Debates of Oct. 17th, 1994

Department Of Industry Act

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for making a few points I may have omitted, but I would like to point out that my remarks apply to the new Bill C-46, through which the Department of Industry will take over, so to speak, the Federal Office of Regional Development. I said in my little speech that I would have liked the bill to contain clauses underscoring the advantages of letting each province, Ontario and Quebec in particular in this case, choose where and how to invest federal government funds.

It is true that in the past, the work done by the Federal Office of Regional Development was highly regarded in various regions including mine, but when the hon. member indicates that the forestry people were very happy with the federal government's role in reforestation efforts, I would like to say that my region benefited very little from this project.

We hear that, with the upcoming cutbacks, the Federal Office will not inject any more money into private industries. The new policies do not provide any money for the tourism industry for one thing. I wonder how the amounts will be set to help a region like mine when it needs money precisely for forestry, while forest resources are already scarce. If we do not have enough money for tourist facilities-and we are told this is not a

government priority- how can we help my region-and not the Lac-Saint-Jean region where they may not need as much money for tourism because they already have good facilities? How can we be address specific needs when the government sets priorities for us?

The federal government's goal is to help the regions but this approach, instead of showing good will, simply hampers development. I do not know whether I should say something else on this subject for the hon. member's benefit, but I think that if this bill had let the provinces and especially the regions choose how to achieve their own development, I think we would have been much more likely to support this bill. However, given the bill's current wording, because it does not say anything about the need to adapt to specific regional needs, as Mr. Lesage used to say, I think that we cannot support it.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member from the official opposition describe his riding, it sounds very similar to mine in British Columbia.

In lieu of the previous speaker's comments regarding regional programs being run by the provinces and his stated view that that was the way to go, can the hon. member please explain why the Bloc amendment is specific to Quebec as opposed to being applicable to all of the provinces in Canada?

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question as well as I can. Instead of limiting my colleague's amendment to Quebec, it could be limited to Quebec and Ontario, since in Bill C-46, the Federal Office of Regional Development applies only to Ontario and Quebec.

Also in your question, you said that your riding was like mine.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I just want to remind you to address your comments and statements to the Chair and not directly to each other.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would like to point out to the Chair that the hon. member asked me why the Bloc Quebecois's amendment was limited to Quebec when it could have applied to Ontario as well and even to all the provinces of Canada.

Why? Because Bill C-46 is applied by the Federal Office of Regional Development only in Quebec and Ontario. Also, I would like to say to the hon. member, who lives in a region like mine, that they may be better served if they have a different development agency covered by a different law. The development projects in his riding may be better run; in my riding, the Federal Office of Regional Development has some good initiatives, of course, but through Bill C-46, we want the Department of Industry to decentralize and blend its ideas with those of the provincial agency, especially for regional initiatives, to make better use of the money invested.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to contribute to second reading debate on Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry.

The bill will establish in law the new Department of Industry that was created in June 1993 by the former administration. While always a powerful ministry historically run by a powerful minister, this new Department of Industry is an amalgamation of the former Department of Industry, Science and Technology Canada, the former Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the telecommunication side of the Department of Communications and Investment Canada.

The Reform Party has two major objections, beginning with clause 13(1), part I, of the bill. This clause gives the minister full rein over shaping industries to suit special needs of certain industrial or commercial establishments, organizations or persons who are members of a particular category of persons defined by order of the governor in council. I will develop our concerns regarding this issue a little later.

Our second area of concern surrounds part II of the legislation, regional economic development in Ontario and Quebec. The bill places responsibility for Quebec and Ontario under the Minister of Industry. This should be interesting. Would I like to be at the cabinet table listening to deliberations?

In any event before I focus more directly on these two major concerns with the legislation I would like to put this exercise of departmental chair shuffling into an historical framework. I think this is a worthwhile exercise in view of this latest attempt via Bill C-46 to bring some continuity and focus to the disparate nature of this department, in particular its responsibilities, focus and scope of activity.

The industry responsibilities within the Canadian government really date back, for the sake of our examination, to the late C.D. Howe and the department of trade and commerce and its main operating division of the department of defence production. Those were the days of the dollar a year people, the C.D. Howe recruitments who kept Canada's materiel infrastructure running during World War II. C.D. was a powerful minister who ran a clearly powerful department with tentacles of influence, not only during World War II but up until the 1960s in many other departments.

The department of trade and commerce not only held sway in Ottawa but also controlled the regional development side. By the 1960s the industrial and commercial dynamics were changing in Canada and the beginning of constant change in the industry portfolio was taking hold.

In the early 1960s the government created the Department of Industry. The then deputy minister, Simon Reisman, began recruiting advocates for industry from the business community. Some of these business people were competent, some were not as we hear. Terrible infighting ensued between these new young business types in the existing career civil service within the department. The department meandered around looking for stability, purpose and reason for approximately eight years.

In 1968 because of this constant bickering over what the focus should be, either an advocate for business or a policy maker, the then administration created the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The operative word and function in this new arrangement was obviously the inclusion of trade in this new dynamic. Now we have the career commerce people, the business advocates from industry and the traders. This is quite an arrangement of personalities, agendas and egos.

In most of the disagreements that ensued over what the department was supposed to do, the industry advocates usually won. However, another merger was on the horizon. That was the advent of DREE. In the early seventies the department of regional economic expansion became a hotbed of politics, largesse, monument building and subsequent turf wars.

This new department focused on regional development first in the Atlantic provinces, soon after in Quebec and slowly through Ontario and as far west as Saskatchewan. That is where the DREE gravy train stopped. Alberta and B.C. were considered too rich to participate in these economic expansion schemes. The politicians representing those two provinces had no clout in the Commons or at the cabinet table.

Two interesting twists within DREE were two programs, ARDA and special ARDA. The former ARDA, agricultural and rural development agency, dealt with regional development opportunities and special ARDA was responsible for native economic development opportunities and employment initiatives.

To many, DREE was more than a series of questionable funding projects, from Michelin Corp. in Nova Scotia to Bricklin Inc. cars and Mitel switching equipment, all funded by DREE. Again turf wars ensued but the money flowed like water to the project of the month.

After the DREE period we had another merger. This new department known as DRIE, the department of regional industrial expansion, again had lots of money to throw around mostly through a program known as the industrial research development program. At the same time the trade component was moved to external affairs to complicate it more. It was a time of good old style patronage with a tinge of legitimate cutting edge technological development.

Some time in the mid to late 1980s, with the science envelope evoking worldwide opportunities, the department was renamed industry, science and technology. At this time the agriculture, fish and food component was transferred to Agriculture Canada.

The department was becoming fragmented, faced with constant change and constantly eroding capabilities. Forces were scattered and the usual turf wars continued. In the wisdom of the former administration, another change was made and the government created the department of industry. That is why we are here today continuing the revolving door instability and constant quest for change in the hope of getting it right.

We have come full circle and returned to the early paragraphs of my address.

I would like to focus now on our objections to Bill C-46. Let me look first at the always troublesome regional development side. Bill C-46 clearly indicates that the minister will look after Ontario and Quebec. Currently no one is sure who looks after Ontario, but make no mistake about it. The Minister of Finance, not industry, looks after Quebec at this time.

We have no problem with the Minister of Industry assuming responsibility for Quebec and Ontario, but what about the rest of Canada? This bill continues the balkanization of the rest of the country. The squeaking wheel continues to get the grease. I wonder which of the three ministers responsible for regional development really holds the grease: the Minister of Human Resources Development for the Western Diversification Office, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services for ACOA, the Allan MacEachen of the 1990s, or the Minister of Industry now responsible for Quebec and Ontario.

What a mess: a department for Ontario and Quebec, a department for the west in WDO, and a corporation acting like a department at ACOA. It may not be a department for the minister of public works at ACOA but I am told that the minister of public works will expunge the name Allan MacEachen from the lexicon of the east coast largesse dictionary. He is on a roll and this mishmash arrangement is sure to cause more regional strife.

The position of the Reform Party on regional development is that it should be eliminated so that all areas of Canada are treated equally. We want to get rid of a system where conflicts rise between ministers who are supposed to choose in the

interests of the country nationally but choose regionally due to their regional development responsibilities.

The legislation ensures that bias and regionalism continues. In part IV of the bill powers are granted under subclause 13(1) to the Minister of Industry, which could be construed to mean that the minister and the department can engage in central planning of the economy, far beyond the more sensible approach of letting industry choose the equilibrium and letting experts run their own affairs. State run involvement, as subclause 13(1) seems to indicate, is anathema to good business management and we oppose it.

The Reform Party values initiatives and enterprise. We do not see the government role as being responsible for fostering and protecting an environment in which initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals and groups.

In most reorganizations and rationalizations in the private sector, which is the real world, business makes these changes to downsize, to save money and to improve profit margins. In the case of government and Bill C-46 we have amalgamated four departments. One could realistically expect staff reductions. From a total of 6,000 employees we will see a reduction of 230 staff members, probably through attrition. What level of public servant are we talking about?

Another dynamic of rationalization, as I have said, is cost saving. Out of a $3 billion budget it is estimated that department spending will be reduced by $26 million or less than 1 per cent. The bill lacks any coherent vision of industrial strategy. It fosters regional economic development initiatives against a backdrop of vague national strategies.

The bill continues the saga of reorganization for the sake of reorganization in a constant quest to get it right. It confirms that the Minister of Industry and the government share a Tory vision of industrial strategy. After all, it is a Tory initiative.

The bill continues the interventionist role of government, the flawed notion that government sets the course and business steers it. Free market principles and fairness for all should be the hallmark of our industrial strategy.

I hear the infighting has already started at the new department. It has even spilled over to the Department of National Resources, whose employees are looking for something to do and are sticking their noses into the new department's business. It is business as usual at the C. D. Howe building. Too bad C. D. Howe is not around.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice that the Reform Party member could find nothing positive in this piece of legislation. He did not comment on the fact that it was a major effort in streamlining a department of government.

The Reform Party is always talking about making sure we eliminate duplication and making sure we eliminate waste. The reorganization of the department of industry goes a long way toward meeting those objectives.

There is absolutely no infighting going on. In fact most people in the department of industry are very excited about the ongoing reorganization. We are especially excited that through the department of industry we will be giving the Federal Business Development Bank added support over the next while, which is something most Reform members support. We have also given the tourism section of the department an added boost.

The member is not being balanced in his remarks when he claims that the reorganization is not meeting any of the objectives. However I am sure in time the member will see that we are on the right path.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my view of the bill is obviously very different from that of the member who just spoke. This is a cosmetic, housekeeping bill, and there is nothing substantial in it.

I explained the minor savings associated with the bill. The only thing I can say about the excitement level in these departments is that it is obvious I am talking to different personnel than the member opposite.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in his earlier comments the hon. member spoke about the lack of an industrial strategy in the bill. I am curious. Does this mean the member believes we should have an industrial strategy for Canada?

The hon. member talked about C. D. Howe and the war period and about how C. D. Howe kept the industrial structures in Canada working. Does he not recognize it was C. D. Howe in co-operation with the private sector, that is the state in co-operation with the private sector, that created the modern Canadian industrial structure which lasted to the 1960s. In fact the state played an important part in that period?

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in regard to an industrial strategy, the lead cannot be taken by government at this point because government has proven itself to be incompetent in terms of dealing with spending priorities and with fiscal responsibility.

In terms of relating that point to the C. D. Howe era, we had a balanced budget then. Essentially we had a balanced budget up to 1972. I know there was a period after World War II when we were in a state of tremendous growth and we paid down a lot of debt, but those circumstances are completely alien to where we are now.

The government is carrying on unsustainable programs, institutions and projects at this time, and this is one of them. It is probably more discretionary to make radical change to this one than to many others which affect transfers to the individuals and so on.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest once again to the contradictory remarks of the hon. member.

In the first instance they are telling us that any federal government intervention in rural areas, which is where I am from, is contradictory to what the Government of Canada should be doing in helping rural areas. However I find it curious that they are trying to bring in a centralized model where all regions of Canada would be treated in the same way. In other words, we should say that the little town of Bonaventure and the little town of Old-Harry on the Madeleine Islands are the same as Bay Street, that they have the same economy as Toronto.

They do not seem to recognize the other side. The opposition benches like to pride themselves as representing rural Canada and rural interests, but they want to take rural Canadians and put them in the same boat as urban Canadians. Many members opposite actually represent areas with only one industry: a mining town, a pulp and paper town or a government town. Whereas in other urban areas of Canada such as Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal there are various choices, various industries, a concentration of populations, a concentration of schools and a concentration of services.

We do not have that in the regions. That is why in order to encourage regional economic development the Government of Canada has to make it easier for corporations and companies, which it always likes to defend, to invest more in our areas. It should make sure that there is equitable expenditure across Canada. It should also recognize that rural areas also have taxpayers; they have interests that are important to them. Members opposite should go back to their constituents and ask them if they think the Government of Canada should remove itself from regional economic development. I am sure they are not going to last past the next election.

I go back to my constituency as a rural Quebecer, a rural Canadian, with examples of where the Government of Canada intervened. Thanks to that intervention we managed to create jobs. We managed to create income. We managed to develop the local economy for the benefit of all Canadians and for the benefit of regional areas such as those represented by the Reform Party.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed I am opposed to regional economic programs, as is our party. I live in and represent a rural riding. The government does not have the resources to keep DFO offices functioning for an important west coast resource in very remote areas where we need that presence.

The government is taking essential services like light stations and threatening them. For you to be talking about us not supporting rural areas is blatant misrepresentation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I know this is the place of vigorous debate and we even encourage it. However I remind all members to direct their interventions through the Chair and not directly to one another.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would like to make a couple of other references to the way these priorities have been placed in jeopardy.

We have an infrastructure program that has been gerrymandered. We have an urban focus. We are building boccie courts in Toronto and swimming pools. At the same time some of our essential rural services are being defunded. This is unacceptable.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in my place today to enter the debate on Bill C-46 respecting the establishment of the Department of Industry.

I notice part of the bill deals with the abolition of Investment Canada. I would like to address that point to some extent. Investment Canada in the new establishment will be basically a directorate within the Department of Industry. Investment Canada goes back to the original FIRA or the Foreign Investment Review Agency.

Unfortunately over our history Canadians have taken the fast track to economic prosperity. By this I mean we have borrowed capital from outside our borders. In fact, we have even allowed industry to come into our country and take over various sections of our economy. We have done that rather than develop our economy in our own sense. In other words, we have developed the aspect of letting others do it.

The problems which existed with FIRA and go back to the 1970s are really no different today. I question those who are in attendance today. The cars we drive, the televisions we watch and the household appliances we use are either purchased outside of our borders, manufactured outside of our borders or they are made by companies within our borders but which are not headquartered here.

This higher standard of living we have tried to attract has come with a price for all Canadians. There is a greater and greater dependency on foreign capital, much like a drug user who cannot kick the habit. With respect to our governments, 25 per cent of the financing of our federal debt is outside of our borders and 40 per cent of the financing of provincial government debts is outside of our borders.

This has created a dependency relationship. We are beholden to the people who own and control this money. We have a tendency to service the markets of our creditors. In fact we service the market of our major creditor, the United States, with raw materials and raw resources.

Canada has a trade surplus which is very attractive when one looks at it initially. In reality Canada has a trade surplus with only one country in the world and a trade deficit with almost all other nations. Canada has a trade surplus with the United States and trade deficits, especially with southeast Asia for those television sets and appliances we use every day.

This concept of letting others do it has caused a great retardation of our research and development. Why do I say that? Well why should we have laboratories in Canada? Why should we do research in Canada when there are laboratories south of the border in Seattle and North Carolina? In other words, there seems to be no real desire in Canada to do genuine research and development.

I do not have to tell anyone that statistics on the Canadian economy indicate our research and development is one of the lowest in the world. This has had a tremendous impact on the creation of high paying, high skilled jobs in Canada. The partial result of some of this is that some of our best brains have had to go south in order to utilize their talents. Do we want to continue with this kind of process where our smarter people have to leave?

I do not have to tell you that research and development has a tremendous importance on the new economy. The economy is changing before our very eyes. The world and global economies are changing before our very eyes. Another impact of foreign investment and foreign ownership and control in Canada has been job training.

Canada has one of the poorest records on in house training in the world. I question why this should be. Why is this unique to Canada? I suspect we can trace it back to that original problem, foreign ownership and foreign control. Why train high echelon management type jobs when we already have a set up to do that south of the border? This has worked against the best interests of Canadian workers.

The ultimate price of letting others do it has been that decisions are not made within our borders, decisions that affect our economy on a day to day basis, decisions that affect industry and industry formation. It continues to this day. Directions and suggestions of local managers are routinely overridden by corporate headquarters often located to the south but in other countries as well. This stifles innovation in our economy. It stifles the ability of people to progress in this society. It does not matter whether you are in Quebec or any other part of the country, the story is still the same.

This brings us to where we are today. Today the economy is changing. Like the devastation that wrenched Japan in the second world war, or the industrial revolution that swept across Britain, things have changed. We have wiped the slate clear. A new economy is before us. We have changed the way we do business.

The integrated multinational is no longer the productive engine of the economy. Smokestacks in industrial areas in the United States and other countries are slowly going dormant. A whole section of the northern United States is now referred to as the rust belt. These industries are no longer viable. These are industries which for whatever reason are not part of the new technology. States like New York face outward migration; people are actually leaving some of these huge engines of production.

Now is the chance for Canada to regain its ability to make its own decisions. This is an opportunity to actually make a change to the new economy without forfeiting our standard of living. In other words, we have to start being smarter. We have to start doing our own research and development. We are all equals now in the world. Canada has an opportune chance to be part of a new and evolving economy.

The concepts in previous years of why Canada could not be an effective industrial power-which, of course, it is to some extent, but not nearly as much as it could be-has been that we have a huge land mass and a small population base. I do not have to tell you that with the technology before us this is no longer important. All of Canada can be connected in one room through the information highway. In other words, it is possible to service our domestic markets and create industries that will be effective in competing with others throughout the world. We need to grab on to that technology.

We need to service our own markets effectively and also attack those which exist around the world. To do this we need a new partnership with government, business and labour. These three sectors must rethink their traditional roles. Government must be the one which steers. By that I mean it must be an adjudicator of the marketplace. It ensures that competition continues. It keeps taxes low and fosters this new competition. It gives incentives to new training and job creation. It also must assist us in attacking those new and evolving markets, like southeast Asia.

We need a national education standard. This is also part of the federal government's obligation. Business has been too slow in this country to adapt to the new technology. Some of our business practices are outmoded and parochial.

We need to do more business networking. We need to create strategic alliances within our business sector so they will go out and attack those new markets. They must be unified to spike the market share. Labour must end its adversarial attitude toward business and government. It must see itself as a true partner. It must realize that new jobs and the creation of new jobs will rely

on those who do not feel alienated from the process, to those who will make a contribution to the process of industrialization. In other words, we need a new and genuine partnership of the three engines of the economy: government, business and labour.

These are the challenges; to seize the opportunities before us to control our destiny and to march into the 21st century certain of our future.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's speech and particularly in response to some of the comments which have been made by the Liberals, I wonder if they are aware that this morning their Minister of Finance made some public statements about the fact that they have a new economic philosophy.

Their new economic philosophy seems to relate a little more to reality than the things we have been hearing in the House since we came here. It somewhat relates to some of the comments which have been coming from this corner of the House.

Perhaps the member might like to comment on the fact that in quoting from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the finance minister this morning said that the OECD agrees. Let me quote from their recent job study: "Subsidies tend to operate in exactly the opposite way from what is needed. They slow rather than stimulate adjustments. They discourage rather than encourage innovation and they tend to become permanent".

Would the member care to comment on this new economic direction his finance minister has finally discovered?

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall discussing subsidies in my dissertation. I talked about creating a new industrial climate in Canada. I did not talk about subsidizing industries that go out and compete in the international marketplace. It was just the reverse. I talked about government's role to steer, that it had to create an environment in which businesses would flourish. I did not talk about subsidies but I agree that in some instances subsidies do not work.

In some ways, our government is realizing some of those and has realized that in the past. That is a new orientation for our governmental system. I was not talking about any of these things as a matter of fact. I was talking very simply that we must create a new independent wave of how we are going to deal with business in the future and how we are going to build a new Canadian economy.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, it being almost 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Gasoline Additives

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently the caucus task force on ethanol supported a resolution urging the Minister of the Environment to initiate a moratorium on the use of MMT as an octane enhancer in Canadian gasolines.

MMT was banned in the United States in 1978 due to the widely recognized potential for negative health effects. Canada has continued to use MMT since it replaced lead as an anti-knock agent in 1977.

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada has stated its opposition to the use of MMT on the grounds that the chemical degrades the effectiveness of vehicle emission control devices.

Ethanol represents an ideal alternative octane enhancer which is 100 per cent renewable. We strongly urge the minister to take swift action on eliminating the use of MMT and replace it with renewable, domestically produced fuel additives such as ethanol.

Haiti

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has finally returned home. October 15, 1994 will remain a historic day for Haiti and for us all and a great day for democracy. Haitians are finally proud of their country again. During the three long years of dictatorship, we shared the despair of the Haitian people and of all our fellow citizens of Haitian origin, but today, we are tremendously glad to celebrate with them the hope that a fresh start brings.

In calling for national reconciliation, President Aristide is throwing open the door to economic development, social justice and lasting peace. Quebecers and Canadians want to continue giving their unfailing support to the Haitian people and their struggle to restore democracy.

Taxation

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, over the past number of days I have received letters from my

constituents demanding that this government not tax dental benefits. Geraldine Auger, Dr. Arthur Filyk, Christina Fuller, Ken Gaudin and Brian Mullally are but a few of my constituents who have expressed concern that this government will tax health care to gain control of Canada's horrible fiscal problems.

I am asking this government not to make such band-aid decisions as taxing Canada's working class even more to reduce Canada's deficit and debt. We are taxed upon our birth. We are taxed upon our death. Now we are threatening with taxes on health care in between.

Canadians are taxed to the limit. The solution is to cut government spending, not to increase taxes. Make real systemic changes that will not result in a bigger tax grab on the middle class Canadian worker.

Canadian Rowing Champions

[Ron Fewchuk, Liberal, Selkirk—Red River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with real pleasure and pride that I rise to congratulate Colleen Miller, a resident of Matlock, Manitoba and a constituent from the wonderful riding of Selkirk-Red River. Colleen and her partner Wendy Wiebe won their gold medal in the world rowing championships, lightweight double skulls event in Indianapolis, Indiana on September 17, 1994.

I would like to point out that Colleen and Wendy also won a gold medal at last year's event in Czechoslovakia and another gold medal performance in the Commonwealth regatta in London, Ontario just a few weeks ago. One newspaper put it so well: "On top of the world again".

Once more I would like to express my sincere congratulations to Colleen Miller and Wendy Wiebe. Canadians across this great country of ours congratulate them and are very proud of them.

Jenna Bowring

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend the Reform Party hinted that Liberal women candidates for the last federal election were picked just because they were women. The fact is these women won their nominations due to their intelligence, vigour and their selfless commitment to Canadians.

This morning I had the privilege of attending the International Development Week 1995 calendar festival award presentation hosted by the Canadian Teachers Federation to honour Ms. Jenna Bowring, nine years of age and a grade four student at Random Island Integrated School, daughter of Cynthia and David Bowring of Brittania, Newfoundland.

Jenna's art work has been chosen out of 850 submissions from across Canada to provide the cover of Canada's International Development Week 1995 calendar. This young lady was chosen as a winner for her competence, her talent, energy and her enthusiasm.

I am sure that all members of this House will join me in congratulating this remarkable young Newfoundlander-who is in the gallery with her parents today-in winning this prestigious national award.

Great Lakes

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a historic event occurred in the town of Collingwood in my riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe on August 27. On that day Canada and Ontario received a report which showed that the Collingwood harbour area of concern had met its restoration goals. That means that Collingwood harbour is on its way to becoming the first of 43 Great Lakes areas of concern in Canada and the United States to be delisted.

Its water, shorelines and wetlands have been restored and rehabilitated for the benefit of the people, the fish and the wildlife. This represents an important first step toward meeting the targets of the Canada-Ontario agreement respecting the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.

The Government of Canada has made a strong commitment to the environment. It also recognizes that the success depends on effective working partnerships. Collingwood, through its public advisory committee, its remedial action plan team and the community at large-

The Late Gérald Godin

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our friend Gérald Godin has died. He leaves behind his companion, his circle of close friends and everyone who loved him as he loved them, in a simple, straightforward way.

As a politician, Gérald led the way in showing tolerance and openness to citizens from other lands. Guided by a nationalism that is open to the world, he embodied the deep-rooted values of Quebecers, for whom freedom of thought is priceless.

His legacy to all is his compassion, his courage in the face of illness and his determination in the face of adversity. We will remember Gérald Godin as a man of conviction, a man of courage and a man of freedom. Farewell, Gérald.