficit in this country. There are four million Canadians who are under-utilized in the work place, who are obviously not creating the revenues and paying the taxes they would want to be paying. The cost of unemployment insurance and various social service programs is tremendously draining on the federal government.
No wonder we have a deficit situation in this country. The best way to get Canada working is to get Canadians working. We should be taking major steps, such as we have seen other countries take, to ensure that Canadians are getting back to work.
Let us look at Japan for example. It recognized that its unemployment rate had skyrocketed to 3.5 per cent. The Government of Japan said that it had to do something about that. It introduced a massive program that would put Japanese men and women to work. It acknowledged that if people are working then they are paying taxes of all sorts and it is not costing the government revenues, unemployment insurance, welfare and the like.
So they have taken steps. Even President Clinton in the United States has decided to attempt to move a package through Congress again. Its sole purpose is to
June 16, 1993

provide employment, education and training for an increasing number of American men and women.
What are we doing? At the top of the list we have the NAFTA, this Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal. I do not want to be terribly simplistic about this but we are saying that we want to get into a situation in terms of continental North America in which our manufacturers, suppliers and producers are competing with someone in a country like Mexico which pays its employees 58 cents an hour.
It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what the implication of this is for the future of our country, to say nothing about the present. Let us think of the thousands of young people coming out of our school systems, colleges, technical schools, business schools, universities and so on who are now looking for gainful employment so they can play their rightful role in the development of this country.
They are now being confronted with a situation in which an employer who has a factory, plant, mill or processing system, whether it is data processing or processing lumber, now has a choice to make. The employer could locate the operation in Canada and pay $18 an hour, in the northern tier of the United States and pay $12 an hour for the same level of expertise or training, move it down to Louisiana, Mississippi or southern Texas and pay $7 an hour, or move it down over the Rio Grande and pay 58 cents an hour.
If one's job as an industrialist or a business person is to maximize the profits to one's shareholders and one could pay people $18 an hour or 58 cents an hour for similar skills then it does not take much imagination to know where one is going to move the operations. We do not have to do more than turn on our television sets and listen to Ross Perot in the United States. He is a multi-millionaire, a man who has made a small fortune, who when asked how he reacted to the NAFTA said that he could take his fortune and increase it five-fold in the next few years if he moved a good number of his operations into Mexico. If he could pay his employees 58 cents an hour with virtually no benefits then he could make a lot more money than he is now making in the United States.
He said that if the NAFTA is signed there will be a massive flushing sound as jobs are flushed from northern
Routine Proceedings
United States and Canada into Mexico. That is the reality.
We might say there are other benefits and so on but the reality is basically that we are being asked to tilt the playing field in Canada from wages of $18 an hour down to compete with somebody who is being paid 58 cents an hour. These are the extremes, but that is what we are up against.
We have already seen it. Previous speakers have indicated that since the free trade deal with the United States was introduced over 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost as plant operators, and we cannot blame them, moved their operations to the United States because there was no need to keep the branch plant in Canada open.
Let us face it. We are 48 hours by truck from the Mexican border, which means that any manufactured products can be delivered to Canada within 48 hours. That is the kind of continental system we are talking about. There were 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost. Many of those jobs will never come back.
We are talking about the future. What incentive will there be for a Canadian entrepreneur, a Canadian business person or a Canadian industrialist to locate their operation in Canada when they can locate it in the southern states or northern Mexico and pay their employees a third or a tenth of what they are paying here in Canada, knowing those finished products have full access throughout continental North America? There is very little incentive. That is the kind of legacy the present government is leaving us.
The other critical matter, and I cannot leave the discussion on the NAFTA without referring to it, is that there is no question when we look at that trade agreement that there are some areas of it from which the government has said that it wants to be excluded. Raw logs is one of them. In other words, we do not want to sell raw logs to the United States for processing. We do not want to send our raw logs to Mexico for processing. Raw logs are excluded.
There is another area that is excluded and that is unprocessed fish. On the east coast, Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec, unprocessed fish cannot be moved for processing down to the United States.

Routine Proceedings
Those are two items. The one item that is conspicuously absent is fresh water. Our lakes and rivers, in my judgment, are now for sale to the highest bidder, be that an American firm or in the future, a Mexican firm. Do we really want to sell this last resource as we would a chunk of coal or a piece of copper or a codfish?
Is water like that? I do not think it is. Water is life itself. We would be well advised, knowing the pressures that will be coming in the future as populations increase in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, to have as much influence as we can to ensure that those water resources are here for future generations of Canadians before we start giving it away or selling it off as simply another commodity.
Those people who say that water is not part of the NAFTA agreement are doing a real disservice to the people of Canada. Significantly the witnesses who appeared before the committee hearings, as limited as they were, were very clear that water is included. Some of the politicians across the way say it is not, but I will listen to the experts, particularly those experts in international trade.
I want to refer to one other item and that is the GST. The GST was introduced allegedly, at least this is what people were told, to reduce the deficit. The deficit has not been reduced. The deficit continues to be about the same as it was year after year after year.
The GST is doing something to the Canadian economy that I do not think we can stand by and passively ignore. The GST has turned into a virtual killer tax for small businesses. What is particularly bad about it is that small businesses are creating the jobs now and into the future. It is not the large corporations, not the Crown corporations, but those small businesses with 10, 20, 30 or 40 employees. That is where the jobs are. As more and more corporations recognize they are like lumbering dinosaurs in an ever-changing economy, they are hiving off more and more of their work to smaller firms or offshoots of their large corporate organizations.
That is where the jobs of the future are and yet small business is being absolutely smothered by the GST. Not only that, because of the GST there is not a single member of Parliament in here who does not know that the underground economy now is growing because of it.
The whole tax system is bizarre, but the GST now has driven even more of the economy underground.
The last guesstimate I heard at a finance conference in Toronto recently is that about $100 billion annual transactions are in underground economy transactions and therefore untaxed. If that is accurate or even in the ball park, that is the deficit. Under normal taxation levels, if that underground economy was brought up on the table to be taxed as we do all business transactions, that would take care of the deficit.
More and more Canadians now are in a barter system, are paying cash for building a new house or a new cottage. I just talked to two or three people within the last week who are having houses built and paying cash for almost all of the construction because it saves them, they feel, about 25 to 30 per cent on a brand new house. Of course none of that is taxed.
People say: "If you do not have the GST, where are you going to get the money?" It is a very legitimate question.
Let me give two or three examples. One is this family trust notion. I do not know how my colleagues across the way actually passed that, but when that family trust tax provision went to the finance committee, I went to that committee meeting because I just could not believe it was as bad as people were saying it was. The tax experts said they could not believe the government was doing this. It is a giveaway to the richest families in this country, where they are able to avoid taxes for an entire generation.
Is that the kind of taxes we want? Why would the government include that kind of a tax provision? But they did. How many billions of dollars are going untaxed because of that provision alone?
What about a wealth tax? The other day on the business pages of The Globe and Mail, one of the major bonding firms was saying that we are one of the few countries in the western world that does not have a wealth tax so that those people who inherit, say, $10 million dollars should pay some tax on it.
Virtually every country in the world does that except Canada. Who inherits $10 million? It goes back to the very wealthiest families and they get this windfall tax break. We could go through our tax system right now,
June 16, 1993

look at those tax loopholes, loophole after loophole, and start closing them off.
When we go to the stadiums around the country and see those big boxes filled with people having a few drinks, eating little sandwiches and so on, having free tickets, those are all tax deductions. Why should the people who are working be paying for their tickets to the football game, the hockey game, or baseball game and some people sit up in the big boxes all tax free, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada? Why would we allow that to happen and to continue year after year?
Obviously we need to do a number of things. We need to re-examine the GST and find ways of replacing it within our existing tax system through proper tax reform. I believe we have to abandon this notion of NAFTA before we lose everything that makes any sense in terms of future jobs for our young people and their children of the future.
We obviously have to be cognizant of the fact that our health care system is at extreme risk to a certain extent because of the off-loading the federal government has been doing. In my judgment it has not been paying its fair share toward the establishment and maintenance of a health care system that is universal across Canada so that the same service would exist in P.E.I., Manitoba or British Columbia. It is in danger of changing. We are soon going to find we have 12 different health care systems as opposed to one if we are not careful.
If there is one thing we must do in the future it is to acknowledge the fact that the most important people in this country are young people and those people that are working to upgrade, reskill and improve themselves in order to play their rightful role in the economy. That means post-secondary education. That means our colleges, vocational schools, universities, business schools and so on, which allow Canadians to improve their skills and their ability to compete locally and internationally. We must place more emphasis on the whole area that we generally call post-secondary education. That simply means more financial support and perhaps using what existing financial support we have in a better and smarter way.
In closing I simply want to say those are the last few hours of this session of the House of Commons. The next time we come together will be after the general election. The people of Canada will have a chance to
Routine Proceedings
evaluate what the various political parties put forward during the election campaign and to be part of that great process that we call democracy. Thank goodness we have such a process.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I feel privileged to rise and speak on this adjournment motion on the last day of this Parliament and on my last day here as a legislator, having spent some 14 years in that capacity.
On the one hand when I listen to the members who have retired from the classes of '72 and '68, the ones who have been here 25 years, 14 years seems like a very short period. Maybe I should be running again. On the other hand when I realize that the average tenure of a member of Parliament is less than five years, 14 years seems like a long time and 25 years seems like forever.
If I might I could spend my whole time rebutting the points made the hon. member for Kamloops. In fact I could give his speech, never as good as he does, but I could give all of the points he has made because he makes them again and again and again. He continues to make those points in spite of the fact that they have been carefully answered to the fullest extent and to show that they are simply not correct. But I will not do that.
Suffice to say with respect to the comments that my friend from Kamloops has made, Canada has to decide If we want to be part of the global world economy, which we must as a trading nation when over one-third of our income comes from global trade, or whether we want to be a little island of 26 million people with a wall of China around us. Canadians know instinctively that we cannot isolate ourselves and have the high standard of living we have.
In the election in Alberta the New Democratic Party was entirely shut out. It did not get one seat. That is simply a reflection of how well the ordinary citizen understands the difference between the socialist philosophy and how that reflects itself in the reality of their lives having seen what has occurred in B.C., Saskatchewan and particularly in Ontario.
I am confident that Canadians, when they get to an election, will once again choose a Progressive Conservative government because in fact, like the distinguished member for Calgary Centre, we face facts. We make

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings

decisions based on the reality of today rather than on some ephemeral idealistic socialistic view of the world.
I am here first of all to express my thanks to the electors and citizens of Lethbridge and southwestern Alberta who by their votes have permitted me the privilege of being their representative here in Ottawa for the last 14 years. They did so in four general elections and they returned me with majorities each time. For that I thank them.
You will notice, Madam Speaker, that I used the word representative because to me that is a special word as compared to the word delegate. I have never believed that I was a delegate with an obligation to go home and to try by some mechanism to decide what a majority of my electors from Lethbridge would want to do. That is what a delegate would do and would come down like a machine and cast a ballot.
No, no. A member of Parliament is a representative. I represent that area. But I am a member who speaks for all of Canada and must consider the interests, the judgment and particularly the points of view of other Canadians. A representative has an obligation of course to listen to the views, the opinions and the judgment of one's electors. One has an obligation though to listen to the views expressed by other members of Parliament who themselves have been elected by 100,000-plus people and come with a different perspective.
The big difference in our country now, Madam Speaker, as you so well know is no longer Catholic, Protestant, French, English, Quebec, the rest of Quebec. The big differences now are people who come from large metropolitan areas and those of us who come from smaller cities and people who come from the rural parts of Canada. That is the adjustment, the compromise and the consideration that we have to spend a lot of time on as members.
We also as members and representatives have an obligation to read about the topic in the legislation we are faced with and to study the issue and then face the ultimate responsibility to make a judgment call and to act in the best interest of all of Canada.
I have been very proud to be a representative and even though I have made decisions that many people in my riding have been opposed to, most of them have come
and said that I have been a reasonable representative and have acted fairly in the interest of the country.
Another word of thanks would be to my staff who over a period of 14 years have served me very well. I cannot name them all but there are a few who I would like to mention. Mrs. Sheelagh Brown served on this Hill many years before I came and continued with me for many years as did Mr. Robert Harrison. Mr. James Christie has worked many years in the riding. Those people face a particular problem because all of the anger and the unhappiness of people tends to be focused upon our staff. Mr. Jamie Christie has served me so very well in that capacity. Mr. David Robins, Mr. Darrell Pack, Mrs. Kathy Dedo-Markus, Ms. Cathy Tron, my present staff in Ottawa, Anne Lanier, Alan Andron, Bridget Pastor Jr. and Meagan Thompson have all worked hard not only for me but for the best interest of the people of Lethbridge. For that I thank them.
What can I say in summary? It is certainly better to win than to lose and I have done both. It is better to be in government than it is to be in opposition and I have been in both. The reason it is better to be in government is that you can, even as an individual member of Parliament, have an influence and change the legislation and the policy of this country. Even when you make a mistake, and we have made a few, you can regroup in the morning and come back and try to do better because you still have the power.
As a westerner I can remember when I first came here. We had three traditional beefs that we were all raised upon and fed with at the knees of our grandfathers, grandmothers and our parents. One was the manufacturing tariffs that it was felt in the west put an unfair burden upon us because most of the manufacturing products came out of central Canada. There is quite a bit of mythology around that and factually often it is not correct. But that was the mythology. Now they are all gone and we do not have that historic complaint in the west. That will go a long way toward making us feel more and more like we are part of the whole country.
Transportation inequities. We always heard how we had to pay the freight on the raw products leaving the prairies and on the manufactured goods coming back. Over the last few years we have had a very sophisticated



June 16, 1993

manufacturing sector in the west and the transportation inequities have been substantially done away with. For example, the cost of shipping on the railways has dropped some 27 per cent since 1984. That is very helpful to us. The tariffs which are essentially taxes upon our own people are now largely a thing of the past.
With regard to the lack of continental marketing, from western Canada there was a lot of support for the Liberal Party when it was the party that wanted to get into laissez faire in free trade agreements in continental marketing. That was the traditional Liberal position. The Conservative Party opposed it because the Conservative Party was so locked into its trade links and its idea of being part of the British Empire that the Conservative Party opposed free trade again and again. That was never in the interest of western Canada.
I have been proud to be part of a government that had the courage to face it, take the hard decisions and then go to the people and actually win. In my judgment the last act of emancipation of Canadians which freed us up as a true country and nation in the world was the reaffirmation of free trade where they returned us to power having put that to them. Canada truly grew up when we realized we were part of the world and could face the world under a free trade agreement.
On an entirely personal basis, I want to say how much I enjoyed working on the policy and the legislative end, whether that was in transportation, justice or a little bit in agriculture. I really thank the Prime Minister for giving me interesting assignments as a committee member, as chairman of standing committees and legislative committees and two parliamentary secretaryships. The access to information and privacy report which we put in a number of years ago will one day come to be seen by parliamentarians as the basis for making changes to those statutes. I sat on a task force that reviewed national security which gave me a very interesting perspective of this country and more recently a report involved in the recodification of the Criminal Code.
I also want to thank the Prime Minister for the national leadership that he has provided on federal-provincial relations, on fiscal matters and on social matters. I am firmly convinced that history will vindicate the positions that he took and will see him in the proper
Routine Proceedings
light. I must say that of all his strengths intellectually and on the issues, he never lost sight of the fact that we were his caucus.
You will know, Madam Speaker, that I had an operation in 1990. I was recovering during the Christmas period. On Boxing Day, lo and behold the telephone rang. I just picked it up in the normal course and it was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was personally calling a backbencher who is not important at all in the scheme of things day to day, but he was concerned enough that he phoned. I thought that was quite a wonderful thing.
My only regret is the treatment that the national media have given because they really refused in the case of our Prime Minister to give a balanced presentation of his persona.
If they had done that, had they even just been fair, he would have been around here for many more years because he had so much more to give.
This brings me to my last issue and it relates to the role of the media. It is not I think for Parliament to do anything about it but I believe the national press gallery has to somehow come together and set up a governing body and a disciplining body where they can bring some internal self-control and discipline upon themselves.
Regretfully I have noticed that over the last 14 years they have become highly destructive toward the public life of this nation. They have focused on personal traits of members of Parliament and other people in positions of responsibility in this nation. These are personal traits that are largely irrelevant to their ability to govern the nation. In short, they have been unbalanced and they have been unfair.
As I say the solution is not a statutory matter but a question of professional discipline. As better and more educated people go into journalism and aspire to a higher professional standard of journalism that should stress balanced reporting, both sides of the story, fairness and more than anything else relevancy to the issue at hand. At that time I believe the public life of the nation will be much better.
In conclusion, I am proud to have been a politician.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, this is a bit of an historic day I guess for anybody who is watching. We are all guessing because it will be up to the new Prime Minister once she is sworn in to decide when this place finally does adjourn for good and when to have a general election.
I think for anybody who has listened to the debate that this is the day a lot of members of this place are giving their speeches. Indeed Mr. Paproski yesterday as a matter of fact had many tributes paid to him for his long service to this place and for the friendship and for the changes that he brought to this place.
Before I start I would like to say for the record that Steve Paproski, if I can be so bold as to break the rules, is one of those rare individuals who actually has some influence on rookies coming into this place. As Acting Speaker, Mr. Paproski was helpful many times in this place by the way that he handled himself and the way that he allowed some of us newer guys to sometimes bend the rules but never quite break them. He sent over little notes to try to tell us how we might be able to do it a little better the next time. He was certainly helpful to me. It is a pleasure to have served with somebody of that stature.
When I learned that Mr. Paproski was not going to be here again it caused me a little concern. He is the type of individual who certainly has brought a lot to this place and has brought a lot of respect here and I will certainly miss him from here. I wish him the best.
Today the debate is on something else. This is the adjournment debate. The adjournment debate that we are talking about is really about the government's record. This may be the last time that many people get to speak in this place. Certainly it is probably the last time in this Parliament that most of us wall get to speak in this place.
It is a time for reflection. Almost five years ago the previous government went to the polls and we had a general election. We had the great Canadian debate about free trade. During that debate people took sides. It was an emotional argument. Many times the facts just did not make any difference. Nevertheless we had a national election campaign in which people felt very strongly about the issue of free trade.
The government opposite had campaigned that free trade would not only open up the United States market to our producers and to our products but would lead us to unprecedented growth in this country. By unfettered access to U.S. markets everything would be well again.
The Prime Minister of today said: "Please forgive me because when I ran in 1984 and promised jobs, jobs, jobs I really did not know how to provide them. However now the panacea is going to be the free trade deal with the United States".
I fought hard against that deal almost five years ago because I am a free trader and I believe that the deal that had been negotiated by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's cabinet was a bad deal for Canada. I believe that that deal did not have the safety nets in it necessary to allow Canadian industry to develop and prosper so that the best interests of the people of Canada would be looked after.
Lo and behold, almost five years later what do we have? We have our manufacturing sector in Canada, primarily in southern Ontario, the economic engine of this country, laid to waste. There has been an economic disaster in the manufacturing sector with more than
400,000	jobs lost in that sector alone.
So much for free trade. I think if the Canadian public could have a go at it again and roll back to that great debate there would be no question of the outcome and there would be no question as to the survivability of that particular deal.
Shortly after getting elected as a member from Atlantic Canada-from Dartmouth-I came to this place to try to represent the best interests of the people in my riding, region and nation as a whole. One of the underlying foundations of this country has been a belief-our country was founded on this-that everybody in this country, no matter where they live, should have a reason to expect that they can share in the collective wealth of this country.
Successive governments since Confederation have worked toward that particular underlying principle of nationhood. What we have done over and over again was to say that it did not matter if one lived in Saskatchewan during the dirty 1930s, it did not matter if one was in the dust bowl during the times of drought and it did not matter if one was in Atlantic Canada or northern
June 16, 1993

Ontario when the economy went down. The Government of Canada has a fundamental responsibility to interfere if necessary in the free flow of capital and goods and money in this country to equalize opportunity.
That is why we are different than the United States. It is because we believe fundamentally that that is our right and indeed the requirement of governments.
We have a thing called regional development in this country and it has not always worked. I agree with that. Some of the programs that we have put in place to try to deliver the policy of regional development have been absolute disasters.
However starting in about 1987 we saw this government beginning to move away from a commitment to regional development. It basically said that if it did not make absolute economic sense today then it would withdraw from it. In the first budget after this bunch got back in in 1988 the government started to retrench from its commitment to regional development.
We used to have economic regional development agreements. They were called ERDAs. They were agreements between the federal Government of Canada and the provincial governments for veiy special cost-sharing programs to develop the silviculture industry in a place like Nova Scotia, mineral exploration and development agreements and fisheries development agreements. These are types of things that will create wealth and employment opportunity in our regions.
These were programs that were negotiated between the two levels of government to try to ensure that the necessity of equalizing opportunity in this country took place. However between 1984 and 1989-90 this government refused to renegotiate $1.44 billion in regional development agreements with places like Newfoundland-before the fishery was destroyed-or Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. It removed $1.44 billion from an economy of only 2.4 million people. Yet it said it was committed to regional development.
I was the ACOA critic. My colleague from Central Nova on the front benches opposite was the minister. I have no doubt in my mind that his effort was in earnest and his intention was honest in trying at that cabinet table to promote the real interests of Atlantic Canadians.
Private Members' Business
However, he presided over drastic cuts to the ACOA budget. With ACOA there was great fanfare and $1.05 billion. It was going to replace the other regional development programs that had been in place. But we saw in its first two budgets that this government cut back the money and stretched it out by an extra two years.


An hon. member:: Reprofiled.


Ronald MacDonald: It reprofiled, as the minister said. Somebody in this House suggested that the minister should be reprofiled himself for his lack of ability to protect the interests of Atlantic Canadians.
Take the port of Halifax. Dartmouth is on the shores-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but it being 7 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


James Ross Fulton: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider establishing the public right to sue government institutions for failure to protect the environment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on four occasions this week I have given speeches and on leaving the Chamber I had my hand shaken as members said: "That was a great speech. It is good to see you go, pal".
I am reasonably certain that this is my last speech, this being the last order of business. I am honoured to have the opportunity to move the last motion to be debated in this 34th Parliament particularly as it concerns an area and a topic very close to my heart. That is protecting the environment.
The motion to establish the public right to sue government institutions for failure to protect the environment is something we have long needed. I will demonstrate in the next 20 minutes why the House should, as soon as it

Private Members' Business
resumes sitting, pass legislation in order to have this occur.
The intent is to protect and conserve the ecological systems of Canada, obviously not all of them entirely intact in their wilderness state, but certainly to maintain them in an ecologically functioning state. This is something we know is not occurring with the contamination of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence, the Fraser River and most of the fresh water systems in Canada. There is contamination even into the Arctic, into the polar bear populations and so on.
Only those in this House needing remedial education would fail to realize that we are on the brink of a precipice. We must turn away from the kind of institutional operation I have seen here for more than 14 years and that we see throughout the whole of this country and around the world.
The principle that would be invoked by this opportunity to sue government institutions for failure to protect the environment is that it would promote environmentally sound decision making. That is something one does not find in government departments or on the floor of this House.
It would facilitate meaningful public involvement, something that does not occur in this country. We do not have the well-funded and well-integrated environmental organizations and foundations that the United States and other countries have. Our environmental organizations are small. They are poorly funded and are certainly excluded from the political and institutional decision making.
It will provide for government accountability, something which there is little if any of at the moment. It will protect intact every ecosystem in Canada through the development of an environmental registry. I recall recently a witness before a committee said that if you have a dream and you have a timetable, then you have a plan.
With this motion I am suggesting the dream of a protected ecosystem for the whole planet. A timetable was attempted to be put in place at the world summit in Rio a year ago. Regrettably that was not adopted by the major developing or developed countries in this world. We have to hope that at least Rio triggered a new
political awakening. It certainly has not triggered a new environmental consciousness as yet.
This proposal would trigger reviews. It would give the public the opportunity to get involved. It would trigger investigations. It would provide a trigger for public prosecutions. Most particularly, it would provide for access to the courts and the potential for not only the polluter to pay, but for the regulator and the enforcer to pay. Of course it is the government itself that is responsible for most of the lax regulation and lax enforcement and the destruction of our environment.
Before carrying on with the specifics of this motion, I would like to take a moment to thank the many people in my constituency for sending me here and for helping me here and in the constituency. They know who they are and I am grateful. I also thank my staff here in the House of Commons and in the constituency for the endless hours of diligent support they have provided to me.
For my education in politics and in life skills I thank my father Blair and mother Margaret who live in Vancouver and put up with a wild and almost always thankless son. Their support has been total and that has made me a proud son.
For putting up with the endless hours of travel, late nights and stress, I thank my wife Elizabeth. She has borne the brunt of this job and has borne two wonderful children along the way, our son Blair who is now 11 and our daughter Katie who is 9.1 plan in the years ahead to make up for the parenting they have missed in the busy parliamentary years since 1979.
It is for the love of family, friends, constituency, this great country and this wonderful planet that I have served and I am proud for having done so.
This motion is an attempt to put in perspective a monitoring process for government institutions to provide for the enforcement of laws and regulations that have been passed by legislatures of this country and to speed a new process.
There is significant non-compliance with regulations and laws to protect the environment and this is epidemic in Canada. I recall only two years ago in British Columbia that in some areas of the province more than 80 per cent of certain types of waste disposal and waste discharge permits had been in significant non-compliance
June 16, 1993

by large industry for more than a year. Giant corporations like the Alcan Corporation were simply flouting the law. Any fines they would get were simply considered to be the cost of doing business. That is no way for Canada's environment to survive.
Let me give another example right in the backyard of Parliament. A company by the name of Tioxide has just closed, one of the worst toxic contaminators of the entire St. Lawrence system. Over the last 10 years its operations in Europe have been under intense scrutiny and regulation by the governments in Europe. It has recently been given environmental awards for being so environmentally appropriate. Elere in Canada because of significant non-compliance, lax enforcement and weak-willed politicians it remained one of the worst polluters in Canada. When it was actually told to start cleaning up even a little bit, it simply shut its doors, gave the flying fickle finger of fate to Canada and moved its operations offshore.
That will continue to happen if we go the route of the North American free trade agreement, which my friend from Kamloops touched upon. Environmental standards will go to the lowest common denominator on the continent if that piece of legislation regrettably gets through in a majority Liberal or Conservative government coming to power later in 1993. The North American free trade agreement stands as the largest single danger that has ever been considered to the environment of North America.
Overwhelmingly Liberals and Conservatives are opposed to full cost accounting and in fact I must say many New Democrats are as well, principally as a result of misinformation within society generally.
Let us look at the integrated vertical ownership and structure of the media in this country which is in the hands of people like Conrad Black. Noam Chomsky has been mentioning this for years in his books, such as Manufacturing Consent. If we allow the private sector with certain vested interests to take raw resources and to use the environment simply as a waste disposal area and to sacrifice labour and if those same integrated economic interests control radio, television, newspapers and magazines, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the likelihood of having an educated population able
Private Members' Business
to fight for their own rights and able to protect the environment is close to zero.
I regret to say that in the 14 years I have been here I have seen a continual and dismal decline in the coverage of environmental issues in this country by what is described as the mainstream media.
That includes the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation where since it was taken over by the Progressive Conservative Party as a mini Senate the control of the media is obvious to anyone who wants to look. It is not the issues and how they cover them, it is the issues that are chosen to be covered which is where the CBC management, the Tory management, managed to manipulate Canadians into thinking that everything is nice and warm and okay when it comes to the environment.
Regrettably it is only when there are disasters and catastrophes that we get a response from this House. There has to be a Nestucca spill or an Exxon Valdez or a tire fire before governments leap to action and enforcement agencies start to lay the plethora of charges they have at their fingertips.
Our environment continues to decline because those who believe that the institutional approach we are taking is working are those who believe that the solution to pollution is dilution which is the ultimate ironic lie. Those who believe that resources are solely for exploitation and not for protection and conservation are of a similar mindset. They are the same people who believe that the externalization of waste is of no cost or concern. Their eyes are only drawn to the balance sheet and the balance sheet of the world is already demonstrating as we know.
Just today while we give these speeches to close the House for this 34th Parliament, 40,000 children on this planet will die of preventable disease. Yet there is so little being done in this country to deal with that or many of the other crises that the planet faces. Naturally the environment will decline into the foreseeable future while Canadians are offered the existing political system in its unbalanced form as their only option based on go-for-it policies, election after election.
We heard a moment ago from a member from Alberta who said how great it is that the New Democrats have been wiped out in Alberta and Mr. Klein is now the

June 16, 1993
Private Members' Business
premier of Alberta. I was bom in Alberta and regret to see what has happened there. One need only look at the rate of increase in the debt and the rate of exploitation of resources in that province to know that those who voted Tory again and elected a majority Tory government are opting for more of the same policies. There will be more of the gouging, destruction, abuse and over-exploitation of the Alberta environment for the now generation, never thinking of the future generations and that incredible environment that is being destroyed and pulped up for foreign benefit, foreign profit and to increase the debt of those who are now being bom in Alberta.
Let us think for example of another area where litigation would help if my motion was put into law. In 1987 the Prime Minister of this country and President Reagan of the United States signed into law a binding accord in terms of the Great Lakes that there would be zero tolerance and zero discharge of toxins into the Great Lakes. Here we are six years later and on every single day in every single year the amount of toxins going in has continued. The level of enforcement has been zero. That is the only zero that has come in this equation. The Love Canal is still there, the toxins are still pouring in from the U.S. side of the Niagara escarpment and the toxins have continued to pour through the St. Clair and other Canadian systems into the Great Lakes.
If we start to give some kinds of tools and powers back to the Canadian public and the people of this world to hold institutions accountable on a daily basis, we can go back to what we require which is full cost accounting. We need to know the real cost, not just of taking water out of a river. When Alcan takes all but 14 per cent of the water out of the Nechako, we need to know not just what the effect of taking that water out will be in running it down the Kemano River. We also need to know the full cost impact. What is the impact down the Fraser system? What is the impact on the Fraser River estuary, the Gulf of Georgia, the microclimates on the way down the Fraser? If we lower Hell's Gate by three feet by giving Alcan the power it wants to sell and export, what are the impacts on cattlemen who live along the plateau along the Fraser who want to pump water to feed their stock?
What are all the impacts on other future potential developments? Without full cost accounting those on the inside track are the only beneficiaries. Future generations and entire ecosystems are the losers.
The public must be given the right to sue government institutions that fail to protect the environment. Political decisions must carry time, space and reality-measured price tags and at the moment they do not carry any of those.
As I leave this institution I can comment as someone who has worked hard in committee and on the floor of the House. I can say that the institution itself is out of step and direction with sustainable development. Maurice Strong, the chair of the world summit on environment in Rio was on the radio earlier today and confirmed my observation that we continue to hurtle institutionally toward extinction as though we did not know it.
This institution is not operating on full cost accounting and when I speak of the institution I do not speak solely of the institution of Parliament. I speak of all parts of the federal government, the provincial governments and the territorial governments responsible for the public interest. These institutions are not operating on full cost accounting nor is any legislature at the moment on earth, but there is no excuse for continuing on the road to an uninhabitable earth.
I am deeply grateful to my father Blair for educating me about real life and teaching me to understand that real politics is the politics of sharing and caring for all that is about us: people as well as birds, wildlife, clean water and clear mountain air. They have passed the torch to me and although I have made many friends here and both won and lost many major battles, I regret to report to them, my family, my constituents and all Canadians that we are losing the ecological gifts we inherited from time immemorial.
Our environment is a living universal memory and wilderness is our window back to the universe. We diminish ourselves when we diminish the natural world. As the list of endangered species of plants and animals grows in Canada and across the planet we must ask how we can stop this.
June 16, 1993

Parks and conservation are merely holdout pockets. It is a new way of politics and thinking that we need. We know the causes of our problems and we know some of the effects but what about simple things such as global warming? It is the butt of jokes on most late night talk shows on television in the winter time, whether it is someone from Chicago saying: "I wish that global warming was here" or someone in the Canadian north saying "I wish we had more global warming this winter".
I sat for several years on a committee in this House and spent almost $1 million of public money looking into the issue of global warming. Our committee composed of Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats came to a unanimous conclusion that global warming poses a greater threat to the people of Canada and the people of the world than anything other than all out nuclear war.
What has this 34th Parliament of Canada under our eighteenth Prime Minister done? We had a promise that greenhouse gases would be stabilized at 1990 levels by the year 2000. That promise was made two years ago and the studies are now in. Some of them are hidden by Energy, Mines and Resources but some have trickled their way into the public. It is now expected that we will be 13 per cent above 1990 levels by the year 2000.
This is a government response. This is an institutional response without a peep from most members of Parliament. It is a threat that is second only to all out nuclear war and we are doing nothing. The Pacific Ocean where I live has already started to rise and no one seems to care about it.
I leave one germinal idea, one seminal idea as one of the last speakers in this Parliament to speak on a motion. I hope the next Parliament takes the environment far more seriously than this one did and actually does something about the big issues such as global warming, ozone depletion and massive deforestation that are now starting to affect not only my province but other areas of the country. I hesitate to sound too negative or unhappy but I must reflect about how this institution could change for my constituents and Canadians in these last moments I have.
Private Members' Business
My first suggestion was to give Canadians the tools and the opportunity to sue government institutions that fail to protect the environment because they are the regulators. Too many times in my life as a politician I have seen the Department of Fisheries and Oceans fail to prosecute themselves, fail to enforce and uphold regulations and statutes passed by this place.
Certainly we can continue to have the benches here and continue to elect people from constituencies, but if we fail to become more organic and more in touch with what is going on in the world around us there will not be a world.
People like David Suzuki and others who say this is the turn around decade are not fools. The scientists we all listened to in Rio are not fools. It is the unanimous opinion of the most senior scientists on this planet that we must turn around this decade and make a change to full cost accounting and sustainable development.
In closing I thank the pages and the staff of the House. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary library, the security staff and all those who have worked in this place in the years that I have been here, and in particular the Table who I have harassed many times over the years on matters sometimes trifling and sometimes not. It has been an honour to have worked here.
I wish those who are re-elected here and those who still serve the very best. They deserve luck.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to speak on the motion but to say a few words about the mover of the motion.
Today has been a day of tributes to many members. The member for Skeena will not be re-offering, as they say out east, but has chosen to move on with his life. I want to say a few words on behalf of my caucus and Canadians about Jim Fulton.
We have clearly heard in the last couple of minutes his passion for the environment. There is no question about his commitment to making this country and this planet a place that will survive. But he has also fought hard for justice for the aboriginal peoples. He has fought hard for Canada to keep it Canada. He has been involved for many, many years with the Canadian-U.S. parliamentary association. He has taken the issues into the United

June 16, 1993
Private Members' Business
States or brought American legislators into Canada to talk about the issues that affect us on both sides of the border. I can remember a number of times when he said 54:40 or fight in caucus. He had a passion for matters that affected us.
I want to say thanks to Jim Fulton on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of this House and on behalf of the NDP caucus. I also want to say thanks to Liz and the kids for loaning Jim to us for awhile. There are a few of us who recognize that there is a time to move on and get back into the family which Jim has done. He has made the decision that he wants to spend some time with his kids while they are still kids and while he can still know them.
Mr. Speaker, if I can say through you to Liz and the kids, we want him back after awhile. We want him to seek a new mandate four years from now or eight years from now because he has a lot of intelligence, a lot of knowledge and a lot of heart which is part of what makes this place work so well and part of what makes this country so great.
I am pleased to be able to say that Jim Fulton is a friend, although quite frankly as Whip of my caucus there were times when he has driven me not just to distraction but beyond it. In fact I am told that a previous Whip actually had to call Air Canada to prevent Jim Fulton from getting on a plane one day when he was supposed to be back here for a vote. I have never had to take those steps although I have grabbed him by the ear or the scruff of the neck to say: "Jimmy, what are you up to?" But he is a friend and we are all going to miss him and we all say thanks.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this private member's motion, but before I do that I want to pay tribute in perhaps a different kind of way or maybe the same way, to the same member. With respect to the statement that was just made inviting him to come back I would just as soon invite him to stay home thank you very much because he was a very formidable opponent.
I distinctly recall one evening when we had the opportunity to debate one another. We then met in our lobby. I will not say in very much detail what was said but whatever was said caused us both to smile, to understand
one another, to acknowledge one another and to form a bit of bond at that particular time. I do share an appreciation for the contribution that the member for Skeena has made.
When the member from Skeena was talking about his two children it reminded me as well of my own family situation. I was the mayor of the capital city of Saskatchewan for nine years. I saw three children bom in my house but with the pressures of that particular elected job I was not able to grow with them in spite of the fact I was home practically every night.
In that way I can relate to not only his problem but to the problem of every member of Parliament who has children and people they are close to at home. They spend some pretty ridiculous hours that the public is not aware of. They may view this Chamber through the eye of television periodically and see some of the chairs busy. They want to know how come I was not in the House of Commons at a particular time. I have to take the time to explain to them all the committees that members sit on and how busy they are.
It certainly is a void in terms of the public understanding the efforts that members of Parliament go through. I want to again acknowledge the hon. member for Skeena. I want to say that I appreciate the love and affection his family has obviously given him so that he can be the formidable opponent that he is.
I have another task as well while I am on my feet. Unfortunately that is to speak to this private member's motion because I would like to speak about the contribution that members of Parliament make to this great place. I must speak to the motion to express some concerns.
As we have heard earlier the hon. member for Skeena has provided us with a private member's motion that calls upon the government to consider establishing the public right to sue government institutions for failure to protect the environment.
On its face I think that all members can share the underlying concern that is expressed in this motion. We can and do agree that the law has to be marshalled to support and enhance environmental protection not only in Canada but everywhere. We can and we do further agree that the law as it stands can be improved and should be supplemented where it is inadequate.
June 16, 1993

Private Members' Business
Certainly where the environment is concerned governments have a leading role to play in a partnership with a corporate world and the public as a whole. What does this motion precisely propose? Although the exact wording is a little confusing I think it seeks legislation that would do two things. In the first place it would create some kind of positive obligation on the part of every unit of government, department, agency, branch or what have you to ensure that its decisions or actions do not produce harmful environmental effects.
Second, the motion would give standing to any member of the public to sue the responsible government body where any such governmental act, decision or omission had occurred resulting in a harmful environmental effect.
These are quite radical proposals which must be carefully looked at even if the ultimate goal they seek to achieve is unquestionably admirable. I suggest that there are major problems with this proposal. In the first place there was an absolutist ideology attached to the hon. member's motion that any activity or omission on the part of the Crown resulting in a failure to protect the environment would be actionable.
What exactly would that include? Would it include a decision by the Minister of Communications under the Radiocommunication Act to issue a technical certificate allowing a company to set up a television transmitter in a specific location where it would entail chopping down a few trees? What if those trees are on the company's own property? What if the trees were dead and needed to be cut down anyway? Are we heading off in the direction of turning a governmental failure to protect the environment into some kind of tort. If so what is the duty of care on the part of the Crown here and what standard of care is to be applied?
One thing I am afraid of is that if this motion is given effect it would take Crown liability way beyond what it is today and make virtually any decision of a government body vulnerable to a civil action.
Over the last 10 or 15 years the courts have struggled with just such a question pertaining to the exercise of public functions mostly at the municipal level.
In their wisdom the courts have distinguished between policy decisions on one hand and operational decisions on the other. The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that the courts have consistently refused to attach liability to the policy decisions. Among other things, government bodies are required to make choices as to public priorities, how the hierarchy of public policy interest is to be arrayed, how public money is to be spent or how scarce resources are to be allocated.
These questions are the essence of government. These are what we elect politicians to decide on. They are beyond the reach of the courts which is the way I believe it should be.
I mention this because I am fearful that in its fervour to enhance environmental protection the end result of this motion will be to paralyze governmental bodies in terms of performing their functions and fulfilling their mandates.
Speaking of mandates, I think that the hon. member simply does not realize that one effect of his motion will be to force environmental protection, whatever that means, to be written into the mandate of every functioning federal entity. Legally this will be necessary if environmental considerations are to become a valid and enforceable concern of the Minister of Communications or the CRTC or the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board or the Civil Aviation Tribunal and so on.
The motion further raises some constitutional concerns which I am afraid need to be addressed. Our Constitution Act does not assign environmental protection exclusively, either to the federal government in criminal law or banking or navigation and shipping for example, or to the provinces. Environmental protection is a shared responsibility between both levels of government. One obvious implication of this is the absolute necessity of extensive co-operation and consultation between the federal government and the provinces in this field.
I would therefore suggest that it would not be appropriate for either level of government to introduce radical changes in the law pertaining to the environment and environmental protection without prior discussion and consultation.

June 16, 1993
Private Members' Business
I could exhaust all my time simply cataloguing what I see as serious legal problems posed by this motion. However as a general comment I would suggest that the absolutist view underlying this motion categorically rules out any legitimate competing value or interest which the government has to consider in all matters, including matters affecting the environment.
I am talking about such things as sustainable development, economic growth and competitiveness which are important aspects of public policy. These are matters that simply cannot be swept aside or ignored in the real world.
Environmental protection is a noble cause within the framework of the balancing of many different public policy goals. I am sure my hon. friend knows this but he appears to have momentarily forgotten this in putting his motion forward in its present form.
I should say that there are aspects of this motion that I like in principle. For example I am not in principle against empowering individuals with private rights that they can assert against the Crown and the courts. I do not think that the Crown should be given immunity that would shield it from civil liability in relation to conduct that is damaging to individuals. The hon. member surely knows that both common law and civil law already allow private resources against the party responsible for a spill or other environmental event producing actual injury or damage to property or other private interest.
This can include government bodies where they are actually responsible for a spill or other environmental tort. It is not in my view good legal policy to use private remedies to enforce public interests such as environmental protection which is exactly what this motion appears to propose.
At whose cost will these private remedies be asserted? Does the hon. member think that individuals are going to be willing to bear the costs of litigation in suing government bodies for torts before the courts if his motion is turned into law?
Is there an assumption that some kind of government program would fund court challenges? Although nothing is mentioned about this, I suspect that such a program is part of this deal. If we can sort out the implicit question of funding, what nature of lawsuit does the hon. member
have in mind in empowering individuals to sue the actions, damages and injunctions et cetera of government bodies?
Perhaps a better legal approach in this area lies in strengthening and where appropriate expanding the licensing and regulatory mechanisms for environmental protection which place a positive obligation on both the governments and the public. This is backed by enforceable legal recourse including penal sanctions.
To sum up, the motion while admirable and objective is flawed in design. Although all of us are desirous of creating a legal environment that puts environmental protection up there at the top it behooves us not to fall prey to solutions such as just simply suing the government which is what is being proposed here. They look good on paper and from a distance but when more closely examined they are not solutions at all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of Motion No. 323 presented in the name of the hon. member for Skeena:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider
establishing the public right to sue government institutions for failure
to protect the environment.
In a sense this is a litmus test of whether or not the government believes in environmental protection. This is the test that my hon. friend from Skeena has put forward to see whether or not the government actually believes in ensuring that environmental issues are kept front and foremost in the years ahead.
I find it is interesting that my friends on the government side have said that they cannot support this motion. There is the government support of the James Bay project and all of the environmental holocaust that will result in that type of development. There was its support of Hibernia where oil wells are set out in the stream of icebergs floating south. There was the Oldman River dam project, the various diversion projects on the prairies, the diversion of the Nechako River and Kemano II.
If there has been a single individual who has stood up time and time again to represent the environment of Canada, it has been the hon. member for Skeena. The member and his colleagues have been relentless in their
June 16, 1993

support of ecological and environmental issues that have been presented to this House.
I say with some disappointment that time and time again this government has said that the environment is not a priority. I say that with a great deal of discouragement because the most recent example was with Kema-no II where a secret deal was cut behind closed doors between the previous provincial government and the federal government. It said that while the project called Kemano II was to divert up to 80 per cent of the flow of the Nechako River, one of the major tributaries of the Fraser River system, there would be no requirement for any environmental assessment of that project. This deal was secretly cut behind closed doors. Today we find out that this was done to divert 80 per cent of a major river's flow without any examination of what that meant in terms of environmental or ecological consequences.
I want to say that the hon. member for Skeena has demonstrated a profound dedication to the environment and its preservation for future generations. I remember very well back in June 1992 when the hon. member for Skeena brought forward a motion that would set aside 12 per cent of Canada for parkland development. As a result of his incredible ability as an individual to negotiate with the Minister of the Environment and the environmental critic of the Official Opposition we received unanimous consent for that motion to go forward.
This was, as indicated by a number of American writers and environmentalists, one of the biggest and largest real estate deals in Canadian history. It was to set aside 12 per cent of Canada's land surface for parks so future generations could enjoy that pristine environment. The people of Canada will be forever indebted to my hon. colleague from Skeena. As an individual he has an understanding of ecological and environmental issues second to no one.
I think that all members of the House would agree-I know my friends opposite as well as my friends in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would agree-that if there is an individual who has demonstrated over the years not only a profound knowledge and understanding but an insight into ecological and environmental issues then it was the member for Skeena. Time and time again he captivated not only the House of Commons but the
Private Members' Business
Parliament of Canada and indeed the people of Canada in terms of drawing their attention on critical environmental issues, whether it was acid rain or the ozone issue. I guess it culminated in the creation of the South Moresby Park.
There are all sorts of reasons why this miracle occurred, why a major ecological area of the west coast of Canada was set aside as a park. There are many players in this process. One of the critical players was my hon. colleague from Skeena who was able to stick-handle a very complicated and complex issue into reality. Future generations will be forever grateful to him.
The hon. member for Skeena has demonstrated a commitment to protect and conserve the pristine environments of our country and indeed has demonstrated a profound duty to stand up for not only this generation but for generations to come to ensure that people of the future in our country will have an opportunity to benefit from our pristine environment.
I enthusiastically support this motion. I think the passage of this motion would demonstrate that the government would say: "Yes, we are serious about environmental issues. Yes, we want to provide the public the right to sue government institutions if they fail to protect the environment". Who could vote against this? Who would want to say that conscientious citizens ought not to have the right to sue the government if it acts in ways and means against the environment or if it takes steps that will result in the denigration of our ecological systems?
I am assuming this is going to pass. In closing I want to say that the hon. member for Skeena who lives in a log structure on the Queen Charlotte Islands on the west coast of Canada has demonstrated through his entire lifetime a commitment to the environment and the ecology of the country. He has demonstrated a profound appreciation and understanding of these complex environmental issues that escape others. He has always had the support of his wife Liz and his children, Blair and Katie. He has always demonstrated that he is prepared to go to whatever degree is necessary to represent not only his constituents in the great riding of Skeena, but to represent all Canadians on some of the critical environmental issues confronting us.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
We all remember the many examples during the international conferences, particularly between Canada and the United States, where the member for Skeena led the discussions on critical environmental issues overlapping our borders with the United States, whether they be the 49th parallel or the border between Alaska and British Columbia and the rest of Canada.
We are going to miss Jim Fulton. Elowever, we are comforted in the knowledge that he is going to go forward and maintain his commitment to environmental issues. We wish him well in his endeavours to assist others, be they governments of whatever level, be they individuals, organizations and agencies in their pursuit of ensuring that future generations are able to benefit from the pristine environments that still exist within our great country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
According to the order adopted earlier, we will resume the adjournment debate. The hon. member for Dartmouth has 12 minutes remaining.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre (p. 20927).
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about this government's record over the last five years. It has been an abysmal record. It has been a record of absolute despair. It has been a record of misleading Canadians about the true intentions of the government's economic agenda.
Before we rose I was talking about the port of Halifax. This port is one of the probably two most efficient ports in all of North America. It has suffered under the regressive taxation, depreciation and rail policies of this government.
Continuously I have risen to my feet in this place and asked the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, or anybody opposite who cared, to please address the real concerns that have been raised by the people like those in the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Development Commission, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Council, about the very policies that were driving Canadian-bound container traffic away from the port of Halifax and down to the ports of New York and Baltimore.
The tonnage, the container traffic, and the jobs were driven away because of those policies. I have been on my feet in this House 30 times, the most recent time being yesterday, asking for help for the port of Halifax. The Minister of Transport does not care at all about the important position of the port of Halifax and has absolutely refused in five years to respond to one of the requests that have been put forward, not by me because maybe I am a partisan, but by the people whose business it is to promote the port of Halifax and preserve the level of traffic that was there formerly.
The stevedores are not working. The people have lost their jobs at the grain terminal in Halifax because this government in another one of its brilliant moves, came in and cancelled the At and East program which subsidized the movement of grain through Atlantic Canadian ports. What about all the people who lost their jobs at that grain terminal when the government came in and indiscriminately cut that subsidy, but never touched the Crow rate, never touched any subsidization through western grain stabilization. Oh no, no. Every time there has been a cut by this government, it has disproportionately put the burden of that hardship on to Atlantic Canada. So the port has suffered under this administration.
I spoke a little earlier about the requirement for this country to grow and prosper and the redistribution of wealth. I talked about things like ACOA and economic regional development agreements which have been gutted, neutered by this government's policies over the last five years.
Another way that governments try to transfer money to equalize opportunity is by Established Program Financing. I have said over and over again here in this House and all across this country that what this government has done in its attempt to withdraw the historic
June 16, 1993

commitment to regional development is that it has jiggled the books, it has cooked the figures.
What it has done with transfers to provinces through Established Program Financing is change the formula. EPF is there to transfer funds for things like health care so that it does not matter if one is in Newfoundland or British Columbia or Alberta or Nova Scotia, one will have the same access to quality health care whether in a have or have not province. We believe as Canadians that they were some of the basic things, the glue that held this country together.
What has the government done by changing the formula by which it determined what amount of costs are shared? In 1992 alone in the province of Nova Scotia it has decreased the level of funding for hospitals by $111 million.
We have a program for post-secondary education that transfers funds to equalize opportunities so it does not matter where one lives in this great nation, the province will be able to afford quality post-secondary education. The Tories jiggle the formula.
Nova Scotia in 1992 received $46 million less. My God man, we are a province of only 900,000 people. We have a diminishing tax base. The bunch opposite have destroyed our fisheries. They have caused a recession to take place that has left the province of Nova Scotia with the highest levels of bankruptcies in its history.
In 1991, because of this government's economic policies, in the province of Nova Scotia we had one business or personal bankruptcy for every 305 men, women and children.
The government has laid waste to the promise of resource based industries in Atlantic Canada. Yet every time it is raised here, ministers get up and deny, deny, deny and tell everybody that things are going to be much better.
Unemployment, think about it. Five long years ago this government fooled the people. It got elected by saying it was going to address the real problem in this country. It was going to put people back to work. Tell that to the people who live in North Preston in my riding. Tell it to the people who live in Eastern Passage. Tell it to the
Routine Proceedings
people who live in Cape Breton and Newfoundland where unemployment rates are as high as 40 per cent.
Tell them how much better this government's policies have been. Tell them the country is better off at the end of this Parliament than when it began. They will say that the last five years of government in this Parliament have been five solid years of despair, extinguishing the hope of every Canadian that tomorrow will be a better day.
There are university students in my area whose fathers and mothers have never been laid off. Those parents now have no jobs. The little nest egg that was put away for a rainy day is gone. The students cannot go to university. Tuitions have gone through the roof because of federal government economic policies.
What does the government do? Does the government come in with programs to put Canadians back to work? Does the government address the underlying problems in the economy caused by its own policies? No. On at least three occasions the government has come in and attacked the unemployed, not unemployment. It has come in and said: "if you do not have a job, that is your problem, Jack. You must be trying to rip off the system".
The most recent changes that the government tried to pass were changes that would have seen the amount of benefit decreased and the length of time one could collect decreased in the middle of the worst recession we have ever had. However, the amount of weeks that one needs to qualify for unemployment insurance increased.
In short, what the government has done is it has made the poorest of the poor and the most disadvantaged in this country pay for the folly of its economic policies.
We have seen the national debt go through the roof. This bunch opposite just cannot count. The Tories down in my riding will probably have somebody run who will say: "Give us one more chance. We will do it right this time. We know how to control the debt". If anybody in my riding was off in projecting their household budgets as many times as these guys opposite were they would be on the bankruptcy rolls. That is what would happen.
The national debt is a disgrace. But what is even more disgraceful is that the government has absolutely refused after four and a half years of despair inflicted upon Canadians to go back to the people to give the people

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
the final right to have a say here. It has refused to call an election.
We have had some other issues as well. We have had the drug prices. We know the government's agenda is big business. It certainly is not the people in my riding. The government has come in and said: "Hey, we are going to get rid of compulsory licensing for drugs".
What does that mean to the average Canadian? It means that cheaper generic drugs will not be available to them. For the average senior citizen living in the province of Nova Scotia it means that the pharmacare program is less universally accessible because the costs have gone through the roof. But the government says: "Hey, this is good government".
We have talked about the fishery, not at length but we have talked a bit about the fishery. The Atlantic fishery is the reason this country was populated in the first place. The Europeans came in search of fish, in search of cod. For centuries now that cod stock has sustained not just the few people who live on the east coast of Canada, but it has sustained the nation.
After only a few short years this government has taken a resource that has been resilient, that has been a renewable resource and it has mismanaged it into a complete closure, a complete collapse. Tens of thousands of Atlantic Canadians no longer have pay cheques coming in. Their boats are tied up. They have no future because of this government.
We have had a government over the last few years that has brought this wonderful institution of Parliament into disrepute. The government opposite has constantly abused its majority in this Parliament. Closure or time allocation has been used 45 times which is probably more times than closure or time allocation has been used in the previous 100 years.
Each and every time an agenda item came forward in this place on which the government did not want real debate it took my right away to speak to it. More important, it took the away the right of Canadians to have their elected representatives speak on their behalf.
Then there is the big one which nobody will ever forgive or forget: its taxation policies. In the last number of years we have seen increased or new taxes 40 times,
billions of dollars coming in. None was more despised than the hated goods and services tax, which has caused a large segment of our industry to go underground.
In conclusion history may not judge this Parliament well. History will probably judge this Parliament to be a Parliament that broke the spirit of the Canadian public. However Canadians will have the final say and the Canadian people will be able to judge between the major parties in Canada and perhaps once again have some hope after the next general election in this country.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, these will presumably be my last words to the House of Commons, on the assumption that we will not be returning prior to the next election.
I am one of those many members who have chosen not to run again. I must confess as I approach what will probably be the last moment of my parliamentary career that I do so with a great deal of nostalgia and considerable sadness.
I am very proud to be a member of the House of Commons. The last 10 years have not always been easy and sometimes they have been very difficult. They have been difficult because we as a government have chosen to tackle some very difficult issues and because of the considerable amount of cynicism which exists within the public toward politicians.
I must confess I very much regret the presence of the latter and hope that future Parliaments will be able to address that and reduce the amount of cynicism which exists. I fear the end result will be the discouragement of many people who should be seeking public office from doing so. Quite frankly, I worry about that.
I hold each of my colleagues in very high regard. I spent most of my life studying political history so I felt when I came to Parliament that I was reasonably well prepared for what I would find here.
One of my pleasant surprises was to discover that the average member of Parliament, almost invariably every member of Parliament, works much harder than I had anticipated, gives more to his or her country than I had anticipated and makes greater sacrifices than I had ever understood. I come away with nothing but respect for those who have served in this Parliament and in the past.
June 16, 1993

Routine Proceedings
I am sure I will hold those who serve in the future in equally high regard.
On this occasion it is appropriate that I thank the constituents of Brandon-Souris who elected me in 1983 in a by-election called upon the death of the Hon. Walter Dinsdale and subsequently re-elected me in 1984 and 1988. I thank them most sincerely for the honour they bestowed upon me and for the opportunity they gave me to sit in this Chamber and be a part of the government of this land.
I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity he gave me to serve as chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and subsequently as parliamentary secretary to several ministers of agriculture and subsequently to ministers of the environment.
Those opportunities were particularly important because they gave me at least a glimpse of the inner workings of government. I leave with a better understanding of the complexities of decision making and the challenges that face those who hold the highest offices in this land.
I would like to thank the many people who have served us well during the course of the last 10 years. I think of those who have occupied your chair, Mr. Speaker, and I commend you and others for the patience you have exhibited on many occasions because we as a Parliament must surely have tested the patience of many Speakers.
In fact my own daughter was here in this House just a couple of days ago and she left shaking her head and saying that they were not allowed to behave like that in school. Mr. Speaker, I dare say that you and other Speakers have regarded us on many occasions as somewhat unruly school children, or worse.
I tried to remind her that this is a debating society and as it is a debating society we have a unique set of rules. Although I suspect we act excessively on occasion generally speaking we serve the nation well.
I would like to take this occasion to thank the table officers and others who serve the House of Commons because there are many. In all cases they have treated me as an individual member of Parliament with the greatest respect. They are too numerous to mention but I want to refer specifically to the security guards who we
greet as we enter and leave this Chamber on each and every occasion. In their humour and friendliness they personify what is good about Parliament and Canada. I fear all too often we take the contributions which they and others have made for granted.
I would like to make reference to and thank the pages who have served us during the course of the last 10 years. They are very distinguished young people. All of them are first-year students at Carleton University or the University of Ottawa and they combine a heavy workload here with their first-year studies. As someone who has spent most of my life teaching, I have a great deal of appreciation for the challenge which they have undertaken. They have served us well and I know from my conversations with them that they are also very successful students. Those who have chosen them have chosen well, and I thank them for that.
I would like to make reference to the Whip's office and the staff of the Whip's office who are responsible for having us here when we need to be here, and to the government House leader's office with whom I have had the opportunity to work over the years. I would like to make reference to the staff of the agriculture and environment departments because it was a pleasure to work with those many officials. I would particularly like to thank the ministers I had the opportunity to serve. Without exception they were genuine, committed and sincere Canadians who made me as a parliamentary secretary feel an integral part of their process. That was very important to someone whom I would call a backbencher.
To my colleagues who are seeking re-election, and there are some in the room tonight, I wish them well. I congratulate them on their willingness to continue to serve the nation because as a member who has served for 10 years I understand the sacrifice each of them will make. When I say that I include all members of the House, because I feel one of our deficiencies in this House is an excessive amount of partisanship. I know some of it is not real. Some of it is meant for television and I accept that, but I feel the less partisanship we have the better we are as a House and as parliamentarians.
I would like to make special mention of those who are retiring for a variety of reasons. Quite properly we have paid tribute to some of them in the House. Some of them

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
have served an extended period of time and some have served in particular capacities. If I remember correctly there are some 60 of us who are retiring. Although I cannot name them as individuals I would like to thank each of them and say that I genuinely believe that they have served their constituents and their nation well. I personally regret that we have not devised a more appropriate way to recognize their contributions because there is a little bit of a hollow feeling as one leaves.
Having said that I do not want to identify them by name, I do want to make one exception. I want to recognize my friend and namesake, the right hon. Joe Clark, who has been such an inspiration to me. It was partly because of his friendship and partly because of his example that I came to the House of Commons in the first place. Curiously, by happenstance we announced our decision to retire on the same day. For some unexplained and curious reason his decision got much more publicity than mine did. I want to say how much he has contributed to this nation. I wish he and all others who are not returning well as they enter into a more private life. Without exception each of those who are doing so have earned the right to that private life.
I would like to mention my own staff. I will not name them but certainly those who have worked with me these last 10 years have served me well. They are the ones who help our constituents the most. They work in our name but without them we could not do the job we do because we cannot be every place, as sometimes we are needed to be. Although very often our staff go unnamed they are the unsung heroes of the place.
Last but certainly not least, I would like to refer to my own family. I think probably those of us who are here would agree without any difference of opinion whatsoever that without the support of our families we would never have been here in the first place and, second, we could not have remained.
I know in the case of my wife, Barbara, she in a very real sense became a single parent as a result of my decision to go into politics. I thought at the time because my children were 18 and 13 that in a very real sense perhaps my role as a parent had ended and I need not
worry too much about that. I discovered having gone into politics that that was wrong. I feel in a very real sense that I neglected them, that they paid a certain price for my decision to be a parliamentarian. I apologize publicly to them for the times when I was not present when I wish I could have been present and for the role which I would have wished to have played, but I could not always play.
In a very real sense, I think Canadians are well served by those who serve here, irrespective of party. I only hope in the future that Canadians of all walks of life, of all ages, of both sexes, will be anxious to come to this place because it is a very worthy place to be.
Even though we as individuals may not achieve all of our ambitions because that is usually the way in which life operates, I think those of us who have an opportunity to be here will understand that this is a unique role, this is a unique place. It is a privilege to serve Canada. It is a privilege to be a member of Parliament. I am very grateful for the privileges which have been bestowed upon me.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who was my next door neighbour in the West Block, for a very, very nice presentation. I think he has said totally on a non-partisan basis what each and every one of us would like to have said. Now that he has said it, I guess we do not really need to say it.
I do appreciate his remarks about the friends that we make here, about the sacrifices that our families make and the personal sacrifices that one makes. Yes, it is a voluntary idea to be a member of Parliament and to represent one's constituents in this House of Commons. That does not make it any easier, the fact that we are here. We are all here because we want to be here. We are all here because despite our sacrifices, if you like, and you are included in that as well, Mr. Speaker, we believe we are doing a job for our constituents and for our country. There is no greater feeling of pride and usefulness, despite what the media may say about it and what other opinions may pertain. I am very pleased to be associated with the remarks of my hon. colleague who just spoke who is a very decent and honest person. It has been my pleasure to have been his next-door neighbour.
June 16, 1993

In the time that I have I am not going to do what I normally do which is essentially to go through the things that I have been concerned about and the things that have affected my riding, my province and Atlantic Canada. I have been as partisan as the rest, I suppose, in the presentations that I have made and during Question Period. I do not have a prepared speech. I thought that if I just stood up here in 15 minutes I would state what really went through my mind, the thoughts that I will remember most in this Parliament.
I have to start with my constituents. I recall my maiden speech. We all remember that rush period before Christmas when we all had to get up and give our speeches and sit down. It was a bit of a nerve-racking experience. I did not get a chance to describe my riding. I do not intend to do it in great detail tonight, but I want to remind the House that I represent the east coast of Newfoundland. When the election results come out, my riding is the first riding to be announced.
The name Bonavista-Trinity-Conception represents the three great bays of Canada on the east coast of Newfoundland, probably the largest fishing area for a riding. I do have the largest fishing riding in commercial fishing in Canada. There is the scenic beauty, the tourist potential, each of the 250 communities and every one of them on the seacoast. Anybody who has been to that part of Newfoundland would have to agree that it is really a beautiful spot. It is a wonderful part of the world.
To balance that, of course, we are going through tough economic times, but I have spoken enough about that in the House. I am sure that my constituents all know that their requirements and their needs and their difficulties have been made known to me in the last four and a half years, and indeed by my other colleagues, so I will not go through that in detail tonight. The record I think speaks for itself.
I will come back to my riding. I want to talk about the pride one has in serving in this House. I can state that while I did not really have political aspirations I used to look up at the Peace Tower in awe and with great pride as a Canadian about what took place here, without really knowing the detail of what took place. Now that I have been through the detail, I suppose, in committee work, visits, trips, partisan discussion, heated debate, ups and downs, joyful times, sad times, difficult times and never
Routine Proceedings
easy times, I have an entirely different perspective on the Peace Tower and what takes place in this place.
I am running again, as you know Mr. Speaker, and I hope to be back here again if my constituents agree. I suppose the most moving feeling one has after one term in this House is the tremendous ability and the depth of the individuals who represent their constituents, be it on the government side or the opposition side. I have yet to meet a member of Parliament from any party who has not done his or her best for their constituents. I have not always agreed and quite often not agreed with the philosophy of other members and their way of doing things, but as I have often said to my constituents, I will not criticize any organization for making operational mistakes or for making bad judgments. Occasionally if promises are made that cannot be kept then I will hold anybody to that aspect of either politics or life or anything of that nature.
It is very hard to single out individuals, but there are a couple of cases that I would like to mention which really have been an inspiration, if you like. On my own side, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has always been an inspiration to me. He has had some tough times and he has shown strength. I have great admiration for him and his family and the leadership that he has provided, particularly at this difficult time in the country and with the tough roads ahead.
Also the Whip and House leader, present and past, on my side of the House have had to work very hard to run in opposition. Being in opposition of course is a job that offers certain responsibilities and allows certain actions to take place that one would not experience in government. I have only experienced the opposition side and I say without any smart aleck statements that I am hoping in the next election I will have the opportunity to sit on the government side.
I have come in here some mornings feeling a bit like a hero for arriving early. One feels a bit smug arriving at seven o'clock, sometimes earlier. But I have arrived at seven o'clock in the morning. The hon. member who has just come into this House from Parry Sound-Muskoka whom I have come to know and have great admiration for is not that much older than I am but I think his years on me are somewhat noteworthy. I have arrived early in the morning to see his unmistakable car parked already obvious that he was here before me. I have gone home close to midnight, feeling that having punched in almost an 18-hour day I have been pretty hard done by and I

Routine Proceedings
feel pretty sorry for myself, only to find that that member's car is still there.
That is an inspiration for anybody. Then there are my mates. I mentioned the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member for York-Simcoe who I believe is around here this evening and who is my other neighbour.
Both of them are on the government side but that does not prevent us from having a civilized chat about the world in general to compare our difficulties, our successes and failures as members of Parliament. That after all is really what makes life bearable in this place.
We get no sympathy from the outside. I am not saying that we take sympathy from each other. I think that is an aspect without which life would be almost unbearable in the job.
Concerning the same member I have to remember a highlight in this House when we had the Voyageur Canada exchange program. Young Canadians were allowed to exchange experiences with each other. Young members of my constituency from Newfoundland travelled to Newmarket and around Ontario. In some cases it was the first time that they had been away from home. They made new friends and witnessed new experiences. To me it was a great highlight.
It was also a great highlight to have participated along with other members in the Canada 125 unity tournament that took place. I am still in the process of getting a videotape of that for one of the gentlemen in my riding who organized it. I have not promised him that I will get one but I am almost certain I will in the next couple of weeks. It is almost there.
I have been here for a relatively short time. It has been four and one-half years. I have to remember that the Canadian Forces in that time has gone through tremendous turmoil as an organization and as an institution. The business of the cold war which was very much in vogue when we came to this place is now over. The business of defence planning is as tough on the government as it would be for the opposition. We are at a crossroads in history. We are out of the rut of the
standard planning, if I could call it that, where we know who the enemy is and what his capabilities are and can guess at his intentions.
We do not have a recognized enemy any more. We cannot look at their capabilities. We cannot figure out their intentions. There is no identified enemy right now. We are in that part of history where we are not quite in whatever is going to take the place of the cold war which is over. It is very much like at the end of World War II. It took about four to five years before the Iron Curtain came down and we got into some kind of a planning groove which kept us going for some 40 years.
I do not know when we are going to reach a point where we will be able to do that planning. It appears that peacekeeping is very much in vogue but it too has had its difficulties and this has caused, in the case of the Canadian forces, certain grief. It has caused the minister grief particularly at a busy time in her life when she was running for the leadership which she won. It was an unfortunate part.
This in no way, shape or form has detracted from the tremendous pride that all Canadians have in their servicemen and servicewomen. The standards that they maintain on the sea on land or in the air and anywhere in between, whether it is regular forces or reserves, is second to none. Their reputation is best judged by other countries. Ask any country. Certainly in NATO and in any part of the western world and indeed in some of the countries behind what used to be the Iron Curtain they will tell you that Canadian professional military people will stack up with any and are better than most if not all.
Nothing that has happened here in Question Period or in debate has meant to detract from the tremendous pride that we have in our men and women in uniform. I know that I speak for all sides of the House when I say that.
These are difficult times. We now have 4,500 Canadians, young men and women, deployed in 17 different parts of the world. When we first came to this House we had about 1,500 in about seven or eight places. I also want to mention some of the goals I had when I arrived here. I suppose my main goal was to serve my constituents to the best of my ability.
June 16, 1993

There is one in particular that I believe was achievable. I have not actually achieved it but I think I have moved it along and other members in the House have helped me. It is the business of Canada taking control over that portion of our domain called the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
I think every member in the House has heard me speak on that. A highlight for me was when I was allowed to have a private member's motion that was debated in this House on three separate occasions, in February, March and in the dying days of this government on Monday morning. All sides of the House spoke on the subject. The motion was voted on. I could not have achieved more in the sense of getting it to that point after four and a half years. Regrettably the motion did not carry because there were not enough votes in support of it, but I feel honoured that I was able to represent almost 100,000 Newfoundlanders, my constituents, and raise their profile by raising this very motion which is germane, if not directly to every one of my constituents, certainly indirectly in the second or third case.
I will close by saying that yes there have been disappointments. Yes the economy is in rough shape and yes decisions have been made that I did not agree with. I have spoken in detail on that but I do not believe this is the night to be specific. I am sure other people on both sides of the House will be specific about that.
I simply want to say one more time what a great pleasure, what a feeling of pride it is to stand here in this House tonight and say that I represent close to 100,000 of my constituents and they are great constituents. How do I judge that? I have been in a lot of houses, like all members in the House, and I have been in houses where I knew the political philosophy was entirely different from mine, but I have yet to enter a house or knock on the door and been treated with anything but total civility and the hospitality for which Newfoundlanders and indeed my constituents have become known.
I want to say to them what a great pleasure it has been to serve them. They will be seeing as much of me this summer as they have in past summers. I will continue to look after their concerns, even though the House is not sitting, in the hope of coming back to renew their
Routine Proceedings
concerns on whatever side of the House that is going to be.
I am not giving a farewell speech, but I think it would be inappropriate for me to sit down without thanking members of my family who have made their sacrifices and particularly my wife Gwenneth who comes to Ottawa some weekends. In the wintertime I am off to the riding and in the summer it is sometimes reversed. I have great admiration for how she does this, like all wives and spouses, without a complaint. For the staff members who work for me and who put in a lot of long hours I could not ask for, nor could any member, more loyal, dedicated people who work in the best interests of my concerns and the concerns of the constituents.
I would like to thank all the staff of the House of Commons-we have all made great friends here-the office of the Speaker, you, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker to whom many accolades were paid today. Thanks particularly to the security guards who serve such a fantastic function and always have a smile for us even when we are so busy that we do not even really think about that aspect of life. I have always treasured the friendship of my colleagues and I hope that anything that has happened in the heat of debate will not be considered to be personal. As we dissolve this Parliament and go on to other things, whether it is back for another political session in the 35th Parliament or another session of the 34th Parliament, I would like to believe we can all leave here better for having served, better friends and with more friends for having served as well.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you. I thank all those who have helped me and in particular I thank my colleagues and constituents for allowing me this rare pleasure for any Canadian. I wish everybody the best of luck, goodwill and best wishes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I know there is a speech coming up as it ought to be from my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka so I want to make a short comment. I want to echo the comments of my hon. colleague who has just spoken and say how pleased we are in terms of how we have been served as members of Parliament by Speaker Fraser, Madam Champagne, and you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate that

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
your even-handed speakership has enabled this place to function as well as it has.
I say thank you to the Clerk of the House and all the Table officers who have worked so hard late into the night many times to facilitate the work of this House. Thank you to the staff at Journals and Table Research who have provided us with incredible back-up service to make this House of Commons function. Thank you to the pages, the security staff and especially the House leaders, my colleagues with whom I have worked for many years. Thank you to the Whips of the various political parties, my colleague from Thunder Bay-Ati-kokan and my colleague for Nanaimo-Cowichan as caucus chair. Again I want to acknowledge the fact that we have worked incredibly co-operatively over the months and years past. I do not think people appreciate the amount of co-operation and the give and take that occurs in this place to make this House of Commons work as effectively as it does.
I want to thank the House staff members for their support. They are very dedicated and talented individuals. I also want to thank the members' staff who work with us as members of Parliament to enable us to pursue our responsibilities and duties as called upon by our constituents.
I want to say a particular thank you to my family and friends. The members of my family have given up a great deal over the last 14 years and I appreciate their dedication and what they have given up to have their husband and father away for long periods of time.
I want to say thank you to my leader, the member for Yukon, and of course I say thank you to my Whip, my House leader's assistant and the deputy House leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg-'Transcona. Thank you to the people of Kamloops who for the last 13 years have given me their vote of confidence and enabled me to serve them in honour. It has been a privilege to serve the people of the great city of Kamloops and the surrounding region.
I also want to say to my friends and colleagues in the House of Commons that we have carried on passionate debates in this House. We have confronted one another with different points of view. I think what is fundamental to this House and the parliamentaiy process is that while we may differ in terms of what we believe is the appropriate course of action to take economically, socially, culturally or politically, we continue to respect one another for our different points of views.
Whether it is simply opposition parties debating with the government or opposition parties debating with opposition parties, I think the important thing to say to the people of Canada is that while we debate and argue strenuously and this is often a very combative environment, underneath it all is a respect and compassion that we share with one another.
It is with reluctance that I wish everyone well in the months ahead. As we enter into our various political campaigns we all have the respect of the people of Canada and the commitment that the collective will of our constituents is the right decision. I think it is fair to say that those who are returned to this place will be the correct people to be returned to this place as a reflection of the democratic principles to which we all so strongly adhere and believe.
Again I want to thank my colleagues for this experience and look forward to seeing the will of the people reflected in the next House of Commons.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words. I would like to thank most sincerely my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
I have had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee for National Defence and Veterans Affairs with the hon. member and certainly he has added greatly to it. He has had more experience than I as far as defence is concerned.
I do not know him too well but I have talked to him briefly. He said he enlisted as a young sailor some few years ago from a small fishing village in Newfoundland and retired as a Rear Admiral while still a young man and then entered the House of Commons. It was certainly great to be with him.
I have served 21 years as the member of Parliament for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I entered the House of Commons at an advanced age compared to most. I remember the people at the time saying that if I got elected at that age I would probably only last one term and be a sort of caretaker member of Parliament.
In fact I agreed with them and said that is probably what I would do. I have been carrying on as a caretaker member of Parliament for six elections, successfully I might say. At my tender age I have come to the conclusion that it is probably time for retirement before the voters retire me. They say it is a good idea to leave while people still want you. There have been a few that
June 16, 1993

have been asking me to run again. There are many younger ones who could run.
In fact even two or three elections ago there were a great many interested in the job and some of them would be asking after my health and would even come up and take my pulse just to check on it. But I have been able to carry on, putting in a good day's work as my hon. colleague mentioned.
However, there does come a time and this is of course going out over the air. I have told my riding association and gave them some months' notice to look around. I told them to find somebody but I want the riding to remain in the Progressive Conservative fold. That is the important part but I am quite sure a very satisfactory replacement will be found with a spirited nominating convention.
Of course I will look back with a great deal of regret at leaving. This has been a wonderful place. All members make friends. I guess people in the ridings wonder and they will say: "What are you doing fraternizing with the Liberals or the NDP? You are there to defeat them and do this and do that". I tell them it comes as a shock but there are a lot of very nice people on the opposition side. I guess I am one who has a great rapport with members of the other side. I enjoy talking to them, I enjoy being with them. I do not enjoy some of the things they say when they are standing at their seat but that is to be expected. I guess I am not too controversial a member of Parliament. I came here to look after the wants and needs of my constituents which are many.
Being members of the government over the last few years puts us on the hot seat all of the time. We are blamed for everything. We are told that Canada is the most terrible country in the world and the recession was dreamed up by the Prime Minister himself. Yet we as members of Parliament when we travel beyond our borders are looked at with awe and with the greatest respect. We are told we are from Canada, the most magnificent country in the world. I have said to more than one person: "I wish to hell you would come back to Canada and tell the Canadians that because they do not seem to believe it".
Routine Proceedings
I had the great privilege about a year ago to visit Rio de Janeiro at the UNCED conference, the great environmental conference attended I think by 180 countries and the heads of state from 20 of the greatest countries. Those people, when they saw the maple leaf, brightened up and wanted to talk to us and tell us just what they had heard about Canada.
I am certainly very unhappy that 1.5 million are unemployed. A good many in my riding, which is a rural riding, are unemployed. It is not a great industrial area, but it certainly is a beautiful place. People love to live in Parry Sound-Muskoka. There are probably higher paying jobs in other areas but they want to live where they were brought up. The economy there certainly is improving.
I happen to be in a tourist area and the tourist industry has been hard hit due to the recession. Of course last year was a disaster because along with the recession we also had terrible weather. Every weekend it was raining and cold so it was really a disaster.
I heard my colleagues this evening commenting on the economy, berating the government for the free trade agreement and the recently approved NAFTA. I wonder what they are thinking about. It is all very well to say that there are a great many jobs lost. The figure quoted here a couple times by the hon. member for Kamloops is that
400,000	manufacturing jobs were lost over a period of time. There was no mention of the many thousands of new jobs that have been created. There was no mention of the fact that there are more people working now. After all, there were all these students and young people coming into the work force over the last two or three years and nobody seems to consider that.
We are a country of 27 million people. Are we going to manufacture just for our own citizens and forget about trading? We are a trading nation and if we are going to trade then we certainly have to open our own borders and purchase goods from our neighbours.
If the free trade agreement is so terrible and has caused so many jobs to be lost how is it that Canada and the United States are the two greatest trading partners in the world?

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
President Reagan was asked what the greatest trading partner of the United States was. I guess he is not the greatest economist and so he said: "I guess it is Japan". His neighbour, Canada, certainly beat Japan by a great deal. Our trade now is $200 billion a year in two-way trade, and Canada has a surplus. We are selling more than we are buying. Is that such a bad deal?
Jobs have been lost, and possibly that is true, but new jobs have also been created. Many industries have started up here. Many industries have enlarged their capacities because of the free trade agreement.
Why is it that several other countries are just drooling at the mouth at the idea of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, hoping they can get the same deal? Israel is one country that has some trade breaks, but they are not nearly as good as Canada's.
These are the things that the Canadian people should be thinking about. The NAFTA, which is supposed to be a disaster according to the opposition and the media, will provide us with a market of about 300 million people. It will be the greatest market in the world. There is a lot of worry and criticism about Mexico's 85 million people, not taking into consideration at all that those people will be purchasing goods. At the present time Mexico and Canada have very insignificant two-way trade. It is $2.5 billion but the worst part is that of that $2.5 billion Canada only has $600 million, and most of those goods trade back and forth without any tariffs at all.
I am quite sure the NAFTA will prove to be successful. The Prime Minister has been berated for the things that he has done. He has had the guts to do things that other governments were afraid to tackle. With regard to the GST, the opposition and the public at large consider it to be a new tax but it is a replacement for the manufacturers' sales tax of 13.5 per cent. As an example, Canadian Tire, which is a huge chain across the country, now says that 90 per cent or more of the goods sold in its stores are cheaper than when the manufacturers' sales tax was in effect. That is the fact. However that does not seem to sink in.
The other thing is that the GST is broadly based. It could have been more broadly based but we did not want to include food. The GST at 7 per cent is berated by the public but they do not seem to have any criticism of the 8
per cent Ontario provincial sales tax. I am wondering if that is really fair. When one is in government one has to take the good with the bad.
All the time we hear our colleagues across the House talking about the free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement, and the various items in it. They are scaring the Canadian people that water is going to be transported or diverted to the United States. That is absolutely incorrect. Water will be sold to the United States but it will be sold in bottles. It will be sold in bottles of mineral water, beer and wine. Surely no Canadian is going to say that that is the incorrect thing to do. We have to educate the public. I am telling the people in my riding, and we have lots of water there, water is not going to be diverted.
I want to pay tribute to all the people in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka who have supported me over the past 21 years. I have endeavoured to work on their behalf. Certainly I have not satisfied them all from the letters I get. A great many of them come in and say I am doing a good job, but they were not singing the praises of the Prime Minister.
Speaking of the Prime Minister, even though he is low in the polls, he is going to have a very important place in history because he has been able to have a government that would bring in these things that have not helped his popularity. But they are in the best interest of Canada and he has taken that stand. Certainly I say more power to him for that.
At this time I would like to pay a special tribute to my staff. The success of a member of Parliament and his or her continuing re-election depends on the staff. They are the ones who take the telephone calls and have to get all the information that is necessary. I have an outstanding staff.
I want to pay a special tribute to my constituency secretary in Burk's Falls, Mrs. Ina Trolove, who often works six and seven days a week. She is the most knowledgeable person one could ever lay eyes on. She can handle anything and she is about three months younger than I am. What do you think of that? Then of course I have an excellent staff in Ottawa, my chief secretary, Mary Culinin, Melanie Byck and an outstanding research assistant, Phillip McNeil.
June 16, 1993

It has been a privilege to serve the great riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I came to this place at an age when a lot of people retire and I have been able to have a career of 21 years. It is the most exciting career I could possibly think of. I know all of us are proud of the fact that we are able to sit in the House of Commons despite the low repute we are held in by the people across the country. The message should be getting across that politics is an honourable profession. There should be more people looking into the possibility of serving their country.
As I look back on my career and my stay in the House and am asked what I have done, if anything, besides vote with the party, stand up and be here as often as I am told,
I think back over the last 13 years when I have been deeply involved in the question of acid rain and the environment. I worked hard on these and I feel that I have contributed something.
I know I was involved in it when it was the best kept secret in the United States and not too prominent here. But we kept going down and meeting with the members of the U.S. Congress. I remember one of the prominent members of the House of Representatives saying: "Mr. Darling, do not give us this talk about acid rain. You are coming down here trying to scare us and sell us your hydro power from Ontario and Quebec". This was a tough thing to overcome. It is one thing I can take some pride in.
I will certainly miss this House when the next Parliament sits, but I guess it is time to just relax and take it easy. I will be celebrating my 82nd birthday a month from today, July 16.
Once more, I want to thank all the people in my riding who supported me and tell them how much I have enjoyed representing the great riding of Parry Sound- Muskoka.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, once again, we are adjourning ahead of schedule, as if the House had finished all its business. What a fallacy. Again, the Conservative government is making it clear that Canadians do not count for much. Again, the government is forcing the House to adjourn before dealing with the major problems. Nothing has
Routine Proceedings
been done to create jobs. There have been no announcements about guaranteeing young people an adequate education. There is nothing on the horizon to improve the well-being of senior citizens. There are no programs to provide affordable housing for the far too many Canadians who need it.
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of a long list. In other words, the Conservative government just because it worked so hard to elect a new leader thinks it is time to take a rest, and the best way to do this is to leave the problems of Canadians in limbo. Perhaps it actually intends to let the next Liberal government deal with these problems and clean up the mess. We will certainly have a lot of work to do, but we are not afraid of work. We are prepared to work long hours to improve the quality of life of all our fellow citizens.

Ever since the Conservatives came to power they have said that they would be encouraging high technology. I want to address one specific local issue that in my opinion characterized the way the Tories did business while in government.
For years the city of Saint-Laurent has been at the forefront of high technology and aerospace industrial development in Canada. In my riding of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville we have two airports, Dorval and Cartierville. Canadair and other aerospace industries are located just minutes away from downtown Montreal. Despite these characteristics the Conservatives decided to place the space agency in St. Hubert, away from the people that they need to do business with.
It is time for a change. It is time for the government to do business with the needs of the people in mind and set aside partisanship for the benefit of Canada. Canadians are tired of this government because of what it has done to the political process. The Tories have tried to make this institution, Parliament, irrelevant. They have taken the voice of the people away from the decision-making process and have placed it in the hands of lobbyists and bureaucrats. By the time a policy makes its way to the House of Commons, there is very little room for debate.
In the past five years that I have been in Parliament, I can no longer count the number of times that the Conservative government has used its majority to cut off debate on a whole series of issues. Canadians are cynical of this tired approach to government. They want openness. They want accountability and, most importantly,

Routine Proceedings
they want to know that their vote makes a difference and that their concerns will be addressed in Parliament.

Today's senior citizens worked to improve living conditions in this country. They are the people who contributed most to medicare. These are the Canadians who worked hard all their lives to provide a better future for their children and grandchildren. And what is the Conservative government doing in return? Am I expected to announce some fantastic project? Do not count on it.
The Conservatives said quite innocently that user fees for health care was a suggestion to be taken seriously, so seriously that their party leader wrote to The Toronto Star on April 30 of this year that if she became Prime Minister, she would allow the introduction of user fees. On June 25, she will be the Prime Minister. What can we expect? But that is not all.
The Conservative government also decided to reform old age pensions, which the Liberals put in place in 1952 to assure that all Canadians would have a pension to supplement their retirement income. What about the money today's senior citizens contributed over the years so that they would enjoy a secure old age? Well, the Conservatives decided they had other priorities.
They would rather spend $5.8 billion on helicopters instead of paying old age pensions. And then they wonder why they are not popular.

The Conservatives not only have abandoned Canada's seniors, they have dropped Canada's youth, our future, from the agenda as well. Canada's disappointing economic performance under Tory rule is one of the greatest obstacles facing young Canadians. Statistics predict that the unemployment rate in Canada will be at least 11.5 per cent over the next year, youth unemployment traditionally being at least 5 per cent higher than that of the general public.
For those whose education does not extend beyond high school, the prognosis is poor. As we approach the year 2000 the proportion of the work force requiring high skills will increase from 45 to 64 per cent. Two-thirds of
all new jobs created in this country between 1989 and the year 2000 will require at least 12 years of education and the remaining jobs will call for at least 16. Those numbers indicate with great clarity that this government has abandoned Canada's youth.

This government, which so easily forgets our seniors, has the same trouble with our youth. This group has the skills, the energy and the will to work. The Conservatives keep promising and talking about jobs, but that's all they do.
Where are their fantastic job creation programs? Where are the permanent jobs that will help young graduates at all levels earn a decent living? Where are the summer jobs to guarantee that students have the money to pay for their education? Where is the incentive for young people to get a diploma, which if the Liberals do not take office as soon as possible will be just a worthless piece of paper? Tories are all talk and no action.
We must save our human resources. All this potential may be lost forever and I want us to hold on to it. We Liberals are ready to lend a helping hand and work together with these young people so they will have a future, as we did.

Many young people feel either rejected or marginalized in society which creates additional problems of crime and drug and alcohol abuse. We have to focus on youth now more than ever before and finally end the politics of exclusion and encourage our youth to participate.
Creating a national apprenticeship program that would encourage our youth to stay in school and help their transition into the work force is a first step. It would also provide an alternative to attending college or university.
The establishment of a Canadian environmental youth force, a volunteer organization that would work on environment reclamation and educational programs would not only benefit our environment badly damaged by the policies of this government, but would also help in developing learning skills and good work habits. It would promote interest in science and awareness of environ-
June 16, 1993

mental issues which is a great positive step we need to take.
It is time we elected a government that not only talks about our youth but does something about it. This government gets a passing grade when it comes to talking, but it fails miserably when it comes to action.
When it comes to fighting racism, for example, the Conservatives have learned all the right words but they still have failed to fight it effectively.
I cannot understand the inaction of this government, specifically the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, with regard to the deliberate organized infiltration of the Armed Forces by neo-Nazi and racist organizations. Let me be perfectly blunt. As with other issues affecting race relations in this country, the government is simply burying its head in the sand.

This government which neglects seniors and discourages youth has abandoned the very young and their parents. I know very well that it can bring out figures and studies to show us the opposite, but where, for example, is the child care program that we have heard so much about for 10 years?
What about its proposals to change the statistical standards for determining the number of poor people in this country? Do the Conservatives really think that Canadians are so easily fooled? Do they think that Canadians do not see everyday reality? Does the Conservative government believe that forcing Statistics Canada to lower its figures will wipe away the facts? The economy has not yet turned up and jobs are still as hard to find, if not increasingly scarce.
Where are the programs, which the Conservative government seems to want to study to death, to get thousands of children out of unacceptable poverty?
It is intolerable that nearly a million children suffer physically and mentally from malnutrition in a G-7 country. It is unacceptable that in Canada, in our own backyard, children cannot get the food they need to be healthy. It is unacceptable that thousands of Canadian children go to school malnourished, often poorly dressed
Routine Proceedings
for the weather, unable to concentrate on an empty stomach.
In 1993, at the end of the Conservative government's term, the poor are at a dead end. After 10 years of unkept promises, Canadians no longer have confidence or hope. The Conservatives have brought this country to its knees, and it will be up to us Liberals to put it back on its feet.
Canada's children absolutely must be able to have a good start in life. Young people absolutely must be able to have a vision of the future and the means to achieve it. Adults must again be given job security and seniors must again have the security of an adequate pension.
We Liberals know how to listen to Canadians all across the country. We also know not to make promises that we could not keep.
It is high time to give back to all the people of this country what they need to really get out of their predicament: training and jobs. It is high time to say good bye to this Conservative government.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure and a distinct honour to stand today to speak to this adjournment motion.
At the end of almost five years in government when I was elected and stood in this House to give my first speech-I was probably more nervous then than I am today-a lot of things have happened in that period of time.
From my initiation, which quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I still believe you were a part of but might not want to admit it today, to the present has been a very interesting and challenging time for me as a member of Parliament.
I look forward to the coming election. I hope the good people of York-Simcoe will have seen in me a person who has tried to serve them to the best of his particular abilities. I hope when they vote they will indicate that this particular member should come back to serve them in this the highest court in the land. It is a real privilege and honour to serve the people of York-Simcoe in the House of Commons of Canada.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
This really is a special place. We can think of all the things that happen here. We can talk about the legislative issues and the debates that take place across the floor of this House, the discussions over free trade, of whether it is good, bad or indifferent. We can think of some of the other things that have occurred.
We all know that this has probably been one of the busiest sessions the Parliament of Canada has ever had. We recognize that. The leader of the New Democratic Party put it best when she said that a lot of things could be said about this government but one thing that can be said is that it did make a lot of decisions. The New Democratic Party did not agree with a lot of those decisions and that is fair, but one thing I do not think this government will ever be accused of is not being afraid to make decisions.
Some of those decisions were certainly not the most popular ones. I believe standing here today that they were the right decisions. They were the right legislative decisions. They were the kinds of decisions that will make Canada a better place for my children and maybe even my grandchildren if I am blessed that way some day.
We can think of a lot of things that were very difficult. The world has changed in the course of this five years. We can think of the former Soviet Union. We can think of Germany and the wall coming down. We can think of the way we communicate with each other and our relationships with different countries.
Who would have thought five years ago that we would be entering into a trade agreement with Mexico? Who would have thought five or ten years ago that virtually every home in this country would have a computer, that we would be thinking of new ways to handle those methods of communication?
It certainly has been a very challenging time for me as the representative of the people from York-Simcoe. It certainly has been a wonderful experience.
Many times since I was elected back in November 1988 people have asked me to describe being a member of Parliament. Earlier today a House leader mentioned that we get beat upon. The media like to criticize us. All MPs are this, that and the other thing. We all know better from being in this place.
When people ask me what it is like to be a member of Parliament there are really two words to describe it. It is
exhilarating and exhausting. I say those two words because in first coming into this House of Commons we all feel a bit of fear and trepidation.
We see the traditions. We see what it means to be a member of Parliament. We see the importance of it and we believe in the very importance of this structure because this is the heart of our democracy. This is the heart of Canada. This is what Canada really means to all of us. We see that and we see the highs and lows associated with that. It is very exhilarating to feel a part of that process.
It is also very exhausting. I can say this because I have seen virtually every member of this House work late into the night, get up very early the next morning, attend committee meetings, morning, noon and night, and take part in debates, which sometimes run right around the clock in this particular House.
It is a very exhausting business. Not only do we have our responsibilities here but we also have responsibilities back in our constituencies. We look at those things and we think of our constituency. We think of the people who are there most of the time.
We think very often of our family and friends. We do not get to see them as often as we might have in the past. But we made that choice. We as members of Parliament made the choice to come to this place to be able to take part in it.
I know from speaking to virtually every member of this House that they are very proud to be here, to be able to represent their constituents. The decisions we have to make are very challenging. They are not easy ones. It is not an easy decision to have to face the consequences of saying: "Yes, my country will take part in a mission led by the UN into the gulf which could potentially lead to world-wide war". That is not an easy decision.
We have had to make many decisions over the course of the last five years. In fact one of the members when I was talking to him not too long ago said that he had seen more in the last five years than he had seen in the last 25 years. For those of us who are rookies and have come in and seen this it really has been a wonderful experience in that regard.
Probably the most important aspect of being a member of Parliament and certainly the most thrilling part for a
June 16, 1993

lot of us when we came in 1988 was to meet the many people whom we had looked up to over the years for their experience, knowledge and expertise, people like yourself, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, we have not looked up to you for very long because you have not been around here as long as some of the others. However, we have certainly looked up to you with respect for the kind of knowledge and experience you have brought to this place and for what you have done for Canada because that is very important.
We have seen people who have received tributes today, like the Deputy Prime Minister, the House leader and members of the opposition who may not be returning to this place because of choices they have made after serving this country for so many years. Just to be able to meet with them, to talk with them, to sit on a committee with them and to call them by their first names has been one of the greatest thrills for me. I do not think one could ever measure that, but it is something I will cherish for all my life.
We also get to meet members from all parts of this country. I did not understand the difference in the difficulties faced in my part of Canada just north of Toronto, Ontario and the difficulties my colleague from Regina faces. There are differences in this country.
I had the privilege of visiting Iqaluit not too long ago. A three hour plane ride did not seem like too big a deal, but it was minus 70 when I arrived. It was nippy. I was able to speak with some of the people up there. I spoke with the member who does not happen to sit on this side of the House, but we spoke about some of the difficulties. That was in our country. We had virtually an 80 degree Celsius temperature change in this country.
We forget the expanse of this country, the changes and the differences and that is just going straight north. We go through five and a half time zones east to west. No wonder we have difficulties in communicating and working with one another. It is closer for the people on the east coast to go to England and Europe and there are fewer time zones than when they go to Vancouver, British Columbia.
When we think of what we have accomplished as a nation and as a country it is just so wonderful to feel that
Routine Proceedings
in our own little way we have been able to play a small part. To me it has been a wonderful thrill.
I was listening earlier to the member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception. Last summer we had the privilege of twinning our ridings. One hundred and twenty young people from my riding went to the east coast of Newfoundland and 120 young people from the east coast of Newfoundland came to York-Simcoe.
It was a great learning experience for those young people and others accompanying them. It was culture shock. Both groups went through culture shock when they arrived. They did not understand the differences between our communities. But when they went home they had a better understanding of what it was like to live in another part of Canada three or four time zones away. That was a wonderful experience. I could not have been part of that if I had not been serving as a member of Parliament.
I think of members of the opposition with whom I have had the privilege of working, certainly in the Whip's office. To the Official Opposition Whip who has come in, it has been my pleasure to work with him and the Whip from the New Democratic Party.
I think of the Whips I have served under and have had the privilege of being assistant to on the government side. I certainly appreciate the knowledge and expertise they have brought to the job. I also appreciate the staff of the Whip's office. I know I give them a hard time once in a while but we know they are the ones who run the place. They certainly run a lot of the government members around. I do appreciate the work they have done and the work my own office staff does, whether on the Hill or in Newmarket and throughout the riding.
There is one thing that I have to comment on before I finish up tonight because it is probably one of the real disappointments that I have felt in this place. It is a twofold disappointment in that before November 21, 1988 those of us who were rookies came here because we were upstanding, upright citizens. We were dedicated and we did the right things. We were respected in our communities, and all the other things that went with it.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Two days later we were one of those politicians from Ottawa. We seemed to lose that respect. The media seemed to take that away from us very quickly.
When I go home the people in my riding will say to me: "We understand it is not you, John. It is not you as our member. We are not suggesting that but we are still prepared to make the generalization". That hurts because I see how hard members on all sides of this House work and I see the dedication.
We have a different philosophy as to how we are going to make Canada better. We can all agree on that. However with the exception of a very few people in this place we are all here to make Canada a better place.
That leads me to the second major concern that I have. There are some people who are sitting in this House who do not want to make Canada a better place. They do not want to make Canada grow. They do not want to make Canada the best country in the world. They want to break this country up. They want to act as traitors to the country in this very place. I can see people who sit over there whose only goal, only stated ambition, is to destroy Canada and to do it from within.
For some reason, because we are a free and democratic society, we have forced ourselves into allowing these kinds of people to represent parts of this country in the House of Commons, the highest institution in the land. We have allowed them to take a seat and do anything and everything in their power to destroy Canada, such as disruptive tactics in the House, statements outside of the House and getting elected or potentially getting reelected on the basis that they are going to destroy this great country. In my opinion that should not happen now and should never be allowed to happen in the future. I hope the people they represent will think about that.
I did not want to get partisan tonight and I do not think this is a partisan issue. This is a Canadian issue. We are here to serve Canada and make Canada a better country.
I am proud to represent the people of York-Simcoe and to make sure that happens.
I have no respect for those people who come here and stand up in a grandiose way. They are so sanctimonious one would think it was the greatest thing in the world that they would stand there. Who are these members?
We know who those members are. They are members who were elected not on the basis of breaking up this country but on other bases. As a result of the fact that their nose got out of joint for whatever other reason they decided to sit in that back row and do everything in their power to destroy this great country.
Madam Speaker, if you had the power to remove them from this place and try them as traitors or whatever then I am sure you would do that because I know your love for this country is as great as my love for this country, even though we come from different parts of this country.
It has certainly been an honour for me to be here. In closing, I wish to thank all the members, the staff, the Clerk and the Speaker. Everyone has been great, particularly the pages. It has really been an honour and a great privilege. I particularly want to thank the people of York-Simcoe for allowing me to be here for almost five years. I hope I can serve them again for the next four or five years.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend that all of us endorse his words about those few members in here who represent the Bloc Quebecois and whose sole purpose is to break up the country. That is something that we abhor and that we feel is not right. I am sure all of us in our own collective way will do whatever we can to combat them.
While I am on my feet to make a comment I want to say to my hon. friend who represents the government that on behalf of the constituents of Kamloops and all the communities and rural areas surrounding Kamloops I would like to thank him and his colleagues for giving us the privilege of hosting the Canada Summer Games this summer.
I recognize that there were a number of constituencies that had applied for this honour, that a number of communities had sought to have the privilege of hosting the Canada Summer Games. We appreciate the opportunity to be able to be the showcase for Canada this summer. I hope that all of his colleagues join with the rest of us in the House of Commons and our families to visit Kamloops this summer and show our support for the young athletes during the Canada Summer Games.
June 16, 1993

I want to take this opportunity to mention one point that my hon. friend raised earlier, and that is with regard to those men and women who served in the Korean war. Earlier we had a discussion that recognized those men and women who received medals recently for their service during the Korean war. I choose those words consciously. People have often referred to the Korean war as a Korean conflict. They have never acknowledged that it was a war and that men and women from Canada were there to protect freedom and democracy and to put their lives on the line. Therefore we ought to be thanking those men and women who served so gallantly during that war on behalf of Canada and for what our country stands for: democracy, freedom and peace.
In conclusion I simply want to thank those who serve in our Armed Forces, particularly those serving today in the peacekeeping areas of Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia and other trouble spots of the world. These young men and women are prepared to lay down their lives to represent Canada. It is up to us to ensure that they are able to carry out their functions properly, fully serviced with the best equipment and support systems available. It is also up to us to say that we acknowledge, recognize and show our appreciation to those who served and serve in our army, navy and air force as well as our reserves and our cadet corps.
I want to draw particular attention to those who serve in the Rocky Mountain Rangers, who have for many years now made an incredible contribution to Canada's Armed Forces, as well as to the submariners and the merchant mariners. As an auxiliary to those serving on the oceans of the world those people have demonstrated their commitment to Canada and what we stand for. We have to acknowledge that our Armed Forces are secondary to none in the world. It is interesting to note that whenever forces are called upon to serve in peacekeeping or peacemaking missions the first people to be called upon are those in the Canadian Armed Forces. For that we can all be truly proud.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member for Kamloops got up to speak I thought the least he was going to do was
Routine Proceedings
offer to billet the hon. member for York Simcoe. He was waiting on that too during the games this summer.
I want to say first that this afternoon when the tributes were flowing out to Mr. Speaker in well-deserved fashion, you as our interim Chair were not mentioned at all. After I sat down I felt badly about that because I think that you have done a very good job in the chair, having been called upon rather suddenly, and I do want to pay that tribute to you this evening. I am sure others in the House will agree.
I want to start off tonight by talking about the Canadian Armed Forces. I have a major base in my riding. As a matter of fact I live in Petawawa township, just three miles from the base gate. Prior to coming to this House I was on the staff of General Panet High School on the base and got to know a lot of military families. I got to know how they lived and what their aspirations really were.
I always look upon our Canadian forces as being among the greatest forward-looking people that this country has. No institution and no organization in Canada has ever really carried the Canadian flag with pride to so many parts of the world as have the Canadian forces.
As we see the various incidents arise around the world today, we know that there are many many trouble spots. We are asking our Canadian forces to go in to all kinds of challenges, all kinds of difficult situations and many different cultures. It is very difficult sometimes to adjust to all of that. We Canadians who expect them to undertake these difficult tasks and challenges and to handle them with decorum and dignity under the United Nations banner must give them credit when they do an excellent job, when they build schools, when they build roads and bridges, when they teach local people how to grow food and practise the elements of agriculture.
There is no group that is willing in so many ways to help other people of the world to work toward success in their own country. As a result, sometimes incidents occur. As we send them into more difficult situations in the world there are going to be incidents that occur that require investigations and so on. But that is no excuse whatsoever to label our Canadian forces in general. I take great exception to some of the media coverage that has been given to them and particularly that which was

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
given to the Canadian Airborne Regiment stationed in Petawawa.
These are families, too. They must live. When their spouses are under criticism in the media and in the country it is difficult on those families. We had incidents of very difficult situations for some of the children of those families in the schools. It is totally unfair for people to serve our nation and at the same time have to face this kind of situation at home. They are there to do a job and they will do the job.
Some people today say that the cold war is over, we do not need any of our forces, we can cut back on them and we can do with much less and so on. Look around the world. What do we see today? We see problems in every region of the world today and that is where we are asking our Canadian forces to go. If we are going to cut back on our military community today then what we are doing is putting ourself in a less prepared way to face the challenges faced by us in the world at large.
Where does it place us so far as our work with the United Nations is concerned? Canada is so well respected around the world. We must continue to work with the United Nations, with the other members of the United Nations and show the unity not only within Canada itself as many of us are very interested in doing these days and every day, but unity within the world community itself and peace.
If we allow these disturbances in various parts of the world to grow into major wars then we have not allowed ourselves the pleasure or accepted the responsibility of bringing peace to the world at large.
What happened in World War I? Let us do a little historical study here. World War I broke out because the rest of the countries in the free world were not prepared for what they had to face when World War I was declared. Canada lost more than 66,000 in that war.
What did we do after World War I? We did exactly the same thing. The same thinking is going on today. We downsized our forces, cut back on them, we did not need them anymore. The First World War was the war to end all wars.
It only took a quarter of a century to start off with World War II. Who did we count on? We counted again
on our younger generations in Canada and we enrolled 1.1 million in our forces in World War II. There were over 600,000 in World War I. In World War II we lost over 45,000 of those talented young people. That is not counting the wounded and those who are left with wounds for life and those who are left with nerve problems for life. They inherited horrendous situations from those two world wars.
Following World War II we did not have time to readjust before the Korean war came along. We were ready for that one and as a result we supported the United Nations strongly. The United Nations was able to win the Korean war, win the point of the UN of maintaining a boundary line that had been drawn under UN auspices. That line was defended. We lost another 516 young people in the Korean war, to say nothing of the wounded who lived on after.
The Department of Veterans Affairs over the years has been the department to look after veterans in this country. A lot of those people now are getting older. It behoves us in this Parliament to give them their just due and to give them the benefit of the doubt when they make claims for war injuries and problems that arose out of those wars.
All we have to do today is look at Yugoslavia to find out what a tremendous liability and problem it is to have people who cannot live together in peace.
We have to handle those situations and certainly countries are coming together to handle them but we must continue to support the United Nations and we must never give up on that international organization because to date it has done a far better job than any other international organization we have ever had in the world for that purpose.
As we ask our soldiers to go around the world to various points of duty and to handle very difficult situations let us think of those families too who are here at home and who need a little help at that time and certainly a great deal of support.
I cannot sit down tonight without talking about medicare. I was in the hospital for several days recently and I heard on the television set how we had to cut back on medicare in this country. It was getting too expensive and the bottom line had to be such and such a figure.
June 16, 1993

If there is anything in this country that every member of Parliament in this House should be standing up and defending to the nth degree it is our medicare system. We meet people in hospital who would lose if they did not have the medicare system supporting them in this Canada of ours where we have a feeling for our fellow human beings. They would lose their homes, farms and businesses. There is no question about that. We know what the costs are today for operations and medical attention.
Our medical science in this country has done wonders over the years. One of the greatest speeches I will always remember was delivered by a member of this House. It was the hon. member for Crowfoot when he returned to this House last November after being away for five months receiving a heart transplant. I have sent his speech out to many people. I have given his speech to many doctors and nurses and hospital staff. It is an inspiration to them because how often do we say thank you to those people?
We have right here in the nation's capital one of the best heart institutes that we will find anywhere in the world. Who was the master-mind behind it? Yes, there were engineers. There were administration people solidly in support of it. There was a great community of interest throughout the Ottawa Valley and in the nation's capital for it. However the one who spearheaded it was Dr. Wilbert Keon.
I can well remember him coming up in the early 1980s to see me in my office in the West Block and he said: "Len, we must improve on our heart operation facilities in Ottawa for eastern Ontario, western Quebec and indeed for wherever people come from in looking for our assistance. We are putting patients out in the hall. We do not have the space and facilities for them".
I did go to work for him and worked very closely on a lobby to raise funds from the federal government to help improve on facilities at the heart institute. Little did I know that a few years later I would be one of the recipients of that excellent project.
I want to say this about Dr. Keon. He was bom in a very small community in Pontiac County at Sheenboro, Quebec. Here was a man who went on to greatness and became a surgeon of real renown. As I have said before, he could have gone off to California. He could have gone to Texas or Boston and he could have written his own financial ticket but he did not. He chose to stay home
Routine Proceedings
and do his work here in Canada on behalf of Canadians and we thank him for that.
There have been many more like him. He has set the example for many doctors at that institute, technicians, nurses and administrators who are really top-notch people. I want to pay tribute to them on the floor of this House tonight.
The National Defence Medical Centre provides a lot of services for our diplomatic corps around the world and for our Canadian Armed Forces who come home to that hospital wherever they are. They have their own hospital and they do not take up beds for civilians at other hospitals in the city of Ottawa or other areas indeed in the country.
Dr. Leach is the head of cardiology at at the National Defence Medical Centre. Dr. Leach's grandfather, Harry Leach, still lives in his own home in the village of Chalk River in my riding and he is 96 years old while his father is General Leach who is retired. Dr. Leach is leading up a fantastic number of doctors, nurses and staff at the National Defence Medical Centre who are a pride not only to our Canadian forces but indeed to this Canada of ours. I want to pay tribute to them tonight as a tremendously dedicated group at the National Defence Medical Centre.
While I was in that hospital for a number of days I met an 85-year old lady who had had a triple bypass heart operation at the age of 72. She was back for her second operation at the age of 85. With her bypasses she was out walking up and down the corridor. Medical science in this country has gone ahead by leaps and bounds over recent years.
There is another quality that these people have besides medical knowledge and expertise and that is their attitude toward the people whom they are trying to help. They have the most genuine and kind approach to people that one could possibly have. For many people that means encouragement and a great deal of support.
For those people who want to cut back on medicare in this country it is very easy for someone to stand out on a street comer and say that we have to cut back on these expenses because of our national debt and our deficit and so on. I wonder how their minds would change if they had to go into hospital and face the trauma of cancer operations and treatments and were told by their doctor that their situation was serious. I wonder if their attitude would change the day they walked out of that hospital after a final examination to be told that their

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
treatment was a success. How can we possibly cut back on this kind of service that is so genuine and present as part of the Canadian over-all community?
He is not of my party but I must say that I felt sorry for a recent patient in the Civic Hospital who had been quite active in public life in this country. Dr. Keon was called upon to comment on whether or not that man had received special treatment because he was a Progressive Conservative. I think that is sick. It is sick because we all know or should know that when a heart transplant is available then the operation must be done. I felt sony for Dalton Camp going through that particular operation and having these questions asked out on the street or by the news media. This is not the way we treat our fellow Canadians. It does not matter what role they play in life, what political party they belong to, what religious order they belong to or anything else. They are all Canadians and deserve fair treatment.
I want to mention that the Canadian troops have now taken down the Canadian flag in Cyprus and the troops who have been serving over there in recent months are coming back home to CFB Petawawa. I am sure everyone joins with me in welcoming them back.
As we look forward to the summer and fall I want to pay tribute to those members today who stood up and said they were leaving politics. They have served well. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has been my neighbour for 21 years. Both of us have such large ridings that we virtually live a couple of hundred miles apart but we have some very common interests.
Madam Speaker, we want to wish you a good summer. We want to wish the hon. John Fraser, Speaker of this House, a very successful summer as he recuperates in Vancouver. We hope the new Prime Minister will take the family farm interests of this country with her to the Tokyo summit and strive to win the agricultural GATT discussions with regard to supply management. We hope she will take that up with the other members of the economic summit and win that battle for Canada. We need supply management in this country if our family farms are going to survive.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. We wish a good summer to you, the pages and staff here in the House of Commons and the constables who are always so very, very obliging to all of us.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a real pleasure for me to stand up on this adjournment debate before they shut off all the lights and turn off all the microphones for our summer recess.
I want to start, Madam Speaker, by taking this opportunity to thank my constituents. I want to thank them for giving me the opportunity over the past four and a half years to actually be here in this Chamber as a member of Parliament. To represent my country I think is one of the highest callings and I want to say to my constituents that I have appreciated that opportunity over the past four and a half years.
I also want to thank the staff and people here including people like the pages. I was talking to Steve Drover tonight, one of the pages, and he was telling me about the opportunities he is going to take this summer to do certain things. As I see the pages scurrying around here I want to take this opportunity to thank them because they do play an important role in this place, as you know.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the different interns who come here. I have had an opportunity to obtain Michigan interns and law interns. They come from the United States and it has really given me an opportunity to get a better understanding of our American friends and share with them in dialogue some of the concerns we have here in Canada.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to my staff, because as with the staff of all members of Parliament they are really the people who give us our name. If it was not for my staff in the riding doing all the hard work it takes representing constituents in front of the bureaucrats in this country and explaining how government works when I am here in Ottawa, I know my job would be a lot more difficult and so I want to take this opportunity to thank them.
June 16, 1993

Some seven months ago the first addition to my family arrived. Christopher Speller has really brought joy to my life. Ele has really given me a better understanding of some of the concerns that young parents have in Canada today. I think the theme of my speech tonight will be to reflect on some of the views and concerns my constituents, especially those with young families have brought to me over the past four and a half years. They are some of the concerns that I feel have not been addressed by this government and so I want to relate them back to the fact that I do not feel we should be adjourning this House now.
I know everyone feels we should get out of here this evening but I do not believe that should be the case. I think there is a lot more work this Chamber should be doing now. I think there are a number of serious problems this country faces that we could be dealing with.
The hon. House leader of the Conservative Party noted all those fine pieces of legislation that have been passed through this House in the past little while but there are a number of concerns that Canadians have, not the least of which is a concern regarding this Chamber and how it works. People, especially those in some of the have not provinces who do not have an opportunity to get close to a member of Parliament or see how this Chamber works, feel that this Chamber does not represent them, that somehow democracy is not working in this country. That feeling is being expressed by people such as those in the Reform Party who feel that members of Parliament, especially backbench members of Parliament, should be freely able to represent their constituents and have free votes.
I have voted against my party on a few occasions and I am glad my hon. Whip is here and still talking to me. I have to say I agree that free votes are important. They are an important tool for members of Parliament to express the views of their constituents, but they are not the most important part of parliamentary reform. Over the past four and a half years over the hundreds and hundreds of votes that I have taken on behalf of my constituents I have felt on only three occasions that there was an issue of great importance to my constituents and I would have to vote against the wishes of my party.
Routine Proceedings
There are many more things this House could do and many changes it could make that would make this place a lot more democratic and responsive to the needs of Canadians. I am talking specifically about the idea of more scrutiny of government expenditures and also of an ability of this House in terms of the development of legislation to be able to actually have a say in how that bill is developed.
As we know right now legislation is developed in the back rooms of certain ministries here in Ottawa. Bureaucracies get together and trade off different views and ideas. All the trade-offs are done outside this Chamber somewhere in and around Ottawa in the offices.
A member of Parliament like myself who wishes to help my constituents in the development of bills and have some say in how these decisions are being made has no say whatsoever. Committees of this House have to be able to develop legislation and take it through in a non-partisan way.
A lot of Canadians do not understand just how a committee works. We in the opposition and the government actually work quite well together in scrutinizing legislation. Without having that ability in the developmental stages, maybe in terms of a white paper or a green paper to have more of a say in how the legislation is developed, we as backbench members of Parliament or any member of Parliament will not be able to freely and fairly represent some of the interests of our constituents.
There has to be greater discussion of local concerns. I have raised many issues across my riding. I can remember one instance where there was a terrible tire fire in my riding. Canadians will remember it. I wanted an emergency debate on that issue. Under the rules, the Speaker at that time was not allowed to change the order of the day in the House in order to allow me to bring that forward for debate.
There are many other instances I have noticed over the years. Because of the stringent rules, the order of the House is not able to be changed to allow emergency circumstances to be debated in this House. There needs to be more leeway on the part of the Speaker or some rules changed to allow these sorts of debates to take place without just the agreement of the heads of the parties.

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
In terms of the one minute statements, I think there needs to be more than 15 minutes for one minute statements under Standing Order 31. There needs to be a better ability for members of Parliament to bring forward into the House certain concerns in their ridings. I do not know how it is in the other parties, but within our party we line up all the time just to get an issue on because unfortunately within the 15 minutes allotted, we on this side only get about four or five minutes.
As a result there needs to be more time spent within the day even if we have to tack it on at the end of the day to allow members of Parliament to have more than just a one minute say in those areas. With regard to reforming Question Period, there needs to be a lot more emphasis placed on the reform of Question Period.
I do not think that the government or this House have addressed these concerns at all. I do not believe that they have addressed the concerns of Canadians as to what this institution is all about and to how best to reform this institution to reflect their values and views of Canada.
Obviously across this country, and it is no different in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, the main concern of Canadians today is jobs and the downturn of the economy. I do not think that this House or this government over the past few years have addressed the concerns of Canadians.
Canadians are scared. They are scared either because they do not have a job or because they cannot find a job. They are wondering where their next meal is going to come from or they are concerned for the job that they have. In fact they believe that the recession may not be over. Whether we are in government or not, they blame members of Parliament for not being able to solve this problem.
I have had a number of constituents come to me and say: "You have 296 people in there. Can you not put your minds together to actually come up with some solution to these tough times? Can you not all sit down and agree to some sort of agreement as to at least one single plan in order to move forward and give Canadians jobs and opportunities?"
Of course, I tell them that it is not that easy. We in opposition have a difficult time in terms of convincing a
majority government. Granted even putting some blame back on us does not sometimes seem to come forward with a lot of solutions either. I think a lot of times we are all to blame in this House.
Some of the stuff we talk about here does not seem to be directly related to what our constituents want us to talk about. But the main focus they want in this Chamber is to move toward putting Canadians back to work. I do not believe that we as a Parliament in this past session have been able to provide Canadians with any sort of ideas of how we can help solve this problem.
I would hope that after the upcoming election, once this Chamber is renewed and we have a number of new people maybe then the government of the day, which of course I hope will be on our side, will be able to come up with some of the solutions and ideas that Canadians are looking for.
In my area, along with employment and along with providing opportunities for Canadians in terms of education and in furthering their education to get employment, a lot of my constituents are concerned about the state of the agriculture industry.
In the past I have done a lot of talking about agriculture. I have always said that our farms are the most productive and adaptive in the world and that they provide high quality food. I think I will get agreement on all sides of the House that that is what they do.
Unfortunately we have seen over the past few years the decline of agriculture in Canada. We have seen at the international level major challenges and major attacks on agriculture. We have had our supply managed industries attacked. As my hon. colleague said earlier, there does not seem to be on the government side of this House any commitment to taking this fight right to the limit.
Unfortunately what we have seen is a government that has caved in at the GATT and has not been truly committed to keeping the supply managed industries. The agriculture minister in the past little while has made speeches and the different members of the government here made speeches which have not given any comfort that our supply managed commodities will continue.
June 16, 1993

What the government says is that some form of tariffication is a solution to our problems, that somehow under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that will be allowable and our farmers will just do fine. Well that is not the case. I am really not sure if the government has come to any sort of understanding of the importance of the supply managed commodities in terms of its effects on the rural infrastructures.
I know we have a number of rural members here tonight and I want to say to them that in rural Canada times are getting tough. In rural Canada when a government closes down post offices, as in the hon. minister's riding, when it closes down opportunities, when it closes down certain programs that help fund rural agriculture it makes times difficult.
We have been doubly hurt in southwestern Ontario over the past few years because the government has not committed any special programs to southwestern Ontario. We have funding programs for northern Ontario, in some of the areas of Canada and some of the smaller provinces. In my area, which is in the southwest between major centres, we have difficulty in terms of creating employment opportunities for our people. Unfortunately the government has provided no programs to help give them opportunities for jobs.
As I said, agriculture is important in my area. I have fought many fights in this House regarding my tobacco farmers as I mentioned earlier in reference to my Whip. Over the past few years the government has not provided any sort of alternatives to these farmers. It has talked a lot about certain programs, but these programs have not been around the last two years. The REDUX program has not been available to these farmers to help them deal with some of their problems. The Alternate Enterprise Initiative program which is to help farmers move into other areas has not been available the last year.
Before I go I want to talk about trade. Canadians get a sense, right or wrong, and that is debatable on the other side, that the free trade deal has not benefited this country. I hear that from people throughout Canada and in fact people are coming forward and saying that. We are finding out we do not have access to the American market that was promised in the free trade deal.
Routine Proceedings
I feel that this government, instead of negotiating a NAFTA and adding another country into the pot, should first solve some of the problems of this deal. We have debated that over the past few years and it seems to me that the government once again is just moving ahead on this issue without first addressing some of the concerns and some of the problems that Canadians have had in terms of trade.
The biggest problem we have in generating jobs in our area is small businesses. Small businesses just do not have adequate financing. The Small Businesses Loans Act needs reform and adjustment.
This government has not addressed the concerns of small businesses in this country. In my area small businesses that want to create jobs and could create many jobs are being closed down by banks. I know hon. members are experiencing the same problems in then-areas where banks are really getting tough because of some of the difficult times.
The Federal Business Development Bank should be out there helping these companies. In my area in particular, the Federal Business Development Bank has been acting more like a bank than as it should. I know hon. members were here when that bank was set up. These business people do not have access to the capital they need to create jobs. Unfortunately without access to this capital there will not be the jobs available.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank the Chair and yourself for the fine job you have done in this Chamber over the past few years. I know we have been on some delegations together and I saw you in action on the weekend at the Conservative convention. I think you did a great job there. I also want to take the opportunity to thank my leader and my Whip for their fine work in this House. I look forward to seeing my colleagues across the floor after the next election. I will save a seat right here for the hon. member and I am sure it will fit him well.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I realize only a few minutes are left for comments, before we adjourn. I don't intend to spend a lot of time commenting on the remarks and statistics of the government House leader who presented the motion

June 16, 1993
Routine Proceedings
this afternoon or on looking at this government's record. I think time and history will take care of that.
In any case, soon an election will be called, during which these issues will be debated. This afternoon, all my colleagues made it clear where they stood.
Today, and especially this afternoon, members paid tribute to several colleagues. They referred to the classes of '68 and the class of '72, and I would like to congratulate all classes. A number of members announced they would not run in the next election. So, whatever their class or the year they arrived here in this House, I want to congratulate them and wish them good luck, health and happiness and a successful career in the field of their choice. I want to stress their dedication to this country and to Canadians. They were elected, they came here and they took part in the proceedings of this House.
In 1984 I had the honour and the privilege to be elected as a member of Parliament. In fact, Madam Speaker, you and I belong to the same class, since we both arrived in the 1984 election. But two and a half years ago, when my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, appointed me chief opposition Whip, I was able to find out more about this House and to appreciate it and the way it operates. Often, through the media and television, Canadians witness scenes or moments that are positively electrifying. That is because of the kind of political system we have on both sides of this House. But also what Canadians do not see and do not know is that in most cases this House operates with the unanimous agreement of the various parties.
As Whip, I had this honour and privilege to work with the three parties and even at times with some independent members so that this House could operate and really work toward the main objective we all have, that is to serve our fellow citizens as well as possible and to make this beautiful country, Canada, work. It is a modem country which everyone loves. People all over the world would pay fortunes and give all they have to come to live here and share in our happiness and prosperity.
I see here all these good pages who have served us during this time and I thank them for their work-I think
I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say that. Congratulations and hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Alfonso Gagliano: I trust that many of them will be able to return here as elected members.
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend you for what you have done, especially in these last few weeks since our Speaker fell ill and had to be away. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I congratulate you, because you have performed brilliantly. I know that it is not easy, especially during Question Period. But I congratulate you on a job well done.
I want to thank our Clerk and his colleagues at the table, all the staff and the people at Hansard. I know that it takes many people to make this House work and we thank them all for their help and support. I would like to thank my colleagues, the government Whip and all his staff for their co-operation, as well as the New Democratic Party Whip, the House leaders, my own staff, my fellow members, the opposition House leader and all his staff and of course the constables and all the employees who belong to this big House of Commons family, and the messengers who help us do a job that can be difficult and hectic at times.
Here we are now at the end of this third session and I might add perhaps at the end of this 34th Parliament, since an election will soon be called. So thanks to all for their cooperation. My experience as Whip was wonderful and I would recommend it, although there are difficult moments.

My colleague before was saying that sometimes he did not listen to the Whip and he had a choice whether to listen to his constituents or the party Whip. It is not an easy job being a Whip. On the other hand after a long day like today one goes home and thinks about it. After all the trouble and all the misery I can say that it is worth while. It has been a pleasure. I think these past two and a half years have been the best two and a half years of my political career.
June 16, 1993

Madam Speaker, I thank you, all your colleagues in the chair, Mr. Speaker John Fraser, the Clerk, the pages, the constables, the messengers and everybody involved with this operation. Have a good summer.
We will let Canadians decide and hopefully we will be back here next fall.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could prevail upon the patience of my colleagues just for one minute or two simply to express a word on behalf of colleagues on this side seconding the comments that were made by the chief opposition Whip with regard to the extraordinary contribution that has been made by all of the people who help us on a day to day basis to discharge our responsibilities as members of Parliament.
I certainly have exactly the same thoughts as my friend the chief opposition Whip when it comes to the pages who are called upon among other things to be extraordinary students. They are all straight A scholars with no problems at all in missing classes. They still ace all of their examinations. There is this incredible good cheer that they show always. They have patience when long-winded cabinet ministers and others make speeches late at night. They constantly bring good cheer to all of the proceedings here in the House of Commons.
I agree with my friend that it would be very desirable to see many of them back here one day as members of Parliament. My only fear is that their exposure to Parliament may cause them as a result of the experience to go into the church, sell real estate or doing anything else rather than spend more time here. I hope that we have not dissuaded them from wanting to make a career in public life.
I do finally want to express two final thoughts. The first is a word of goodbye and thank you to so many of my colleagues who I have been privileged to serve here with who have decided not to stand in the next election. It is an enormous privilege to be able to work with so many dedicated men and women from all different parties in the House of Commons who are here simply to serve Canada.
Finally I wish to express to you, Madam Speaker, and to all of your staff in the House of Commons-all of your colleagues, the clerks at the table and all of the other
Routine Proceedings
staff who contribute so much-a very sincere word of thanks for all of their dedicated service on behalf of Canadians. It is a privilege to work with each and every one of them.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before putting the question to the House I would like to say a few words.
It seems somehow different to close a session. I just said a little while ago that I do not see the member for Saint-Denis, now Senator Prud'homme, being the very last member to speak. I can just see him somehow opening the door in the lobby. I know he could not resist. I will at least greet him in the name of all our members.
Colleagues, a few weeks ago I undertook a huge responsibility when our Speaker became ill. If I can use the vernacular that was common in my former life I would say that being John Fraser's understudy is not an easy task. He is and will remain one of the great Speakers that this House has ever known and the tribute that was offered to him today proves it abundantly.
If it was relatively easy for me to do this job I owe it to members from all sides of the House, from the government side, the opposition, the NDP and our independent members as well.

I would like to thank those who made that little extra effort or extended the everyday courtesies which made my life easier. Of course, our Clerk, his assistant and all his team are dedicated and talented people who are always there to help the person occupying the chair, as well as to help hon. members.
You will also allow me to say a brief word of thanks to my team, both on the Hill and in my riding, who worked extra hard.

I want to say thank you as well to the Speaker's staff who were really fantastic, who accepted me as one of the family, as we were all praying for Mr. Speaker's recovery.
To all of you, to our pages, to those of you who direct them and help them, we will miss you. I do hope that you miss us. Thank you very much.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.

Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 10.21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 20, 1993 at 11 a.m., pursuant to order made earlier today.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 23, 1993