Debates of June 22nd, 1994

Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[Jean-Robert Gauthier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been trying to get your eye or your ear on this one.

I did not vote the last time because I was a bit late for the question. This time I would like to have my vote recorded with the government actually on both those bills.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Do we have the unanimous consent of the House to modify the vote to include the hon. member?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-35, an act to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, for Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

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

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-35.

First I want to thank all members of the House for their co-operation and goodwill in seeing the bill through. Although the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act is essentially a housekeeping measure, members from all parties have offered some very thoughtful and helpful comments.

The bill has a straightforward and clear purpose: to provide a standard legislative basis for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The department now exists by virtue of Order in Council. For all its brevity and clarity the bill is significant for several reasons.

One of the Prime Minister's first decisions-perhaps the hon. member for Beaver River would like to listen-on assuming office last fall was to create the new department. All members know why he gave it this priority.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister spoke vigorously on the issue. Continuing to include immigration within a department of public security would send precisely the wrong message to Canadians and the international community.

The bill carries through on the principles of the red book where we called for a dynamic approach to immigration, balancing humanitarian considerations with our demographic and economic needs.

Under Bill C-35 the structure of the department will reflect that balanced approach. Joining citizenship with immigration has a compelling logic. It is a natural fit. To acquire citizenship is a significant step in integrating newcomers into Canadian society. It means making a personal commitment to Canada and understanding the requirements, privileges and responsibilities of becoming Canadians.

Citizenship completes the process begun by immigration. The department believes that citizenship and immigration spring from the same common values and aims. My hon. friend from Hamilton-Wentworth put it rather well in the House the other day. He said that immigration is the body of this country and citizenship is the soul. So the department makes good common sense in the way it brings together the operational policy and promotional aspects of both citizenship and immigration.

The new department was created from parts of three others. Forging a common sense of purpose is not something that can be done overnight merely by order in council. Nearly 20 years ago the distinguished novelist and physicist C. P. Snow said that Canada has the finest civil service in the world today. I suspect that most Canadians do not realize it but it is a fact recognized by civil servants everywhere in the world. I hope that hon. members agree with me when I say that we want to be able to say that again, and sooner rather than later.

With a legislative basis staff can concentrate on even more efficient delivery of services, knowing that their careers can progress on the same terms as in any other department. More important, as the minister said in the House on second reading, the legislation modernizes and streamlines the government to meet the needs of Canadians and gives us the tools we need to deal effectively with the myriad complex issues of citizenship and immigration.

By taking programs, resources and responsibilities from several different departments and consolidating them in one department we make the government more accountable and more open.

The department has a clear and logical continuum of responsibilities, stretching from the time someone applies to come to Canada to the time she or he takes on the obligations of being a citizen. These responsibilities include immigration applications, immigration levels and selection, federal-provincial relations on immigration, visa requirements, refugee matters, enforcement, settlement, citizenship applications and registration, and citizenship promotion.

Of course, citizenship does not end with swearing an oath and acquiring a document. In some ways it is only the beginning. That is why the new department will take a lead role in strengthening the values, identity and commitment required of all citizens, those who are born here and those who choose to come here. Citizenship, like immigration, is a two-way street.

This week marks the 125th anniversary of Canada's immigration service. Indeed, today is the day. This bill marks one more step forward in our country's evolving and progressive history of citizenship and immigration legislation. This legislation will establish the integrated and simplified framework we need to address the challenges and the tremendous opportunities offered by immigration and citizenship.

All members of Parliament recognize the need to overhaul our immigration policies and to consider the long term role of immigration and nation building. All of us recognize the need to improve the system. All of us know the importance of redefining and reinforcing our citizenship policies. All of us understand the profound effect that migration issues are having upon the world today.

This government has moved actively on these important matters and we will continue to move actively. We are doing so, I believe, with a real sense of co-operation from all sides of this House. As Canadians we need to think about immigration in a bigger way. We need to get a clearer sense of where we are going and what kind of country we are building for the future. We have to clean up the problems with our immigration system, to stop the small number of abusers who undermine the overwhelming majority of hard working and honest newcomers.

A Canadian author once said that the refugee is the every man and every woman of our time. We have to push even harder to ensure that the international community comes to grips with the problems confronting 20 million refugees every year, and especially the question of protecting women who are fleeing gender-based persecution.

The government has acted on this and it will continue to act and we do so with the co-operation of everyone in the House of Commons. With the legislation to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we will have the integrated and simplified structure that is essential for solving problems and taking advantage of the tremendous opportunities for immigration and citizenship.

This legislation establishes a modern, efficient and intelligent structure. With this structure we will be better equipped to introduce and carry through on fair and open policies to reunite families, offer safe haven for refugees, use immigration as a building block for economic growth and promote the concept and principles of citizenship.

The legislation is obviously not designed to lay out specific details of immigration and citizenship policies. What Bill C-35 does do is create a contemporary department that is best organized to carry out the policies we eventually agree on.

Madam Speaker, I began by saying that the legislation is short and straightforward and it is important.

I therefore urge members of the House of Commons to pass this bill without delay so that we can improve citizenship and immigration policies and thus contribute to our country's progress. This legislation is a step forward.

With this positive step forward Canada and all Canadians will benefit.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak in the debate on third reading of Bill C-35, an Act to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Once again, as I already said on second reading, I tell you that I will vote against this bill, for almost the same reasons that I mentioned in my speech on June 13 in this House.

Since there was no written document explaining this complex bill, which amends several laws, I carefully reread the speech given by the minister when he presented it. Unfortunately, the minister gave no details or precise justification at that time. His long speech covered only generalities concerning citizenship and immigration policy and of course he again praised his government.

I agree with the principle of the bill and with merging immigration and citizenship in the same department. However, some people, myself included, question the department's name. Should it not be called the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and not the other way around? That is, should immigration not come before citizenship?

In fact, the tens of thousands of new arrivals who come to settle in Canada every year are immigrants first and then several years later they become citizens.

The main reasons that I will vote against this bill are as follows. First, clause 4 of the bill says that "the powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to citizenship and immigration" and I emphasize the word "relating".

Obviously, this provision is too vague and too broad. Immigration has always been a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction and Quebec has had its own department and its own minister since 1968.

Knowing the Liberal government's centralizing designs and judging by the inroads already made in these past few months, I fear that the minister and the department will unduly infringe on provincial powers.

I only mention the case of the COFIs here. In this House, we already denounced the minister's attempts to impose on this typically Quebec institution the obligation to promote Canadian unity. What a clear example of meddling in a field of exclusively provincial jurisdiction like education!

The minister is required to respect the agreements signed by the federal government and the provinces, especially in Quebec's case, where the Cullen-Couture agreement and later the McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement are very specific. I want to warn the minister and tell him that the Bloc Quebecois will never allow the minister or his government to meddle in fields of provincial jurisdiction.

I remind you that other laws, including the one passed recently on the Department of Revenue, have specified and defined the minister's powers. Why was it not done in the bill under consideration? Another important provision is clause 5, which says that the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into agreements with any province, group of provinces or any agency thereof or with any foreign government or international organization, for the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of policies and programs for which the minister is responsible.

We submitted an amendment to eliminate the word "agency" to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. This is the only amendment that was accepted by the Liberal majority, since clearly the government must negotiate and sign agreements with the provincial governments which these agencies come under. We also proposed another amendment requiring the federal government to table the signed agreements in the House. Incredible as it may seem, the Liberal majority defeated this legitimate, very justified amendment.

The Liberals even voted against tabling the agreements signed by ministers with other governments and with international organizations. Nevertheless, the tabling of such agreements is a common, justified practice in the legislatures of all democratic countries, since such agreements sometimes provide for spending that the legislature is entitled to supervise, monitor and control. The minister and his department should be more open, especially because in his report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, five fiscal years ago, the Auditor General of Canada devoted four chapters to all aspects of the immigration program.

He came to the conclusion that the information provided to Parliament and therefore to the public was incomplete and fragmentary. The other major objection that we have to this bill concerns clause 10, amending the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship Act. This provision gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his Secretary of State for Multiculturalism the mandate to promote the Canadian identity. This is a new mandate and we have trouble understanding why the minister added this to a bill which he said is only administrative in nature.

Why this urgency to promote the Canadian identity, if not to fight the sovereigntist movement on the eve of a provincial election in Quebec and a referendum to follow in 1995? Especially because when this government talks about Canadian unity, it denies or ignores the Quebec identity, for all practical purposes.

Another consequence of this provision is that it increases the already existing confusion between the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the mandate of Citizenship and Immigration. Although this function should be exclusive to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already begun to appropriate it by proposing new legislation on citizenship which according to him would be aimed at promoting both citizenship and important Canadian values.

Unfortunately, the minister is becoming increasingly obsessed by the issue of Canadian unity. In the process, he is just fanning the flames of controversy between Quebec and English Canada. This discussion is not at all unifying, as the minister seems to think. The failure of federalism is the failure of Canada as a confederation.

Last May the minister raised the rates for immigration services. For instance, an application for permanent residence for refugees, obtaining a visa, a minister's permit, passport, and so forth, all of which creates a lot of problems for refugees who do not have the wherewithal to pay $500 to obtain permanent residence.

Yesterday, the minister announced new financing measures for immigrant services which will come into effect in 1995-96. The government will not pay the social benefits of teachers who give language courses for new immigrants, although these benefits are included in their collective agreements.

This decision affects many agencies that receive funding to offer immigrants certain services such as programs for immigrant settlement and adoption and language training programs for immigrants in Canada.

This decision will create a lot of problems for these agencies which are doing very good work, and for employees whose social benefits will be reduced.

On Monday, the minister tabled another bill, Bill C-44, to amend the Immigration Act, the Citizenship Act and the Customs Act. Under this bill, persons convicted of a major crime will no longer be able to claim refugee status to gain entry into or postpone their deportation from Canada.

We agree with these principles, but we want to look very closely at each and every one of Bill C-44's provisions. If necessary, we will move the appropriate amendments.

At this time, however, we would like to make some preliminary comments.

First of all, in my view, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has overly reacted to a very real problem, albeit one that is marginal and nowhere near as widespread as the Reform Party and the press would have us believe. I think the minister caved in too readily under the pressure and the sharp criticism voiced by certain Reform Party members.

To my mind, some of the provisions in this bill run counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill also gives immigration officers the power to intercept and hold mail from abroad which could contain documents related to a person's identity, when the officers have reason to believe that these documents could be used for fraudulent purposes. Madam Speaker, do you not think that this provision clearly violates the principles and rules contained in the charter?

It is our duty as elected members to fight prejudice and discrimination against refugees. As the people's elected representatives, we must show compassion and generosity, which are fundamental values of Quebecers and Canadians. With all due respect, I think that my colleagues in the Reform Party who sometimes make inflammatory statements are encouraging public intolerance towards immigrants.

I am extremely pleased that the vast majority of people I met in Alberta-I made two trips and visited Calgary, Edmonton and Banff-including lawyers, ethnic leaders and church members, do not share this approach of the Reform Party, which I consider anti-immigrant and anti-refugee.

I want to pay tribute to Edmonton's ethno-cultural association and to Calgary's multicultural centre for the wonderful work they are doing to integrate newcomers.

Twice I visited Calgary and met with a young Salvadoran who took sanctuary in the basement of a church. I showed my solidarity with this refugee. Unfortunately the refugee did not get shelter from the Reform Party. Fortunately now an understanding took place and this young Salvadoran is free.

I thank the pastors, university professors and professionals, as well as the Latin American community, for having helped this young Salvadoran who can now stay in Canada. I am proud of this Latin American community, which did such a marvellous job in Calgary for one of its brothers.

In closing, I want to emphasize, on the 125th anniversary of the first immigration program and of the first Immigration Act passed by Canada, the outstanding contribution made by the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have enriched Canada and Quebec.

I also want to mention that I participated this past weekend in two very important ethno-cultural events in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North. First, a special event organized by the multi-ethnic community centre of Montreal North, which gave diplomas and honourable mentions to students who passed their French course. What a fine example of harmonious integration.

The second event I participated in was the gala organized by L'Ouverture youth centre, which gave awards to the best students of ethnic origin in each of the schools in my riding. Most of these students were of Haitian, Latin American and Vietnamese extraction. I commend L'Ouverture youth centre and particularly its director, Félix St-Élien, for this initiative and for excellent work promoting closer intercultural links among young people in Montreal North.

I take this opportunity to point out the efforts made by the Haitian community to solve problems and smooth their transition into Quebec society. Finally, I want to acknowledge warmly and express my deep gratitude to the thousands of volunteers and hundreds of organizations throughout Quebec and Canada that work so hard to provide settlement and integration services to our new fellow citizens.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and contribute to the debate surrounding Bill C-35 on third reading. As members know the bill's intent is to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but in fact this bill is simply standard housekeeping material and no real meat.

My colleagues and I in the Reform Party would rather this government bring forward legislation that deals with some of the numerous problems our misguided Department of Citizen-

ship and Immigration faces. Further, I believe that the government must begin immediately to look at new specific goals and new hard nosed policies for this department, using as criteria the safety of Canadian society and the economic needs of our country.

At present this government is pursuing an immigration policy that will allow 250,000 newcomers into Canada this year. This represents about 1 per cent of our general population. What is the justification for this number? Where is the economic justification? The minister continues to claim that extensive consultations unprecedented in their scope and attendance has set this number. We in the Reform Party ask, what consultations? Who was in attendance? What views are being accepted?

Let me tell you about this government's method of consultation. In fact its consultations are basically centred around special interest groups, particularly those that have direct interest in the maintenance of a complicated, expensive and slow moving immigration process. In most cases this means a financial interest.

For example, it is estimated the processing of one refugee costs between $30,000 and $50,000. Do you believe that immigration lawyers who are consulted extensively during the minister's extensive consultation process are interested in streamlining determination systems? Not on your life.

What about the consultation material received from polls? What about the opinions of rank and file Canadians? We have heard these consistently. Over the last few years polls have shown that a majority of Canadians believe that there should be a decrease in immigration numbers, particularly during tough times.

However, the voices of Canadians are ignored in favour of listening to special interest groups with their own special agendas. Once again this government policy of higher immigration levels flies in the face of its infamous red book assertion that "people are irritated with governments that do not consult them or that disregard their views". The key word in that statement is people.

This is an interesting contrast to the broadsheet published by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and distributed earlier this year which asks for input to the consultations which are supposedly under way right now. It states: "It is also important for information to flow from you and your group to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration". Note the phrase you and your group. Notice how the request for written submissions to the consultations task force is not addressed to individuals but rather to groups.

What happened to the government's promise of consulting with the people on important issues? Where is the fulfilment of the red book promise? It is simply not there. It has not happened and will not happen because this government like the Tories is simply not interested in what ordinary Canadians have to say.

Of the 250,000 immigrants this year, only 18 per cent will be evaluated for their potential economic benefit to Canada. Accordingly the skill level and education level of immigrants in comparison to Canadian citizens has been declining over the years. However, the fiction of the red book refers to an immigration policy that considers economic needs and our ability to absorb and settle immigrants.

These Liberal election promises are in clear contradiction with their current policy of a 1 per cent ceiling and their current policy that only 18 per cent of immigrants will be screened for economic benefits. How does our current immigration policy deal with Canada's economic needs or our ability to settle immigrants? It does not.

In addition, after much pressure this government recently introduced a bill to partially overhaul the outdated workings of the immigration and refugee board. However, even with these partial amendments there are still fears that the IRB will continue in its fumbling ways in creating a huge backlog of cases and by putting Canadians at risk by not deporting criminals. The present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when in opposition on June 22, 1992, commented on the system of removal. He lamented about people who get refused and then not get deported at the end of the day. He said "even the people who were denied were not deported in the end".

In actuality very few people are removed. This limp-wristed approach to deportation has continued under the present minister's guidance. The lack of exit controls and the staying of removal orders by the IRB has resulted in a system of deportation that is inefficient, inept and creates a huge economic liability to the Canadian people.

Last year the IRB in its wisdom granted 147 conditional stays of between two to five years to those under removal orders. Most disturbing of all, 145 of the 147 had criminal records. They range from drug offences to manslaughter to sexual assault.

The operation of the immigration and refugee board is a travesty. With 250,000 immigrants arriving each year perhaps the minister should undertake to discover why the IRB believes that Canadian citizens need the company of 145 known felons.

Recently an individual with an extensive criminal record was granted a five-year stay by the IRB and was involved in the fatal shooting of a woman in Toronto in April. Just today there was a funeral in Toronto. That is because a few days ago a metropoli-

tan Toronto police officer was killed and his partner wounded in a gun battle with an individual who was ordered deported three years ago.

With people waiting in line for years to immigrate to Canada why does the IRB quash deportation orders of known criminals and why does the department fail to execute deportation orders? I believe the minister should endeavour to find out, and I believe he should apply his words of June 22, 1992, to the workings of his own department. The system is clearly breaking down.

Canada must cease to become a haven for immigrants and refugees who were involved in criminal activity. While we will continue to welcome genuine convention refugees, we must strive for an immigration policy that is driven by the economic needs of our great country.

The average annual number of immigrants admitted to Canada over the last 25 years has been approximately 150,000. This should be our starting point. Then based on the health and the needs of the economy this number could be adjusted, up or down. Undoubtedly because of the immigration policies that are driven by special interest groups the government will denounce such a strategy.

Quebec with its controls of its own program of immigration has decided that it will be cutting back and accept only 16 per cent of all newcomers to Canada this year. What is its reasoning for this? It is its economy, of course, a very fundamental reason I believe.

Its economy is too sluggish and too weak at the moment to absorb and settle immigrants. To quote the red book again: "If a province is utilizing this strategy why is it so incomprehensible to suggest we can use a similar strategy on a national basis". The Reform Party's position is clear. Any immigration policy must be based on the economic needs of our country. What could make more sense?

Finally, this government must reform our system of removals and deportation. Criminals and bogus refugees are being granted stays by the IRB. This must cease immediately. This policy in fact is to the detriment of legitimate immigrants, legitimate refugees, and to the detriment of the Canadian taxpayer who must fund legal representation for these people either before a never-ending string of immigration appeal boards or before a judge in the criminal justice system.

Without real reform to the immigration policy and the workings of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's economic recovery will most assuredly continue to be weakened and the safety of Canadian streets will most assuredly continue to be compromised.

This is not a time for simple housekeeping initiatives. This is a time to stop listening to special interest groups and start listening to the Canadian people. The Reform Party fully intends to be this government's worst nightmare on immigration policies until constructive, sensible and economy driven reforms are made to Canada's immigration programs. They can go to the bank on that promise.

I would like to address briefly the fact that I am appalled closure would be used on a housekeeping bill such as this one. I would simply quote the member for Kingston and the Islands:

I want to start by talking about the fact that the government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and the Canadian public of the Draconian approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the House-

Those were the comments of the member for Kingston and the Islands in February 1993.

In May 1991 the member for Ottawa-Vanier stated:

That is far from being democratic. Here we have an abuse of power by the majority because the government happens to have the numbers and it can impose upon the minority a process which, to say the least, is objectionable.

On May 29, 1991 the member for Kingston and the Islands stated:

A new definition of democracy-I suggest that it is contrary to all the practices of this House for the last 124 years. It is a breach of the proprieties of this place. While the Speaker has ruled that the motion is in order, and I respect that ruling, I suggest that it is-morally wicked of the government to proceed with this motion and particularly then to apply closure to the motion and thereby curtail debate on it.

On May 29, 1991 the member for Winnipeg St. James stated:

If there is going to be any debate, it will not put up with it very long, because it has a Draconian device, a Draconian mechanism called closure. If you deign and if you dare say anything in opposition to the government's proposals or to its motions, it will cut you off.

Finally on March 24, 1994 the leader of the government in the House of Commons stated:

Mr. Speaker, I said on behalf of the government it will be found over the life of this Parliament that this government will be using time allocation and closure far less frequently than its predecessor.

Four times in one night. He continued:

I challenge the opposition House leader to raise this again after a few years and see if I am right.

Perhaps after a few years it will be raised again. This housekeeping bill is no excuse for closure, but I will take this opportunity to close my address as one of the last speakers before the summer adjournment of Parliament.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

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

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to change the position of item No. 1 on the order of precedence under Private Members' Business and make it item No. 8 and to move item No. 8 to position No. 1.

For Your Honour's information item No. 8 is Bill S-3. Having made that exchange I think you will find unanimous consent to dispose of Bill S-3 immediately at all stages.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent to adopt that suggestion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

General Security Insurance Company Of Canada

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

moved that Bill S-3, an act to authorize General Security Insurance Company of Canada to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the province of Quebec, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to committee of the whole.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, in view of the excellent progress in the House today we are not going to call any further government business.

On behalf of the government House leader and the members of the House leadership team on this side of the House, I want to thank the occupants of the Chair for their co-operation this day, the table officers of the House and the pages of the House who were thanked by the Speaker earlier today.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I also want to thank the members of the House leadership teams on all sides and indeed all the members on all sides of the House for their forbearance, patience and co-operation today.

I realize that for some it has been a slightly difficult day but I appreciate the co-operation and spirit that has pervaded the House through virtually the entire day and it is similar to that which has pervaded the House through this session so far.

I want to also wish all hon. members a very happy summer holiday because with the motion that we adopted earlier the House, when it adjourns this evening, will be adjourned for the summer. We have no need to sit tomorrow and I am pleased at this time to move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I want to follow the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in agreeing that the last couple of days indeed have been difficult. I also want to assure this House that despite some rumours I have heard to the contrary Reformers were prepared to stay and debate business until tomorrow night at 10 o'clock.

Apparently there are other members in this House who prefer to go golfing, camping or campaigning in Quebec. However, I too wish to thank on behalf of my colleagues in the Reform caucus the pages and the table staff of the House for the excellent support we received.