Paul Forseth

[National Parole Board, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

Last Friday the Solicitor General accepted the resignation of Mr. Dagenais as chairman of the National Parole Board. The Solicitor General said that the board needs a new direction, a direction that would choose its members based on confidence, merit and wide consultation.

My question is on the topic of consultation. Will the Solicitor General agree to allow the standing committee on justice to review the nominee for chairman before any final appointment is made?

[Young Offenders Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to basically support the bill as amendments to the Young Offenders Act are so very long overdue.

The issue certainly was up front during the election. There was always someone who was sure to bring it up at a local town hall meeting during the campaign.

Consequently, in view of such wide concern about problems with the act from right across Canada, it was with dismay we found listening from this side of the House that the government did not even give a mention of the Young Offenders Act in the throne speech. After subsequently pressing the government on that sorely misplaced priority, we have now had a number of promises from the justice minister that the government is moving on a series of amendments.

However, the timing of the long awaited government bill at last count is that it is to be introduced sometime in June. Based on the shifting sands of time of this government, one wonders if there will ever be a government bill amending the Young Offenders Act tabled before the House adjourns for the summer.

I am sure therefore it is with a backdrop of frustration that the member has introduced his own private member's bill. I have heard that the substantive part of it does not have the support of the government. From our observation, this is most disconcerting.

The Young Offenders Act has a title. This bill seeks to make the act live up to its name. The YOA should deal with young offenders, not youthful adults. I would certainly like to see more comprehensive adjustments to the act, however as far as this bill goes, we on this side are prepared to support it.

Specifically the bill is threefold. It lowers the age limits that define who is a young person for the operation of the act. It also allows the publication of the name of a young offender who has been convicted of an indictable offence on two previous occasions. This is a weak effort of improvement but certainly is a move in the right direction.

The bill also increases the maximum penalty for first and second degree murder to 10 years. This last point has been hinted at by the justice minister. However the bill at least leaves the other measures alone whereas the justice minister plans to give on one hand yet take away with the other by limiting the transfer provisions of the act.

My sympathies go out to the member that he is part of a group which is so out of touch with Canadians that he has to bring forward his own bill. Although the bill has timid half measures it still does not get the support of the cabinet.

I have been around at the operational level with young offenders since the days of working with the juvenile delin-

quents act. I recall all too well the federal-provincial conferences and negotiations for 10 years leading up to the passage of the YOA in the dying days of a previous Liberal government.

Canadians were assured in bold terms how the YOA struck the right balance. I also recall strong voices at the time, even in the House, of how the YOA sent the wrong message to the community and especially to young offenders.

We have now lived with the Young Offenders Act for about 10 years. It has been amended three times in response to community concern. It is the single piece of criminal legislation that is most vilified by the public. We have had 10 years of implementation. One would think over that period some semblance of accommodation would have resulted. However the opposite is true.

The verdict is in from the empirical evidence of operation in the field. The Young Offenders Act is fundamentally flawed because it arises from false assumptions of human nature and as we know best, top down attitude that the community really does not know what is good for it.

Reformers on this side have been calling for some time for a fundamental review because the community demands it. The murder rate has doubled since the death penalty was last used in 1962. Violent crime in general has increased even more. The basic point is that crime rates in general are too high.

We know who the offenders are. We need to protect the community and give more recognition to victims. We have considerable resources available for offenders. We should do more to provide opportunities for making self-reformation available for offenders. However the Young Offenders Act is way off track in respect of victims of youth crime.

In my riding the biggest outcry for the Young Offenders Act reform comes from high school students. They are all too well aware of what the street sentiment is about what happens to one of their own when they seriously offend against another student. Many students, especially females in high schools, are afraid. There is an atmosphere out there that nothing happens to young offenders. There are no real consequences. Law-abiding students have no confidence in the justice system.

Youth are in a period of learning where they resist limits. They kick against authority and watch how the community responds. The Young Offenders Act does the young no favours by sending the wrong message about violating the rights of others. The Young Offenders Act sends the wrong message to the community.

We check the newspaper today. Again we see that 16-year old Marwan Harb of Dompierre Street was pronounced dead at the hospital after being stabbed in the back. A 15-year old boy who was arrested two hours after the stabbing will be charged with murder.

A group of teens was walking through a park. Following an argument one of the boys punched Harb's girlfriend in the face. When Harb tried to defend her a fight broke out and he was stabbed in the back. It was a fight between a bunch of kids. It was not like a gang war. It was not racial. The victim and the accused knew each other through school. Upon being noticed the kids ran away, leaving Harb lying on the ground. Incidents like this that are repeated across Canada demonstrate that we need to address youth violence.

We have an atmosphere where youths carry weapons. There is little community consensus that we are accountable to an atmosphere of law and order and, if violated, offenders will be held to account. In some aspects we see youths behaving as if all law and order has broken down and they are living with the attitude of anarchy, every person for themselves; protect yourself because for no one else will.

The inter-relationship between law, its application and social order is complex. Yet in its simplest form,Canadians from across the country have indicated that the Young Offenders Act does not strike the right balance of deterrence to the individual, deterrence to others, victims' rights and opportunities to reform.

I recently drafted my own private member's bill that was rejected by the system as Bill C-217 was already in the hopper, working its way through. My bill was seen as being too similar. Unfortunately the bill is not votable but I commend the member for sending a message to his colleagues. I hope they wake up and get going with fundamental changes.

Reform Party members will have a lot to say in the future about a constructive alternative to the Young Offenders Act. We have been listening to the community. Our platform comes from the bottom up. The Reform Party national task force on law and order specified substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act and we will be bringing those forward.

Now is the time to support the voice of reason and practical reality. The Young Offenders Act needs changing. The bill although too modest in substance certainly goes in the right direction. Voices of this tone must be supported. The bill must not only be supported by like-minded individuals but must be supported in the name of young people right across the country. The misguided premise of the Young Offenders Act will eventually be fixed. Perhaps it will take a Reform Party government to do it.

In the meantime Her Majesty's loyal constructive alternative from this side of the House will support any voice of reason and balance to deal with the measures the community wants. Let us change the Young Offenders Act now and send a more realistic message to offenders and potential offenders that someone's

rights end where someone else's nose begins. Offending needs to be denounced.

We need a young offender law that is realistic in our culture, that balances the needs and the rights of the offender and the offended. The community must have confidence again in the justice system. That is why I support the inherent message of the bill.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 29th, 1994]

For the years 1992 and 1993, have any departments, agencies or crown corporations contributed funding to the legal education and action fund and, if so, (a) which ones (b) in what amounts?

[The Late Frank A. Griffiths, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give tribute to the late Frank A. Griffiths, born December 17, 1916, who left us April 7 at 77 years. He is survived by his wife Emily, two sons, two daughters and 15 grandchildren.

An accountant by training, he became a business leader in British Columbia. He built a broadcasting network of radio and TV stations, including from my riding CKNW, B.C.'s most listened to station. His Western International Communications Company included BCTV, 11 radio stations, 2 networks and satellite communications. He also purchased the Vancouver Canucks in 1974. He became vice-chairman of the NHL and was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Mr. Griffiths worked for community charities and was awarded numerous citations. His companies also had their own charitable organizations: the CKNW Orphans Fund, BCTV Variety Club Telethon and the Canuck Foundation.

Mr. Griffiths was a builder, a British Columbian who led by example, leaving his community a better place for us all.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, Reformers will support Bill C-8. We admit we had reservations as the bill seemed at first to be limiting the discretion of the police to do a difficult job. The bill was seen as circumscribing the law around the use of force for fleeing criminals. On hearing the various witnesses and delegations at the committee stage, we are satisfied that the bill responds in a reasonable manner to unfinished business of the charter argument and the ruling of the Lines case.

The bill also clarifies the use of deadly force against escaping prisoners from medium and maximum penitentiaries. Additionally it provides authority to disable foreign vessels fleeing from Canadian authorities.

The bill is a culmination of a process that started in 1979 in the Ouimet committee. In 1989 Ontario race relations and police task forces made observations on the topic. Over the years there has been concern from the Law Reform Commission and the subject was brought to a head by the Ontario Lines case in April 1993 wherein existing sections of the Criminal Code were declared unconstitutional.

The bill catches up to the court and to the manuals of practice and training of current police operations. We had concerns that there was not sufficient consultation at the front line level of peace officers. We still hold that to be true. The bill, although appearing inherently sound, still is a "top down, we know best" piece of work.

It is interesting to note that the civil libertarians and the prisoners rights representatives we heard at committee stage opposed the bill. They want peace officer powers much more strictly circumscribed, as is presented here. Most interestingly it seems that Bloc members were very worried about the fleeing foreign vessel section as they may envision themselves in the future as being categorized as foreign vessels fleeing from Canadian authorities as they challenge sovereignty in disputed waters. The separatist agenda was coming through.

The basic premise of the bill relating to peace officer use of force in the three areas of fleeing criminals, escaping inmates and runaway foreign vessels is proportionality. We hope the bill will bring the right balance. On the one hand peace officers must have the capacity to do their job with authority and on the other the rights of individuals must be protected.

In closing I want to make a strong point to wake up the government. Reformers will vote for the bill as a housekeeping measure. However we hope the justice minister will soon bring forward more than just promises to tighten up the criminal justice system, for in so many other areas all proportionality has evaporated.

The public demands action in view of what it sees as the bleeding heart justice agenda of the government.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

I understand the point. There is a demarcation on schedule VI concerning the three kilo mark, over three kilos or under.

I know the pressure of the court system in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere. If the charge is simple possession of marijuana or a small amount for trafficking, and if there is an option to proceed summarily they are going to chose that option. Raising the amount to three kilos is, I think, sending the wrong signal. The criminal law must act and be functional and stand up in the courtroom, but it also is an educated and symbolic role. I think the bill sends the wrong signal to the community.

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to respond to Bill C-7 presented by the Minister of Health.

This bill is a near duplicate of Bill C-85 from the 34th Parliament. From my counting it is 71 pages, a considerable piece of legislation. I understand that this bill, like all bills, is not the beginning of something. It is more correctly seen as the end product, the result of much deliberation, consultation and thousands of hours of work by many.

This bill is a major realignment of drug control legislation, specifically an act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, and to amend certain other acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act. The first flag of concern is that this bill is presented by the Minister of Health. It amends the contents of the Criminal Code of which the Narcotic Control Act and federal drug act have traditionally been part. It is now seen as health legislation rather than behavioural control legislation that is commonly known as the criminal law.

I am directly suggesting that there is joint responsibility between the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Justice. When this bill gets to committee the significant and traditional Criminal Code and justice nature of the bill must not be forgotten.

This begs the question: What is the government saying about the drug problem in Canada? What philosophical flavour made this bill be presented as health legislation? Certainly that should be a concern to the community.

The assignment category for legislation into health sends a message to the country. I am not so sure I like that message. Is there a misguided softening on law and order with this government? Has the government given up on the aggressive police enforcement side of dealing with the drug problem? I hope not. Certainly I do not think it has the political mandate for that either.

May this legislation receive the significance and priority that it deserves. For all its hoped for improvements let us hope that changes in the criminal law will not be weakened by Bill C-7's regulation to be seen merely as a health issue.

The role of the federal government in combating drug abuse is long established. Within Canada the Narcotic Control Act, the Food and Drugs Act and the Criminal Code provide the basic legislative structure for the control of psychoactive substances, narcotic stimulants, depressants and hallucinogens.

Enforcement of these federal statutes is the responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who work closely with customs authorities, provincial and municipal police forces to combat illicit drug activity.

Health and Welfare Canada's bureau of dangerous drugs has a dual role in the implementation of the statutes. It provides administrative support to law enforcement agencies such as disposal of seized goods and assets, training assistance and scientific expertise. The bureau also administers the regulations covering the legitimate use of psychoactive substances for medical and scientific research purposes.

These provide for distribution procedures, security measures, record keeping and prescribing practice among others. There must be a balance between control over drugs and their availability to meet legitimate medical and scientific needs.

The health care community must also be accountable for its shared role in achieving this balance. Since practitioners, physicians, veterinarians, dentists and pharmacists are licensed by the provincial government where they practise, those governments are also responsible for ensuring that standards are met by health professionals under their jurisdiction.

Close and ongoing liaison among federal and provincial authorities is the key to an effective drug control program. However it must be sustained by bold, clear law that actually works in the courtroom and does not become a retirement plan for lawyers.

Drug control law must also send the right signals for general deterrence. It must work technically but it also must teach. It is symbolism and advance warning of what the community will tolerate.

My reading of the community mood is that it is looking for political leadership and courage concerning our drug laws. The attitudes of zero tolerance are increasing as the community comes to comprehend the long term debilitating effects that illicit drug use has on society, especially among the young.

Bill C-7 replaces a large part of the Criminal Code book which I have on my reference shelf, for the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act have traditionally been known as criminal legislation. Law enforcement agencies are involved. The courts regularly impose sentences on those duly charged under it, fined and given jail terms. This is the character and seriousness of the legislation.

Drugs are also related to organized crime. Yet this bill to amend the Criminal Code is introduced by the Minister of Health. Health is an issue for sure but Bill C-7 is clearly criminal law in tradition and substance. Therefore when we push this bill on to the next stage, I ask the government to send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, not the Standing Committee on Health.

I want to talk for a moment about marijuana. A survey a few years ago revealed at that time that 4.5 million Canadians 15 years old and over had tried some form of cannabis. The same survey showed that 1 in 15 Canadians used cannabis in the year of that survey and the numbers were rather astonishing. Approximately 700,000 Canadians have tried some form of cocaine. More than 800,000 have tried LSD, speed or heroin.

Since the drug problem seems to accelerate each year, there is no question that there needs to be a coherent, workable and

strong response by Parliament. We must give our front line people, who struggle valiantly to protect the community, the tools and legal terms to do their job.

I notice that in the first version of this bill, the Conservative one from the 34th Parliament, the amount of cannabis that is to be considered the demarcation line between schedules-serious consequences or not so serious consequences-in Bill C-85, schedule VI, it was one kilo of cannabis. That was the amount. Now in the same section of Bill C-7, that demarcation amount is raised to three kilos. What is the message here?

Maybe there are some arguments, such as fewer cases leading to jail terms, a cost saving measure. Perhaps pressure has come from certain social groups who believe in using pot as their religion. Whatever the reckoning, it is quite a message to send to the community.

What are the effects of the proposed legislation with reference to schedule VI? Those dealing in drugs could do so in shipments under three kilos. Should they get caught it would mean not as heavy a penalty as it would if they were caught with a quantity exceeding three kilos. This change might embolden what is happening on the street, especially in our high schools, and result in an increase in the drug trade. Traffickers will think that the law is getting soft.

How much is three kilos? It is three bricks, three bundles, about 6.6 pounds. It is about the size and weight of my newborn son, 6.6 pounds. What will 6.6 pounds buy or bring the children of our nation? Three kilos or 6.6 pounds would make an awful lot of joints.

As a criminal justice professional I have seen firsthand clients who have lost business careers because of closet marijuana habits. Years ago I saw a cabinet minister of the provincial government light up. How sad. I have dealt with sexual offenders on probation. Some of their excuses for molesting the children in their household was that they were high on cannabis.

The car accidents, the industrial accidents, the misjudged business deals leading to bankruptcy and many needlessly unemployed, the loss of general social judgment, the loss of the desire to work, the loss of the desire for academic excellence, these I have observed firsthand as a probation officer, officer of the court and family court counsellor, the direct result of the relatively tolerant attitude toward marijuana use. There we have some of the underlying principles of Bill C-7. These are the flags of direction that the bill takes.

In summary, first I say clearly that Bill C-7 is criminal law. Let us not slip it by as merely health legislation. Second, what a signal is sent by the threshold of three kilos for cannabis. This bill on that specific seems to go in the wrong direction.

The government may try to send a signal that we now are a mature, sophisticated society and that we can handle drug use in a tolerant and enlightened way under the guise of health but the community knows otherwise. The school authorities in my riding are not looking for a loosening of drug enforcement. The local crown counsel is looking for clear, tough, workable legislation that holds up in the courtroom.

My community wants legislation that gives clear authority to the duty constable when he pulls over a driver. It should give appropriate powers of search and seizure for drugs. I say it is not technically hard to do but it requires political will to send a clear signal which way we are going with this legislation. Let the community absorb what is being proposed. Let witnesses come forward. Let the people speak, not just the experts.

I challenge the government to not only proceed with its top down attitude telling the community what is good for them but let the implications of this bill simmer in the community and then have the courage to adjust its efforts into what the community expects from its leaders.

In closing, Bill C-7 is significant legislation. It is 71 pages worth. It remains to be seen what is the essential thrust, where it is going. I look forward to seeing it referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and give it the character and the intent that it deserves.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is the last opportunity I have during these scheduled debates to speak specifically on the budget.

The budget document outlines the Liberal version of national priorities. It certainly has now been widely accepted that this year's budget lacked courage and does not sufficiently respond to the new realities we are facing in international finance, where money and wealth have no loyalties. At the mere touch of a key on a terminal, disgruntled or nervous investors representing large blocks of funds can turn against an economy when the wrong signals are sent.

We must not forget that much of what is done in investing and international finance is in the realm of what is believed may happen in the future, what is being speculated on.

The range of options a government has in order to perform for the international audience is becoming smaller. At this point the Canadian government still has a few choices left but these in themselves may not be available for long.

Specifically, the enactment of this bill implements various parts of the February 22, 1994 budget. It affects persons employed in the public service as well as federally appointed judges, parliamentary agents, the Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, parliamentarians and members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP.

This law extends the freeze for two years, suspends the upward movement within salary scales for a two year period and enables incentive payments to be made to indeterminate employees of National Defence, Emergency Preparedness and the Communications Security Establishment under the civilian reduction program.

It also fixes a maximum on contributions to provinces under the Canada assistance plan. It extends restrictions on the payment to provinces under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.

It makes permanent the 10 per cent reduction in payments to railways under the Atlantic Regions Freight Assistance Act. It increases the reduction in the government share of freight rates under the Western Grain Transportation Act.

The act also allows the CBC to borrow money.

The act establishes a two tier benefit rate in unemployment insurance at 60 per cent for low earners and a basic rate of 55 per cent. It reduces employee premiums to 3 per cent of insurable earnings in 1995. There is also a new benefit entitlement schedule which addresses the link between work history and duration of entitlement. The minimum entrance requirement is increased from 10 to 12 weeks of work.

It provides that workers suspended for misconduct, who take a leave of absence or quit their jobs for a few weeks before the end of their employment will no longer be disqualified from receiving benefits for their entire entitlement period. They will not be entitled to benefits while suspended or on leave or while their contract of employment continues. The benefit of the doubt will be given to claimants on these and other issues related to just cause or misconduct where the evidence is equally balanced.

The act also authorizes the establishment and operation of pilot projects to study ways to make unemployment insurance more efficient.

That is the general description of this bill. However, it really falls short of what the country needs. I am sure the finance minister and members of the cabinet are reasonable people who realize what must be done. The problem is they do not have the political courage to do the right thing for the long term benefit of the nation, compared to the leadership it will demand in the short term to get everyone on side, the vested interests, the self-centred thinkers, the politicians who seek to please for the short term at all costs.

That is what is represented by this bill: a government that is only beginning to say it hears what the majority are saying, rather than being prepared to act on what the majority are saying.

The budget in general terms sounded as if it came from the Reform Party book but when one checked the numbers against the rhetoric all credibility was lost. That is why I say this bill before us today falls so short.

I am not opposing just for the sake of opposing. I truly believe that under the guise of being lean and not mean the government is discovered to be weak in what it perceives is the prescription necessary to be a manager of the national economic climate.

Compared with either the experience of other countries or with our own history, the four decades between the end of World War II and the mid-1980s were a period of some measure of economic success for Canada. The Canadian economy grew to be one of the strongest in the world. The lot in life of the average Canadian greatly improved during that period.

The basic reason was the development of our resource base. We traded our way to prosperity. However the traditional advantages that Canada has had are disappearing and we are being eclipsed. The resource sector will always be important but the rate of growth we have known because of it is gone.

We expect to enjoy continued improvement in our standard of living. If we expect to engage in the kind of public programs at home and abroad that we like then we are going to have to find a new economic vocation and vision.

Canadians are beginning to realize what is needed is a vision of a new Canada and that is coming from this corner of the House. The ethical, democratic and economic visions Reformers have developed in close dialogue with communities outline the prescription of required action, not the timid measures in this bill, but bold efficacious governance that leads with courage and compassion.

The very last thing we should do about our situation is nothing. We cannot afford to assume, like this government, that things would work out for themselves in our favour without much adaptation, without much effort or without using our creative minds. Change begins with the recognition that a problem exists.

I am encouraged that government members are increasingly sounding like Reformers. They are getting the talk. We on this side are getting through to many on the other side. Many more know in their hearts that we are right but they are part of a club, a gang that plays the political game as if it were politics as usual in Canada and that if they just talk nice and do lots of opinion polling they will keep power. Others appear to have a sincere desire to do what is right for the nation but have not yet gathered

the courage to make a difference, to say no to what they rationally know is the wrong course for Canada.

I invite them for once in the history of Canada to vote against this bill, vote against their club. Say to history and to all time there were members with courage and principle who acted for the national interests rather than self interests.

We must secure our economic base as a nation. As a trading nation we must be in the international trading game with courage and vigour and not shrink from trading arrangements that foster openness, yet strongly monitor the international rules, and without fear holds other players to account.

We must restructure our income security to ensure that in providing assistance from public funds those who are given priority are those who need assistance the most. We have built a comprehensive set of programs but these efforts do not adequately meet the requirements of those who should have first call on our national resources, those most in need. We will be forced to do it. We will do it ourselves in a compassionate manner or we will have it done for us in blunt terms from outside forces.

Education at all levels must have a greater level of proportion of resources. Our emphasis in education must not be just to train for a specific task but to prepare the workforce to adapt to changing opportunities. A commitment to education goes with a commitment to research. Enhancing the Canadian capacity to do the basic work of discovery and our ability to apply the results in the marketplace will also be keys to future economic success.

We have another basic economic question in Canada that is not solved by the budget. We must address interprovincial and interregional conflict. Canada must become an open market within its borders. The free movement of goods, capital, labour and cultural pursuits is fundamental.

One of the past strengths of Confederation has been that we have found ways in our political system to accommodate regional differences. Indeed Canadians are generous and tolerant of difference, but we bridle and chafe at the prospect of preference. Therefore we need a new set of institutions which can aid in bringing about a better reconciliation of regional differences.

Finally we have come to expect that we will play a positive role in the world. Attempting to help others is not a Canadian service that is new to this generation. Missionaries from Canadian churches began to play a significant role in other countries in the last century and continue to do so, as our soldiers have done in this one.

We have a proud history of making the world a more stable place and we have been prepared to pay the price. The great powers have their role. Because we are not one of them we can more uniquely play a positive role in international economic and political affairs. We can ensure that the interests of the small as well as the great are taken into account within the community of nations.

While we cast our vision afar, we must also do some repairs at home. We must erase the consequences of our misguided political ideologies and economic policies of the last decade.

In closing, for government to be effective we must be open and honest with Canadians. This will be politically hazardous for some but it will be necessary if the Canadian people are to be involved in charting Canada's course. The more we can bring democracy into this House and involve Canadians in the decision making process we will realize our potential for the 21st century.

[Justice, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want action. They want a clear guarantee from the Prime Minister that killers who perpetrate drive-by shootings, kill people in restaurants and invade peoples' homes will be locked away until they are no longer a threat.

Will the Prime Minister give that guarantee today?

[Justice, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Could the Prime Minister clarify the mixed signals his government is sending out on criminal justice. On one hand the justice minister talks about tightening the criminal justice system. On the other hand a senior Liberal member has been

widely quoted on his agenda of having lifers paroled at 15 years. The justice minister says he welcomes such suggestions.

Would the Prime Minister please tell the Canadian people which of these two members reflects the Liberal position?