Paul Forseth

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to not only express my dissatisfaction over the budget that the finance minister introduced on February 22, but moreover I want to state for the record the dissatisfaction of my constituents in the riding of New Westminster-Burnaby.

A measure of opinion was expressed to me publicly in a recent town hall meeting. It was specifically called to discuss the budget and the fiscal priorities for the nation. I took the public risk and advertised very widely for an old-fashioned town hall meeting in which any constituent could express himself or herself on the budget in front of their own community. The meeting went for over two hours and I listened to the line-up of speakers who came to the open microphone.

Government ministers should have been there for they would have heard that the Liberals have no political mandate to do what they are doing in this budget. I did not hear a positive thing said with regard to this budget except a relief that the government did not announce massive new spending on grand, misguided schemes. Most complained that there was no long term job creation in this budget. The budget did not inspire hope.

The election was a mandate for change. What the country got in this budget was just more of the same.

There was a promise in the budget to fix sewers and repair old roads. Suffice it to say these are not long term jobs to put us on the international cutting edge.

In the budget the finance minister withdrew the government's support for the KAON particle accelerator project in British Columbia. I suppose it is more important to pave old roads than to keep Canada at the competitive forefront of science and technology.

I can remember back in the election campaign when the Liberals promised Canadians jobs and hope for change. When in opposition, the Liberals decried that the Conservative government had let the unemployment rate rise to 11.2 per cent. The red book, which now looks like the Liberal red ink book, promised to put Canadians back to work and decrease the unemployment rate.

When the unemployed of New Westminster-Burnaby watched the budget presentation on TV they were expecting, and I repeat expecting, that the finance minister would give them a job or at least the hope for one and provide a plan to slash the rate of unemployment.

In his ultimate prediction the Minister of Finance did predict a lower unemployment rate, a walloping .1 per cent. Canadians from coast to coast could not believe what they heard: .1 per cent. Unbelievable for a party that spent the entire campaign promising jobs. We all heard it: "We have the plan, we have the team, trust us".

The Minister of Finance wants us to believe that next year is when more jobs will occur and that is when we will see an improvement in the economy. The mandate for this election was crystal clear. It was to change, to drastically reduce spending, to go in a new direction and thus spur on the economy. The mandate was not to shuffle a few things and hope that the economy would turn around on its own.

The people in New Westminster-Burnaby know that in our present predicament high taxes, the high spending of this budget and high unemployment are directly linked.

The government needs to go on a diet. For starters it should have put a cap on all federal spending at $153 billion bringing the deficit to $27.8 billion rather than the predicted $39.7 billion. This would have been a modest broadly based goal that would have sent the right message to the international markets where we are ultimately judged.

Instead of making an effort to lower federal spending, the government raises it by $3.3 billion to $163.6 billion from $160.3 billion just the year before.

If the finance minister had done nothing at all the federal deficit for 1994-95 would have been $41.2 billion. However, since it is mandatory for the government to introduce a budget, the minister put on his new footwear and lowered the deficit by a mere $1.5 billion.

Folks in New Westminster-Burnaby wonder how federal spending can be so high. I will zero in. Some of my responsibility is in the field of justice and legal affairs. I will comment on some of the spending in that area.

The continued funding for special groups is incredible. For example the Law Reform Commission which was reinstated in this budget had previous expenditures of $4.8 million in 1992-93, $4.9 million in 1991-92 and $5 million in 1990-91. All of this is for an unaccountable organization of academics who turned out obscure reports that were mostly forgotten the day after they were published.

The taxpayers are going to foot the bill for this Liberal academic think tank. It will clothe itself with credentials in the appearance of political neutrality while preaching Liberal dogma. Political parties have their own funding from their supporters. Now the taxpayers are going to fund a Liberal think tank. This is old Canada thinking of the Pearson-Trudeau era. We should support the legitimate academics in our universities to do research on legal public policy. We do not need the social engineering of a reconstituted Law Reform Commission.

Another example of waste is that of the court challenges program. The actual expense of this program for 1992-93 was $1.06 million. In 1993-94 the forecast was $1.26 million. For 1994-95 the main estimates show it will be allowed to use $3.35 million. What a retirement plan for lawyers, well the Liberal lawyers anyway who might get the retainers.

If I sound cynical it is because I watch from here and see it is business as usual, old Canada thinking from yesterday's leader who peddles an outdated budget philosophy ill-suited for the new world economy.

The court challenges program was initially introduced in 1978 to fund individuals who brought forward constitutional cases based on equality and language rights. It was expanded in 1982 for the new charter arguments.

The scope of the program has changed dramatically. It now serves as a taxpayer supported platform for radical feminists, the gay-lesbian agenda and other social engineering groups who want to revise the political landscape via the back door of the

court rather than obtain a mandate for their changes at the ballot box.

The appointments to the selection committee for this program will be suspect and most financially burdensome as there will be no market forces to moderate who gets what. If a case is worth fighting to the Supreme Court of Canada the people of Canada will voluntarily support it. If it cannot fly in the marketplace of ideas in the community, then it should not proceed to court.

I also hear now that salary increments are frozen for the RCMP which is causing an internal uproar. Yet the government is committing millions for court challenges and a commission. What does this say about the priorities of this government? Our economy is in a tenuous state.

The government should have realized that the first cuts to be made should have been to the special interest groups. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has regularly received $300,000 since 1991 with the exception of last year when it received $270,000. The government gives this group over $250,000 and then the group complains that it is not enough.

By cutting off all spending to every special interest lobby group the government would eliminate two problems. One, it would reduce a substantial part of federal expenditures. Two, it would eliminate the bickering and rivalry that goes on among groups if the government cuts part of their budget. It would stop the divisiveness in our communities.

For Canada the international community is holding its breath and has given the government a short term breather. I am not so optimistic that the Liberals can or will deliver later. Reformers have asked for a minibudget in the fall to stave off what is now starting to happen, especially with those in the area of more liquid assets.

Investors are increasingly betting against Canada and money is going offshore. That trend will continue at a steeper rate until it will actually develop into what is commonly known as a run on the dollar.

Right now Canada is draining its gold and foreign reserves to buy up Canadian dollars on the international market just to keep the price from falling too fast. It is the old law of supply and demand. The problem is that Canada does not have the deep pockets to keep up this defence for any sustained period.

The old standard advantages of political stability and a prospect for reasonable return may not stay in place for Canada. When one places the political instability of Quebec along with the general fiscal malaise we are due for a major shock from offshore.

If we do not straighten ourselves out then the international community will do it for us in blunt, brutal terms. The best predictor for future performance is past behaviour. At least since 1984 the world community has listened to Canadian governments promise time after time to deal with deficits and proportional taxation levels. Then they see a stay the course budget delivered time after time.

The prescription is that we must now run consistent balanced budgets for a number of years because of where we have been economically in the past few years. The cure is known but it takes courage to act. The overweight needs a crash diet to bring us back to health. The pain must be shared equally by all.

The first dramatic steps need to be done with Parliament Hill operations and general spending at the top for a leadership by example package.

Currently the burden is not equally shared. Eighteen new spending programs for ideological reasons are outlined in this budget. Debt charges are underestimated, a very risky forecast. The international capital markets are waiting until this fall but not much longer.

Parliament is where government comes to the people to get permission to tax and spend. This House bears the responsibility for the financial consequences of this nation. It is up to members to decide to take action.

Those in the Reform camp, those who are indeed in touch with their communities, have heard the people speak and have made a start. However, there must be 100 ways for members who are not Reformers to apply pressure against those stuck in yesterday's old Canada thinking. To put it in psychological terms, spending behaviour reveals inner character.

Let it be said right now that where there is conviction let there be the courage to act. If we believe in what we do we can journey to the new Canada where equality is our standard and compassion is our principle, where humility is our manner and truth is what we say.

[The Economy, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the talk from the government, some American governors are promising jobs, jobs, but with a difference. The results are in. Business Week magazine says that states with low taxes clearly perform better than states with high taxes. Since 1985 job growth in low tax states has been 65 per cent higher than in high tax states.

There is a tradeoff however. Cutting taxes lowers the tax haul. The resultant faster growth still does not quite compensate for lost revenue and that is where the other necessary step comes in.

Politicians must also reinvent the delivery of services. That means privatization and deregulation to reduce the cost of social services. This is not ideology. It is the hard evidence of what works.

[Tobacco Smuggling, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect what the tobacco smuggling issue tells me about Canadians.

Many say the government started it all by over reaching with taxes, but what about the complicity of the tobacco industry that markets a killer substance and then passes it off as socially acceptable? Protesting store vendors did not participate in civil disobedience. It was crime for profit. Some natives near the border look the other way, then blame someone else.

However, the real moral lapse comes from Canadians who consume illegal products. When did we become a nation of cheaters? Is it okay as long as one does not get caught? Dodging the GST, scamming welfare, lying to customs, it is time for each of us to look at ourselves and our social malaise.

If there are no buyers, there will be no sellers.

[Consumers Paper Corporation, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I provide today another example from my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby why government spending is out of control.

The Western Economic Diversification Fund previously announced it would provide $5 million to Consumers Paper Corporation to build a tissue paper plant in Redcliffe, Alberta. This was to create 150 new jobs. In reality it was to subsidize an ill-advised venture that would be in direct competition with Scott Paper of New Westminster.

There are already about 100 brands of tissue paper on the market with over-capacity of production. The new scheme would just add to the excess. If the mill made it, jobs would be lost elsewhere. If the plan failed, taxpayers would again foot the bill and families in Redcliffe would be victims of a bad government decision.

Government intrusions of this type create dependency. Why should taxpayers' money be put at risk on questionable ventures in a time of record federal deficits?

[Taxation, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when governments propose to eliminate tax loopholes they talk about soaking the rich. When the so-called loopholes are then closed it is more likely the not so rich get the bite.

The finance minister wants to make the tax system more equitable. Advice from his people says abolish deductions for the business lunch. It might take money from modestly paid travelling salesmen while devastating the often marginalized food service industry.

Lowering the cap on RRSPs might deprive rich people of some tax savings, but it would hit hard the lower and middle class self-employed who have no company pension or union contract plan.

Government bureaucrats can identify some loopholes, but before they get too enthusiastic they should take a good look at who exactly gets bitten.

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to Bill C-8 which is laid before this House.

The bill strikes at the heart of what it is all about for communities to delegate authority on their behalf, to have police officers, to give them lethal weapons and to give them the power not available to ordinary citizens. This bill clearly strikes at the heart of the authority of a policeman. The bill clearly circumscribes and brackets to a greater degree the existing law which is the discretionary authority where force, such as bringing possible harm or death, may result to a perpetrator of a crime.

First, I note that this bill appears to be a top down fix or a response to a charter argument made in the Lines case. It is said that the current provisions of the Criminal Code are too broad. Second, there appears to be some desire for this measure from certain community groups that in particular circumstances too much force was used and the Criminal Code guide and parameters were far too broad.

However, I do not detect a community outcry that the police are shooting people and that forces are really abusing their community trust. If anything the community feels that the police are hamstrung and that their hands are tied and do not generally have enough authority to carry out their duties. Where is the current community bottom up drive for this change?

It is said, however, that subsection 25(4) of the Criminal Code is a problem. That subsection empowers a peace officer who is proceeding with lawful arrest of a suspect who may be arrested without a warrant to use as much force as is necessary to prevent escape unless there are other reasonable and less violent means. This is what is known as the fleeing felon rule. It is evident from plain reading of the section that the only judgment requirement of the peace officer concerned the availability of other means.

It is said that subsection 25(4) of the code breaches the suspect's rights and the rights of innocent bystanders under section 7 of the charter which is life, liberty and security of the person or section 9 which is protection from arbitrary detention or section 12 which is protection against cruel and unusual treatment.

The fleeing felon rule was developed at a time when most felonies were punishable by death. If a felon could be executed on conviction then it was apparently felt that the death of a fleeing felon was not terribly disproportionate. To those who protested that this amounted to a so called execution before trial, the answer could be well made that the fleeing suspect could not have been terribly interested in his trial or he would not have fled in the first place.

In any event this rationale for the rule no longer exists in civilized societies where no crimes are punishable by death in Canada.

It is said that the bulk of academic and law enforcement opinion is that the deadly force justification found in subsection 25(4) is quite simply too broad.

Police officers of the RCMP, Ontario Provincial Police and metropolitan police forces all receive instructions and guidelines that limit their use of deadly force more narrowly now than is allowed in the Criminal Code.

The common thread of these limitations is the requirement of some element of actual or reasonably perceived danger to the officer or to others of death or bodily harm. The public interest in the use of force, even deadly force, is equally obvious. It is to facilitate law enforcement and prevent the escape of criminals.

It is thought by some that if criminals come to know that they may flee from arrest with impunity then they will do so and chaos will result.

There is some easy agreement in the extreme cases. I will take the extreme case to illustrate the point. That is not always so when the lines of delineation are not all that clear.

The case is raised for example about the hypothetical doughnut thief. If the peace officers found a thief in the act he would perhaps would be entitled to arrest without a warrant. If no other means were available he would be entitled to use lethal force to prevent the escape. No sane person would ever suggest that it should or could be used in that circumstance. I do not think we have a history in Canada of that kind of abuse.

Other provisions also limit this peace officer who might coming upon an armed bank robber spraying bullets in every direction. Few would suggest that he should not use lethal force to prevent escape and the possibility of further harm to the public.

What about the policeman who finds someone in the act of smuggling large quantities of cocaine or heroine into the country? The suspect is unarmed and takes flight. The crime is extremely serious. It involves bodily harm and often death among users. It fosters often violent crime by addicts to gain the wherewithal to feed their habit. It frequently fosters violent crime among its distributors but at the moment of flight the suspect offers no immediate danger to the officer or anyone else. Should the officer fire?

What about the future harm of a hypothetical Clifford Olsen? It is said that provisions such as those that exist in the Criminal Code now authorize the use of lethal force whenever no less violent means of capture are available and that that violates the charter concerning the right to life and security of the person. The prospect of deprivation thereof for some offences is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Can section 25 be justified under section 1 of the charter as a reasonable limit on the right of liberty and security of the person? Clearly the detention of fleeing suspects is a pressing and substantial concern. The use of force to prevent flight is clearly designed to achieve that objective and is rationally connected to it.

The use of deadly force does not impair the right as little as possible. The potential use of deadly force in a broad range of situations as may be envisioned is said to be over broad and entirely lacks proportionality.

The example is given of the spectre of the doughnut thief. It is simply that. It is only a spectre. There is no evidence that doughnut thieves are being gunned down in unprecedented numbers in Canada.

The evidence is that police officers are instructed to fire their revolvers only in circumstances much more stringent than those in section 25(4). In short the argument is made that peace officers can be relied upon not to abuse the force authorized by the code.

It is the potential for harm and not the reality that matters. Does the seriousness of the crime matter or is the sole question about the danger present? What is the danger? Is it grievous bodily harm or some serious physical injury? What is the risk level? Is it that it might, may or likely possesses substantial risk of injury? Who is protected aside of course from the arresting officer? Is it those who are immediately present both spatially and temporally or those more remotely at risk? The fleeing rapist might have slaked his lust but for how long?

These issues today are being dealt with by those who are responsible to the electorate. This is a political debate.

For example, in the Lines case the Criminal Code was declared indeed to be an unconstitutional violation of the suspect's charter right to life and security of the person.

Let us review. More clearly, subsection (4) currently permits a peace officer and anyone lawfully assisting such a person to use as much force as is necessary to prevent flight from lawful arrest if the additional circumstances set out within the subsection are met. It must be shown that there is a lawful basis for the arrest either with or without a warrant.

Second, the person to be arrested must flee to avoid that arrest.

Third, it must be shown that there was a no less violent means of stopping such flight than was reasonable.

If an officer crosses into another jurisdiction in the course of such a chase, the officer retains the status of the peace officer for the purposes of that section.

In deciding in a particular case whether a police officer had used more force than is authorized by subsection 4, general statements as to the duty to take care to avoid injury to others made in civil negligence cases cannot be accepted as applicable without reservation. The performance of the duty imposed upon police officers to arrest may at times and of necessity involve risk or injury to other members of the community. Such risk in the absence of a negligent or unreasonable exercise of a duty is imposed by the statute.

The right of a peace officer to use force to prevent escape is a limited one and the right may be exercised only if the escape could not be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner. A peace officer cannot in any circumstances justify the use of excess force and where the right to use force exists, it must be exercised in a reasonable manner. If it is to be exercised in a negligent manner, a peace officer is liable for all loss or damage caused by his negligence. That is the current situation.

In summary, it could be viewed that the proposed changes are administrative only and only bring into line what is now accepted practice which is housekeeping. That remains to be seen.

We need only to get this bill into committee, call witnesses and have a more thorough reflective examination. It may be that the court and the justice community elite have already decided what has to be done. What remains is the community conversation that we can have about this bill. This is the most fundamental power the community has. It delegates to its police force for peace, order and good government.

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the commission makes a ruling. I believe that ruling will then become an order of the Federal Court of Canada. There is the issue of compliance with that order. I am certain that companies will be looking at the marketplace to see whether those orders are being complied with. Are they then to go back to the commission that made the order in the first place?

I am looking for some clarification in that respect.

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I make a comment for clarification on this additional measure.

Can it be explained in plain language on the record, how a local citizen or a company could intervene when they observe in the marketplace that these new orders of the Federal Court, generated from this tripartite commission, can bring others to account, that these new orders will be obeyed and observed both here in Canada and in comparable jurisdictions.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise before this House for the first time and give my maiden speech.

I would like to also express my gratitude to the constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby for choosing me on October 25, 1993 to represent them in the House of Commons. Mr. McVey, a grade school teacher of mine, must be smiling today.

New Westminster was the former capital of British Columbia. In fact it was given its name specifically by the Queen. It is now proudly referred to as the royal city. The city of Burnaby is a large urban community and residential area lying between Vancouver and New Westminster.

Situated on the banks of the Fraser River, New Westminster has seen history pass its shore. There was the gold rush of 1858 and the massive town fire that unfortunately destroyed its downtown core. In more recent years it has been a centre for the processing of forestry products. With the prospect of urban sprawl New Westminster's geographical significance was eclipsed and now the revitalization of the waterfront and sky train connections brings a tremendous amount of growth to the city.

New Westminster is a city of proud history from the early days of the province to its re-emergence as a prominent place in British Columbia. Burnaby has seen a tremendous amount of growth in recent years primarily with the emergence of Metrotown along with a pleasant mix of parks, recreation centres and libraries.

I am pleased to say that while there is snow and freezing temperatures in Ottawa today, in my riding the lawns are green. The flowers are starting to come up. Although we have not seen snow in my riding this year let it be known that it does not rain every day in New Westminster-Burnaby.

Like other communities the issue of safer streets and the equitable performance of the justice system to properly balance the issues of the victims as opposed to that of offenders continues to fester.

To focus my remarks I wanted to comment on a paragraph in the throne speech referring to community safety and crime prevention. Listening to the throne speech my reaction was one of stunned disbelief for misplaced priorities. Across Canada one particular issue has been the Young Offenders Act, yet it did not rate a mention in the speech from the throne.

There was no outcry in New Westminster-Burnaby for changes to the human rights act or demands for the court challenges program to be restored. It took questioning of the minister from our side to hear any comment to do with the Young Offenders Act. I heard that in just the last few hours the justice minister did hint at a direction but not very precisely.

Let me say clearly that in my riding the folk are upset about deficits and the conspicuous consumption by government and the lack of fiscal leadership by example. However, if one wants to identify one particular statute that is in disrepute then it is the Young Offenders Act.

As a criminal justice professional I participated in the national consultations leading up to the act being passed in the late days of the previous Liberal administration. I recall that in 1984 the government of the day was quite verbose in promoting the efficacy of the compromise achieved with the provinces. However, I also recall other voices predicting that it was a flawed piece of legislation.

The verdict of my community is in. There is little community support. In fact I have never met one policeman who supports this legislation. We have now had about ten years of implementation and during that time the act has acquired very few defenders.

The flawed act was subject to a number of court appeals for clarification. It was also amended several times by the Conservatives. However, the Young Offenders Act remains today the single piece of legislation that is most vilified by the public.

The Young Offenders Act has a title which implies its application. I say to the government as a professional who has been left in the community to administer this act, let the Young Offenders Act truly deal with young offenders and not youthful adults.

If the justice minister does nothing else about this act and all its tangled provisions, it can do one thing to change the mood of this country concerning young offenders. Consider specifically section 2(1) under definitions of a "young person". What if we change the number 12 to 10 and the number 18 to 16? It is just two numbers.

The government needs to change just two numbers in the beginning of this statute and that would then fundamentally change the administration of justice across this nation. However, I doubt that the government has the courage. The throne speech indicates misplaced priorities. The answers of the minister so far outline a plan perhaps to tinker only with the internal technical points of the Young Offenders Act.

However, the thrust of this act has never achieved acceptance in my community. I am also getting calls on what the government really means by its throne speech reference to this: "Amendments will be proposed to the Canadian Human Rights Act". There are a few newspaper articles but not much else.

Where is the political mandate for that? I do not believe there is any specific reference to it in the infamous Liberal red book. Where does this come from, left field? Where is the political mandate to perhaps fundamentally alter how Canadians define themselves? If there is a sleeper time bomb in this throne speech then this is it.

I ask the government to be open now and test the marketplace for ideas on this one. The implications of this measure to policies, to Revenue Canada, the social safety net, insurance companies, pension plans and union contracts is sweeping.

If the government is hiding the intent until the last moment I challenge to issue intent now and if there is national-wide protests then so be it. It just seems that pursuing this agenda is a misplaced priority from what my community wants. It begs the question what special interest group has the ear of the government?

In our let the people speak phase of the election it was clear that my community wanted fiscal reform. Specifically in justice issues it was the Young Offenders Act that was of concern, not the human rights act and definitely not the court challenges program.

I remind the government to pay attention to what the people want rather than what it thinks the people need or should want. Specifically in the field of criminal justice, reform bring forward legislation on the Young Offenders Act first, especially in line with what I have mentioned rather than window dressing.

I also want to commend this government for permitting open debates on peacekeeping and on cruise missile testing. I am sure the varied moods of the communities were reflected by the members, much to the confusion of members of the media who all seemed to want the old style of being handed a set paragraph policy statement that is the formula set position of the day.

Now fiscal reform has been and is being dealt with at least at the talking level, albeit some ministers have not yet got the message with their use of government aircraft. There are indications that the Criminal Code matters will be heard.

That leaves parliamentary reform. I am encouraged as I have said about the open debates so far but I ask if the Prime Minister could go just one bit further and say to this House that the government will not consider the defeat of a government motion including a spending measure to constitute an expression of non-confidence in the government unless it is immediately followed by the passage of a formal non-confidence vote.

The genie is out of the bottle concerning the public's expectation to be heard on issues that fundamentally alter the way Canadians define themselves. The referendum was the watershed for that, but criminal law is part of it.

But more than appreciating the 199 new members of Parliament who have never been here before the fresh air that is needed is an attitude change by just one man, the Prime Minister, who can gather the courage to usher us into a new age of democracy. The Prime Minister is looking to make his mark in Canadian history. I believe that this is where he can do it.

It is not a strategic question of caucus support or insider concerns, all of which were the same arguments used by the British Prime Minister many years ago in his reluctance to abolish slavery. The main thrust, the change was right. Then as now the national mood was right but a consideration for a united caucus and parliamentary manoeuvring delayed too long what that nation wanted. I think the nation wants this measure from the Prime Minister to free us from the slavery of caucus solidarity. This one step could open the House to a new meaning in relevance to those who have sent us here.

In closing I pledge my co-operation and constructive advice on legislation. I will minimize my personal philosophies and emphasize what my constituents desire as I will attempt to represent the broadest of political views. For this House does not belong to parliamentarians. It is not our private club. It belongs to the people. I pledge to conduct myself accordingly for in the long run I trust that if the people are given the truth and the whole story more often than not consensus will emerge that is wiser than any technocrat can devise.

Finally, as the government brings forth its legislative program let the people speak and we will have fulfilled our duty. May the government hear what has been tested in the marketplace of ideas and it will not go wrong. Lead by example and sacrifice and the nation will support it.

[Pearson International Airport, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I am new to Ottawa and fundraiser politics, but could the minister please explain to me what ethical criteria distinguished the appointment of Liberal fundraisers from Tory fundraisers?