Ed Harper

[Petitions, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre concerning age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

[Criminal Code, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-205. On behalf of the Reform Party I want to express my strong support for this bill.

I would also like to extend congratulations to the member for Scarborough West for his hard work in bringing this proposal forward and in gaining acceptance and support from all sides of the House.

As the member discovered in the last hour of debate, the Minister of Justice's representative is one of the few members who does not support this measure. The minister and his representative think it is okay for criminals to profit from their crimes. We should not be surprised that he is the same minister who has failed to get tough with criminals since the opening of this Parliament. I believe that the will of the people will be done here even against the minister's wishes. We are going to send a message that crime does not pay.

It is unfortunate that we must consider laws like this, but it has become a sad reality in today's Canadian society that fascination with violence and crime provides a profitable opportunity for publishers, entertainers and the media.

How did we get to such a sad place in Canadian history? What has happened to Canadians that so many take an interest in the violence and the sickness of criminality? How did we come to a place where we believe that crime should pay? Some might like to say that the cultural industry of crime and violence which Hollywood likes to export into our living rooms and our movie theatres has provoked the change. We cannot blame it all on Hollywood. The problem is deeper and it is home grown.

I have an explanation with regard to leadership in Canadian society. It is about the kind of leadership that is being offered in this Parliament by the justice minister and the Prime Minister. For the past few decades we have followed leaders whose philosophy was: Do whatever feels good and do not worry about the consequences. These leaders have failed to encourage personal responsibility.

The proof is in front of this Parliament every day. We are dealing with a massive debt problem because we would not take the personal responsibility to pay for the programs we wanted. Instead we borrowed. We decided to make it somebody else's problem to pay the money back.

We have massive social programs like UI which send the message for those who are job hunting: Go out and do your own thing and if you get into trouble it is not your fault; the government will bail you out.

We have taken that approach with our criminal justice system too. We said capital punishment was just too harsh for those who deliberately took the life of another. Then we said that a life sentence in prison was too hard to serve and that 25 years should be adequate. Then a more recent Liberal government with the member for Notre Dame-de-Grâce as justice minister decided that 25 years was still too harsh. It gave us section 745, the opportunity to get out of jail free after 15 years.

The story of crime and punishment with respect to first degree murder is representative of the decay in the rest of the justice system. Even when the majority of MPs in this House attempt to reverse the trend, as with the proposal to repeal section 745 or as with this bill, the minister and his support in committee oppose the democratic will of the people. They give us leadership but in a direction we do not want to go. They say that crime should pay.

There are many other examples of decay in our justice system. This decay has been accelerated by the charter. The charter is responsible for people literally getting away with murder. Whether it was the recent drunk defence cases or the Askov cases where thousands of criminals awaiting trial were freed because their charter right to a free trial had supposedly been violated, the criminals' rights had become more important than the rights of victims in society.

Our immigration system also displays the same philosophy. We knowingly bring terrorists and other undesirables into Canada so that they will escape so-called persecution back home. None are held accountable for their actions once they arrive here. For these supposed refugees, Canada is the land of escape from personal responsibility.

We have mandatory parole for violent criminals. There is no truth in sentencing. Even if a judge gives somebody the maximum sentence, the criminal can still be back on the streets courtesy of the parole board after serving a fraction of the sentence.

It would not be possible to examine the underlying philosophy of our justice system without examining the Young Offenders Act. Here is the example of justice we provide for our children. No one in this House can deny that young offenders escape taking personal responsibility for their actions. Their names are not published and their sentences are laughable. Their parents are not held accountable either.

If the young offenders are under the age of 12 then they are completely free to do whatever they want with total immunity from the law. If anyone wants proof, talk to the parents of the 13-year

old girl who was violently raped in Toronto recently. Her attacker will never be punished because the justice minister does not believe that 11-year olds will commit crimes. Where is the personal responsibility in the Young Offenders Act? It does not exist.

We have been living with a justice system that for 30 years has continually gone softer on criminals, shrinking their sentences, supplying their cigarettes and cable television, paying for their university education and paying their green fees on the Corrections Canada golf courses. We have sent them and indeed all Canadians the message that crime can and does pay.

It is time to reverse that trend. We can do that in part by making sure that crime will not pay financial dividends to those criminals who try to profit from sensationalizing their lawlessness. If we as political leaders in Canadian society can send a strong message that crime does not pay, then we start to reverse the trend we now see in society. We need to develop a philosophy and personal responsibility in society. As one of my constituents said to me, if you do the crime, you have got to do the time.

Crime cannot be a paying proposition any longer. We must start punishing those who are entering the system as teenagers. Young offenders need to get the message that the consequences of criminal actions are not worthwhile.

If we prevent the Paul Bernardos and Clifford Olsons of this country from profiting from their crimes, we send a strong message that crime cannot and must not pay. Just as we confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking, we should confiscate the profits of those criminal entrepreneurs. If we as legislators can offer real leadership in reversing the trend toward lawlessness, then we can also encourage others to join in, including the media. Instead of sensationalizing crime we can stigmatize it. Instead of encouraging criminality, especially among our youth, we can set a trend toward respect for the law, authority and our institutions.

Canada's Constitution says that we should foster peace, order and good government. I believe this bill reflects all three principles and I encourage all members to support it.

[International Banking Centres, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister for International Trade was mayor of Toronto, he was angered when the federal government designated Montreal and Vancouver as international banking centres while the city of Toronto was refused this status.

The former mayor called the decision: "Crass politics at its worst. All this adds up to is bad news for Toronto because we have been openly discriminated against by the federal government".

On June 8, 1994 during question period I asked the finance minister when the government would designate Toronto as an international banking centre. His answer: "When we have completed the examination I will be delighted to respond to the member".

Three things are now clear. First, the minister has had nearly two years to examine the question, but this Liberal government is continuing to ignore Ontario.

Second, with the election of a new government in Ontario last year, the province said it is open for business. Why will this Liberal government not insist in getting out that message.

Third, although there are currently 94 Liberal MPs from Ontario, it is obvious that we do not need any more in Ottawa. Voters in Hamilton East have an opportunity to tell the Liberals what they think of ineffective representation.

[Criminal Code, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-201 which is sponsored by my colleague, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

In doing so I am aware of an event which took place in this House just 12 years ago, an event which contributed to the death of thousands of Canadians. On April 5, 1984 Private Member's Bill C-229 was allowed to die. With its demise approximately 23,000 Canadian lives were put at risk and many of them did die. Another tragedy is that many of those who died were innocent children.

Why do I bring up a bill that failed to pass 12 years ago? Because Bill C-229 is very similar to the bill we are debating this evening, Bill C-201. Like Bill C-201 the earlier bill sought to do something about the number of people who lay bleeding and dying on roads and highways in ridings all across Canada.

We will hear plenty of statistics in support of this bill but we must never forget that behind each statistic is a story. They are stories such as that of 16-year old Crystal Nyhuis from my riding of Simcoe Centre. During the time that has elapsed since this House failed to pass Bill C-229 in 1984 Crystal and approximately 23,000 others have died from the deadly mixture of alcohol and automobiles and with them have died their dreams.

On June 10, 1994 Crystal's dreams were snuffed out. At 10 p.m. at the intersection of Innisfil Beach Road and the 10th Side Road a drunken driver slammed into the car driven by her boyfriend. Crystal's dreams died that night, her dream of marrying her high school sweetheart and of becoming a social worker. This innocent young teen who was such a good listener and who offered advice that belied her young age was now silenced.

How many more Crystals must die before this House deals in a serious way with the crime of impaired driving? As we look at the statistics of the nearly 1,500 people who die every year in Canada because someone insists on drinking and driving, let us remember Crystal's needless death. Remember also the people left behind. John and Simone Nyhuis remember their beautiful young daughter who died too young.

Following her death, Crystal's parents placed flowers and candles around the grade eight student's graduation picture. Crystal's mom told a reporter that every night she lights the candles: "It is all I have left of her". Summer dawned on that June day in 1994, just as it does for us in this House today, and the thoughts of Crystal's mom turn to her daughter. "I miss the sounds", she said. "Our home used to be packed with teenagers. She would come through the door with five or ten of her friends. I miss her physical presence. There are still days when I cannot believe she is gone".

How many other John and Simones must suffer the agony of losing a child before this House acts to curb the needless slaughter that occurs on Canada's roads? Every six hours across this country a police officer knocks on a door to announce that a child, a mother or a father will not be coming home any more. They have died because the legislators have failed to act.

Some wrongly charge that a law will not stop the needless slaughter on our roads and highways, but let us consider this argument. Partly because of harsher laws enacted in the 1980s, fewer people are dying today. In 1980 the typical sentence for killing someone while drunk was a $500 fine and a 90-day licence suspension. Changes to the law in 1985 which allowed blood sampling of drivers suspected of drinking and driving, along with the addition of new sections to the Criminal Code have all

contributed to a drop in the number of people being charged with impaired driving. But much more needs to be done.

What about the fact that 63 per cent of all people charged with impaired driving are second time, third time and even fourth time offenders? They refuse to listen and about 1,500 people are still dying needlessly across this country every year. In Ontario alone, alcohol is involved in 43 per cent of all motor vehicle fatalities. Because of alcohol related crashes, 565 people died in the province of Ontario in 1993.

It is true that those who murder by using vehicles face a maximum sentence of 14 years. However, every member in this House knows of people in their ridings who get off with sentences of six months. This bill would establish a minimum sentence of seven years so that those who up to now have faced a slap on the wrist for murdering with an automobile will think twice before drinking and driving.

Bill C-201 will deter impaired drivers while suitably punishing those who will kill while impaired. Some will think that the use of the word murder in connection with someone who kills with an automobile is too harsh. I do not think so and neither do John and Simone Nyhuis. I will quote again from the Nyhuis family. "To me drinking and driving is no different than taking a gun and shooting someone", says Simone. Her husband John agrees. He says: "When you get behind the wheel of a car and you have been drinking, that car becomes a lethal weapon".

We as legislators must stop looking upon alcohol as something many of us, including myself, treat as a social drink. While it is a social drink to many of us, I would hope none of us would get so drunk that we cannot speak coherently or walk a straight line and then climb into 5,000 pounds of deadly metal. However, if we or anyone else does and we kill an innocent person then we are guilty of murder, just as if we had shot them with a gun.

How many more people like Crystal will have to die before we realize the seriousness of the crime of drinking and driving?

It is a sad reality that automobile crashes are the leading cause of death of those under 21 years of age. More die as a result of impaired driving related accidents than all other causes combined. What a senseless waste of young lives. What an unforgettable tragedy.

These deaths do not tell the whole story. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that it costs our economy at least $100 million annually to deal with the approximately 100,000 people injured because of impaired drivers.

Behind those injured drivers there are 100,000 stories each year. One of those stories is about Colleen Blair. This 18-year old Ontario girl survived the November 11, 1994 crash that killed her 18-year old friend Raeann McNeely, a victim of an impaired driver. The crash left survivor Colleen brain damaged and unable to walk on her own. She has difficulty controlling her emotions. She has limited memory. Although she is now 21, she is in many ways like a five-year-old. A family member talks about how Colleen's life has been changed by this senseless tragedy: "She had a right to expect she would get married and have kids some day, but now she's 21 and has no life".

At the time of the accident Colleen was studying horticulture. She loved flowers and had a collection of her most artistic arrangements. Now she cannot even remember if she was a student. She needs constant care and is constantly apologizing to her family for being a burden. Because of the brain damage she does not understand that her injuries are in no way her fault.

During the time that has elapsed since the House refused to act on Bill C-229 in 1984, approximately one million people like Colleen Blair have had to suffer needless pain. Approximately one person is injured every five minutes from alcohol related crashes. In the past 12 years since Bill C-229 was killed, our overburdened medical system has paid out over $1 billion to care for the victims of impaired drivers.

How much longer will police officers like Sergeant Fitz Gaylord of the Madoc OPP have to respond to alcohol related accidents that claim so many young lives, such as a recent accident that killed two young men? Sergeant Gaylord described the scene: "A twisted car wrapped around a tree, two bodies laid out on the ground and the ones left in the car screaming that they were going to die".

Coroner Andy Quinn, who pronounced the young men dead on the scene, said: "For me, it is just immensely sad to see these young people dying. I just hate to pull kids out of cars. It is an incredibly hard thing to do and the whole time you are doing it, you are just thinking of the families and the terrible loss of young lives".

Before the House finally acts to send a message to people that impaired driving is unacceptable, how many more mothers and fathers will walk by their son's or daughter's bedroom at night knowing they will never again share the many things they had planned to do together? How many more fathers will never get the chance to walk their daughters down the aisle on their wedding day? How many more mothers will suffer the pain and agony of knowing their child will never come home again? How much longer will we as legislators stand by and watch people die needlessly? We need Bill C-201 to deter people from drinking and driving.

I end my thoughts on Bill C-201 with the words of Arnold Malone, who drafted the bill that was defeated in the House 12 years ago. Mr. Malone said that to stop the carnage on our highways we must start a war against people who drink and drive. Mr. Malone's war analogy still rings true today. Just as the second world war claimed 42,000 Canadians, approximately 23,000 Canadians have died since the House refused to pass Bill C-229 in 1984. Just as the second world war saw 54,000 soldiers wounded, over one million Canadians have been injured as a result of drunken drivers since 1984.

These are the types of figures Mr. Malone also used when he said:

We need another war. We need a war against drunken drivers. We need a war which will place a real deterrent against drunken driving.

More importantly, we must recognize that we all have limits. We must realize that the laws are such that if we are inebriated, we had best seek alternative transportation. In communities all across Canada there are growing concerns that something must be done to curtail the extent of alcohol use while driving an automobile.

Although the House refused to act 12 years ago when a similar bill was before it, we can now ensure that fewer lives are lost because of drunken drivers by supporting Bill C-201. I urge my fellow members to support the legislation.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Certainly no one in our party has suggested that the people of Quebec are not a people. What the numbers should be to take a province out of Canada is a matter for debate.

Personally, I do not believe it should be 50 per cent plus 1. Whatever it is going to be, it has to be outlined in advance of the question. We cannot go into a referendum with that question up in the air.

As to the right of Quebecers to leave Canada, Quebec does not belong only to Quebecers. Quebec is part of Canada. It belongs to all Canadians. When the hon. member talks about taking Quebec out of Canada, Canadians are incensed that someone wants to destroy their country. When it was suggested that Quebec may be divisible, the argument heard from the Bloc was that it was not divisible. It cannot be both ways. If Canada is divisible in your eyes, then by the same argument Quebec must be divisible.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. He started out agreeing with the Reform position and with the fact that the government is standing pat, still sticking its head in the sand and believing that the status quo will carry the day. That is wrong and we agree with the hon. member on that.

Where we disagree is that if we work together we can bring about the change needed to keep Canada united. Quebec does not need to leave, as the Bloc is suggesting. The problems can be dealt with and Canada can remain united.

Distinct society and the veto are not what will keep this country united. We are going to go into the next century as one country of 10 equal provinces. That is the way we will face the future.

The hon. member asks about a province joining Canada, such as when Newfoundland joined Canada. I brought Newfoundland up because I was talking about the fact that all provinces are looking for the positive changes that we have outlined in our proposals. They want more control over areas under our Constitution for which they have responsibility.

I do not have the background on the mechanics used to allow the province of Newfoundland to come into Canada. I would suggest it is a different scenario when an existing country is enlarged and when a country is destroyed or broken up. If I am correct, the basis of the hon. member's question is if it is 50 per cent plus 1 to bring a province in, why would the same formula not apply to a province that wants to leave? My party and I have not taken a position on what the percentage should be, on whether it should be 50 per cent plus 1, 55 per cent or 60 per cent. The point we are making is that in breaking up a country, those rules should be clearly identified now, in advance of the referendum. That is not the sort of debate to get into once the referendum has been called.

The rules must be clearly identified so that the voters understand going in if it is going to be 50 per cent plus 1 or 60 per cent. They also must have put before them an honest, straightforward question about whether they want to stay as part of Canada or leave. Those are the two points that I want to make.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

A gentleman on the other side of the House is questioning our part in the referendum. The contribution we made to the referendum campaign was one for positive change. We did not stick our heads in the sand saying that the status quo was going to carry the day. We realized far better than anyone on the government side that change was going to have to be made.

As part of our contribution to the referendum campaign we prepared a list of 20 positive proposals for change that would go a long way toward keeping the country united. We went so far as to publish the 20 proposals in a full page ad in the Globe and Mail so that all Canadians could see that what we were saying was that the status quo was not going to do it, change had to be made and these were the changes that would keep the country united.

We produced the same ad in French and offered it to many of the Quebec print media. Some of them chose not to run it, some did. We wanted to get the message to the people in Quebec who wanted to reject the separatists that there were 52 members of Parliament who agreed with them that the status quo was not going to carry the day. We understood the desire and the need for change.

We were asked to stay out, that this was a family feud. In the 11th hour when the government finally realized that its plan was a disaster, that it was going to lose the referendum then there was this great cry to go to Quebec to try to save it. Whether that worked or not is still open for debate. It may have hurt the cause. However we did make a contribution toward keeping the country united by running those ads.

In the 11th hour when the government realized the status quo or good government was not going to carry the day, we did see the government agree to change and what did it come up with? Distinct society and veto. Both already had been rejected by the Canadian people and the government was now going to bring them in the back door. Never mind what the people of Canada said, the government was going to bring them in whether Canadians liked it or not. That is a major problem here in Ottawa which has to change.

Imagine giving a veto to a separatist government. How was the Liberal government able to justify that? How could it give a veto to a separatist government whose mandate is to break up our country? Unbelievable, but it was done by the government.

We are facing one more battle. The separatists said on the night of October 30 that they will be back, that they have one more battle to fight and it will be the final battle. We had better be better prepared for that one than we were for the October 30 referendum or we will lose it. If anything good is going to come out of this debate, it is that we are talking about this threat because while it is coming, we just do not know how much time we have to prepare for it.

It has been seven months since that vote on October 30 and the Liberal government has yet to come up with a plan to deal with the separatists. Day to day it has been going from policy to policy and has nothing yet to put before the Canadian people.

Our party came up with a plan that we have had published and out for months. It is our 20-20 plan, a vision for a new Confederation. In producing this document we took a twin track approach to dealing with the separatist threat.

One track is the 20 positive proposals for change that we could make to keep Quebec in Canada. There are two common elements to those 20 positive proposals for change. One is that they have broad acceptance both inside and outside of Quebec. These are changes that all of the provinces are looking for, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, as well as Quebec.

They are changes which are going to happen whether we like it or not. I say that because these changes mainly involve eliminating the duplication and overlap which are taking place between the federal government and the provinces. It is going to happen because of the fiscal crisis this country is in. We are going to have to find a better way of doing a better job with fewer dollars which means eliminating a lot of the overlap and duplication.

In our 20 positive proposals for change we see a win-win situation for keeping the country united. We are going to be dealing in a major way with the deficit and debt. The other common element is that the changes do not require opening up the Constitution. These changes can all be made by a willing government. While we have high unemployment and a fiscal crisis, we certainly have to look after both of those problems before dealing with the Constitution.

We have been talking to people about our plan. As I said, it is a twin track approach. There is the positive side and the other track has the realities of any province leaving this great country of ours. That was not on the table prior to the referendum but it certainly should have been. Had it been, the separatists would have been rejected resoundingly on October 30. Again the government's do not worry, be happy, stick its head in the sand attitude resulted in our not facing the fact that change was being demanded by the Canadian people.

What are the realities of breaking up a country? It is important that the people in Quebec understand the consequences of their vote. All Canadians must understand the consequences of a vote to break up the country because it would be painful for all Canadians.

In holding my town hall meetings to talk about unity and how to keep Canada united, there are those who ask: "Why are we talking about it? Just let Quebec go. Who needs all this discussion?" I say to those people to listen to and read about the consequences of the action they are suggesting. It is not just the people of Quebec who are going to be affected. All Canadians would be affected if we were to break up this great country of ours.

These things have to be understood. We certainly have to have that debate now. In no way do we want the people in Quebec voting in the next referendum without a clear understanding of the consequences of that vote. How could we do anything less and look at ourselves? How could we not do that and expect the people in Quebec to make an informed decision on such a vital and important question?

We have outlined our plan and as I have said, it has been out for months. We have been going across Canada talking to Canadians about it and inviting their input: Do you agree or disagree? Is there something that we have missed?

The difference between the government and ourselves is it does not have a plan. The government is critical of us and it is within its right to question us. However, I ask the government, where is your plan? Sadly it is not there.

Canadians are demanding some clarity to this question. Canadians are looking at a government that has no plan. Its plan is made up on the run. When we are dealing with such an important question, when we are dealing with Canada's future, it just is not good enough.

The people inside and outside of Quebec are demanding that this government start acting in a responsible way and show some leadership.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion before us. It states that the House adopt as its own the statement made in 1985 by the current Prime Minister. The quote is: "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate".

That is a very open statement, "if we don't win". The term win is not identified as what would be a win. It has still not been identified some 11 years later. The term "let them separate" gives no indication of how that tragic action, if it were to take place, would take place.

The Reform Party cannot support this motion. As a party we have said that we will respect a yes vote if that is the vote of the people of Quebec, but we have also said that we can only respect it if there is an honest question, and if there is honest debate on the consequences of the question. If it does happen, it is critical to follow the rule of law as much as it can be applied to answering the question.

We are discussing this motion today largely because of a lack of leadership by this government. There is no vision for the future of Canada and there certainly is no plan for the future of Canada. The lack of leadership, lack of vision and lack of any plan is not only reflected in the failed unity issue. It is also reflected in the jobs, jobs, jobs which have yet to materialize for Canadians both inside and outside of Quebec. It is reflected in a failing economy that still has not been revved up to its full potential or anywhere near it. There has not been any plan for major changes to our criminal justice system that is failing Canadians.

While we talk about the failure to address the economy and create the jobs which Canadians are so desperately looking for, the failure in both those areas plays into the hands of the separatists. They can point to the failures in Ottawa and suggest that they could do no worse on their own.

I recall some 30 years ago when the B and B commission was first introduced. The government of the day appointed it in an attempt to unite our country, to bring us together as one country. I supported the commission which was originally the B and B commission but became B and multiculturalism commission. I supported it 30 years ago because I thought that was what we must do to unite the country and get Canada moving on to the greatness that could be ours.

After 30 years it is very evident that what has been done over this period of time is not working. As a country we have never been further apart. The October 1993 election in which 54 Bloc members were elected on a mandate to take Quebec out of Canada is living testimony, is living proof of the absolute failure of past policies, of the status quo. It is not working, yet no one is asking why we should be changing.

Going back to October 1993, not just 54 Bloc members were elected, 205 new members of Parliament were elected to this place, an unheard of turnover. Again the vote was a vote for change. Canadians were telling Ottawa: "We are not happy with the status quo. We want changes to be made, not just a change of faces, but a change of policies and a change of thinking".

That message for change was not just reflected in October 1993, it was the message Canadians delivered when Meech was rejected and when Charlottetown was rejected. Those were very strong messages from the voters of Canada that the status quo was not going to get us through.

With Charlottetown something unheard of happened. The three major parties came together in support of a position, as well as the major media. All of them said to the voters of Canada to vote for it. The Canadian people rejected it.

We must never forget the Spicer commission. The government of the day put the commission in place after the failure of the Meech Lake accord to determine the mood of the Canadian people. The taxpayers spent $27 million for Mr. Spicer and his commissioners to go all across Canada and talk to hundreds of thousands of Canadians to find out what was the mood of the country and what was bothering Canadians. Probably all members of Parliament have read the report. The message very clearly was that we in this place must change.

The most important part of the report is the very last quote. It is not a quote of Mr. Spicer's or of one of his commissioners; it is a quote from one of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were interviewed. It appears on page 137 under the heading "Conclusion": "No hyperbole or political hedge can screen any member of any legislature who thwarts the will of the people on this matter. The voters are watching and waiting".

That was in June 1991. Those were very prophetic words indeed when we consider what happened in October 1993. The politicians ignored the warnings in that report and because they did not respond to the wishes of the Canadian people, 205 new members of Parliament were elected.

Let us review the October 30, 1995 referendum. There was no understanding on the part of the government of the message that was delivered in the October 1993 election. The government felt that the status quo, good government, would carry the day: "Do not worry, be happy. It is a family feud. Stay out of it. Do not get involved. We will win. We do not have a problem". Politicians were encouraged to stay out of Quebec. As a matter of fact, when we tried to raise our concerns in the House of Commons we were accused of fearmongering. How tragic that almost was on October 30.

As we are doing today, we will continue to debate the yardstick for breaking up a country, the 50 per cent plus one. There were statements made in the House yesterday which were not accurate. I will take a minute to clarify exactly where we are on the question of 50 per cent plus one, or what percentage of votes is required to break up a country.

Actually, it started in the province of Quebec with the leader of the Liberals in Quebec. Mr. Johnson said that he was prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one because no yardstick had been defined. We had gone into this without clearly outlining what the number should be, but the Liberal leader in Quebec said that he was prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one. At that time the Minister of Labour who was leading the government's position in Quebec and is now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration also indicated publicly her support for 50 per cent plus one. Two major players in the October 30 referendum were saying to the people of Quebec that yes, they would respect 50 per cent plus one.

However there was a lack of a plan or leadership. Mr. Bouchard, then the Leader of the Opposition, challenged the Prime Minister to back up the quotes that had been made by the minister and Mr. Johnson, the leader of the Liberals in Quebec. Tragically the Prime Minister backed away from the commitment of both of these people and said he did not think he would accept 50 per cent plus one. He did not say what he would accept.

The tragedy is that the Prime Minister played right into the hands of the separatists. He was telling them there would be no consequences to their rejection of Canada, that he may or may not accept their position. The battle was lost to a great degree right there in not making it very clear whether or not the government was going to accept the 50 per cent plus one, the will of the voters.

We need to clarify that at no time did anyone from my party say that it should be 50 per cent plus one. We challenged the government to clarify its position on the issue. When the Leader of the Opposition challenged the government as to whether it would accept 50 per cent plus one, the government missed that great opportunity.

It is this failure to understand the need for change that has brought us to the unfortunate position we are still in today. We as a party understood that the status quo was not sufficient, that there was going to have to be change.

[Petitions, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition to present on behalf of 75 Canadians regarding the merchant navy veterans of World War II.

These petitioners are asking Parliament to consider extending the same benefits armed forces veterans receive to merchant navy veterans.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws.

The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.