Joe Clark

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly disagree with the position of the leader of reform alliance party which would have the Government of Canada withdraw, not only in the field of health but in many other fields that are important to the Canadian public interest, from the role of leadership that has helped make us a country. This is not simply a division over policy. This is a division over views of the country. Are we a country or are we not?

The position of the reform alliance party has Canada becoming less and less important to its parts and to its people. I reject that absolutely. I believe that in the establishment of national standards there has to be a very active role by the provinces, but also there has to be a very active presence by the national government, which is the only government of all people of Canada. That is the way in which we would intend to proceed as a government of this country.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, that initiative was an initiative which has not only brought significant innovation to the development and discovery of new drugs in the country but consequently helped to address and cure diseases that would otherwise not have been addressed and cured.

It also provided tremendous economic momentum to many parts of the country. It helped Canada move into an era in which we could move, if we chose, to the frontlines in the new economy in research and development. It was precisely the kind of initiative that a government of a modern country has to take if it is to stay in the leadership of a rapidly changing world.

One of the things members of the New Democratic Party will have to learn some day is that we cannot run away from the world. There is no place to hide out. If we are to become leaders in the world then we have to engage the modern world on its terms. That is what that bill did. That is what this party intends to continue to do.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a better poet when he quotes someone else than he is a contributor to reasonable debate in the House. We know the position of his party on health care. The position of his party is that the federal government should continue to withdraw. The quite startling position of his leader is that the role of the federal government in a system like that of Canada should be as a mediator.

Does the hon. member think there would ever have been a Canada Health Act had the Prime Minister of Canada acted only as a mediator? Does anybody in the House believe that there would have been a Canada at all if the leaders of the federation had acted only as mediators?

There is a prominent role for the Government of Canada to be played in the health care system. The Canadian alliance reform party is running away from that role. Unhappily what it does by ideology the Liberal Party does by drift, running away from the leadership that the health care system needs.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I learned some time ago that when a member like the hon. member dwells so much in the past it is because he has a great fear of the future.

We are here talking about what needs to be done now because the system has suffered grievously over the last seven years, not only from the cuts but from the absolute absence of leadership.

He talks to me about bringing together different provinces and different groups. I know it can be done. I know it could have been done by any minister of health or any Prime Minister on that side who wanted to do it, but there was no will there to do it.

Finally on September 11, when the provinces forced the federal government to come to the table, it gave the provinces a take it or leave it deal, a postdated cheque that was better than nothing at all.

Do not talk to us about leadership. There has been no leadership on health care, no leadership by the government on making the federal and provincial government work together. This is a government that cuts and runs, a government adrift. It is the Canadian people who pay the price.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the bill can most aptly be titled the postdated cheque bill because it promises a restoration of funds to provinces, to patients and to medical professions across the country which simply will not come on time.

The last dramatic action the government took with respect to Canada's health care system was that it made a deliberate choice to put the heaviest burden of its restraint measures upon Canada's health care and social systems. That was a deliberate choice. That was a clear demonstration of what it is now customary to call Liberal values. The Liberals picked first on the sick. They picked first on people who are in need in society. That is where the burden of the cuts came.

The last dramatic action was a series of unilateral cuts that were made without warning. They were devastating cuts that have done more to damage the health care system than any other single set of circumstances faced by the country in the last several years.

After five years of pain the government today suddenly calls for debate on Bill C-45, which would have cash transfers for health, post-secondary education and social services returned to 1994 levels, not by this year but by the year 2002-03.

Why did the government finally repent? This was not the government's will. It was pushed to this agreement by the provinces of Canada and by the virtual certainty that sooner or later it would have to stop hiding and face the people of Canada in a federal general election. Left to its own devices, the government would have continued to let the health care system drift into the disarray that has caused such hardship across the country.

Before these payments are made another 18 months will pass. Full restoration of the cuts will only occur eight years after the cuts were so brutally made. I repeat, those cuts were the single biggest factor in the erosion of the health care system in the country.

The change today is not driven by the erosion of the health care system. The change today is driven by a cynical political calculation of fear of an election in which the Liberals would be held to account for the damage they have done in hospital after hospital, home after home, family after family, right across Canada. They had every opportunity to change this policy earlier and they did not do that.

As I look at the legislative agenda of this parliament, I am struck by one thing. Whether the issue is employment insurance or whether the issue is health care funding, every initiative by the Liberal government is being driven by an attempt to repair the damage done by earlier Liberal Party initiatives. This is simply a damage control government. This is not a government that is seeking to serve the interests of the people of Canada.

The government claims this is full restoration of funding. It is not. The bill cheats the provinces, the patients and the health care professionals of Canada by at least $3 billion. Had it been passed and effective this week and had moneys been committed this year, nearly $3 billion more would be in the system than is in the system under the bill before us.

Canadians will not see any of the restored funds this winter. The first instalment only occurs next April 1. That is quite clear in Bill C-45. It is also clear with this cynical government that the Liberal Party ads are running but the money is not moving. That is the height of cynicism in a system like this.

The most important failure of this accord, apart from the fact that it is a postdated cheque that cheats the recipients, is that the government still has not assured the provinces of stable funding in the future. That means provinces, health care professionals and people who are ill or fear being ill are subject once again and still to the threat of massive unilateral cuts in health care funding by the federal government.

The funding for the next four years does not recognize actual health costs or other factors contributing to rising health costs.

The federal government has yet to guarantee the provinces stable funding in the future. The votes for the coming four years do not take into account the present costs of health care nor the other factors affecting these costs. Despite the reinstatement of the transfers, we have no assurance that the federal government will not unilaterally cut transfers once again in the event of an economic recession.

The arrogance of this government is beyond all. With an election on the horizon, it is now telling the provinces to push the opposition to pass the bill in a day. Why did the government not listen to the provinces and the opposition in recent years, when we were saying that unilateral cuts to health care had hurt Canadians considerably?

In January 1997, the provincial and territorial ministers of health informed the federal government that:

The cuts in federal transfer payments have resulted in a critical loss of revenues for the provinces and the territories, forcing them to make rapid changes to the system and seriously threatening their ability to maintain existing services. The reductions in federal funding accelerated the movement to reform a system that lacks the ability to absorb and sustain the adjustments that that requires.

Did we hear an announcement of funding for health care? No. How did the Prime Minister react? In response to the demand put to him by the premiers at the annual Saskatoon conference, the Prime Minister apparently expressed doubts about the unconditional payment of votes to the provinces. He wanted to impose conditions in order to prevent the provinces from funding income tax reductions with this money.

What is clear is that the Liberal Party's political agenda has held back health care in Canada. The federal government's interest is not in standards. That is the flag it flies behind. It is not interested in standards. It is interested in control. It does not matter what happens in hospitals across the country. It does not matter what happens to people who are sick or fear being sick. The government wants to control every single penny and if Canadians suffer that is just too bad. That is unacceptable in any civilized system.

At the same time the government removed its contribution and increased its demand for control. This is happening at the worst possible time in the evolution of the health care system because of the insistence on rigidity, the insistence on control and the absolute refusal to work with the other partners in the health care system to give us a better system.

We are living through a period now in which our health care system is assaulted by several fronts. There have been dramatic changes in technology. There are dramatic impacts upon the system by an aging population who will be able to stay alive and active much longer than before. There are profound changes brought by the possibilities of medication and by pharmaceutical and other developments.

This is a time of immense change. This is a time of great opportunities for leadership. This is the time when a Pierre Elliott Trudeau or a Lester Pearson would have risen to the occasion, but not this government. What the government has done is turn tail and run and let the health care system in Canada fall into tatters. That is absolutely unacceptable to any kind of Canadian.

Today we have a deal before us to restore the funding cuts which were made unilaterally. The agreement is overdue. It pays less than is owed but it is welcome because the system cannot stand to be starved any further. However, in all of this talk about putting some of the money back, in all of the focus on the postdated cheque, the clear reality is that we have not taken a single step closer to having a modern and contemporary health care plan based upon the principles of the Canada Health Act to ensure the health and security of Canadians into the next century.

There is money in the system now, or there will be in a couple of years, but there is no plan because this is a government which congenitally does not plan. It is a government of drift rather than a government of seizing the initiative and assuring the leadership of Canada.

The three day meeting of the health ministers this week came up with a nursing strategy that will establish committees to investigate the chronic shortage, to measure resources and to examine changing trends. Nurses have been saying for years that there were chronic shortages in the health care system. We hope we have nurses left in our system by the time the Liberal government finishes studying what is wrong. The ratio of practising registered nurses to the Canadian population in 1999 was one nurse for every 133 persons. In 1989 the ratio was 1:120. The average age of an RN employed in nursing in 1999 was 43, up from 41 in 1994.

The bill is silent on how it plans primary care reform. We know from the first ministers' conference that $800 million will be invested over four years to support innovation and reform in primary care. We do not know from the bill how that funding will be distributed.

Elizabeth Witmer, the minister of health for Ontario, is quoted as saying that with the primary care funding, 70% will go to provinces and territories and 30% will go into a fund that will have some Canada-wide applications, but that money is not going to be made available until next April.

Ontario will have to put more money in to meet expectations until the federal cash arrives. Ontario can do that. Unfortunately, not all the provinces in the country have that ability. This is an issue that is seriously missing in the government's health care deal.

The government claims that it is interested in the same quality of health care system across the country. However, it has forced this upon the provinces, giving them no alternative but to accept this or nothing, which leaves the poorer provinces with a lower standard of health care than the others. What kind of Liberal values does that represent? Where is the health plan for palliative care and hospital infrastructure? All of them are important aspects of primary health care reform.

Under Bill C-45 the provinces will know their funding for health care up to April 2005. That is five years. It takes 10 years to train a doctor. Doctors are integral to the reform of primary care. The Canadian Medical Association has just sent me, and I am sure other leaders, a copy of a letter in which says:

In the CMA's estimation the total cumulative funding commitments contained in the First Minister's agreement are more than $17 billion less than what we forecasted as needed to ensure the sustainability of the health care system.

That is $17 billion less. Not only is it less, it is late. There is far less here than meets the eye. The government is spending more money this month on health care ads than it is on health care. That is simply unacceptable in a nation like this.

Pharmaceutical management is an important part of our health care system. At the first ministers' meeting there was discussion about developing strategies for assessing the cost effectiveness of prescription drugs and means of drug purchasing costs. There is no concurrent commitment by the federal government to improve the timeliness of drug approval. Some pharmaceutical companies offer evidence that drug therapies reduce institutional care. The government has direct input in approving new drugs that help Canadians avoid lengthy institutional stays.

The Canadian Medical Association has stated that an unnecessarily long approval process delays access to new medications that may improve patients health status. However, the median time for regulatory approval of new drugs in Canada has been significantly longer than in countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden. Our country has been criticized in several independent reviews on this issue.

The most important retreat that we evidenced today has not been the cut in funding, brutal and deadly though that has been in some cases. The most serious retreat has been the retreat from leadership by this federal government. The Liberals came to office at a time when the economy of Canada was growing sharply, largely because of initiatives which they opposed in opposition.

The OECD acknowledges that Canada's economic strength was won by the initiatives of a decade ago on trade, on the GST and on deregulation. The government did little to earn the surplus tabled last week and has done nothing at all to ensure those funds would be wisely invested in the future of Canada.

Despite the most favourable possible economic circumstances, the government has let the Canadian health care system fall into disarray. Was that inevitable? Did other governments of the world do that? Of course they did not. Other governments cared more about the health of their citizens than this Liberal government. That has shown up in the comparisons that have been made by independent agencies around the world.

This Canadian government sat back and let Canada's health system decline so sharply that even the World Health Organization ranked Canada behind most of the comparable world in the quality of our health care. Imagine that in the system of the Canada Health Act and in the system of medicare Canada is ranked by the World Health Organization behind most of the comparable world. Why is that? It is that we have a government in office that will not show the leadership that earlier Liberal governments showed. It lets things drift in the dust. It insists on jurisdiction but shows no leadership at all.

Canada has the resources and the tradition to be first in the world, but the government has brought us to 30th instead of first. If I may say so, it is not only the health care system that it has damaged.

I spent a good amount of time this summer talking to people in Kings county and Hants county in Nova Scotia who are very much involved in the health care system. Some are nurses, some are doctors, some are administrators and many more are people who are trying to get a doctor for a remote community or trying to ensure that it is possible for older people to travel easily to get their supply of drugs.

When I speak to people in the medical profession I hear over and over again that the problem is not just that the money is not there but there is a sense that there is no movement in the system, there is no plan and there is no hope. On a question like medical care where we have been in front of the world for so long, there is no hope.

Why is that? Is that the fault of Canada, the Canada that created the Canada Health Act, the Canada that created medicare? Of course not. That is the fault of the federal government in office today which has backed away time and time again from exercising the leadership that would have let Canada continue to be a leader in providing the highest quality health care to its citizens. The government has failed and Canadians are paying the price for that failure.

More is at stake here than the health care system, because what it has done on health care it is doing on other aspects of the Canadian community. It is not drawing together people who want to be together. It looks for polarization. That is its new theme. It looks for ways to divide Canadians instead of heeding the hopes of parliament. Instead of heeding, it is responding to the requests of provinces. It ignores them until it is time finally with an election looming to bring them together and to offer a deal they cannot resist, a postdated cheque. That is not leadership.

A system of co-operation in Canada, of co-operation among governments with professionals, with concerned citizens, is what we need to restore the country. As in so many issues there has been no leadership by the federal government. Even now its action has been forced by the combination of provincial pressure and the impending election. There is not even the slightest hint of federal leadership in developing a new health plan for Canada.

As I listened to the debate, as I watch what this minister and this government are doing, it seems to me they are moving closer and closer to where the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition says he wants his government to be. The federal government is drawing back from leadership in health care.

I know I am reaching the end of my time, so let me conclude on this note. There is one level of government in Canada able to speak for all of Canada. It is not just a question of money. It is not just a question of jurisdiction. It is a question of authority. If the national government will not lead, the system will not succeed.

The government does not lead. Our system is in trouble because there has not been the leadership that is needed. The bill is a long overdue step in the right direction, but it is a faltering step. It is a step under duress. It is a step that promises more than it delivers. Unless there is a plan to go with the money then the Canadian health care system will continue in that long decline that began with the election of this careless, drifting government.

[Emergency Service Volunteers, October 4th, 2000]

This is a shameful ignorance of rural Canada.

[Emergency Service Volunteers, October 4th, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Income Tax Act should be amended to provide a tax credit of $500 to all emergency service volunteers.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take this opportunity to introduce the motion on emergency service volunteers. I thank my colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for seconding my motion. I look forward to an active debate and interest in this matter in the House of Commons.

This motion would lead the House of Commons to replace the tax deduction, for which only a few community volunteers in Canada are eligible, with a tax credit that would help all emergency service volunteers in communities across the country.

As the House knows, emergency service volunteers, including volunteer firefighters, currently receive a $1,000 tax deduction if they receive an honorarium from their municipality. It is conditional. Most rural volunteer fire departments do not pay an honorarium to their volunteers. The motion would provide a $500 tax credit to all emergency service volunteers, including volunteer firefighters. This credit would end up being worth more than the $1,000 deduction.

As background, in 1997 the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey tabled a bill then known as Bill C-249, which provided for an increase from $500 to $1,000 in the tax deduction for volunteer firefighters.

However, as I mentioned a moment ago, that only applied to firefighters who received honorariums from their fire departments. Most rural volunteer fire departments simply cannot afford to pay that kind of honorarium.

The 1998 budget adopted the recommendations of Bill C-249. Indeed it extends the provisions of that bill to volunteer ambulance technicians and other emergency service volunteers. My predecessor in this place from Kings—Hants, Mr. Scott Brison, originally introduced this motion as a result of representations made to him in his constituency and in conversations he had with people involved in emergency and volunteer services across the country. He appeared before the subcommittee on private members' business in June 2000 and was successful in persuading the committee to deem this motion a votable motion.

In Quebec as in the rest of Canada, most municipalities have to rely on civic minded men and women to act as volunteer firefighters and protect the public in case of disaster.

Unfortunately, their work is not fully appreciated, so the purpose of my motion is to recognize at least in some little way their contribution to their municipalities.

They carry out their duties and protect their fellow citizens, at the peril of their own lives sometimes, as was the case in Warwick, in the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, where four volunteer firefighters were killed a few years ago.

After years of government cutbacks and reductions, communities both large and small rely increasingly on the help and the dedication of volunteers who have had to step in and fill the void created when governments cut back. That is evident today across Canada, from Hantsport to downtown Calgary, with non-profit organizations struggling to make ends meet.

The Government of Canada greatly underestimates the role and importance that organizations such as food banks, support groups and volunteer fire departments play in our communities. They are an essential part of Canada's social fabric. When the Minister of Finance announced the tax credit for emergency service volunteers in 1998, he said:

As witnessed over the past year in floods and the ice storm, it is important to recognize the extraordinary service provided by the thousands of Canadians who register as volunteers in our communities, mostly rural, and who provide essential emergency services like firefighting and first aid.

My party and I are glad that the minister recognized something needed to be done and that he followed up on a private member's initiative from the House. However, it is time now to take the next step, to expand this to a tax credit that will be available to all emergency service volunteers in the country. Small communities across Canada that rely on their volunteer firefighters in times of emergency are being unfairly left out in the cold by the current government. The Income Tax Act should be amended to provide a tax credit to all emergency service volunteers, regardless of whether the municipality can provide them with an honorarium.

The current policy discriminates against rural firefighters, for example, who rarely receive any compensation from their municipality. I should say, and members with any association with rural communities would know this to be the case, that in many cases and to an increasing degree, volunteer fire departments in rural areas are now carrying out functions that go well beyond dealing with fires. The heavy burden of cutbacks in medical services and other emergency services means that more and more of these people are spending more and more of their time dealing with issues other than fires.

In cases in my constituency I have spoken to people who spend 24 25, or 26 hours a week as volunteers. This is in addition to their regular jobs. Yet they have no incentive, no compensation under our tax system, because they reside in municipalities that are too small to be able to pay them an honorarium.

When they are fighting fires, volunteer firefighters risk their lives to help their fellow citizens and protect their communities. It is not fair when some are rewarded for this while others are not. Volunteer firefighters are essential to rural communities. They risk their lives day in, day out.

Let me quote an advertisement from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department in British Columbia. It is a help wanted advertisement and says:

Help wanted! Volunteers over 18 for year round outdoor work. Job training required at no pay. Must be in good condition. Must be able to withstand wide range of temperature extremes, and work under any weather conditions. Must be able to lift their own weight, and move at the speed of life. And do it all over again, perhaps the same day. Must provide own transportation. Uniforms and basic equipment will be supplied. Remuneration includes respect, smiles and “thank yous” (Occasionally).

This advertisement sums up exactly what is expected of volunteer firefighters. Clearly it indicates how rural communities rely on them.

I do not think any member of the House or anyone in the government would want to deny this reality. They would want to be of help to the firefighters who are now excluded, unintentionally, I think, but nonetheless very dramatically in terms of their own well-being.

In Nova Scotia there are currently over 9,000 firefighters, most of whom did not receive a tax credit for their service. In my riding of Kings—Hants reaction to this motion has been excellent. For example, Matt Dunfield, a volunteer firefighter from the Windsor Volunteer Fire Department said in a letter,

—what has been proposed is a great idea as it covers all volunteer emergency service providers, regardless of how much they receive as compensation from the municipality they serve. With this proposal maybe more community members will step forward and offer their services to their communities well being.

Graham Murphy, who has been a volunteer firefighter in Windsor, Nova Scotia, for over 25 years and whose father and grandfather were both fire chiefs in Wolfville also said in a letter:

This bill if passed will be of great benefit to volunteer firefighters serving our smaller communities as they often receive no compensation for the sacrifices they make. The current law does little for those truly unrewarded volunteers. This bill is a small price to pay for a priceless service.

In closing, volunteer firefighters from coast to coast risk their lives to help their fellow citizens and protect their communities. All of them should be recognized for their dedication by being provided with a $500 tax credit. I hope and urge the government and members of all parties in the House to support this motion.

[Health, October 4th, 2000]

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I am treating that as an assurance that the full report of the auditor general will be made available to the public on or before the 17th.

I have a question about the health accord, an accord which we believe cheats the provinces out of $3 million because it is a post-dated cheque. Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance now that legislation giving effect to the health accord will pass through this parliament before a general election is called?

[Auditor General's Report, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I welcome his assurance that he intends to give parliament the opportunity to live its full life.

However, in the event that some unforeseen circumstance might arise, I wonder if the Prime Minister can give the House his assurance that the full report of the auditor general will be made public on or before October 17, whether or not he goes to the polls.

[The Late Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, September 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my condolences to the family of the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

The loss of one so strong is almost impossible to believe. We share the family's sorrow and their pride for what he was, for what he did and for what he gave to a generation of Canadians in terms of leadership.

We knew Mr. Trudeau was ill. We knew even that he was suffering from a terminal illness. And yet, the news of his passing was a shock to us all, because this passing represents more than the disappearance of a man. Pierre Elliott Trudeau represented a bold new page in the nation's history, and now the page has been turned.

We may each draw from his experience, but our purpose today, in this parliament that he towered above, is to express our respect for and our recognition of the talents and devotion of this extraordinary man.

I feel particularly fortunate to be able to pay my final tribute to Pierre Elliott Trudeau from the floor of the House of Commons. He was an enigmatic man, tough and kind, cold-blooded and sympathetic. While I never thought I knew him well, it was here that I knew him best.

He was Prime Minister when I first entered parliament and then for seven years we stood directly across this aisle from one another, two sword lengths apart.

Our parliamentary system requires that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition disagree. I did not need the prompting of the system. On the issues for which Mr. Trudeau is most admired, including particularly his view of Quebec and Canada, I profoundly disagreed. Yet everyone who served here during those times knew we were in the presence of a man of high intellect, of great and unquestioned integrity, of deep substance, and of real dedication to his concept of the public good.

Not every politician is lucky in his timing. Pierre Trudeau was. He burst into the Canadian consciousness when the country was confident and stretching, ready to change, ready to soar. He became Prime Minister in that incandescent year of our centennial. He came out of the city of our great Expo and he used those talents and that timing and those origins to change Canadian society.

The Canadians whom those changes suited applauded him and will feel forever grateful. For example, whatever his motive in bringing forward the charter of rights and freedoms, the impact of that initiative was profound on those Canadians who came here from regimes where respect for rights was not part of the natural fabric of society. Those Canadians now feel more comfortable, more equal, here in their own country.

At the same time many of those Canadians whom Mr. Trudeau's changes offended became estranged from their own country. That happened in Quebec with the 1982 constitutional changes. It happened in the west with the national energy program. It is ironic that a Prime Minister whose mobilizing purpose was the unity of his country should have so exacerbated the differences within our own family.

I think there is a reason for that. His intellect guided him more than his intuition did. In a sense, he was too rational for this country which, after all, was formed and grew against logic. Pierre Trudeau had a clear view of what he thought our country should be. He used his powers of office and of persuasion to make us that kind of country, whether we were or not.

I am quite content to let history judge the legacy of his governments. That will not be a narrow accounting of laws and popularity. It will be an assessment of how a leader changed a society and, critic though I was of his signature initiatives, I expect that assessment will be positive and strong. He changed more than laws. He changed our image of ourselves at home and in the wider world, where he modernized and extended the international vocation of Canada.

What I would want us to remember today, hours after the passing of this extraordinary man, is precisely Pierre Trudeau's impact as a leader, his determination to be an agent of change, his capacity to transform society. People who would never vote for him or rarely agree with him admired his passion, his intellect, his courage. He became a symbol, almost an incarnation of what many Canadians hoped we could be. No one can dispute the positive power of his example. He was a force who, for better and for worse, transformed our country.

In that famous 1968 election I was on the other side with Robert Stanfield. I will never forget the eloquence with which Pierre Trudeau invoked and mobilized the spirit of this country in that first campaign, but he moved beyond eloquence to action, bold action. Like our first controversial Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, Pierre Trudeau would have built the railway.

He was a Canadian of vision, of vigour, of determination, of substance and of strength. May his soul rest in peace.