Debates of May 6th, 1998

Canada Lands Surveyors Act

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Natural Resources]

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

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent that at the completion of deliberations on Bill C-31 the House will call no further business but will see the clock as standing at 5.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed as such?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, while we support this bill and the principle of what it is trying to achieve, there were some concerns with the bill. I was hoping that the parliamentary secretary might address some of those issues. The members opposite might have noted that there were only a few as we were going through it clause by clause.

I question the wisdom or the need for the minister to appoint two lay people. My colleague, who is a land surveyor, raised that question as well. When the minister has representation through the Surveyor General of Canada on the council, why is it necessary and why is it desirable to have two patronage appointed lay people on that council as well? I would be interested in hearing the government response through the parliamentary secretary.

The other point I wanted to raise is that we had some concerns with the power of a surveyor or a licence holder to have access to private land at any reasonable time as long as that person takes reasonable precautions to avoid damage during the survey. It seems to me that that is a powerful provision in the bill. Perhaps the private landowner would be entitled to some protection for the entry, or that the surveyor would have to go through some process to gain access to the land, to assure the landowner that their interests in that land are protected.

I wanted to raise those concerns on the record before this bill passed third reading. I would be interested in hearing some kind of government response to those concerns. We have not had that opportunity. Unfortunately, I am not sure if we have enough government members present to do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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)

Holidays Act

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

moved that Bill C-369, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to my private members' Bill C-369 which would proclaim November 20 as Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.

There is no greater gift we can give future generations than to honour our history, to leave them a memory of our past. This bill asks parliament to recognize the contributions and role that Sir Wilfrid Laurier played in our history.

In asking the House to proclaim November 20 Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, his birthday, I am not asking the House to proclaim the day a statutory holiday, but rather a day of recognition for Canadians to mark an important milestone in our history.

A true Canadian, Laurier was a skilful and pragmatic politician with a charismatic personality. He was a dominant political figure of his day.

As a French speaking prime minister, he was one of the builders of the nation, from prairie towns to the Canadian navy, in 1909.

Under his leadership Canada continued its industrialization and urbanization. It was strengthened by the addition of two provinces and two million inhabitants.

In designating November 20, it will pay tribute to Laurier's vision, his determination that Canadians regardless of their ethnic or linguistic background could work together toward a common goal, that of nationhood.

Laurier pursued and consolidated the work of Confederation begun by his predecessors. He was a true nation builder. In these days of political uncertainty we can look to Laurier as an individual who embodied his love for Canada, his love for a united and prosperous country.

We live in an era where our children have little appreciation for our history and for our roots as a nation. Professor J. L. Granatstein in his work Who Killed Canadian History comments on the fact that our knowledge of our history is disappearing.

Those aspects of our past that reflect our traditions, our values and our ideas, and that have helped to shape our society are disappearing from our collective memory.

This bill will help us recognize and promote our history. The federal government has proclaimed several national days of recognition. February 15 is National Flag Day. We celebrate June 25 as National Aboriginal Day. We have built educational programs around these days. We have helped to expand the understanding and the importance of these days to Canadians but we cannot stop there. We must mark those occasions in our history that are important to our nation's survival and to preserve the memories.

In these times when our national unity is called into question, it is only through the dedicated efforts of concerned Canadians that we find occasions or situations which celebrate the very fact of being Canadian.

Whether by disaster as demonstrated by the ice storm of 1998, or by design as in the more formal declaration of national holidays, I believe we must find ways to come together to celebrate our very Canadianism.

Armed with a better knowledge of our history, we can promote national unity.

We can define what it means to be Canadian. We can help Canadians better understand their past. My private member's bill is a further step in that direction.

Canadians will judge what we do as legislators in part by how we treat and respect our past. It is worthy to note that this bill which I put before parliament does not infringe upon provincial legislative authority or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rather, it seeks to enhance that which is truly Canadian, our common interests and sense of deep rooted history.

Joseph Schull in his work outlines the unique vision of Laurier, an individual who viewed himself as a Canadian both in terms of nationality and in terms of thinking.

If Sir John A. Macdonald is considered the Father of Confederation, Sir Wilfrid Laurier can be considered the author of Canadian independence. Such a title in and of itself is worthy of recognition.

Laurier was probably the greatest political orator in our history.

Warren Bennis says that leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality. This applies to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. As prime minister, Laurier was determined to create a nation that embodied many elements. Laurier said of Canada:

Our country is Canada. Our fellow countrymen are not only those in whose veins is the blood of France. They are all those whatever their race, whatever their language whom the fortunes of war, the chances of fate or their own choice brought among us.

If there is anything to which I have devoted my political life, it is to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country.

Laurier said:

I am a Canadian. Canada has been the inspiration of my life. The 19th century was the century of the United States. I think we can claim that it is Canada that shall fill the 20th century. I cannot hope that I shall see much of the development which the future has in store for my country.

But whenever my eyes shall close to the light it is my wish, nay it is my hope, that they close upon a Canada united in all its elements, united in every particular. Every element cherishing the tradition of the past.

And all uniting in cherishing still more hope for the future.

These words of Laurier are as relevant today as when they were first spoken.

I read in the Ottawa Citizen of May 3 that research collected by a group of federal bureaucrats shows the Queen and the Mounties were once central institutions. They have found however that these institutions, and in addition the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, no longer provide Canadians with a common sense of identity.

It means, they say, that the federal government must strive in the coming years to refine a unifying vision for the country or risk its disintegration. In the words of the policy research committee:

Canada will need a new sense of common purpose to preserve social cohesion and to take the country, intact and thriving, into the next century.

The purpose of this bill is to take into consideration the comments I have just cited.

Proclaiming November 20 a day of official recognition of Sir Wilfrid Laurier will in my view help Canadians focus on our roots and help Canadians appreciate the contributions of a visionary and leader such as Laurier.

We will be judged by how we treat our history. We will be judged by whether or not we are prepared to honour political leaders such as Laurier as nation builders, as representatives who were prepared to lead when others only wanted to stay quiet.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-369 to make November 20 Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.

We note that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was born on November 20, 1841 in Saint-Lin, Canada East in Quebec. It was Laurier's parents who first instilled in him the benefits of learning about both the French and English cultures. They sent him to an English school in New Glasgow before attending the French language classical college at L'Assomption. He studied law at McGill and delivered his first ever French valedictory speech at this English speaking institution.

His political career began formally in 1871 when he became a member of the Quebec Legislative Assembly. Three years later he was elected to the House of Commons. He became the minister of inland revenue in 1877 under Alexander Mackenzie. The Liberals became the opposition in 1878 when Sir John A. Macdonald returned to power.

He led the French Canadian protest against Macdonald's decision to allow the execution of Metis leader Louis Riel in 1885, and while not condoning Riel's action he gained national recognition in condemning the Macdonald government's mishandling of the northwest rebellion.

I might say in parenthesis that I as a member of the Reform Party, having done some research on the issue of Riel, would find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with the position of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on that issue.

These actions established Laurier as a man of principle, a reputation which would stick with him throughout his political career. He became leader of the Liberal Party in 1887 following Edward Blake's resignation. He led the Liberals to victory in 1896 and remained Prime Minister until 1911.

Laurier's achievements as prime minister are often cited as including the settlement of the west and the building of an effective transportation system. During his 15 years as prime minister more than one million people moved into Manitoba and the western territories which became the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905.

Laurier said:

I am a Liberal—I am one of those who think that everywhere there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up, and new forces to be developed.

The idea of reform is fundamental to Laurier's liberalism. He had a recognition that reform and compromise were necessary for national unity. We as a party and the present day leader of Reform Party have acknowledged and recognized that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was one of the first reformers in Canada.

Laurier wanted to make changes and make changes in a very positive way. He was not satisfied with the status quo. We believe these fundamental principles still hold true today as we continue to search for new ways to reform the federation and lead Canadians into the 21st century in national harmony.

We would agree with the hon. member for Oak Ridges that our national holidays help to educate Canadians of our history through which we find a shared pride in all things Canadian.

I believe that we have a responsibility in this Chamber, and perhaps people of my generation have a responsibility to those Canadians going through the school system right now, to bring a focus on our Canadian ancestors. Again I agree with the member for Oak Ridges that we need to have a greater knowledge of our history.

I also agree that in supporting the motion there is no need for there to be a national holiday because of the unnecessary cost that would be incurred by it. However, with the stature of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the contribution he brought to Canada and the fundamental ways in which he reformed many of the aspects of Canada, surely he should be noted.

As heritage critic for the official opposition I am pleased to offer my support for Bill C-369. I hope in the event the bill is passed that the Minister of Canadian Heritage finds a way to include Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, November 20, on her next calendar. I note she happened to miss Easter and Good Friday, so I am sure as she is making corrections on that calendar she would want to make this correction as well.

Anything we can do in the Chamber or as Canadians to bring forward the contributions and the strength of our Canadian ancestors will do nothing but build a stronger nation. As we set these people up, examine their lives and learn from them we can move forward strongly into the 21st century.

I very heartily support the bill proposed by the member for Oak Ridges.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, on March 11, the member for Oak Ridges introduced two private member's bills. Bill C-369 aims to have November 20 designated a national holiday in honour of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The aim of Bill C-370 is to have January 11 designated a national holiday in honour of Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada.

The bill before us today concerns Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the first French Canadian to be elected Prime Minister. Laurier pursued a number of ideals, but the one he considered the most fundamental was that of a united and bicultural Canada. I invite you today to give thought to his action.

Laurier was born into a family whose roots went back to the beginning of New France. He was born four years after the arrival of the troops in 1837 and at about the same time that the government of the union, or Province of Canada, which, according to the recommendations of Lord Durham in his report, was imposed by the British on Canadians of the day, who are now Quebeckers. The objectives of the 1841 government included punishing Canadians for the popular insurrection led by Louis-Joseph Papineau and assimilating them.

Laurier's father felt that both cultures were vital to Canada's survival. He sent Wilfrid to study in New Glasgow, where he lived with a Protestant family. After completing his classical studies at the Collège L'Assomption outside Montreal, he obtained his law degree from McGill in 1864.

The plan to build a Canadian federation dominated the politics of the day. Laurier campaigned actively against this plan with the Rouges and took part in the work of the national committee set up to examine the various plans for federation. The committee's recommendations were overwhelming; in particular, it concluded that the plan should be put to the people. During this period, Laurier even wrote that confederation would spell the death of the French race and the ruin of Lower Canada.

Despite vigorous opposition, Confederation became a reality and Laurier was elected with the Rouges to Quebec's Legislative Assembly. He was opposed to dual representation, as he felt that it signified the takeover by Ottawa of provincial jurisdiction. Laurier defended provincial autonomy, and the preservation of this autonomy would become for him the key to protecting the French fact in Quebec.

He was elected to the federal government in 1874 with Alexander Mackenzie's team. In 1878, he found himself in opposition, where he would remain for 18 years.

In 1885, Laurier took the side of the Metis in Saskatchewan and of Riel. It was in recalling the rebellion of the Patriotes that he said that there were times when the only course open to an oppressed people was insurrection.

In the House of Commons, he said that the real criminals were sitting across from him on the government benches. It was Laurier's view that minorities would have faith in their government if they were treated honestly, and their needs were met. He also held that patience and compromise were essential if violence in this country was to be avoided.

In 1888, buoyed by the support he had garnered in Quebec for the Liberals in the preceding election, in which, for the first time, the Liberals won a majority of seats in Quebec, Laurier became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

In 1890, D'Alton McCarthy introduced a bill in the House of Commons calling for the abolition of French in the Northwest Territories. Laurier saw clearly that this was part of a movement that would eventually reach Quebec.

In his speech to the House of Commons, he said that this bill was a declaration of war against the French race and that the plan was clear, because the bill was designed to prevent French Canadians from speaking their language everywhere that it was used. For him, the only way to protect Quebec was to defend provincial autonomy, even though the price to be paid was sometimes high in other regions of the country where francophones were in the minority. He approved an amendment making it possible to abolish the use of French in the Northwest Territories.

In 1891, the Government of Manitoba introduced two bills: one abolishing the French language as an official language, and the other taking out of the hands of francophones the funding of their separate, Catholic schools. In 1895, the Privy Council in London, England, ruled that the federal government had the right to intervene to restore the constitutional right of francophones.

The Conservatives tabled a bill restoring the rights of the minority in Manitoba, but Laurier feared that, in reaction against the federal government's action, the other provinces would follow Manitoba's lead. He promised that, once back in office, he would find a solution that would satisfy the minority and serve justice in terms of equal rights, on which our Constitution is based.

Sensing that an election was imminent and that public opinion was on their side, the Liberals led by Laurier filibustered to delay passage of the bill. A general election was called.

On June 23, 1896, Laurier became the Prime Minister of Canada with the support of French Canadians in Quebec, who chose a French-speaking Catholic over an English-speaking Protestant in spite of the fact that Laurier had opposed the bill to restore French schools in Manitoba. Robert Rumily wrote:

At the risk of displeasing Ontario supporters, Conservative leaders made an effort to be fair to Catholics and French Canadians. The Province of Quebec voted instead for a leader with a French Canadian name but English sympathies, who had hindered this effort and was not promising à and would not offer—anything for the future.

On November 19, 1896, to settle the Manitoba school issue, the Laurier-Greenway agreement was signed. This agreement provided that English and another language would be the languages of instruction in bilingual schools, wherever ten or more students spoke a language other than English. This therefore put all other languages on the same level as French. According to historian Réal Bélanger, Laurier was laying the very idea of a bicultural Canada open to question with this action.

The year 1905 brought the Saskatchewan separate school crisis, and Laurier gave in once again, as he had for the Northwest Territories and Manitoba. According to him, it would be up to the provinces to decide whether or not to make separate schools available.

In 1912, Laurier was in opposition when the crisis broke over the adoption of Ontario regulation 17, which to all intents and purposes abolished French language teaching in that province. The people of Quebec followed the struggle of the franco-Ontarians with emotion. French Canadian solidarity with the francophones of Ontario even became the primary obstacle to recruiting French Canadians for the first world war. Laurier felt that he had given in enough to the anglophones. He saw that aggression toward the minority was coming close to the borders of Quebec.

The Soleil de Québec of the time voiced the following opinion:

When the malice and bad faith of the adversaries of French has been proven, we in the province of Quebec will be forced to conclude that it is no longer possible to co-exist with those who betray us and cheat us.

This debate was to be followed with the one on conscription. Laurier was against it, because he felt that, if it was Canada's duty to sustain the British Empire, that contribution needed to remain a voluntary one.

That position prompted the following comment from the

London Free Press:

The Hun is among us—Just look at the situation in Quebec. A vote for one of Laurier's men is a vote for the Kaiser.

Laurier's political career was marked by many other important milestones: the massive immigration influx to the west, expanding trade, the country's economic growth, Canada's status in the British Empire. He is credited with moving Canada from colony to nationhood.

One of his greatest victories in Quebec was to have paved the way for the separation of political and religious power.

But as regards national unity, here is what historian Réal Bélanger wrote:

The most negative aspect unquestionably remains the compromises made that sealed the fate of French-Canadian catholic minorities outside Quebec—Here, the illustrious leader lost some of his glory—The Anglo-Saxon character and mentality that prevails in 9 out of the 10 provinces is partly the result of concessions made by this great man who, strangely, always claimed to be receptive to the aspirations of the minority dispersed across the country—The Arthabaska lawyer even inspired his successors, all the way to Pierre-Elliott Trudeau. To preserve Canadian unity according to the Anglo-Canadian way, these people resorted to the “small steps” strategy—In the end, that strategy often had a negative impact on the cause that these men thought they were defending.

Today, the francophonie in Canada, outside Quebec, is eroding. It only accounts for 3% of the country's population.

I am not saying Wilfrid Laurier is responsible for this situation. He was, as are today the francophones of this government, the instrument of an English speaking Canadian majority that did not want Canada to become a united and bicultural country.

The Bloc Quebecois exists, among other reasons, because Sir Wilfrid Laurier's dream was a dismal failure.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-369, which would establish Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, November 20, as a national holiday to be observed throughout Canada.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier was born in Saint-Lin, Quebec, in 1841. He was the son of a farmer. He studied at McGill. In the 1896 election Laurier became our first francophone prime minister.

National unity was of supreme importance to Laurier. He saw how divisive the Riel and the Manitoba school issues were and he sought to reconcile the interests of French and English Canadians with his policies.

In 1885 Laurier supported Louis Riel as a French national martyr. He vigorously supported the cause of the Metis leader and the need to unite the French and English in Canada.

It is interesting and important to me that in 1917 he opposed the process of conscription. Instead he proposed a referendum and a continuous voluntary enlistment.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier believed in human rights. He believed in protecting people's democratic rights. As the hon. member opposite said, he was a nation builder. He was an interesting and valuable voice in our country, of that there is no doubt.

However, do we need a day to commemorate him? I think not. I appreciate that the hon. member opposite finds Laurier an instructive and inspiring leader and I respect that fact, but I do not feel the need at this point in time to name a day after him.

I agree with the member that Canadians should recognize their roots. It is very important for us to draw strength from our roots. We need to find inspiration and guidance from the people who came before us, but each one of us looks to different people for inspiration.

I have found inspiration in an early suffragette named Francis Beynon. She was an early journalist in Winnipeg in the 1910s. She worked for the Women Grain Growers . She worked for many years spreading information and communicating with isolated women on the prairies who lived on mile-wide farms and had no contact with anyone.

She taught them a lot about their rights. She was very involved in the struggle to get the first vote for women. When the first world war came along she fought very hard to get the vote for immigrant women. That was not an easy battle because, unfortunately, there were a lot of women even in this country who were unwilling to allow foreign women to vote during the war.

She took this important democratic stand. I respect her for that. It was not a popular stand. She also fought against conscription. I believe that she passed out of history because she did not take a popular stand.

I respect and find inspiration in people like Francis Beynon. I do not know whether I should suggest that we also have a Francis Beynon day, but I want to make the point that the inspiration in my life would not come from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it would come from one of the early suffragettes who worked long and hard for some of the rights which I now enjoy in the House of Commons.

Other people might find inspiration in other places. Another inspirational person might be Agnes MacPhail. She was a political reformer, born in Ontario in the 1880s. MacPhail was the only woman elected to the Canadian Parliament in 1921. That was the first federal election in which women had the vote. She served until she was defeated in 1940.

In 1943 she was one of the first two women to be elected to the Ontario legislature. She lost her seat, but was again elected in 1948. She was also the first woman appointed to the Canadian delegation of the League of Nations where she insisted on serving on the disarmament committee.

Again, this was a very important woman in Canadian history. She was a peacemaker and an inspiration to many women. Perhaps some people would like to see an Agnes MacPhail day.

Very recently I had the privilege of being part of an unveiling of a plaque for Portia White in Preston, Nova Scotia. She was a very famous and inspirational black Canadian woman from my community.

Portia White was the first African Canadian woman to win international acclaim as an opera singer. She was a famous musician in our country. She was born in a musical family and taught choir in a church. She was a teacher and a community person who is remembered by thousands of people now scattered all over the country. She has become well known as an inspiration for thousands of young black Nova Scotians.

I too believe we should be celebrating our roots and our ancestors. We should be helping young Canadians to find inspiration wherever they can. I think it may be more appropriate, instead of having a day that represents one inspiration, such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to have an ancestor day. We accept the fact that we all have ancestors who we gain strength from and we should try to recognize them in a public way. I believe that would go a long way in encouraging us to gain strength from our roots and in helping us to understand our roots better.

I do not agree that a Sir Wilfrid Laurier day is a wise option at this point in time. I would instead suggest that we make it an ancestor day.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-369, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day), and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I must admit that when I first saw this bill I thought it was just another example of Liberal partisanship, but then I noticed that the member had also introduced Bill C-370, an act to amend the Holidays Act to designate January 11 as Sir John A. Macdonald Day.

Yesterday the president of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation Board, Adrienne Clarkson, appearing before the Canadian heritage committee, illustrated the need to do more to encourage our youth to learn more about their country.

A recent survey revealed very disturbing findings on our knowledge of history. An alarming percentage of young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 34 who were surveyed could not say in what century Confederation took place or who we fought against in the first world war.

Twenty-four per cent of university graduates did not know that our Constitution had been repatriated.

We need to do more to help educate our students and in fact all Canadians about our rich history and heritage. This bill is a step in that direction. I would like to thank the member opposite for his continued interest in promoting the history of this great country.

The PC Party wishes to see the great historical figures of our country commemorated and their exploits celebrated. Let me be clear in saying that our party would not have a problem with amending the Holidays Act to include Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day to be commemorated on November 20. We would support a day of commemoration, just as my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough proposed a day of commemoration for our fallen police and peace officers.

However, we do not support a paid holiday. A holiday with pay does not guarantee greater awareness of key points in Canada's history and costs an excessive amount to the country's employers.

In preparing for this debate I came across a February 1997 edition of Maclean's magazine that reported the findings of a survey of 25 well-known Canadian historians and scholars. They were to rate our prime ministers. Sir Wilfrid Laurier came in third might I add behind Sir John A. Macdonald.

Many referred to Laurier's legacy to Canadians as that of being a splendid orator and a master of political compromise. It is quite obvious when we look across this House today that those Liberal shoes were too big to fill.

In closing, I am proud to note that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the first French Canadian to become Prime Minister of Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has no objection to November 20 being designated Sir Wilfrid Laurier day and the Minister of Canadian Heritage being given the task of recognizing the contribution by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other great Canadians to the development of this country. However, it does oppose this day's becoming a mandatory paid holiday.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Madam Speaker, many Liberals think of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as the real founder of the Liberal Party.

When Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was in power the chief opposition to Macdonald came from two recalcitrant reform groups: les Rouges of Lower Canada, a group of French speaking radicals whose chief target was the Roman Catholic church; and the Clear Grits, originally an assemblage of discontented Presbyterian and Methodist farmers from the area southwest of Toronto. While the Grits disappeared as an entity in the 1870s the term clung to Liberals and was still widely used a century later.

Laurier was an attractive man, an elegantly handsome lawyer from a Quebec country town, eloquent, ambitious and sensitive. Early in his political life as one of the young leaders of les Rouges he had realized that if his confrères were ever to gain office they would have to form an alliance with the English and at the same time soften their anticlerical stance by identifying themselves with a political program acceptable to the Roman Catholic church.

Laurier proselytized that these goals could be reached through stressing the liberalism of his party, demanding the separation of republican and anticlerical dogmas. What he was saying to both races was that les Rouges could take a moderate approach compatible with the philosophy of William Lyon Mackenzie, the first Liberal prime minister, and Edward Blake, the only federal Liberal Party leader in Canada never to become prime minister.

He emphasized compromise and admiration for the liberal reform ideals that were then articulated by William Gladstone in England and that were to have a hold on the imaginations of Canadian Liberals for decades to come.

Laurier served four terms as Prime Minister, from 1896 to 1911. He taught us Liberals many of our greatest principles, including the most important: the need to find and maintain common ground between anglophones and francophones.

The Liberals realize that Laurier won the 1896 elections because the Conservatives had lost sight of this fundamental principle of the Canadian federation.

For Liberals the lessons of Laurier's leadership went far beyond the French-English entente. He buried dogmatism, abandoning the ideological rigidities that had plagued les Rouges and the Clear Grits. He built his electoral strength on the organizational backs of Liberal provincial premiers, Oliver Mowat of Ontario, William Stevens Fielding of Nova Scotia and Andrew George Blair of New Brunswick. He brought them into his cabinet as power brokers for their regions.

He launched the building of a second transcontinental railroad and sought support from the business community, modifying his party's commitment to free trade in order to appease the country's new industrialists.

Laurier supported the aggressive open immigration policy of his minister of the interior, Sir Clifford Sifton, whose purpose was the settlement of the west. He talked optimistically about the glorious future of Canada.

Laurier's successes were turned into principles that Liberals have followed for decades. Despite some setbacks, Laurier on the whole skilfully walked the French-English tightrope throughout his years in office, balancing French Canada's racial fears and

Nearly a century ago, Sir Wilfrid Laurier predicted that “it is Canada that shall fill the 20th century”. When we look back at it, who could call him wrong? The challenge before us now is to find a balance or a compromise among ourselves and among our many interests to make the 21st century Canada's as well.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier believed immensely in his country. He held strong views of what Canada could be or should be. More important, he possessed vision for Canada and for Canadians.

For all of these reasons, it seems very appropriate to celebrate the beginning of the 21st century by amending the Holidays Act to honour this remarkable Canadian by designating Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of private members' Bill C-369, an act to amend the Holidays Act, introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Oak Ridges. The hon. member's bill would set aside November 20 in recognition of the contributions made to Canada by Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Why would we commemorate Laurier? Many of us remember him from our early learning of history. He has been described as the golden tongued Laurier, the seventh prime minister, the first French speaking Canadian to hold our highest political office, a man of breadth and a man of vision, a hero even among those who disagreed with him.

Laurier travelled a vast and varied political road. However, whatever we have come to associate with his name, he was first and foremost a true Canadian. He stood for those key issues which remain close to the heart of all Canadians: tolerance, national unity, and the continuing development and growth of Canada.

In preparation for today's debate I requested a copy of Laurier's maiden speech in this House from the library. Some may be surprised to learn that it was delivered before the time of Hansard . All that is available to commemorate his remarks are the comments people made about them and the excerpts in the paper. Times certainly have changed.

Although many issues of the day have changed beyond what Laurier could have imagined, others closely mirror the challenges that he faced during his tenure here.

Some of the challenges which he met, members of this House have also met. He dealt with the question of denominational schools. This parliament has addressed that very issue. Under his government two new provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, were added to Confederation. We are currently working on the creation of Nunavut.

Laurier once said “I look forward to the day when Canada will have a population of 30 million inhabitants, of 40 million perhaps, and when its voice will weigh in the destinies of the world”. Over 100 years later we are there.

Canada is admired around the world for its quality of life and its international role in peacekeeping and peaceful actions, most recently through the realization of our goal for an international ban on anti-personnel land mines.

While we as a country continue to develop our strength within our national borders and across international boundaries, as we move into the next century and the next millennium, it is fitting that we pay tribute to the last prime minister to lead Canada into a new century, and to face and meet the challenges that lay before our country.

I am pleased to support the hon. member's bill. Here is to Laurier. In the words of the Prime Minister leading us into the next millennium, “here in this place that was home to Laurier, let us find inspiration for an even brighter future for us all”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the hon. member for Oak Ridges and his bill. It is an excellent bill and one which is worthy of support by the House.

Canada is one of the world's oldest democracies. It was conceived in 1841 by LaFontaine and Baldwin in the context of some competing visions. Canada is a great idea and sustains itself as a great idea by virtue of its visionaries. It was conceived at the time when the competing visions were very strong indeed.

There was a competing vision of being closer to the British Empire which my ancestors frankly supported. People from British ancestry, British stock said that we needed a relationship that was closer to the British Empire.

On the other hand there was the emergent empire of the United States. It was quite a force in terms of its ability to attract people to populate the country and clearly was a force to be reckoned with and one of great attraction to many Canadians.

Then there was a third vision which was centred in Quebec. It wanted its relationship to be much closer to the mother country on a colonial tie basis.

In this maelstrom of visions emerged the vision of LaFontaine and Baldwin which led to the creation of Canada. Canada, being Upper Canada and Lower Canada, attracted in turn other provinces primarily from the Atlantic region and emerged from that in 1867 as a nation.

What has kept Canada together over these great number of years has been the visions of its leaders, particularly with Macdonald who brought the country together by virtue of a railway. The railway made absolutely no sense from an economic standpoint. It should have gone down through the United States and come back up into Canada. The point of the railway was not to make an economic livelihood for people but was to unite the country.

Similarly Laurier had visions such as that, visions which made for a country, nation building visions. One of the strongest ones was with respect to immigration to the west, the population of the west. It was an idea which allowed Canada to bring to its territory huge numbers of immigrants to populate the west, largely in response to the encroachments of people from the United States.

Around 1917 and 1918 over 400,000 people came to this country of six million at the time, something in the order of 7% or 8% of the population. It is an incredible thought when we think of it in the context of our own immigration policy which strives to do 1% of the population.

Similarly, Laurier resisted the encroachments of the British Empire, the attraction of being part of the trading agreement. He stuck out his political neck, shall we say, and tried to make distance between Canada and the British Empire.

I support the hon. member's bill. One of Laurier's speeches says “Although Caesar once said that he would rather be first in a village than second in Rome, I say that it is my ambition to be a citizen of a great country. I look forward to the day when Canada will have a population of 30 million to 40 million perhaps, and when its voice will weigh in the destinies of the world”.

That day has arrived. Therefore I support the recognition of that day.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There is only time for the reply of the member who put forward the bill.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, may I split my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

If the hon. member has unanimous consent of the House I do not see any problem. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.