Lynn Myers

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for the question. I, too, represent a rural area in Ontario and I think it is very important that we work on behalf of our rural residents along with small town Canada and, indeed, all residents of this great country. I think it is very important.

The government, as members know, inherited an enormous debt and deficit when we took power in 1993. What we had to do in a short period of time was turn that around and make sure that our fiscal House was put in order.

We did that with remarkable speed in the great context of things. I think that speaks volumes about the ability of this government to do the right thing on behalf, not only of provinces, but all Canadians.

I think that is worthy of note. Once that is done, we can start to see where we can proceed in a way that is reasonable, measured and important. That is to start whittling away and reducing that accumulated debt to ensure that we make program reinvestments in a way that make sense not only for those of us here but for all Canadians on their behalf.

We need to start the process of looking at tax reductions in the forms that make sense for Canadians as well. It is important that we, as a federal government, do the right thing on behalf of all Canadians.

I would say that it is very important that the federal government, with its presence across this great land, do the kinds of things that Canadians not only want and need, but deserve.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to set the record straight and to discount this most unworthy motion. I will not attempt to teach the opposition member the fundamentals of economics.

As my hon. colleagues have so eloquently stated, it is hard to find fault with an economy that boasts a disappearing deficit, low interest rates, low inflation and high confidence in one of the most robust economies in the industrialized world. The fiscal facts speak for themselves.

I want to remind the House that this progress was achieved without compromising our core values of fairness, generosity and compassion. This government recognized that deficit reduction did not come down to a choice between economics or people. It was a question of making the right choices in order to build a better and stronger society.

That is why we cut defence spending and agreed to develop a national children's agenda, making our first down payment by establishing a national child benefit that increases support to low income families with children. It is why we reduced subsidies to business, but increased spending on youth. Over three years overall government efforts will help nearly 300,000 young Canadians find their place in the labour market.

It is why we closed tax loopholes for wealthy Canadians, but launched an opportunities fund and employability assistance program for people with disabilities to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to enjoy the dignity and financial rewards that come with employment.

We have made wise investments, investing in the future, creating incentives for life-long learning, encouraging self-reliance and ensuring financial support for those in greatest need. Each social program is more target, more results oriented and more responsive to Canadians' needs than ever before.

I stand proudly before this House as a member of the government that believes profoundly in social investment. We know it is the right thing to do. It is the Canadian way.

It is with a mixture of disbelief and dismay that I address this illogical opposition motion. I am at a loss to understand what the hon. member considers to be “reckless spending”. I must admit to being curious about which social programs he believes imperil the economic and social security of Canadians.

Does he suggest we put the brakes on our campaign against child poverty, a co-ordinated national strategy to improve the well-being of children that sprung from productive partnerships with provincial and territorial governments? Does he realize that ensuring children have a strong start in life is critical to Canada's future? Study after study concludes that a failure to invest in early childhood development negatively affects our economic prosperity. Children in economic poverty encounter more difficulty and experience more emotional and behavioural problems throughout their lives.

Maybe the opposition believes it is better to pay later, when the social burden would be even greater if we attempt to rebuild shattered lives and when our country will find itself incapable of competing in the global economy because of a lack of healthy, productive work-ready young adults.

Perhaps the hon. member believes we should forego the millennium scholarship fund which will ensure that students who want to pursue an advanced education, regardless of their financial circumstances, have every chance to realize their career dreams.

I wonder if the opposition is suggesting we should not fund the Canada student loans program which supports 370,000 full-time students, almost one-third of full-time students enrolled in Canadian universities this year.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadian young people are able to attend post-secondary institutions where they acquire the skills essential to become employable in our knowledge economy because of the $1.3 billion available in student loans to subsidize the costs of their education. Canada has the highest percentage of youth with a post-secondary education of all the OECD countries.

In light of current and worsening skill shortages in the high-tech sector, does the opposition recommend that we cast off the Software Human Resources Council which works to increase the supply and quality of workers entering this rapidly growing area of labour force? Can we afford not to fund initiatives such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation which supports economic development in knowledge-intensive sectors? This partnership with the private sector, the provinces and universities is essential to rebuild the research infrastructure of Canada's universities and teaching hospitals.

I would ask the hon. member this. Would his party have us abandon the senior citizens of this country whose initial investments built those institutions and whose hard work has provided us with the high standard of living and the quality of life Canadians enjoy today?

Surely my colleagues on the other side of this Chamber recognize the moral responsibility, necessity and economic value of providing a source of financial stability and security for retired Canadians under the Canada pension plan. Demographic demands dictate that we secure the future of the CPP.

This government does not apologize for a single one of the many progressive social programs funded through federal tax dollars. Collectively they help define who Canadians are as a people. They shape the country we share, a nation that is the envy of the world.

Each of the worthy initiatives I have named is crucial to both Canada's social and economic stability. These investments in Canada's human capital are an invaluable investment in Canada's continued economic growth and social well-being.

Whether it is the employment insurance plan which helps workers who lose their jobs get back to work, the transitional jobs fund to create jobs in high unemployment areas, aboriginal strategic investments which improve aboriginal peoples' employability and create meaningful employment opportunities in aboriginal communities across Canada, or labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories that allow each region to tailor its active employment measures to respond to local priorities, these programs are making a real difference in the lives of individual Canadians and the overall welfare of our great nation.

Let me assure the House long gone are the days of passive income support. These are active, concrete measures that are getting people into the workforce, enabling them to provide for their families, giving them a reason to continue to believe in themselves, their country and the future.

Canadians are unequivocal in their insistence that we have a responsibility to look out for the most vulnerable. They tell us they want a Canada where parents are able to give their children what they need to flourish, a Canada where youth can find and keep rewarding work; a Canada where unemployed people can count on temporary assistance to tide them over until they get back on their feet; a Canada where Canadians feel secure and confident that the Canada pension plan will provide the income support they require to retire in dignity.

I ask the hon. member exactly who is it he would leave behind. What Canadian is not worthy of these fundamental human rights? Only when he is able to come up with the answer to that question should Parliament seriously consider this motion. Until then I urge all members of this House to focus our sights on the real priorities, continuing our balanced approach to fiscal accountability and social responsibility and ensuring that Canada will retain the title of number one nation in the world each and every year of the new millennium.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to the arrest of those in breach of condition of parole, statutory or temporary release.

The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has brought this piece of legislation before the House in an attempt to improve public protection. No one can disagree with the importance of this objective. Indeed public protection in a criminal justice sense is of primary importance and concern to all of us in this House and to all Canadians.

Having sat on the Waterloo regional police services board for the past 10 years as chairman of the police service, I know firsthand the importance of public protection and the need for law and order.

My comments will be directed to amendments in this bill which propose changes to the way we deal with breaches of a federal release condition. The thrust of the hon. member's proposal is to make the failure to comply with the condition of parole, statutory release, temporary absence a Criminal Code offence. Thus police would have the authority under section 495 of the Criminal Code to arrest without warrant offenders in breach of a condition because such a violation would constitute a criminal offence.

Previous comments by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford lead us to believe that police work in isolation when dealing with offenders who breach a condition of release.

Further, he has suggested that the process of bringing an offender back into custody is difficult and time consuming. I remind the House that there is a long established system in place for handling such occurrences. Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board already have the legislative authority and processes required to intervene promptly when there is a violation of a release condition.

Correctional Services Canada has a network of duty officers who can issue a warrant on a 24 hour basis. The warrant can be transmitted electronically anywhere in Canada where the need arises.

Members may not be aware that under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act police have the power to arrest an offender without warrant on the knowledge that a warrant has been issued against the offender.

In such cases the warrant is transmitted for execution within 48 hours from the time of the arrest. The hon. member has also cited examples where he says a police office cannot take timely action when he or she encounters an offender who is violating a condition of release.

His comments fail to realize a very important reality, that in these instances and circumstances police work in partnership with correctional authorities to assess and respond quickly to these situations.

Federal correctional authorities view the police role and the enforcement of parole, statutory release or temporary absence conditions as a joint process, as a collaborative process. There is good reason for this.

When police provide information to correctional supervisors on breaches of conditions the breaches vary in seriousness. It may be that an offender has returned to a halfway house an hour past curfew or failed to report to the police station on a designated date.

In some instances, the correctional supervisor might deem that a disciplinary interview is sufficient to deal with the matter. In others, he or she may determine the suspension of a conditional release and the arrest of the offender is necessary for the protection of society.

All this is worthy of note. I fully understand the hon. member's desire to have an effective law and procedures in place especially when it comes to apprehending those who pose a danger to others, including children and other vulnerable individuals.

The government shares this concern. That is why, in addition to the authority and measures provided in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, there have been amendments to the Criminal Code to enable the police and the courts to better intervene in situations where a person's conduct in the community may be potentially threatening.

For example, the Criminal Code was amended in 1993 to permit the court to make an order prohibiting an offender who has been convicted of a sex offence including a child from being in the vicinity of a school ground, a playground or a community centre.

This provision also allows a court to make an order prohibiting that offender from seeking or continuing employment that involves being in a position of trust with children.

Section 264 was also added to the Criminal Code in 1993 to deal with the offence of criminal harassment to cover conduct such as stalking which places another person in fear for his or her safety.

Another provision makes it easier for those who are victims of domestic abuse to seek conditions of recognizance to keep the offender away and to make it more likely that the abuser, not the victim, is removed from the home.

Most recently a new long term offender designation was created for high risk sex offenders to provide a period of long term supervision for up to 10 years past their warrant expiry date. A new judicial restraint provision was also created to permit controls to be applied to any individual who poses a high threat and risk of committing a serious personal injury offence.

As members of the House know, the government considers the police to be an important partner in realizing our safe homes, safe streets agenda. The last four years have probably seen the most intense focus on criminal law issues ever in Canada. Let me take a moment to discuss some of those initiatives.

Arguably one of the most important changes for police work has been the new legislation on DNA. The first phase of this initiative began in 1995 with the DNA warrant legislation which allows police to get warrants to obtain DNA samples from suspects. That legislation laid the groundwork for phase two, the establishment of a national DNA data bank.

The DNA data bank legislation was reintroduced last September. This legislation will greatly strengthen our efforts to solve crimes more quickly by identifying repeat and violent offenders and it will make it easier to link cases around police jurisdictions. With the continuing advances in DNA technology, the data bank will become ever more important to police work and prosecutions.

This government also established a formal national program under the Witness Protection Program Act giving police better tools to fight organized crime by being able to ensure protection for those who risk their lives to assist in investigations. In May of last year a regulation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act gave police new powers to conduct reverse sting operations. Amendments to the Criminal Code brought about by Bill C-17 last May provided the legislative basis for the police to conduct storefront operations.

This government has put measures in place to deal with real issues of concern today, but having the foresight to prevent crimes is equally important. Again the police community, in particular the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has been a pioneer in promoting police crime prevention programs and victim services. This government has and will continue to work in partnership with the police in a balanced but determined approach to reducing and preventing crime.

In 1994 the National Crime Prevention Council was established as part of the national strategy on community safety and crime prevention. Together with the council, the Department of Justice and the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada identify what works and what is needed in crime prevention in our communities. This includes programs focusing on young people.

The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada hope to move quickly on the crime prevention front and to follow through with the Speech from the Throne commitment to increase levels of funding to $30 million each year in this area. Both ministers are looking forward to working on renewing and developing new partnerships within communities, the police and all levels of government.

Canadians rely on the police for protection and security. This government has put the appropriate tools in place for effective police work through legislation and policies.

We in this House have an interest in ensuring that the concerns of Canadians are addressed in a most effective and efficient manner. I would ask that all members ensure that we proceed on that basis.

I would like to reiterate my earlier comments that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides police with ample authority to intervene quickly where there is a breach of parole, statutory release or temporary absence. The Correctional Service Canada staff are available 24 hours a day to issue warrants of suspension and apprehension against an offender who has committed a breach.

Moreover police already have the power to arrest without warrant an offender against whom they believe a warrant of apprehension has been issued by the Correctional Service Canada or by the National Parole Board. They may detain him or her for a 48 hour period from the time of the arrest until the execution of a warrant. The warrant can be electronically transmitted anywhere in the country if need be.

After a process of careful consideration, I feel that this bill would create a power that is duplicative, unnecessary and probably inconsistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. I would therefore urge members of the House to vote against it.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the government in support of Bill C-28. This legislation has many components, but they are all tied together in a way which is consistent with a strong and dynamic economy and, by extension, a strong and dynamic society.

As a government we committed ourselves to a historic turnaround in Canada's federal finances because we understood that sustained deficit reduction was a key to lower interest rates and higher economic growth. We also understood and made it perfectly clear that lower rates and higher growth are not ends in themselves. Instead they are the best way to achieve the real bottom line benefits which Canadians deserve, more jobs and the national resources to make strategic social investments where and when needed.

As we move into 1998 Canadians are close to the threshold of a major change in our economic history, the day when the federal government is deficit free. This progress, coming much faster than we originally dared hope, is indeed delivering the benefits we always expected and always wanted. It has created the conditions for lower interest rates and sustained economic growth, growth unheard of since the 1950s and 1960s.

In 1997, 363,000 new jobs were created. That is the best record since 1994. In December the unemployment rate of 8.6% was the lowest in seven years.

The government is now in a position to make key social investments, investments which respond directly and concretely to the concerns of Canadians. Just as important, we can make these investments without jeopardizing our continued advance to a balanced budget. That is an important consideration in Bill C-28.

The most important and significant part of this legislation clearly is the measure to increase the cash floor of funding to the provinces under the Canada health and social transfer. Bill C-28 increases this guaranteed amount of federal cash funding for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance and services from $11 billion to $12.5 billion a year through to the year 2002-2003. It starts applying this higher cash floor one year earlier than was originally slated and planned.

This means the provinces will receive close to an extra $7 billion over six years. That is by far the largest new spending commitment we have made since first coming to office.

The Canada health and social transfer measure represents by far the most financially substantive measure in Bill C-28 and the one ultimately which affects a great many, indeed most, Canadians.

The cash floor of $12.5 billion is the precise amount recommended by the national forum on health and it is important to note that.

There is another aspect to the Canada health and social transfer which demonstrates our commitment to fairness and to positive partnership with the provinces. In response to the provinces' request for flexibility, we restructured the previous system with its separate targeted components into a single Canada health and social transfer. This addressed longstanding provincial concerns that the inflexible conditions associated with the previous transfer system did not allow them to meet specific regional needs and opportunities. We instituted the Canada health and social transfer to deliver greater flexibility, while still firmly upholding the principles of the Canada Health Act.

This is legislation which guarantees that the future growth in the tax point component of the Canada health and social transfer will not see the cash portion decline below $12.5 billion over the next five years.

In other words at least $12.5 billion in federal funds will be there each year every year. It will be there to help provinces provide the national health care systems that Canadians cherish. It will be there to support the post-secondary education that gives young Canadians new opportunities in the future. It will also be there to support social assistance so that Canadians in need are not abandoned or betrayed.

There are two tax expenditure measures that reflect our government's commitment to strengthening Canadian society.

First, C-28 follows through on our 1997 budget pledge to help and encourage Canadians to save for the post-secondary education of their children. Under this legislation we are increasing the amount that Canadians can invest in a registered educational savings plan from $2,000 to $4,000 a year for each student beneficiary.

This is an important change because this government wants to continue the task of improving access to post-secondary education for our youth. Our youth need this access and they deserve this access. This will help young Canadians to compete in a fast paced economy as we move into the 21st century.

As well, C-28 will allow someone who has contributed to an RESP but who then sees the intended student not go on to post-secondary education to transfer the income from that plan into an RRSP. This will reduce the risk and the disincentive that parents may face that in fact the benefits of their RESP investment could be completely forfeited if their child chooses not to pursue higher education.

Using the resources of a strong economy to ensure a secure and compassionate society is a key obligation of government. However, we must not put aside our work to maintain and expand that economic strength. We need to work harder all the time in that area.

One of the foundations of a well-functioning economy is an effective, fair and transparent tax system, a system that allows companies and individuals to focus on the work of building and growing their companies or personal endeavours through real value added and not through the manipulation of tax rules. That is why C-28 includes a range of technical tax measures to reflect that reality.

The government did what it had to do and it did this when it had to be done. We have now been able to help achieve the federal fiscal success that is beginning to pay real dividends, dividends of solid benefit to each province and to all Canadian citizens. This seems to be something that the Reform Party either does not understand or chooses to ignore.

Remember that it was a strong majority of Canadians who demanded that the deficit problem had to be solved. They have supported our action plan indeed in many, many numbers and it is gratifying to see that. In fact without their support our success would not have been possible.

Canada's solid fiscal and economic progress has been won by the hard work and shared commitment of all Canadians. This progress makes possible a renewed investment and commitment in key social areas. It is necessary therefore to support Bill C-28. It deserves the support of all members.

[Division No. 68, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing gap between the health of the economy and the well-being of Canadians according to a recent report on an experimental index of social health developed by Human Resources Development Canada.

This index suggests that since the late 1970s improvements in the economy have not been matched by increases in the social well-being of Canadians. On the contrary, it shows that as the economy has grown Canadian social health has in fact declined.

The index is composed of 15 indicators, some of which apply to all age groups. Others such as infant mortality, teen suicide, weekly earnings of adults and poverty among the elderly apply to specific age groups.

I think this suggests that it is not enough to take care of the economy and then just assume that the economy will take care of the welfare and well-being of individuals. The government needs to be and must be more proactive to ensure the well-being of all Canadians.

What exactly does the parliamentary secretary of human resources development suggest be done by the federal government to narrow this gap and to ensure that, as the economy moves up, so too does the well-being of all Canadians?

[Trade, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.

Some international economists have warned that the recent crisis in the Asian markets could have a negative impact on foreign companies doing business in that part of the world. Why is it that we are attempting to get countries in the Asia-Pacific to open their markets if it will have negative consequences for Canadian firms?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I think the short answer is no. We are responding to a request from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have spoken out very loudly in terms of what they want. It is important that we listen to them and do the right thing, which in this case is to proceed with the resolution.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that I think we are dealing with the situation in Newfoundland and Labrador today, not Nova Scotia.

It seems to me that it was important that MLAs who in some cases campaigned against the resolution came in to the legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador and voted as they should, as their constituents wanted after having canvassed the province in a referendum with great interest . Clearly, this is a very important debate. I think it is appropriate that we now move on to ensure this is done for all Canadians and especially the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member opposite for the question. As a former secondary school teacher, I am well aware of the jurisdictional split with respect to the provinces and the federal government on the issue of education. I am quite cognizant of what needs to take place.

I think the key in all of this is the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were consulted and they spoke very loud in terms of what they wanted. I think it is very important to listen to what they had to say. In fact, that is precisely why this resolution is proceeding, because we listened closely.

In the interests of fairness and equity, this resolution now should proceed accordingly.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laval West.

It is my pleasure to join the debate on this very important issue today. This debate represents the second time in this 36th Parliament that this House has been asked to vote on constitutional amendments to reform school systems.

I believe that this coincidence marks a first for successive constitutional amendments. Let me also add as an aside that this coincidence certainly speaks volumes to those who say that our system of government is unresponsive and that our constitution is inflexible. To the contrary.

That being said, let me first deal with the process necessary to enact this constitutional amendment. Section 43 of the constitution provides that bilateral amendments can be made with the consent of the legislature of the provinces affected and of this House.

The Newfoundland legislature gave its consent by a unanimous vote on September 5, 1997. I realize that it is too much to hope that this place would also show its unanimous support for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in their desire to modernize their education system.

However, let me mention some interesting facts about the vote in the Newfoundland legislature. There were members of the legislature who campaigned against the resolution in the preceding referendum. Once the results of the referendum were in, they voted for it in accordance with the democratically expressed wishes of their constituents.

MLAs who are members of communities affected by this resolution voted for it. They included Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Pentecostals. As federal politicians from across the country, we must remember that these provincial MLAs and their constituents are responsible to the very people affected by this resolution and to the very people who, furthermore, have directly been consulted about this issue through provincial election and through the schools referendum. Those MLAs and their constituents have voted in favour of this amendment.

I feel we must very clear on the role that federal MPs should play in this debate on a subject of provincial jurisdiction. As an Ontario MP, for example, I would not appreciate members of Parliament from Alberta or Nova Scotia telling me what was best or good for the people of Waterloo—Wellington. I would ask my hon. colleagues in this House to consider this in placing their vote on this issue.

I am sure that some of my colleagues will also be speaking to the appropriate role of federal politicians in a debate of this importance. One hundred and thirty years after Confederation it is appropriate that federal politicians do not play a paternalistic role in constitutional amendments. I would argue that it is not appropriate that any member of this place cast their vote based on their decision that this resolution is or is not good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would argue rather that as federal politicians we need to consider the following issues. First, have the the people of Newfoundland and Labrador been consulted on this issue? Second, have the communities directly affected by this change and challenge been consulted? Third, have these communities consented to this change? The answer, as members know, is affirmative to all these questions.

I am relying on the report of the special joint committee on this issue, as tabled in this House. In that multiparty report, the committee recommends the resolution and states “the consensus in Newfoundland and Labrador is such that the federal Houses of Parliament should endorse the amendment”.

The committee heard from two witnesses whom I consider to be experts on minority rights. The Newfoundland and Labrador Human Rights Association stated the following about minority rights: “After 150 years it does not seem unreasonable to stop and consider our denominational system in the context of a society that is no longer exclusively Christian and a society where the religious rights of all citizens are protected by section 2 of the charter of rights and freedoms”.

The second witness whom I would like to try and bring to the attention of this House is Mr. Allan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Mr. Borovoy, as members know, has a reputation as an astute and dedicated advocate of civil liberties and has appeared before committees of this House on many occasions.

The report of the special joint committee quotes from Mr. Borovoy, page 9: “The state of equality and fairness can only benefit by the abolition of special preferences for any denominational groups even if those denominations happen to comprise a large percentage of the population. This is an advance, as far as we are concerned, for the state of religious equality and fairness”.

Who does not have these minority rights? These people are the true minorities of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Jewish community does not have denominational schools at this time. The Baptist community, representing .2% of the population, does not have denominational schools. The Pentecostal community, representing 7% of the population, does have denominational schools.

This situation may represent a historic compromise among religious groups but it cannot be considered a true minority-majority situation, nor an equitable use of scarce educational dollars.

As in any debate on minority-majority distinction, many numbers are thrown out justifying each side of the debate. In supporting this resolution personally, I am relying on the following facts. The first is that 96% of the population have denominational privileges. Second, 74% of the population supported this resolution in a referendum.

That brings me to my last point. Recently Mr. Clyde Wells, the former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, was in Ottawa and spoke to this issue at a debate organized by my colleagues across the way.

Mr. Wells made the following points: There are 573,000 people in Newfoundland, roughly the same size as my part of Ontario, Waterloo region and Wellington county, and yet there are more school boards per capita than in almost anywhere else in this country. Newfoundland has currently divided its educational budget among 27 school boards in 700 communities along 10,000 miles of coastline. Why is there such duplication and overlap in this province which is already reeling from economic troubles? What is the logical solution to this situation?

I submit to this House that the logical solution is the present resolution. This resolution represents a compromise of years of public debate, a democratic referendum result of 74% and a unanimous vote in the provincial legislature.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians. Canada's past was remarkable, its future will be even more so.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution.