Debates of June 17th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

No free votes either.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

On December 13, 1994 the House voted in favour of sending Bill C-226, sponsored by the member for York South-Weston to the justice committee. That member had the good sense to leave that party and sit on the other side of the House recently. We commend him for his good judgment. He knew what the government said about the GST in the last election. His integrity would not allow him to sit with the Liberals while they continued to mislead the Canadian people about the GST. What they said before the election, what they said in the red book and what they were saying verbally door to door did not always agree.

His bill called for the repeal of section 745. Some Liberals and other members in the House voted for it. Where is it? It is buried in committee because the justice minister does not have the guts to deal with it.

Actions that the majority of Canadians support do not mean much to this justice minister or the Liberals. What matters is the personal agenda of the Minister of Justice and the Liberals who are giving him advice.

CAVEAT wants the section repealed. Victims of Violence want the section repealed. Canadians want the section repealed. However, the justice minister, for some reason, does not want it repealed. Why is that?

When is the government going to govern the way Canadians want them to govern? When will they start listening to Canadians? When will they come down from their ivory towers and listen to the people? When will they repeal section 745? No one with half a brain could support this half-baked piece of legislation, which is redundant, before it even came to this House?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some follow-up for my colleague about the matter of multiple murderers and others applying, in the first instance, to a superior court judge for a reduction in their parole ineligibility.

As I understand it, a royal recommendation has been attached to this bill to cover the additional administrative costs to be occasioned by the provisions of the legislation. I also understand that there will be avenues of appeal open to convicted murderers that are not open presently.

If a convicted murderer appears before a jury asking for a reduction in their parole ineligibility and the jury finds against them, there is no appeal from that. There now will be an appeal from the superior court judge. The appeal could presumably be carried all the way up to the Supreme Court. These avenues of appeal must be publicly funded.

A royal recommendation has been attached to this bill. I wonder if the member has given any consideration to the linkage between this royal recommendation and the new avenues of appeal that were not previously available to convicted killers. Can he give us some idea of what the linkage might be?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the royal recommendation that the member has just spoken about provides additional funding to facilitate these appeals.

One of the things we have been saying throughout the debate is that if the government had the sense of what the Canadian people want, and had the backbone to deal with first degree murderers in a way that is appropriate, it not only would satisfy the concerns, the needs and the demands of the Canadian people but it could also save the taxpayers a ton of money. There would be no appeals.

That is the point that Reformers have been trying to make. That is the point that the member for York South-Weston tried to make in Bill C-226. Get rid of section 745. That way there will be no appeals. Life would mean 25 years. There would be no appeals.

Taxpayers would be saved millions and millions of dollars and murderers would be kept off the streets for at least 25 years, reducing the chance of someone getting out early and killing again. We would satisfy the demand of the Canadian people that, when a human life is taken with premeditation, justice would to be served and the sentence would be appropriate.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the timing of the introduction of this bill.

Reflecting back to just prior to the rising of the House last summer, the government presented legislation that dealt with DNA. It gave police departments another tool to track and determine the guilt or innocence of rapists and murderers. It certainly was an advantage for law enforcement.

At the time the bill came forward, it was rushed through during the dying days of the session before the summer. It fell short of doing a complete job. Police departments could not bank any of the evidence. To this day, they still cannot and it has been a year since the legislation came in. The justice minister never consulted with the solicitors general and justice ministers of the provinces. As a result of that, the considerable costs were downloaded on to the shoulders of municipal police departments as well as provincial attorneys general and solicitors general.

I would like to ask the member, given the process as it was last year with the DNA bill, how he views this legislation which again is being introduced in the dying days of Parliament. Was there justice done in debate? What is the feeling he is getting from his constituents? It is important that members of the House, and members of the Liberal government, in particular, hear what is going on out there. They seem to have their heads buried in the sand so that these bills can be rushed through all their stages.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question is that it is just plain, old-fashioned political trickery.

The government knows that the DNA bill, which was introduced at the end of the last session, was badly flawed. It did not want to give the Reform Party an opportunity to point out all the weaknesses and inequities of the bill. The government did not want to hear our suggestions to make it better.

The Minister of Justice is doing exactly the same thing with this bill. He knows that this is a weak bill. He knows that the bill is totally redundant. He knows that multiple murderers do not get out of prison anyway. He knows that he is just trying to fool the Canadian people into thinking that he is actually doing something.

The reason he has introduced the bill now, with the House probably rising on Friday, is that he does not want to give Reformers any time to debate the issue appropriately. He does not want the debate to stretch out to the point that, heaven forbid, concerned Canadians might get some sort of an idea about what the minister is trying to do. He is playing make-believe that the bill will do some good.

By introducing it at the end of the session, as we are about to rise, he has taken away the time for meaningful debate, which is certainly warranted in this case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he knows how many of those who were released under section 745 went on to commit murder again.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know there have been murders that have taken place after someone was released. I would be happy to send the member the figures.

The fact is that under section 745 if even one more murder is committed by someone who has been let out after only 15 years, that is too many. The Canadian people have been saying: "Do not let them out". The Liberal member knows that. The justice minister knows that one is too many. If a murderer savagely takes the life of a person they should spend the rest of their life behind

bars. If the Canadian people had their way they would be able to vote in a referendum on capital punishment.

The member opposite knows the mood of the Canadian people, but he is being told to sit and keep quiet by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is in charge and no one is going to upset his personal agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to my information, no murders have ever been committed by anyone released under section 745.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to give the figures to the hon. member across the way. I will also give him the figures of murders that have been committed by criminals who have been let out on parole for even lesser sentences the first time than murder. These are people who have been in jail for assault, sexual assault, rape and kidnapping and who have served part of their time, let out on parole and then went on to kill.

I will provide those figures to the member and he had better read them because the Canadian people have read them. The Canadian people are asking the government when it will do something about it. The Reform Party is standing up for Canadians all across the country. We have established the victims rights bill which we will bring into the House and which the Minister of Justice half-heartedly agrees with.

Quite frankly, we do not care much about what the Minister of Justice thinks about these things. It is the Canadian people we listen to. We will continue to listen to them because they know better than the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to participate in second reading debate of government Bill C-45, an act to amend section 745 of the Criminal Code.

This is an important debate for Canadians. It is very close to the heart of members of my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin. Like perhaps every member in the House, I have received many letters, phone calls and communications from people not only in my constituency but from across the country talking about the justice system. They have told me of their dissatisfaction, of the fear they experience and of the difficulties the police forces are having not simply in enforcing the law but in getting convictions in the justice system after people who have committed offences are apprehended.

People tell me the justice system is broken and has to be fixed. The Canadian people deserve, have a need and indeed a right to certain securities and safety in their communities. They tell me this system needs change and it needs to be reformed. That has been one of the major planks of the Reform Party's platform since its inception. The Canadian people deserve safety. They need the security and certainty that they can walk down the street, any street in any Canadian city, without being concerned whether they will be mauled, threatened, injured or murdered.

Why do Canadians feel this way? The answer is a simple one. Canadians do not feel safe in their homes or on the streets. They are concerned about their children's safety in their own neighbourhoods. In some cities like Vancouver, parents have to clean up the mess on the streets before their children can go to school because of the danger of coming into contact with harmful substances, objects or people. They also see the justice system as one protecting the rights of criminals over the needs, the suffering and the loss of victims.

This bill merely perpetuates this reality. Bill C-45 does not do anything to protect victims and their need to recover from horrible suffering, pain and loss.

As my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley stated, Bill C-45 is totally redundant. There are two major reasons why this is case. Before I discuss these reasons, let me describe who the victims of crime are. How does section 745 of the Criminal Code ignore their legitimate needs?

The victims of crime I am talking about are the friends and families of those who have been callously murdered in our society. Victims are sentenced by a killer. Their sentences are true life sentences because they carry the pain and the loss of a loved one forever.

This brings to mind the sentencing of first degree murderers which we call a life sentence at 25 years. In my mind 25 years does not represent the life of a person. The son or the friend or the spouse who has been stolen from a victim with no regard for their loss, let alone no compensation, is gone forever. There is no time limit on that.

Many victims of crime view section 745 of the Criminal Code as one way the justice system protects the rights of murderers over the needs of victims. Section 745 dates back to 1976 when Parliament abolished capital punishment with the passing of then Bill C-84.

Included in Bill C-84 was the mandatory sentencing clause which gives anyone convicted of first degree murder a minimum 25 year sentence before parole eligibility. The mandatory sentencing clause also included section 745, the so-called faint hope clause, which more and more victims are calling the sure bet clause. It gives every first and second degree murderer the right to apply for a reduction in parole eligibility after they serve 15 years of a 25 year so-called life sentence.

This is the absolute right of the convicted murderer, but 79 per cent of those who have applied for a reduced sentence under section 745 have received a reduced sentence. That means only 21

per cent of murderers who apply under section 745 are denied and must continue to serve their full 25 years life sentence.

Section 745 was included because the government of the day felt that in some situations the interests of the criminals should come before the interests of the public. This was expressed very clearly by a minister of the day. Jean-Pierre Goyer, a former solicitor general of Canada said in response to Prime Minister Trudeau's attempt at reforms of the justice system in the 1970s: "We have decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society".

That is exactly the point where we differ. That is exactly where we believe the government at that time made a wrong turn and sacrificed the safety of our citizens for the rights and the rehabilitation of convicted felons.

This is exactly what victims of crime are upset about. Section 745 violates the needs for fundamental justice. The victims are the ones who have to go home every night to an empty house or sleep in an empty bed. Then they live out every day with the grief, the sorrow and the suffering of knowing the one they love is never coming home again. The only solace they have is being sure the one who murdered their loved one is behind bars, unable to inflict such violence on anyone again.

After 15 years of this kind of pain many victims discover for the first time that section 745 even exists and that those who murdered their loved ones have the automatic right to a section 745 hearing to determine their suitability for early parole. The felon gets another opportunity to state why he deserves freedom while the victims continue to bear the life sentence inflicted on them by this same applicant. Even though the murderer may not be granted early release, victims must still relive the horror, anxiety and pain of their loved ones' death.

Darlene Boyd, whose daughter Laurie was murdered 14 years ago, says she did not think her family members could go through another judicial hearing. It would be traumatic for them.

Victims also feel cheated by section 745. They often ask: "Why should the person who killed someone I loved and who has been convicted of murder and given a 25 year life sentence be released early or even be given the right to apply for early parole? I have no parole or judicial review or faint hope clause to shorten my sentence".

Mrs. Rose Onofrey, whose son Dennis was murdered, said: "Is that all my son's life is worth, fifteen years? Why do I have to be victimized again and again?" Dorothy Mallet, a convicted murderer who received early parole under section 745, wants to visit her children. "I have to go to the cemetery to visit my son", Mrs. Onofrey said.

The problem with section 745 is that it respects murderers' rights over the rights and the needs of victims. The bill is a weak attempt to correct this imbalance. Indeed it is not an attempt, it is totally redundant. Bill C-45 does not go anywhere near protecting victims and their needs.

There are two major reasons why this is so. Bill C-45 removes the right of only multiple and serial murderers to apply under section 745. If this legislation is passed before the House adjourns, and it is expected that it will, serial killers like Clifford Olson can still request to apply for early parole because the restrictions against serial killers are not retroactive.

It is true that killers like Olson would be unlikely to win an appeal to apply for early parole in any case, but this is not the point. The point is Clifford Olson and people like him should not be allowed to even make the request. Allowing a criminal like Olson any right to ask for a hearing to determine his suitability for early parole degrades and undervalues the rights of Olson's victims.

Gary Rosenfeldt, the father of one of Olson's 11 victims, said last week this entire section is an insult to victims. I agree. Mr. Rosenfeldt is correct. The families Olson has hurt and traumatized have suffered for years with the memories of his heinous crimes. Bill C-45 still gives him the right to request a hearing for early parole. It is insulting. Victims deserve more respect than that and the public deserves a greater degree of certain safety.

The second reason Bill C-45 does not go far enough is that those who have killed one person still have the right to appeal their parole ineligibility. Multiple or serial killers are denied this right. This creates categories of killers in society, first degree killers that is.

Those who killed one victim will have access to the process for early release but those who killed more than one victim will not have the access to the early release process. Canadians believe that murder is murder and that one murder is as bad as the next. Why then does the justice minister consider the killing of one person less serious than the killing of two or more people?

I can hardly believe he would do that. I can hardly believe he would tell the friends and family of Lisa Clausen of British Columbia who was murdered by Paul Kocurek in 1980 that Mr. Kocurek can enter into the early release process on August 2, 1996 because Lisa was the only person he killed.

How about the family of Kenneth Kaplinski? Kenneth was abducted in 1977, taken into the woods and executed by Edward Sales and Allan Kinsella. Kinsella obtained an early parole hearing and was turned down, while Sales has applied and awaits a response. How can the justice minister tell Ken's family that Sales and Kinsella will be allowed to request a hearing for early release because they have only committed one murder?

I can hardly believe that the justice minister would tell Janet Shelever of Calgary that her husband's killer can still request early parole because her husband was his only victim. That is exactly what the justice minister is saying to these victims and many others if Bill C-45 passes.

Victims of single murderers grieve, mourn and suffer as much as the victims of multiple and serial killers. If Bill C-45 passes, they will continue to suffer and the person who killed their loved one will be eligible to apply for early parole and could obtain an early release.

Does Bill C-45 respect and place a high value on the suffering of victims? I say no and so do many Canadians. All that is valued in this bill is the status quo.

There have been a couple of questions about how many people have been killed by people let out of jail on section 745. In fact, section 745 which was passed in 1976, has only allowed convicted killers the opportunity to appeal for the last five years. That is a very small window by which to test anything. In the past five years one killer has been out under section 745 and has killed again. More important, of all those who have been let out on parole, there have been 15 murders committed by them. That is the true story. That is what we need to look at.

I challenge the justice minister to do two things. First, treat first degree murderers equally. Second, have some regard for the survivors of victims and their everlasting loss and the pain they suffer.

The only way to achieve these objectives is by repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code, not by amending it. Those who commit any murder, single or multiple, would have no right to apply for or receive early parole. Their parole privileges would be the same and survivors of victims would not have to relive the horror, the anxiety and the pain of their loved one's death. Nor would they feel cheated because the one who killed their son, brother, sister or mother is only serving a fraction of the life sentence they deserve for causing so much harm and such irreplaceable loss.

This brings me to another point. Why does the Liberal government almost always deal with serious issues by bringing forward bills which at best are only half measures? Bill C-45 is redundant. It is not going to change anything. There is a pattern to this and it goes beyond Bill C-45.

Think of the pain, the anguish and the horror caused to many Canadians with the way Bill C-33 was rushed through the House. After saying this was going to be a more open government, the Liberals gave no opportunity to Canadians to have input on the human rights bill. It was dealt with in 10 days.

Consider also the GST. What a way to deal with the promise that was made in the red book. Because the Liberals could not reach an agreement with the provinces, they singled out some of the smaller ones and gave them a better or different deal and left the others to haggle and bargain with the government.

What about the unemployment insurance bill, a bill that affects millions of Canadians? Without input, without even knowing where they are going, there is a proposal to change the whole policy, to ram it through, to let the sufferers fall where they may.

This is not an appropriate way to bring legislation before the House. Legislation should reflect the consensus of the values, the will and the desires of the Canadian people. That is not what the government is doing with Bill C-45 in amending section 745.

This bill will do nothing to change the facts about how unsafe it is for Canadians to walk on their streets and sleep in their beds knowing they are absolutely secure. This bill does nothing to give the police forces the tools and the measures they need to bring criminals to conviction.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the debate this morning on Bill C-45. Of course, my attention was drawn to the report by Willie Gibbs who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He informed us that last year 15 people were murdered in this country after their murderers had been released on either early release or parole. That is a horrible statistic.

Fifteen people have been murdered as a result of a mistake made by our officials which has to do with the early release or parole of people who have committed offences, lesser offences than first degree murder. Nevertheless the officials released them. My concern is that is the very parole board that will have to make a decision on the first degree murderers if they jump through the hoops the justice minister is allowing them to jump through and end up before the parole board. It is the same parole board that allowed the release of those people which resulted at least in part in 15 innocent people being murdered. Does the member have any comments on that?

Not only were 15 people murdered, which is more than one per month, but there were 15 attempted murders, 22 sexual assaults, 21 major assaults, 71 armed robberies, in all 165 serious crimes. Since 1987 criminals out on some form of early release killed 206 people and tried to kill another 162 people. In all, 2,097 very serious crimes were committed by them in that period of time.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely typical of my colleague, a former policeman, to have dug into the facts, to have brought the issues to light and to have demonstrated them to the House in such a manner.

The member raises the whole issue of public safety that I was attempting to get at. The whole issue of public safety revolves around the need for people to be certain about who is in the community and can cause them harm. How can we know who and where these people? If we do not know these dangerous people are locked up, then we still live under the threat of their reoffending.

This relates to the whole attitude of government. I suppose it is based upon the philosophy that a person is not really responsible for what he does: if a person's mother is a prostitute and their father an alcoholic, how can anyone blame them for anything? However, we all have known since we have been conscious that there is a difference between right and wrong. We all know what a bad conscience is. We all know the inner voice that speaks to us. Yet there has been a deliberate attempt to move the inner conscience away, to tell people that they are not responsible: "Poor little you. How could you possibly be responsible when you have had such a miserable past?"

I am not suggesting that people who had a difficult childhood should not be given consideration. It is our intention that all Canadians should have the opportunity to come to their full potential and do what they truly choose to do. However, when someone chooses to commit murder, there must be some means of saying that it is not acceptable and we will not allow them to continue to do that. They must realize that they are responsible for their actions no matter what happened to them as a child or what circumstances brought them to that point.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member commented on the lack of due process given to important legislation that comes before this House. He talked about the persistent use of time allocation, closure and the fact that legislation like this comes up at the end of the session when very little time is allowed for debate. The hon. member is absolutely accurate in presenting this information. Why does he think this happens? Why does the government use time allocation so often and prevents important issues from being discussed and properly debated, not only in this House but right across the country?

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, without being cynical, that is a serious question. It relates very much to the political aspirations and the desire of the government to be re-elected. Liberals will doing anything they can to put before them anything they think the public might accept to re-elect them. It is no secret that we are going into the last year of the government's mandate and it will be going before the public in an election.

It is no secret that Bill C-45 will do nothing. How else can one explain its coming before the House and before the Canadian people at this time unless one looks at it through the political lens. The Liberals see this as being a way for them to talk about amending the justice system without really doing anything. They have not thought it through. They do not know where they are going. They have no plan. This is the result of a do nothing attitude that simply caters to public opinion with no real goal in mind.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I do not know if it was your intention to continue, but I imagine you will have a few minutes to go after question period. It being two o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members.

The Environment

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are three forms of wealth in society: material, cultural and biological.

Unfortunately, we often take our biological wealth for granted. Through perverse practices, we degrade our natural riches. We consume at faster rates than biological material can be restored. We dump waste back into natural systems faster than it can be assimilated.

Climate change is real. Its negative effects have been clearly documented. Ozone depletion will allow harmful UV rays to destroy the foundation of our food chain. Our biological wealth is the basis for all other wealth. This relationship is very clear, direct and simple. We ignore it at our peril.

National Action Committee On The Status Of Women

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, between 5,000 and 10,000 women and men came here to ask the Liberal government to fulfil its election promises regarding the poor. The Liberal Party had promised it would not cut into social programs, but it did.

It had promised to create over 150,000 day care spaces, but it also reneged on this commitment. The Bloc Quebecois will lead a fierce campaign to find out what this government did with the money earmarked for day care services.

This morning, the Bloc Quebecois pledged to work in close co-operation with the new president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Joan Grant-Cummings, to make sure this government targets poverty, not the poor.

The Bloc will see that the message conveyed by the protesters this past weekend is heard, since this government tends to turn a deaf ear to the needy.

The outgoing NAC president, Sunera Thobani, said that women are not asking for charity but equality. The Liberal Party must get the message.

Agriculture

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the parliamentary summer recess it would seem an appropriate time to evaluate the Liberal government's record over the past three years.

Broken promises permeate the pages of the red book and can be proven false by the actions of ministers and their departments.

The minister of agriculture is among the worst. He said he would keep article XI of the GATT. He signed it into oblivion. He said he would keep the Crow benefit. He scrapped it three months later. He said the Crow payment cheques would be out in January. It is the middle of June and thousands are not yet processed. He said he would implement a whole farm income stabilization plan. He could not get provincial agreement. He said he would support a plebiscite on continental barley marketing. He did not do it and he will not even respect a plebiscite on barley and wheat marketing recently held in Alberta. The minister typifies the cynical irony: "I am from the government and I am here to help you".

For years farmers have said: "Do the opposite to what the government tells you to do". It seems that this, too, is the motto of the minister of agriculture who has not done anything he said he would do.

Air-India Flight 182

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this coming Sunday will mark the 11th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in Canadian history, the bombing of Air-India flight 182. The innocent victims of this mass murder included 278 Canadians of East Indian descent.

Families of these innocent victims have been patiently waiting for justice but the RCMP, after launching the largest probe in history, has failed to lay a single charge. It even offered a $1 million reward for information leading to the arrest of the individuals responsible. That was a year ago and still the victims' families are waiting.

On behalf of the families of the victims I urge the government to immediately establish a royal commission to investigate the biggest act of terrorism ever committed on Canadian soil. These families deserve to know the facts surrounding this tragedy. They deserve no less than honesty and truth from the government.

Stowaways

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the tragic murder of the Romanian stowaways aboard the Maersk Dubai should be a spur for urgent action on the problem of stowaways.

The $7,000 fine on ships found to be carrying stowaways was intended to encourage ship captains to take all possible measures to prevent stowaways. However, not only does the fine encourage captains to do away with stowaways, in practice it is poorly paid crew members who are often held responsible by captains and who are in turn forced to pay the fine. Thus the fine becomes an incentive to throw stowaways overboard. As a result, far from being an isolated incident, the longshoremen's union reports that the tragedy on the Maersk Dubai is an all too common occurrence.

The current regime also offers inadequate guarantees that those accused of murdering stowaways on the high seas will be prosecuted. In the most recent incident there were authorities in a position to prosecute those accused. However, what would have happened if the victims had been from Liberia or some other jurisdiction without an effective authority?

The NDP calls on the government to review its current policy on stowaways and urges it to work in the United Nations for a convention for the protection of stowaways.

Aboriginal Day

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, from June 21 to July 1 Canadians will be able to celebrate the diversity and richness of our nation. June 21 is the first ever national aboriginal day. It is a day for Canadians to celebrate Canada's first peoples, to recognize their many different cultures and to reflect on their contributions to Canada.

On June 24, French Canadians all over the continent will celebrate their culture and their language, as they have been doing since the 19th century. Let all Canadians take part in the activities and celebrate Saint-Jean Baptiste Day.

This celebration of our nation culminates on July 1, Canada Day, a day which allows us to take pride in our heritage, history, diversity and richness as a nation.

The celebrations going on from June 21 to July 1 will be an opportunity to rediscover and share our treasures, to appreciate more who we were, who we are and what the future holds for us. Let us celebrate together.

Boston Marathon

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate Ian Moorhouse and Marcel Crete for completing the 100th Boston marathon.

Both runners come from Haliburton, Ontario. The two men joined 38,000 other runners attempting to finish the 26-mile race. Their goal was simple, to finish the race, and they accomplished that.

There were competitors from 100 countries. Their goal was even tougher when they had to train indoors throughout the winter and then for the first time race outside at the event.

Where these men or any Canadian finishes does not matter. The simple fact is they finished the race, a race in which others did not and would not attempt. Congratulations on a truly remarkable performance.

Mining

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Keep Mining in Canada campaign made an excellent selection in choosing Mr. Brad Simser of Noranda Mining and Exploration's New Brunswick division as one of its new faces of mining.

I am pleased to mention Mr. Simser's contribution.

In many ways Brad can be seen as a pioneer for his work in implementing the integrated seismic system for the first time in North America. This sophisticated computer based technology allows Brad to track and monitor how rock formations are adjusting to mining activities. The ultimate result is that Noranda can improve safety while mining deeper.

Often there are significant misconceptions about mining. As a new face, Brad represents the future of mining as a high technological industry essential not only to the Canadian economy but for many products and services all Canadians use in their daily lives.

I congratulate Brad Simser for making such progress during his career.

I wish him continued success in his work.

Robert Thirsk

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when Robert Thirsk was a student at Glenmore Elementary and Dr. Knox in Okanagan Centre he had a dream. He wanted to become an astronaut. On June 20 that dream becomes reality. The official payload on mission 78 will be microgravity and the effects of space on the human body.

Dr. Thirsk will also conduct a number of experiments designed by young Canadians while talking directly to them from space by two-way radio.

The enthusiasm of our young scientists must be encouraged for Canada's economic future depends on our excellence in science and engineering. As Dr. Thirsk said to me, we have succeeded in developing our natural resources, but we have not fared as well developing our intellectual resources.

Bobby Orr's hockey jersey will also be on mission 78, a tribute to Canadian excellence.

I have no doubt that if Canada can produce the best hockey players in the world, then we can produce the best scientists and engineers too. All young people have dreams. We must encourage them and give them a place to go.