Debates of May 14th, 1998

Supply

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that very clearly, week after week after week during the last election, I heard nothing but cut, cut, cut.

When we came to this House the Somalia affair was going on. I heard nothing from the members opposite outside of how bad a job the Canadian military was doing.

I talked to a lot of people in the military and they felt demoralized. They felt that the actions of the opposition were tearing down the institution in this country. Without question it is not just the financial aspects, it is also the attitudes which strip any group of pride and greatness.

Quite frankly, I believe this Liberal government is moving that issue forward. It is making certain that we restore pride in the military. It is making certain we have good directions. Without question I believe that we have taken actions in order to move that agenda in a very positive way.

I would be very frightened if it were the Reform Party which took the reins of the military some four years ago. Would we have been able to react in Alberta to the fires that started last week? Would we have been able to react to the ice storm? To me the Reform Party has very little to give positive direction. It has been totally critical all the way. That is unfortunate. I do not hear positives, I hear criticisms. That is not good.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces may well be demoralized after comments such as I have heard coming from the government representative this morning.

The hon. member refers to pride, talent and excellence. At least I believe that is what the hon. member said.

He spoke about the flood in Manitoba and he spoke about the ice storm. I was there. During the ice storm I saw the military. I saw what they did. Believe me, I thank them. What the hon. member is doing is certainly not thanking them. He is embarrassing them.

The member keeps saying “The Tories were there before”. This is playing politics with the issue. The problems are here today. The government must demonstrate leadership and it is not doing that. What is it going to do for the problems that the military is facing today?

We could say that Trudeau was there before us. But what is that going to do to rectify the problems of today?

I ask the member if he thinks the military is living below Canadian standards. I heard this morning for the first time that injured soldiers are not getting proper care. We also see that the military is living below Canadian standards. Or are there Canadian standards? We see that members of the Canadian military are getting out of the forces and do not have the proper education to find a post-military job.

Does the member think there should be standards in place for military personnel so that when they leave the military they will be able to get a permanent job? We should have an education system in place to protect these people. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a short memory here. If my memory serves me correctly, $6 billion was the position of the hon. member's party on the Cadillac, submarine-fighting helicopters. The military had requested at that time to buy helmets and flak jackets, but they were turned down. They were turned down on helmets and flak jackets at the same time as that party was asking for $6 billion for submarine-fighting helicopters.

The heart of its election campaign was a $2.6 billion cut in national defence.

Now the hon. member is telling me that we should be spending more money, but his party's campaign rhetoric was that it wanted these huge cuts. I cannot equate the two. I do not believe Canadians can look at that and say they are consistent.

Now that they are in opposition and looking at the positive directions in which we are trying to move, they do not see it the same way as they did during the election campaign. They do not see it the same way as they did during their nine years in government. They seem to be missing the point. Everything does not happen overnight. We have to move the agenda forward, but their whole rhetoric was wrong.

Their whole rhetoric, in very many respects, was demoralizing to the whole military process: tear down, cut dollars, do something different. I question how they can come back today and give that same type of sermon. They missed the boat when they were there and they are still missing the boat today.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my hon. colleague across the way, it seems that he spent most of his time simply criticizing a party that has never held power in this House. It never had the power to do one thing either good or bad as far as the military is concerned and yet he spent all his time criticizing that party.

We should be looking ahead as to what we could be doing, which is what I think this debate is for. The hon. member from the Liberal side had the opportunity to place before the House and the people of Canada their vision and their goal for the role our military should be playing but we did not hear anything from that member. Why?

We can only assume it is because they have no vision, certainly not a vision they want to share with the House or with the Canadian people. We saw what happened. We saw their actions. We can judge what their vision is, as secretive as it might be, and their goal for the military.

We saw what happened in the Somalia inquiry when something very bad occurred that reached into the upper echelons of our military command. After less than two years they shut it down. We will never know the full truth. We can only speculate at the truth. Justice was never done.

I spend much of my time thinking about and working in justice. In order for justice to occur we must have the truth. Upon truth is built justice and from a sense of justice that we have in the minds and hearts of all of us there is a peace of mind that flows. From that peace flows the prosperity that we all seek in our lives and in our nation.

When we deny the truth, turn it aside, hide it or shut down inquiries set up to find and reveal the truth so that justice can be done, so that a sense of justice prevails across our land in the minds and hearts of our people, what is left? Is it justice based on half truths or no truths? What did they do in the Somalia inquiry to our country and to the morale of those members who worked so diligently during the ice storm and the Manitoba flood and who stand ready today to respond to any emergency that they will be called on? They see that justice has not been done because the truth has been withheld.

We heard from the government side that this had gone on long enough and enough money was spent. Yet we have had inquiries that have lasted four and five years. We spent as high as $50 million on some inquiries.

The Liberal Party now has the opportunity because it has the power to express and put into action its vision for the military. What do we see is happening? We see the hon. member stand there minute after minute and not reveal his vision for the future and not tell the men and women in the military what is in store for them. He attacks a party that has never held the reins of power but does have a vision for the military, a vision for the unity of this country and a vision for the people of our land.

That hon. member spent almost 90% of his time simply attacking the Reform Party of Canada that has that vision. So what do we say about the military? What is our vision for the military?

The role of our military should be clearly defined. What should the role of the military be? We are saying that parliament should define that and then equip it to perform those duties thus defined. If it is peacekeeping or peacemaking or simply the defence of the sovereign nature of our country, if it is simply to fulfil those roles, let us decide as a nation and equip our military to do that job.

That is just the beginning of the vision we hold for the military based on the truth, based on fact, based on consultation with not only the military commanders but their grassroots as well as the Canadian public. That is our vision.

Our vision for this place is to allow our elected representatives to be a conduit for the thoughts and feelings and concerns of the people we are supposed to be representing and not have a form of government that will squash the rights of individual backbenchers to stand up and represent the people of their constituencies, whether it has to do with the hepatitis C issue or the military or what other issue placed before the elected representatives of the people who are supposed to have a vision of this country for all of us.

That is the vision of the Reform Party and that is what is being attacked here today. Why? They do not have anything they wish to share with the Canadian people, with the members of the House of Commons or with the members of the military. They do not have anything to share. I listened intently, waiting for that vision to be revealed and it is not forthcoming.

Why is it not forthcoming? They have no vision and they stumble from pillar to post, from one emergency to another.

When war raised its ugly head again with the Middle East situation and we had to send our people, as our duty and responsibility, into that potential conflict, what did we hear? We heard that the military had to go around scraping up equipment, clothing, helmets to send our people into a potential conflict. That is the vision, or lack of it, the Liberal Party legacy has left the military, this House and the people of Canada.

It is amazing to me that government members do not grasp this opportunity put forward by our Tory colleagues to tell the people of Canada what vision they have and what they see in the future for the military. What is it? Why would they not take that opportunity? It is there for us all to express what we believe should be done.

We have not heard that but we certainly have heard an awful lot of abuse and criticism of a different vision put forward in this country for the past 10 years at least in terms of the steps that should be taken to put our military on a proper footing.

If we are going to have a military we should know what we want it to do. Does that not make common sense? Once we decide what we want our military to do, let us equip it to do the job. It is that simple.

We did not hear any expression at all of consulting with people, the military or members of parliament as to really what the role of the military ought to be and then equipping our people to get on with the job. We have had the debacle of ordering helicopters and then cancelling helicopters, ordering submarines, cancelling submarines and then ordering submarines again.

The people of Canada would like to know if we are going to equip our people what do we want them to do? Should that not flow from determining what we want to do with the helicopters and the submarines and what we want to do by reducing the strength of our military? What is the purpose of that? Or if we want to increase it, why? What is the role we want our military to play? Depending on every action that the government takes that touches on our military we have not heard a thing.

The hon. member who just spoke left me with feelings of shame because we honour and respect one another in the House, particularly their thoughts and ideas. We may oppose them but all we heard was a response to a very important subject attacking a party that puts forward a vision and plans. They criticize and attempt to lay blame for what has happened to our military on a party that has never had the levers of power. One day I promise we will have the power because there is no vision on that side. There is a vision on this side, certainly within this caucus.

I commend the Tories for this supply day motion because it is an important subject and it is time for an accounting. It is time to say to the government what do you have in mind, why did you do this, what are you planning to do to correct it, what do you have in mind for our young men and women in the military living below the poverty line, how can you justify this.

We are asking for an explanation and all we get is the kind of rhetoric we heard. It fills time and space on the agenda but it certainly does not answer any question for any Canadian tuning in to this debate. It certainly does not inform them.

To be informed about what is in store for our military you cannot go to the opposition. You have to go to the government. Why the member was attempting to focus the responsibility on the Reform Party and put the blame for all the things that have gone wrong is beyond me and I think beyond the common sense of anyone watching the debate.

We need a military. The military should be trained. It should have the best possible leadership we have, those who have volunteered to serve in this manner. It should be properly equipped and above all it should know exactly what its duty is.

I would like to hear that from my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party who have formed the government for this term and who have the sole power, control and responsibility to do those things. Let us hear something constructive from the government side rather than the belly aching we have heard and the blame laying that has occurred particularly against the party that has never hurt the military, never had the opportunity to help, never had the opportunity to place in position our vision of what our military ought to be doing.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, after having listened to my hon. colleague from the Reform Party, I think it would be appropriate at this time to put some Reform facts about military vision on the record.

The Reform Party has consistently called for major cuts to defence spending. In 1993 its zero in three plan would have cut $1.8 billion from the defence department's budget. In 1994 Reform wanted an additional $1 billion cut from national defence on top of the 15% across the board cuts it was demanding from all departments. The Reform Party's taxpayer budget released in 1995 also called for $1 billion to be slashed from the national defence budget.

I know the vision Reform espoused called for “professional, well equipped and sufficiently strong armed forces”. The Reform Party claims that it wants this.

In last year's election platform, I looked for what the Reform Party's plans were to improve for instance national defence or international security. In its fresh start election platform campaign the only time that the term national defence was mentioned was when it was listed as one of the areas of government that the Reform Party would target with cuts and spending reductions.

Reform cannot have it both ways. It talks only cuts and it does not talk about what it would do. It is a good thing for the defence department in this country that the hon. member is not in government and the responsible side of this House knows how to make cuts but also manage a progression into the future. This government does take care of international security and does move forward to listen to our armed forces and work toward a path that will help them do their jobs professionally as well as help their families.

I ask the member where was his vision? Where was his party's vision? Where was his leader's vision on defence?

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had an opportunity again to present her vision and the government's vision for the future of the military. What did she do with that opportunity? She attacked the bits and pieces of the overall plan the Reform Party has put forward.

It is clear the member is not concerned about the fact that many armed forces personnel have to use food banks in order to survive, that the lowest income of the military is at or below the poverty line in this country, as well as the fact that they are not properly equipped. As I referred to earlier, members of our military had to scramble to gather up clothing and helmets used or unused from hither and yon from other parts of the military at a time when we were sending them into a possible conflict area.

Let us hear what the government has in store for the military instead of trying to defend it simply by attacking and using only bits and pieces of the plans of our party or any other party. Let us hear what her plans are. She has not told us what her plans are. Why can we not hear what her plans are?

The people of Canada and members of this House are looking squarely at the vision of the Liberal Party of Canada, the party in power. This is the member's opportunity during this supply day motion to indicate how her party is going to equip our military and how they are going to give our military people a decent standard of living. How is she going to do it?

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate my colleague from the Reform Party for his speech, which has shown us how widespread the problem related to the armed forces is.

In fact, what he is calling for is what all Canadians are waiting for. I believe no one in Canada would fault the government for making an official announcement, by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence, on measures that can be taken immediately to improve the situation of all our military personnel, as well as measures for the medium term. This could, obviously, mean they would end up with a budget spread out over at least five years, for better equipment management

I ask my colleague whether what he is referring to is what the auditor general found, the total absence of a strategic plan for the Canadian Armed Forces, a plan which would enable it to define priorities for the short, medium and long terms for the navy, army and air force, through measures that could be implemented immediately, tomorrow morning, in fact.

The parliamentary secretary has referred to rationalization. Everyone agrees with this, but there are some measures in place at the present time that need to be corrected. I would like to know whether this is what my hon. colleague was referring to.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question because he puts his finger right on the whole issue. The auditor general is saying the government has no vision for the future, there is no plan, there is no strategy.

The first thing we should do is decide what role we want the military to play. How do we decide that? Let us ask the people of this country. Should we be peacekeepers or peacemakers? There is an enormous difference. Let us ask our people whether we want to send our military into conflict areas, not to maintain peace but in an attempt to establish peace through armed conflict. Is that what we want?

We should know what the people of Canada want us to do. Let us consult with our military advisers. Let us consult with members of parliament. Above all, let us consult with the people of Canada whose sons and daughters we are going to send to face these crises, whether it is in this country through a natural crisis or through armed conflict in another country. Let us decide. Let us not have another report from the auditor general that says there is no plan, there is no strategy and there is no vision.

That is what this government so far has been offering. Again the Tory party today has offered the Government of Canada an opportunity to place its vision for the future of the military before the people of this House, the elected representatives of the people of Canada, as well as the people themselves. Where is the vision? Where is the strategy? Where is the plan that the auditor general called for? Where is it?

This is the opportunity now for perhaps the minister or someone else who knows to stand and express that vision. Where is it? Are we going to go to another auditor general's report and have him report the same thing, that there is no strategy, no plan and no vision?

The government has an opportunity. I am asking members, rather than just attack the opposition parties, please let us hear the plan, let us hear the strategy. The auditor general is crying out for it. Of course the opposition members are calling out for it and the people of Canada are calling out for it. But above all, the people in the military are calling out for some kind of leadership from this government.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague from the Reform Party. Among the problems affecting our armed forces, I wonder if he does not see anything wrong with our military personnel.

According to the statistics to be found in part III of the latest estimates, in the volume about National Defence, the three branches of the armed forces, Air, Land and Sea, include 81,000 individuals, 20,000 civilians and 61,000 military personnel. Of these 61,000 military personnel, only 6,500 are privates. All the others are officers of the air, land or sea forces. For instance, there are 28,000 corporals for 6,000 privates. There are 6,000 sergeants. Higher up, above warrant officers and chief warrant officers, there are 1,487 lieutenants. There are 6,333 captains to supervise these 1,487 lieutenants. There are 2,938 majors and 66 generals.

This morning, the Minister of National Defence stated that morale was low in the armed forces. This may be one of the reasons. I can understand that the 6,500 privates must have no hope of a promotion because, out of 61,000 members, there are 55,000 people above them.

We have highly competent officers who have 6,500 privates working for them. Does that make sense? I would like to find out what my Reform colleague thinks of this whole situation.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He certainly came to this debate well informed with statistics. They say that if you are well prepared, you shall not fear. If that is how we can view our military, as well prepared and well armed, then Canada need not fear.

To address the crux of my hon. colleague's question, our military is overweight at the top end. There are a lot of unaccountable people shuffling papers, playing golf, looking at one another and wondering what the poor people are doing. We should closely look at our military to determine whether or not there is a proper balance in terms of funding and leadership.

Leadership is so important at the grassroots level. It determines the morale of the members, the direction we will take and the execution of plans. It is very important. There is no question that there are more generals in the army today than we had during the second world war in the Canadian military. Is that needed? Is that wise? How did it get there and why? The big question is, is that what we want? Is that the role we want? Or do we want the kind of military that is top heavy with leaders, certainly generals?

We have to look at those questions. This is a good opportunity for my hon. colleague and the rest of us in the House to debate this issue and ask the government, which is in control and has the power to do these things, whether or not it has any answers to these questions. Now is the time. Today is the day these questions can be answered by the government.

[The Speaker]

As the time has expired, we will take up the debate after. We will now go to Statements by Members.

Navigating A Nation

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Sault Ste. Marie canal is being honoured in “Navigating a Nation”, a set of 10 stamps that pay tribute to Canada's inland waterways. The Sault canal is the final link in an all-Canadian water route that extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the head of Lake Superior. It was the first inland waterway in the world to have an electrically powered lock.

Saultites recognize the importance of the canal to their city and to Great Lakes shipping. It is certainly welcome news in my riding that Canada Post has chosen to immortalize this world famous waterway in a beautifully designed stamp. The issue of these stamps could not come at a better time. The Sault canal lock which has been closed since 1987 is expected to reopen to recreational boat traffic early this summer.

Hats off to Canada Post for acknowledging the importance of our inland waterways and to Parks Canada for making possible the reopening of the Sault canal lock.

Abortion

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 29 years since abortion was legalized in this country. In those days abortion was used only where a mother's life or health was endangered. But today I think it has gone too far, especially when we see taxpayer funded abortions on demand, increased diagnoses of post-abortion trauma, indication of medical linkages to breast cancer, minors given abortion without parental consent and approximately $50 million spent annually on abortion.

Not everybody in the Reform caucus or across the country agrees with me. That is why the Reform Party's responsible position is to identify abortion as an issue of personal conscience and supports informed debate and giving people a voice through a national referendum. Canadians should be allowed to examine the facts on all sides of the issue.

In my opinion, women have a right to know about the risks of abortion and taxpayers should know the cost. For me, if it is about choice, let us give women better choices.

The Parolyn Family

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Cindy Parolyn and her children Melissa and David.

In the autumn of 1996, Cindy and three of her children began a horseback camping vacation in B.C. Shortly after their trip began a cougar attacked Cindy's six year old son Steven. Without regard for her personal welfare, Cindy left the safety of her horse and rushed to Steven's defence. Despite the poor odds Cindy saved her son by diverting the cat's attention to herself. During the scramble Cindy instructed her other children to carry Steven over two kilometres to the closest source of help.

Despite the dozens of stitches that he required Steven survived. However Cindy was not so lucky. Only hours after the ordeal began Cindy succumbed to the wounds that she sustained during the assault.

Cindy's life and death were dedicated to helping others. Last year the Cindy Parolyn safe homes program opened in Princeton, B.C., and was dedicated in her name. Tomorrow Cindy will be posthumously awarded with the Star of Courage by the governor general. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in recognizing their gallant deeds.

Theatre Ontario Festival

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Owen Sound Little Theatre is hosting the Theatre Ontario Festival where excellent community theatre groups will perform plays acclaimed throughout Ontario.

Community theatre is an important part of Canadian culture. Plays relate stories about Canadian life, represent our values and entertain us. While professional plays can provide culture as well, community based theatre is often accessible where professional troupes never go.

In the past few years the creation and performance of Canadian plays have been revived by community theatre. Our amateur theatre groups need new plays and local talent, as well as the support of those who appreciate a story brought to life on stage.

I congratulate the Owen Sound Little Theatre and all groups attending the festival this week. I applaud them.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is celebrating its 125th anniversary.

In the beginning the RCMP served Canada and its people by establishing order in the frontier regions of the country. As the nation grew in population and diversity and its communities became established, the mounted police adapted ensuring the peace and security of citizens across our land.

The RCMP also shares its expertise abroad by participating in United Nations missions. The purpose of these missions, such as the one that will be leaving for Bosnia next week, is to transform local police forces from instruments of potential intimidation into guarantors of public security and to ensure civil rights in those countries.

The 125 years of achievement by the RCMP are our proud heritage.

Congratulations to the men and women who continue to make us very proud.

Millennium Scholarships

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, we are disappointed with the Quebec government's decision to end discussions on the millennium scholarships between its representatives and those of the federal government, discussions that had been initiated in a climate of cooperation.

The Quebec government should be proud to participate in a wonderful initiative that will mark Canada's entry into the new millennium.

The Canadian government's objective remains the same. For a period of 10 years, the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation will give exceptional support to the provinces so that all young Canadians can have better access to teaching and training institutions throughout the country.

The Quebec government should rethink its strategy in the interest of all young Quebeckers who want to pursue their education. After all, it is their future that is at stake.

Taxation

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one wage earner families in the country have looked for a long time for a tax break from government. The recent budget of the government gave no indication of any help.

In fact by offering more relief only to those families that avail themselves of day care, the finance minister has once again discriminated against stay at home moms and dads. In so doing he perpetuates an economic system with high taxes and high unemployment that forces many Canadian parents to both go to work.

The result is that during the formative years of children's lives they spend most of their time with people who are not their parents. This is at a time when research continues to prove the critical importance of the parent-child bond in long term social development. Many of these children grow up with role models who do not reflect their parents' values and beliefs.

Reformers and Canadian everywhere call for the finance minister and the government to look at Reform's family friendly tax proposals that would serve to keep families together instead of tearing them apart.

National Nursing Week

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May 11 to 17 is National Nursing Week. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the valuable contribution of Canada's nurses.

This year's theme “Nursing is the Key” could not be more appropriate. We need nurses and nursing. Nurses are key cost effective providers of health care. Almost everywhere health services are received nurses are there. In hospitals, doctors' offices, seniors' residences and private homes, a nurse is always found providing high quality care.

I congratulate nurses and nursing for their forward thinking. Nurses are helping on the frontline, finding solutions to some of the complex problems in health care today. If an hon. member knows a nurse or receives services from a nurse, take a moment and thank them.

I have often said that a hospital without nurses would just be a hotel. We need our nurses. We must respect and honour their noble profession, not only this week but every day of every week of every year.

Gun Control

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, not content with having drafted domestic firearms policies based on prejudice, disinformation and hysteria, has decided to cast a wider net and has agreed to have gun control on the agenda of the G-8 summit meeting.

Will the representatives of the world's richest societies be able to disarm the downtrodden, the marginalized and the dispossessed of the earth by issuing a sugar-coated communique? Somehow I doubt it. What they will probably do is create another excuse to further harass and constrain their own citizens by blaming each other for providing the stimulus.

The strategy is as transparent and as old as politics itself: “When a huge minority of your citizens is angry, direct their rage outside of your own borders and take some of the pressure off”.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that both the official opposition and the fourth party have a limited understanding of international trade.

The Leader of the Opposition says that he cannot think of a single example when the Prime Minister's foreign travel has produced results for Canadians. The leader of the fourth party said that the Prime Minister should stay in Canada. Both leaders fail to comprehend the importance of building critical international relationships for Canadian business.

Team Canada missions led by the Prime Minister have created valuable trade relations with many countries, leading to $24 billion in economic benefits for all sectors of Canadian business.

It is a fact that international trade leads to economic growth, jobs and prosperity in Canada.

Hepatitis C

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are waiting and hoping today for the federal, provincial and territorial health ministers to do the right thing, to decide today to compensate all victims of hepatitis C. It has been a long, hard struggle for the victims of this failure of the blood system.

We must do everything in our power to ensure that such a tragedy does not recur by implementing the recommendations of the Krever report. The report cited a lack of resources at the health protection branch, a lack of clear authority and delays in responding to potential problems.

Justice Krever talked about the need for Canadian self-sufficiency for blood, the need to retain control of our own standards and decision making in the course of harmonization with other countries, and to retain strong federal regulatory authority. These lessons can be applied to many areas in the whole health protection area.

As we wait to hear the outcome of the federal-provincial ministers' meeting, let us recommit ourselves to co-operative federalism. Let us show solidarity for the victims of the tainted blood tragedy. Let us learn those lessons in order to prevent future tragedy.

International Trade

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is for the benefit of the member for Calgary East. I rise today to reflect on the Leader of the Opposition's comments concerning the Prime Minister's team Canada missions.

The trip to Latin America included representatives from more than 180 Canadian companies, 80% of them small and medium size businesses generating more than 300 deals worth $1.7 billion. That is some photo op.

The Summit of the Americas marked the launch of negotiations for a free trade area involving 34 countries, a market of 800 million people and about $10 trillion. That is some photo op.

Many members of the opposition could be called frequent flyers. However their travel ends in no op as in no opportunity for Canadians.

Team Canada missions led by the Prime Minister have secured deals worth close to $24 billion. That is the photo op as in opportunities for Canadians and Canadian business—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Quebec.

Les Violons Du Roy

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Les Violons du Roy, the chamber orchestra, is continuing its incredible rise to success both at the national and international levels.

The orchestra was founded in my riding of Quebec in 1984 and includes about fifteen highly talented musicians.

Their recent appearance in Los Angeles got rave reviews. The Los Angeles Times talked about a gripping and flawless performance.

Congratulations to the Violons du Roy and their artistic director, Bernard Labadie. You are true ambassadors of our city. We are proud of your success and greatly appreciate your talent.