Debates of Nov. 18th, 1994

Social Security Program

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just told us that the system is abused-I fully agree. There is abuse at all levels, that is what we mean. We must not consider only how people at the bottom of the scale abuse the system. The system is also abused by people all the way to the top.

Our position is extremely clear and is illustrated by a colourful image: when you want to clean a staircase, you clean it completely, not just the bottom step or the two lowest steps. You start at the top and work your way down. The Bloc Quebecois fully agrees with the government on that point; we are prepared to open all the books and review them in public. That is all I had to say on the question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I must inform hon. members that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier has advised me in writing that he is unable to present his motion during the time provided for Private Members' Business on Monday, November 21, 1994.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 94. Accordingly I would request the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business will therefore be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 99, the House will meet at eleven o'clock on Monday morning to consider Government Orders. I am very sorry about this, hon. members.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to add some comments to the debate because it is a very important one.

When we look at the social safety net and its origins all members in the Chamber would agree it essentially a Liberal creation. In the post-war years there were successive Liberal governments. There was a period when we had a Conservative government under John Diefenbaker. However I think the Liberals, particularly those under Prime Minister Pearson, can take credit for many of the social safety net reforms we have today.

There is no doubt anything that is put together will eventually develop flaws and difficulties and will be subject to change and reform. What has happened here and the reason why we are having this debate right now is that reform of the social safety net is long overdue, not just because we cannot afford it but because it is not working as well as it should.

I would not like to discuss the reforms in detail in this debate, but my experience in the last month has been that Canadians are ready for the type of debate and the type of reforms being contemplated now. We do not know what the final answer will be on unemployment insurance. We will have to see. It is a very contentious issue. However we have to address it and Canadians are ready.

I can give a couple of examples. Every year there is a very popular fall fair in my area. This is typical of the ridings of most MPs; they have fall fairs in their ridings. I took the green paper of the Minister of Human Resources Development to the fall fair and sat it on a table there. In the course of two days I gave out 200 copies of it.

People would come up to me and ask: "What is that?" I would say: "You have to read this because it is something that is going to affect every Canadian". People from all walks of life at the fall fair took the paper, promised to examine it, read it carefully, and send in their reactions.

I now have in my office at least 300 replies, not all of them sophisticated papers from special interests groups about which the Reform Party and perhaps myself love to talk from time to time. They were ordinary Canadians reacting to a very important initiative by the government, one that has to be debated thoroughly not only in the Chamber but in the community.

I took the green paper one step further. Once a month I have a cable TV program. I use it as an open line show. A local journalist comes down. It is quite interesting. Actually it is a lot of fun to do because there is no pre-preparation; we do not work out the questions beforehand. We simply sit there and talk and people call in.

People often think that cable TV is not well watched but I can assure the House that this program is very well watched. I had a tremendous response. The lines were flooded, particularly on the subject of the social safety net or reform of our social systems. I had all kinds of people call in, but the most compelling people who called were are on welfare, the people who are the beneficiaries of the system or are seen to be the beneficiaries of the system but are also the ones who are losing the most by it. One person called in and identified herself as a young single woman on welfare with a child; I cannot remember whether she had one or two children. She said that she felt terribly trapped.

I conclude by saying that the debate we are engaged in, whether in the House or in society, is one of the most important debates of this Parliament.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.

Lester B. Pearson Act

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

moved that Bill C-276, an act respecting Lester B. Pearson Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member, but I want to raise this point of order at the beginning of this hour concerning private member's bills because I want to make a very important point.

Since the beginning of this Parliament we have had a system where a subcommittee of the House decides which private members' bills are votable or not votable. However, there is a tendency in the House for members at the end of the debate to ask for unanimous consent for a bill which is not votable, such as this one is today, to become votable.

From the government side, it is our responsibility to make sure that the rules are respected. If members feel that all private members' bills should be votable, that question should be addressed to the House committee on procedure instead of making the point each time. In this case, even though we would like the hon. leader, Lester B. Pearson, to have a national holiday, the government definitely cannot support such an idea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

No such motion has been made on this bill. There may have been discussions between the minister and the member, but as much as possible this hour is reserved for private members, not for statements of government policy.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate the merits of my private member's bill entitled an act to establish Lester B. Pearson Day.

The purpose of my bill is to establish a national holiday in honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson in recognition of his great contributions to Canada and the international community. In short, I have proposed that the second Monday in February of each year be designated as Lester B. Pearson Day for reasons which I will outline in my comments.

While I am certain that members are familiar with the many achievements of this great man, I feel it was important to state some of his accomplishments for the record. Although Lester B. Pearson, often known as Mike Pearson, served as Canada's Prime Minister from April 22, 1963 to April 20, 1968, he began serving Canada long before moving into the Prime Minister's office.

Prior to joining the department of external affairs in 1928, Pearson served in the Canadian Army Medical and Flying Corps from 1914 to 1918. As a diplomat with external affairs, he held several senior posts abroad, including first secretary to the Canadian High Commission in London from 1935 to 1941 and eventually became Canadian ambassador to the United States in 1945.

These high profile diplomatic posts contributed to his recognition on the world stage and propelled him to the chairmanship of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization between 1951 and 1952 and then to the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly in 1952.

While Lester Pearson was well known on the international scene, it was really in 1957 that he became a household name. On October 14, 1957 Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel peace prize. To date he is the first and only Canadian to receive the peace prize and I am really proud of him.

The Nobel committee voted to bestow the peace prize on Mr. Pearson primarily because of his role in the Suez crisis of 1956. In an effort to resolve the crisis between Egyptians and Israelis, Pearson proposed the creation of a UN military force to act as a buffer between the belligerents. His proposal received overwhelming approval, 57 for and none against. The first modern UN peacekeeping force was established, thanks to Lester B. Pearson.

Gunnar Jahn, the chairman of the Nobel committee later stated that Pearson had been awarded the peace prize because of his "never tiring determination and his exceptional ability to put forward constructive ideas for the solution of problems".

Others would echo those comments, including UN General Assembly President Leslie Munro, who described Pearson as a great Canadian who is one of the foremost citizens of the world. The New York Times reported that Pearson was: "A big man from a country that is a small power" and that he was probably better known abroad than at home. Pearson's victory prompted Toronto Mayor Nathan Phillips to declare December 19, 1957 Lester Pearson Day. Unfortunately I do not believe the tradition has been continued.

Pearson's success on the international stage and his receipt of the Nobel peace prize finally helped him to get the recognition he deserved in his own country. Canadians began to take notice of him and in 1958 Lester Pearson became the leader of the Liberal Party. After a few years in opposition, he went on to become the Prime Minister of Canada in 1963.

In addition to his success on the international stage, Pearson also accomplished a great deal as Prime Minister. During his tenure Canadians were given the Canada pension plan, a program central to our nation's social safety net. Pearson was also responsible for giving Canadians a national flag, a true symbol of our nationhood and independence.

Other notable achievements include the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, both of which have had a significant impact on Canadian life as we know it today.

Although Lester Pearson left this earth on December 27, 1972 his legacy lives on in world peacekeeping. Canada is a peacekeeping nation because of Mr. Pearson. We are proud of our record as world peacekeepers and in fact many believe that peacekeeping personifies what it means to be Canadian. To date, more than 90,000 Canadians have participated in UN and other peacekeeping missions.

As of this fall, close to 3,000 Canadian peacekeepers were participating in missions around the world, including a significant number in Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Haiti and Macedonia.

If the recent report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy is any indication of our commitment to peacekeeping, we can plan on being in the business for many more years to come. Canadians have more often than not failed to honour those individuals of whom they are most proud. A quick review of all of our national holidays show there is not one holiday, with perhaps the exception of Remembrance Day, which pays tribute to a truly remarkable Canadian.

Although I can understand why we celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday and many other of our statutory holidays, I have never been able to understand why we cannot pay tribute to our own heroes, to those who have had a significant impact on Canadian life as we know it, like Lester B. Pearson.

Unlike Canada, many other nations take time to pay tribute to their heroes. The Americans celebrate George Washington's birthday; the British celebrate their monarchs and the Russians once had a holiday to honour Lenin. Is it because we feel there is no one worthy of our recognition? I say not.

Some have asked me why in my bill I have chosen the second Monday in February as a day on which to honour our former Prime Minister. Originally I had hoped to select a day of significance to the life of Lester Pearson. I considered April 23, his birthday, but of course Easter is in April. Then I thought of October 14, the day it was announced that Pearson had won the Nobel peace prize, but Thanksgiving is too close. Then I considered December 27, the day of his death, which falls extremely close to Christmas and Boxing Day.

I opted for February, the one month of the year that Canadians do not get a break and the month that most Canadians find to be the coldest and most depressing month of the year. A few years ago some statistics indicated that a majority of suicides take place in February, leading me to believe that Canadians really need something to look forward to in the second month of the year.

I also opted for February because I felt that having two or more holidays in April, October or December might pose an excessive burden on those Canadians that operate businesses.

I have also been asked by some members whether this bill is political in nature because Pearson was a Liberal. I want to assure all members that politics was not behind this initiative. This man was a great Canadian. As stated earlier, he is the only Nobel peace prize winner from Canada. He is the father of international peacekeeping. I simply want to honour a man who

has given so much to the people of this nation. I want to pay homage to a great Canadian and his political stripe has nothing to do with it.

At this stage in our history when many Canadians are asking themselves what it truly means to be a Canadian and some are even asking whether they should continue to remain in Canada, we must make every effort to show our citizens there are Canadians of whom they can be proud, Canadians who have made a difference to their lives today and to the lives of many people around the world.

Lester Pearson is such a Canadian. By enacting a national holiday to honour the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, we would be providing Canadians with a day to reflect on this great country of ours and on this great man and his valuable contribution to our nation. Let us bring a little bit of nationalism and pride to Canada that it truly Canadian in nature. Let us honour one of our own heroes for a change.

I will wrap up here because two of my colleagues who were privileged to know and work with Lester Pearson are anxious to share their experience and thoughts on this great man.

In closing, I would urge all members to support this initiative.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to support Bill C-276, An Act respecting Lester B. Pearson Day. This is a perfect opportunity to take a look at the life and career of an illustrious man, who was Prime Minister of Canada from 1963 to 1968, and who made a remarkable contribution to Canadian diplomacy.

After a brief military career, Mr. Pearson joined the diplomatic circuit. It is there that, from 1935 to 1946, he developed his exceptional skills in foreign policy and gained a solid reputation at the international level. After being Deputy Minister in 1946, and then Minister of External Affairs in 1948, Lester B. Pearson was well prepared to face the new challenges which awaited Canada in the post-war era.

As the architect of the new Canadian foreign policy, he helped our country gain full status at the international level. The long tradition of Canada as a passive observer on the international scene was over. After the Second World War, our country had become a middle power. Pearson understood more than anyone else that Canada had to adopt a distinct and more independent foreign policy with its traditional partners, Great Britain and the United States.

Consequently, he opened the door to multilateralism and imposed an expansionist vision of Canadian foreign policy. This resulted in Canada joining and actively participating in new international organizations such as the UN. For a peace proponent like Pearson, Canada's involvement in such an organization was crucial for his foreign policy.

However, there were limits to what the United Nations could do. Taking into consideration the Cold War and the fact that no international authority could ensure order and stability on a world-wide basis, Pearson, then deputy minister of External Affairs, believed that Canada needed to join forces with its strategic allies under a collective defence pact. Pearson thought that, by signing the North Atlantic Treaty, Canada's security needs were being met, but also that NATO would become a deterrent and a defence instrument against Soviet imperialism.

Guided by an international vision quite rare in North America at that time and having taken stock of the events in Prague in 1948, Mr. Pearson unreservedly supported the creation of this organization in 1949. However, the North Atlantic Treaty remains a regional agreement. Since 1945, international relations have been marked by new forms of violence. All of the ideological confrontations between the super-powers and the decolonization process, led to many conflicts throughout the world.

Obviously, the Charter of the United Nations cannot prevent war, since the veto of the five superpowers sitting on the Security Council limits the scope of the activities of the international community. To counter the powerlessness of the only agency of the United Nations authorized to use coercion to settle international conflicts, the General Assembly passed a resolution concerning peacekeeping in 1950.

In 1956, during the Suez Canal crisis, Mr. Pearson proposed that a peacekeeping force be set up. The UN having implemented his recommendation, Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957. In fact, he had provided the United Nations with a new response capability. As a result of his international reputation, Lester B. Pearson was twice approached to fill the prestige position of Secretary General of the United Nations. In 1952, he had been president of the UN General Assembly, playing a pivotal role in the creation of specialized agencies like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

During his term as Prime Minister, when decolonization and the emerging non-aligned movement were important elements on the international scene, Pearson became known as an eminent artisan of the North-South dialogue. He was in favour of an open policy vis-à-vis the Third World and enjoyed a privileged relationship with leaders like Nehru.

His vision of Canada and the federal system would reflect the same open attitude. Pearson was on very good terms with Quebec and the other provinces during his first mandate.

It was the time of the Quiet Revolution, as the Quebec nation State was emerging. Political leaders in Quebec were developing the tools the new State would need to affirm its right to exist. Quebec was to recover jurisdictions recognized in the Constitution Act, 1867, but never claimed by Canada's provinces.

At the time, Pearson agreed that Quebec was justified in its insistence on some of these rights, and until 1965, he was on excellent terms with his Quebec counterparts, so that negotiations with the province were relatively harmonious.

Pearson was in favour of co-operative federalism and, to show that he meant what he said, after he won the election in 1963, he appointed the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Official Languages. Under his government, federal-provincial negotiations led to a number of administrative agreements and also, although there were some problems, to the creation of the Quebec Pension Plan and the Caisse de dépôt et de placement.

It is hard to understand the complete reversal in Mr. Pearson's attitude to Quebec during his second term. He went so far as to deny Quebec's international personality and to see the province's attempts to create ties with other nations as those of a rebellious province intent on usurping powers that he felt were exclusive to the federal government.

It is amazing that this passionate defender of decolonization throughout the world was so unwilling to entertain Quebec's aspirations. What made him suddenly become impervious to the legitimate demands of a province that wanted to claim the jurisdictions to which it was entitled? Some attribute this to the rise of the indépendantiste movement in Quebec or to new constitutional demands being made by Quebec leaders. At the time, it was Daniel Johnson, with his "Égalité ou indépendance". Some say it was due to the increasing influence of Trudeau, Marchand and other members of his cabinet.

After Lester B. Pearson, Canada-Quebec relations were never again as harmonious as they were before. After the Victoria fiasco, the night of the long knives in 1982 was to lead to Meech and Charlottetown. Despite some shadow areas, Lester B. Pearson was a man of great stature, that is how Canadians and Quebecers remember him. However, it is unfortunate that his successors either failed or refused to continue his tradition of openness and his conciliatory approach.

We can only hope that Lester B. Pearson Day will remind men and women in Quebec and Canada that openness and respect for diversity are qualities that are essential to the individual and the national maturity.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure today to second the motion of the hon. member for Cambridge as he brings in his Lester B. Pearson day bill. I congratulate him and compliment him to the nth degree on his recognition of Canadian statesmanship. This is the hon. member's first term in this Parliament and this bill is a good example of his national and international vision. I am sure that he will have a long stay in this place.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

He has a national spirit that he is projecting today in this bill. He has stated he is proud of Lester Bowles Pearson.

I compliment the hon. member for Laval Centre for some of her remarks. Some of them I would not agree with. Everyone has their own perspective. As I speak I am not going to be partisan in this debate either. Lester B. Pearson was Prime Minister sitting just down here when I was first elected. He was my first Prime Minister. He did not have a mean bone in his body. One could fully understand sitting in this House with the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson that he was a diplomat from day one.

Indeed, that caused him some of his heartaches during the time he was Prime Minister. He was too kind to some people who were not very kind to him.

Having known Mr. Pearson on a very personal first name basis, I had great respect for him. I was one of those first elected in 1965, that great election that Walter Gordon persuaded Lester B. Pearson to call. The only benefit the Liberal Party received from that election was the 53 of us who were new to the House of Commons. When the election was called at the advice of Walter Gordon to the Prime Minister, the Liberal government in this House had 129 seats and when the final count was in on election night the Liberal Party had 131 seats. Walter Gordon had promised Pearson a majority government. He resigned from the cabinet because he had given the Prime Minister bad advice.

When we look at the background of Mr. Pearson's life he had a very happy childhood. One thing that really strikes me, as the hon. member for Cambridge mentioned, was Mr. Pearson's experience in World War I. Can you imagine what the Royal Flying Corps in Europe looked like in World War I? Mr. Pearson was a member of that flying corps for three years.

This undoubtedly was a great experience for Prime Minister Pearson. It prepared him for the great flag debate of the 1960s which to him at times must have reminded him of World War I but he persevered through that battle.

It is rather interesting that the hon. member for Cambridge suggests that Lester B. Pearson day should be the second Monday in February because it was in the month of February that the Canadian flag was first unfurled, I believe, on Parliament Hill. It is very fitting that Lester B. Pearson who led the debate for a new Canadian flag should be honoured in the same month as the Canadian flag is honoured today.

This rather timid man had many accomplishments. When you first met him he was very pleasant and accommodating. He would always talk to you about things in your riding. It gave you that feeling that this man really knows his country and his local geography.

I remember the last time I had a chance to have a chat with Mike Pearson. It was one day after he retired. He was ill at the time. He was out for a walk. I met him at the flame on Parliament Hill. His first words to me were: "Well, Len, how are things in Pembroke today?". We had a nice chat there. Then he went into hospital. It was not long after that that he passed away. Here is a Canadian who gave Canada its flag. Today our Canadian forces honour his name in the way they carry the Canadian flag around the world and when they take part in peacekeeping duties which as has already been stated he originated in settling the Suez crisis and the peacekeeping mission of 1956.

Here was a man with immense ideas. This man when he was in external affairs had a national, indeed an international vision. He looked at the Soviet Union and saw the threat sitting in the east. He saw the threat when the Warsaw pact was formed. He saw the need for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization. To a large extent he was a formative builder of that great peace organization that saw the western world through the cold war crisis. It was the match for the Warsaw pact. It held the enemy at bay. It was a matter of which side went broke first. It turned out to be the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact.

He was president of the United Nations in 1962-63. I was looking up the date of Mr. Pearson's first formal election to this House. He was appointed Minister for External Affairs in 1948. Is it not ironic that on October 25, 1948, Lester B. Pearson became the member of Parliament for Algoma East and came to Ottawa and carried on his duties as Minister for External Affairs. He won that election by 1,200 and some votes.

The hon. member for Cambridge mentioned the lack of Canadians' enthusiasm and desire to recognize their own national figures. Here was a national figure, a man who had played a major role in the founding of the United Nations. This was a man who had played a role in the founding of the NATO alliance. He came back home and ran for election and won the election by 1,200 and some votes.

Then we go on to the election campaign of 1958. I particularly like to look back on that election for one reason alone. That is that the last political meeting Mr. Pearson had in that famous campaign of 1958 when he was slaughtered politically by the Diefenbaker forces was held in the town of Deep River in my initial riding of Renfrew North. It was before an audience in the high school auditorium. He sat on a table in the middle of a platform dangling his feet and answering questions like they were rolling off a log. He knew he was going to lose the election, but he was so candid and at ease. He came back to Ottawa and ended up with 48 seats in this House for the Liberal Party of Canada.

In 1963 he finally won the election as Prime Minister. There were all kinds of issues to be faced during the 1960s. It is much like today when every time we turn around there is a new issue facing members of Parliament. Lester B. Pearson took on many of those challenges.

He realized that Quebec no longer wanted to live under British symbols. That was very clear in his mind. That was the reason he put forward such a fight for the Canadian flag. The Quebec caucus strongly supported him on that issue all the way through even when the going got very difficult. Today Canada is known around the world by that great Canadian symbol that first flew over Parliament Hill in February 1965. That was one of his ideas of Canadian unity, but he reached out to all regions of Canada to try to bring them together.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could continue. You are giving me the signal that my time is up.

I would like to talk about being with Mr. Pearson in caucus without giving away any major caucus secrets. I remember one morning I was delivering a speech in caucus. I came into-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the member to have one or two more minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members of this House.

On a Wednesday morning in caucus I delivered what I thought was a great dynamic speech. After that I was sitting in the House right over there in the back row where the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is sitting right now. A note was sent to me across the floor from the opposition. That note from a member of the opposition contained the exact words I had stated in caucus that morning.

I sent the note down to the Prime Minister and the Hon. Mitchell Sharp who were sitting together. They turned to me and shook their heads because the first thing that came into their minds was that members of our caucus were leaking information. Actually that was the period when the Liberal caucus room

was wired and certain members of the opposition were listening to every word that was being said in the Liberal caucus room. They sure had my speech right.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me that extra time. I thank the hon. member for Cambridge for recognizing a tremendous individual. One of the reasons that made him great was that he had some great people around him.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give you any personal descriptions of Mr. Pearson, but I too welcome the opportunity of speaking to Bill C-276 concerning Mr. Lester B. Pearson day.

Certainly to establish this as a holiday in honour of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson is something to be considered, but today I want to raise some of the other considerations that we must have when we talk about such a day. As well, I do hope to pay some tribute to the former Prime Minister because it certainly is worthy.

It is clear from the member's speech that he holds the former Prime Minister in very high regard. I would never fault him for this since Lester Pearson did indeed leave the country a considerable legacy. I will talk about this a little later on in my speech and emphasize the things I remember him for.

To my mind politicians such as Mr. Pearson entered the public service for many reasons. At least two of those would be to help Canada grow and mature as a nation and because they were fascinated by the public life and all it had to offer and what they could offer it.

I do not believe when he ran for the job that Mr. Pearson would have expected to have a Canadian holiday named after him. After doing some research on him I think possibly he might have been somewhat embarrassed by such an offer. There are a number of better ways to honour the memory of a former Prime Minister.

For example everyone who tours around the Parliament Buildings will have noticed the dignified statues of our former Prime Ministers prominently displayed on the grounds of the Hill. Mr. Pearson's statue is among them and Canadians visiting the capital will see him in his favourite chair overlooking the front lawn.

As a former Minister of External Affairs and Prime Minister I am sure Mr. Pearson would also be proud that the building which houses the Department of Foreign Affairs bears his name, the Lester B. Pearson building.

These types of displays and other similar ones that may be proposed are quite appropriate and do a very nice job of honouring the achievements and memory of Mr. Pearson. I believe they are also a sufficient tribute.

On the other hand a Canadian holiday in honour of Lester Pearson is excessive no matter how well intentioned and sincere my esteemed colleague from Cambridge may be. As I quickly ran through the holidays in my head I found that only Jesus Christ and Queen Victoria had a statutory holiday and only two saints, St. Patrick and St. Valentine, had named holidays.

Coincidentally the second Monday of February which my colleague would like to be known as Lester B. Pearson day would have fallen on St. Valentine's day this year. Not only would I suggest naming a national holiday after a politician would be excessive but the date suggested will frequently fall on another holiday, albeit not a government holiday.

It is my understanding that the member for Cambridge would like to see a statutory holiday for Mr. Pearson just like the other two we have mentioned. If this happened, then what would be next? Would the third Monday of February be Diefenbaker day and the following Monday be Laurier day or John A. Macdonald day? If we start going down this path then we will have a holiday for every week of the year. We would not have a Mulroney day and we would probably at least all agree on that.

Above and beyond the principle of naming holidays after politicians there is the cost which should be considered. How much does a Canadian holiday really cost? If it is only a government holiday then the cost would be in the millions but if all Canadians were to take a day off work, what would that mean?

Not really knowing how such a calculation might be done, someone suggested to me that maybe I should take Canada's gross domestic product and divide it by 365 days. I admit this is a fairly primitive way of making the calculation but it is certainly more conservative than using the GNP numbers. If we divide the GDP by 365 we come up with a figure of $1.95 billion. I know that number might be exaggerated but I think the point we have to make is that the Canadian economy just cannot afford that sort of expense.

In addition, for businesses such as restaurants, corner stores and others which would stay open, such a holiday would force them to pay additional wages to their staff. For businesses struggling to survive the last thing they need is an unnecessary added expense.

While I do not agree with the idea that there should be a Canadian holiday for Mr. Pearson, this is not to suggest I do not think his achievements are praiseworthy. Any one person who could be ambassador to the United States, deputy minister of External Affairs, Minister of External Affairs, president of the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister and winner of the Nobel peace prize is obviously someone who has made a tremendous contribution to Canada and to the world.

While I have this opportunity to speak I would briefly like to discuss Mr. Pearson's Nobel peace prize. As we all know in order to bring an end to the Suez crisis in 1956 Mr. Pearson developed the idea of the UN peacekeeping force which could intervene and keep combatants separated. Of course it worked in the case of Suez and has been used ever since as a useful tool of international diplomacy and conflict resolution.

As Reform's foreign affairs critic I cannot help but reflect on this transition which peacekeeping has undergone since Mr. Pearson's days. Under the original formulation peacekeepers would only enter a country once there was a ceasefire agreement in place. They would then monitor this agreement and make sure that no flare ups occurred. In principle while the combatants were separated this would provide a window of opportunity for negotiations to bring about a lasting peaceful solution to hostilities.

Since the first peacekeeping missions, Canada has contributed troops all over the world and at every opportunity. However the requests for our help have continued to increase by the year and our resources are now stretched to the limit. I mean this in two senses. The personnel of the Canadian forces are stretched and our financial resources are limited.

Not only has our participation in peacekeeping become more of a burden, but the nature of peacekeeping has changed. Today our peacekeepers are going into more dangerous situations, often without the benefit of ceasefire and much more uncertain mandates.

Therefore, I was pleased to participate in the Canadian foreign policy review during which we discussed the peacekeeping legacy of Mr. Pearson in quite a bit of detail. It was decided during this review and with the input of Canadians from coast to coast that our peacekeeping tradition, begun by Mr. Pearson, was still a very important expression of Canadian foreign policy and that we would like to see the armed forces restructured in such a way that they can optimize their participation in future UN interventions.

Nonetheless, it was also realized that Canada can no longer be the 911 phone number for the world. In the future Canada must be more selective about the peacekeeping missions it goes on. I would like to personally ask this Parliament for the opportunity to debate the question of what specific criteria Canada should use to determine which peacekeeping missions will be the most appropriate for our participation.

I would like to see Mr. Pearson's legacy continue and I would like Parliament to deal with this whole issue in a way that will allow Canada to continue its role as an international peacekeeper into the next century.

In conclusion, there is no doubt the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson made a very important contribution to the development of this country, and for that he does deserve honour, but this must be done in an appropriate way. While a holiday is too expensive for the Canadian economy and would set a dangerous precedent for opening the floodgates to more holidays for other political leaders from our past, I have no objection to the other tributes which already exist to honour Mr. Lester.

I commend the member for Cambridge for his loyalty and for bringing this bill forward. I was pleased to speak on it today.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before you today to support the bill of my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge.

I come at it in quite a different way. The reason I appreciate so much that he has brought this issue forward is that I believe he is quite right that we so often fail as Canadians to recognize our heroes. We have many heroes; heroes of literature, heroes of history, heroes in Quebec, heroes in the west. We do not recognize them enough. Sometimes I believe that one of the reasons why we have problems as a country is because we do not have a strong enough sense of self.

When it comes to Mr. Pearson as a person who would be appropriate to be celebrated on a particular day, I do not believe the member is suggesting a statutory holiday but he is suggesting a name day, a recognition day. When it comes to Mr. Pearson, the politician, I find myself inclining toward the views of my colleague in the Reform Party, although from a different way. This is the reason.

In another life I am a little bit of an historian and I am familiar with other aspects of Mr. Pearson's life. I can tell the hon. member for Cambridge that one of the problems with politicians, and particularly leaders, is that history tells more about them as the years go by than we might know or appreciate at the time. In the case of Mr. Pearson, documents that are now becoming available, as they are in Britain regarding Churchill, are revealing that Mr. Pearson was very much involved in the intelligence world in co-operation with the United States and Britain, and that Mr. Pearson was very, very conscious of the threat of communism. That was mentioned. Mr. Pearson was actually a bit of a hawk rather than a dove when it came to the Soviet Union.

As he was talked into a very close relationship with the Americans at the intelligence level, during the Suez crisis, as the hon. member will remember, it was a situation where the British and the French had attacked the Sinai and the Americans were opposed to it. The Americans and Canadians were opposed to it.

What happened there, as we now know from documents, was that the British and the French were reading Egyptian ciphers, codes and ciphers. The Americans and Canadians were reading the codes and ciphers of all the other Arab nations. When it came to sending the forces into the Middle East, Mr. Pearson by benefit of the Americans had the advantage of terrific intelligence. He was not at risk of losing lives or making a bad decision.

Furthermore, there is evidence today that Mr. Pearson's initiative in the Middle East in solving the Suez crisis with UN peacekeeping forces was an initiative that was worked out with the Americans. He got the Nobel Prize for it, but I think as the years go by we will see a little more about what actually happened there.

This is not to take away from Mr. Pearson in any way, manner or form because, as the hon. member for Laval Centre so eloquently said, Mr. Pearson contributed marvellously to this country, not only in terms of foreign policy but in terms of opening up this this government to francophones from Quebec.

Prior to the second world war there was not anything like that accessibility from Quebec. Mr. Pearson recognized that Quebec was moving forward after the second world war. Mr. Pearson tried to join with that.

That is a problem. When it comes to naming politicians, as my Reform party colleague was saying, it is a little delicate when we set aside days to commemorate them. Something might come up in the future that would give us second thoughts about it or we might decide that it is not that appropriate. When we look down, I will agree with the member for Cambridge that I could not think of another statesman or politician in this country who would be more suitable or almost.

Certainly if we look down the roll of Prime Ministers, only Mr. Pearson has the stature that would qualify for the type of recognition the member proposes. Oddly enough, I would make one exception. In speaking from the heart, from my experience of life in this country in the last 30 years, I would make one exception of a leader in this country who showed he had a heart that went beyond politics, having his country at heart and a real sense of the country. The member for Laval Centre will just love this. It was René Levesque. Mr. Levesque was a man who spoke for not just the people of Quebec. He spoke for all Canadians with what he brought to the fore. At least in my mind he gave me in that entire debate, now quite a few years ago, a sense of what being a Canadian really was.

I want members to know, members of the Bloc Quebecois particularly, that René Levesque, who I saw in action, was an incredibly human man, so easy to relate to, not a person like Trudeau who tended to be arrogant, or a person like Mr. Turner who tended to be inaccessible. I always felt he was a man of the people. That was the warmth. He brought us forward as a nation, not just Quebec, but as a nation at large.

I do not feel the same way about Jacques Parizeau. I feel very strongly that what Mr. Levesque created in raising the sense of Canadian identity was largely destroyed by a subsequent Prime Minister who led us into a fruitless debate and brought us to where we are now. I am very confident, on the other hand, that we will remember the spirit of Mr. Levesque and that will come out of the debate now on the subject of separatism. We will come to be a much stronger country. I am very convinced of that.

Obviously we are not going to have a day recognizing Mr. Levesque in the near future.

This is a delicate thing I would say to the hon. member for Cambridge. When one raises the issue of a recognition day for prominent politicians it does risk running aground on the rock of politics of the day. I would suggest to the hon. member that maybe we should look for another sort of hero. There is no doubt that as Canadians we constantly overlook our heroes.

I would like to suggest to him there is a heroine we constantly overlook as Canadians, whereas the whole world recognizes this particular person. I speak of Anne of Green Gables. Do we realize in this House that a fictional heroine-

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

What about Lucy Maud Montgomery?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

No, I know who wrote Anne of Green Gables , but I do not think Lucy Maud Montgomery day would have the same shall we say caché as Anne of Green Gables. I point out that while in Japan they have Anne of Green Gables on their school programs, nowhere in Canada have I ever heard of a school or university teaching it. Yet this book, published in 1908, has run through more copies and more languages than just about any book of fiction in the world. It is known worldwide.

My colleagues from Prince Edward Island tell me that approximately 700,000 tourists come to the Island every year and about 40,000 of those are Japanese. They come to see the farm where Lucy Maud Montgomery, the author of Anne of Green Gables , lived and to see the house that was described in the novels.

I suggest we avoid falling into difficult political traps when we want to recognize a fine Canadian who is recognized worldwide. Perhaps we should look to the young lady of The Lake of Shining Waters . It is appropriate that we as Canadians recognize a person who is recognized in the world's imagination.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to seek unanimous consent to have the bill withdrawn and have the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It has been moved:

That the bill be not now read the second time but that bill be withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are two minutes left in the debate.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are but two or three minutes left.

I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Cambridge.

A few years ago, I introduced in this House a motion to have a statue of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson erected on Parliament Hill. I had the privilege of choosing the spot where the memorial to this great Canadian would stand.

I wanted to take a few minutes to tell the House how much I like and support the motion in front of the House today. I would also like to tell Canadian men and women that, like many of them, I consider Lester B. Pearson to be the greatest Prime Minister this country ever had, even though some might not think so.

I always appreciated his sense of humility. If he were here today, he would probably blush and he would certainly be embarrassed by such a motion, he who never accepted that something be named after him or that a statue be erected in his honour. His grave, in the Ottawa area-in Quebec, in fact, as several members opposite know-is very simple. That is the way he lived.

His humility might be reason why we now see him as a great statesman. This is also the reason why the hon. member for Cambridge wanted to recognize Lester B. Pearson.

I agree with his statement. I would have liked Parliament to send this document to a parliamentary committee for further review. Anyway, I will use the few seconds I have left to congratulate the member for Cambridge for recognizing in Lester B. Pearson a great Canadian political figure, a statesman, the father of the flag which stands besides your chair, Mr. Speaker, and the originator of Canadian diplomacy. I want to join the member in telling Canadians how important it is to take steps to honour great Canadians such as Lester B. Pearson.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)