Debates of Oct. 18th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, three times.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Now that we have a budget surplus, we want all Canadians to benefit from it, first through a tax reduction and, second, by making strategic investments to help those groups that need it most, whether in eastern Canada, in Quebec's Gaspé Peninsula or in western Canada.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to address our response to the throne speech. Personally, my response to this has been a bit of a defining moment, trying to make up my mind whether to run again and maybe take over from this motley crew on the other side or whether to forget it and go home.

I thought perhaps I should try to understand what would be in the throne speech. I made a little list for myself to see if certain things would be addressed. I even made a list about aboriginal issues for the previous minister on the other side. I am glad she is here because I have a few things to say about that.

Some of the issues in the throne speech that I wanted to see addressed more specifically, along with a lot of people throughout the country, were issues like child pornography. What will the government do about that? It has messed it up and left it to the courts. Let us see it in the throne speech. That was one of my top issues on the list because I think that is very important.

Will prison reform be in the throne speech? Will that long overdue issue be addressed?

Will the age of sexual consent be addressed? Both the Liberals and the other crew down there had a lot to do with that a few years ago and in fact reduced the age of sexual consent from 16 to 14. Will it be changed back to 16?

Will the growing issue of aboriginal affairs be addressed, in particular on the east and west coasts, but in many other parts of the country as well? One member said it was, but I will get into that debate in a moment.

Will the real issue of taxes, a real commitment on taxes, with timelines, be addressed? Taxes were mentioned but the timelines were not, the legislation was not and the details of the legislation were not.

In most cases anything that was even generally addressed in the throne speech would have to be turned into legislation. Most of us know that it is probably less than two years before the next election. As House leader I can say that turning these general commitments into legislation before the next election is not going to happen. So much for commitment.

What about the old Young Offenders Act, now called the Youth Criminal Justice Act? The Liberals changed the name but will they make commitments on when it will be changed and what will be changed in it? I believe this is now the fourth, count them, throne speech in which the government has mentioned those changes, yet we see no changes.

What about the airline industry issues? I asked myself whether that would be included. It is certainly a concern for many people.

There are the problems in the immigration and refugee department. They are long outstanding difficulties. I have spoken many times in the House about what some of the problems are with the numerous appeals and on and on it goes. Will they be addressed?

How about the issue of the Senate? Will we ever see a reformed Senate? The Liberals may have wanted to mention something like that in the throne speech. How about things like free votes? How about some substantive details about how we are going to fix the unity issues?

The defining moment came for me when I read the document which was really a rhetorical PR piece. We know that essentially it will take legislation and the courage of all of us in the House to change things. I can say that legislation will not be forthcoming, at least not to the point where it receives royal assent. They may play with it but it is not going to happen.

The other issue I want to talk about is drugs. About seven months ago the Liberal government came out with a national drug strategy document. I looked through the document and thought here we go again, lots of rhetoric lacking substance. I did some checking. The other guys down there, Joe what's his name and the other fellas, the Conservatives, brought out a national drug strategy in the eighties. I compared their national drug strategy with the national drug strategy of the Liberals. Lo and behold, I sincerely believe both were written by the same person. Hardly anything changed; it was virtually the same document.

I took the Liberals' document to many places across the country, from downtown east side Vancouver to small cities across the country, Nova Scotia included. I asked them to look at this national drug strategy and to tell me how it affected them. They told me that it was a waste of their time and mine, that the strategy was no good and not effective at the street level.

Unfortunately a few comments were made in the throne speech. I think it was primarily because the Reform Party has been nagging the government on this for some time. I do not believe the government has a strategic plan in mind to combat drugs, organized crime and all the other things that go with it, nor do I think it has the will or the desire to do it.

I come from an area which has 15,000 addicted people, many who are young teens. I come from an area outside Vancouver where the downtown east side has around 6,000 addicts. This is just one area in our country. Go to Toronto, Ottawa or small towns. Go to Sydney or Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. All of those places have serious problems with drug addiction, yet when I read the throne speech, there are platitudes. There is no commitment.

I talked to some ministers who said that they gave $5 million to British Columbia after the opposition parties nagged them. They threw out $5 million over a period of two years. This is petty cash. The Liberals do not say that the drug issue is a health issue. They say it is an issue and they will fix it by throwing some money at it.

I happen to work with quite a few people who have family members who are addicted to drugs and I can say what their opinion is of a government with no plan. They have long past given up the idea of being upset about it. They have long past given up the idea of thinking this is the place to resolve problems. They are now hunkered down waiting for someone to help them, not a government, some one or two people in this place.

I look at a blueprint, a model, a plan called a throne speech and I can see that we have a government with status quo in mind. Don't worry, be happy, things are working right. We will get into the spotlight. We will tell all that it is working great. Patch it a bit, fix it up.

These things I mentioned are not working. There is no commitment from the government. Where there is no commitment from a government, the government should remove itself or the people looking for the commitment will do the removing for it. I expect a lot of people will be running in the next election, not because they want to get into politics but because there is no plan in the nation, no commitment, no strategy.

We want something done about drugs. We want something done about child pornography, prisons, the age of sexual consent, aboriginal problems, taxes, crime, young offenders, the airline industry, the immigration and refugee system, the Senate, free votes. If we get around to trying to fix that, we will find that perhaps unity will be somewhat resolved. But that takes courage and I am not sure the government has it.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments particularly with regard to the lack of substance in the throne speech. I could not help but agree with what he said.

He mentioned child pornography, immigration, a whole bunch of justice issues. I have been in this House since 1993 and I have come to the conclusion that the government does not have the will to do what it was duly elected to do. By that I mean the government wants to be politically correct. Any of these issues that are of any moral or justice substance the government wants to pass on to the courts and I strongly disagree with that.

Does the hon. member think we were sent down here to help draft the laws and address the wrongs of our laws instead of the lawyers and the judges who are not an elected body?

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this concept is very near and dear to the hearts of most Canadians. Who actually makes laws in this country, the elected people, the representatives from all over the country in this place, or the judges appointed by the government of the day? That is a valid question. There was never any question in my mind about who it should be. It should be the elected officials.

The difficulty I have is this delegation of authority. If it were only the judiciary, I think we could find a way around that perhaps by appointing judges for seven years instead of for life, or electing judges, we could find answers to make them accountable for their decisions, but it is not. The government appoints bodies, refugee boards, immigration boards, parole boards, that tend to have autonomy within our system. When questions are asked in the House of Commons, ministers say “I do not know. It is not my fault, it is their fault”.

The problem is the government of the day has delegated too much responsibility. At the same time it has not issued accountability within those areas it has delegated to.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some intent to the hon. member opposite. I want to ask him two questions.

The first question is I wonder what he thought there was to gain by bashing the judiciary? These judges are people of integrity and great stature, people whose job it is to interpret the laws as made by parliament. I wonder exactly what his game plan is in terms of trying to bash these honourable people, people who do the right thing most of the time in terms of what they do and say.

The second question I have is that the hon. member spoke about running for parliament and being around to do the right thing in terms of caring for the country. Is he planning on doing that the next time, or is he going to jump ship and seek provincial politics?

I would be really interested in answers to both of those questions, the honour of the judiciary and where his commitment lies in terms of parliament vis-à-vis the provincial political arena.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this jumping ship is. Rumour has it that I am running for the Liberals in B.C. Give your head a shake. It is interesting to see how the Liberals here are much enamoured with the Liberals in British Columbia. We will remember to bring that message back home to those who say they do not have any association with these people.

To answer the more serious question of the two, it is interesting with those fellows over there. If a person speaks out about and issue and thinks he is right about it, for instance, a judge says that the possession of child pornography is legal and a person speaks out about that, or a judge like Howard Weston in Manitoba who says that all federal penitentiary prisoners—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but some months ago we had already agreed that we were not going to mention specific judges. We can refer to the judiciary, but not to judges specifically.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if an individual, in particular people in this House, disagree with that, the Liberals call it bashing instead of articulating what one believes in. If an individual dislikes what is going on in any portion of the immigration proceedings, and I have had lots of experience trying to get criminals deported from this country, they call it racism. The problem is that those individuals over there have no argument to articulate other than “You are bashing, you are bashing, you are bashing”. That is sad. Perhaps they should learn a little more about what they are supposed to be talking about before they put legislation in place.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my intervention in this debate by welcoming the new human resources development minister. This is a huge area. I have been the critic in this area for quite some time. I know this minister is committed to doing a good job. I will certainly commit to helping her with the best advice I can give on how to carry out her responsibilities.

The second session of the 36th Parliament and the throne speech which opened it were the subject of more hype and convenient leaks than in any previous session in my time in this place.

In recent weeks we had media carrying many interviews with cabinet ministers and all sorts of insider leaks promoting the expectation that the government had an imaginative plan of vision for the future of Canada as we enter the next century and the next millennium. With the opening of parliament delayed by three whole weeks for the government to get this just right, we all waited with bated breath for this wonderful vision to come forward. What happened? The throne speech contained the usual Liberal feel good rhetoric and much less actual content than was expected even on the big centrepiece, the children's agenda. There is no clear vision as we enter the next millennium.

The theme of the Prime Minister's speech when he followed up in the House was emotive jargon: hope, confidence, optimism, working together, boldness of vision, courage to act, best country in the world, et cetera. He reiterated all of the usual bromides: society of excellence, strong, united, dynamic, innovative, diverse, cohesive, sharing, every child gets the right start in life, young people with a chance to grow, access to skills, quality health care; all of the things that nobody in the House, let alone the whole country, would disagree with.

What was missing was one single, solitary, cohesive plan with specifics on how to achieve these wonderful things that we all want for our country. This is the lack of leadership that we suffer from in this country: a Prime Minister without specifics, simply falling back on platitudes.

In case people listening think that of course we are going to say this in the opposition, let me quote from some commentators. Andrew Coyne called it “a compendium of bland truisms and vague declarations of intent”. Another commentator said the speech shows the government as being “bereft of vision”. Even the normally Liberal-friendly Toronto Star noted that the speech was full of platitudes and short on specifics.

We need a sound vision in this country. We need some specifics. Where are we going? What is it going to cost? Where is the money coming from? What will be the benefits to people? There was none of that, just some nice emotional words.

To top it all off, the Prime Minister had the nerve to call all of this the Canadian way. It is the Liberal way. It is the Liberal way of muddiness and fuzziness and murkiness and feel good rhetoric, without delivering the sensible, sound, specific plan this country needs.

What is the Liberal way? It is bureaucratic meddling; intrusive government; Ottawa knows best, especially how to spend our money; no hope for workers to keep more of what they earn, but instead they can expect to keep half of what they earn; no liberation from excessive taxes; more and more of the nanny state, a model that has failed over and over across the world; and no vision for the future that would appeal to our best and brightest young minds.

What is the Liberal agenda? After all of the words, after all of the speeches, we do not really know for sure. All we can do is examine their past behaviour, their past record of missing the obvious. Remember, it was these Liberals who were opposed to free trade, the only thing practically that is carrying our economy today.

What about the other important issues that are burning in Canadians' minds? What about agriculture? Our farmers have lost virtually all of their income. Their income has fallen to 2% of what they earned last year. Would anybody in this House like to have his or her income cut by 98%? Would there not be a hue and cry for something to be done? There was not a mention by the government on how to deal with these people in crisis across our country.

What about immigration? We have solid people from across the world lining up to be in this country. What happens? We have people smuggling and illegal entrants taking up those spaces that could be taken by people who have a commitment to doing things the way the law says they should be done.

What about defence? We have a military that is literally falling apart and falling out of the sky. There was not a word about how to restore the pride that we used to have in our forces.

What about the fishery? There is violence in a country like Canada: people against people, citizens against citizens, community against community. Yet, this visionary government did not even mention that, never mind come out with a plan to address it. It is a shame.

The Liberals are totally out of touch with Canadians. Canadians want less government, not more. They want to keep the money they earn. They do not want to have to turn it over to government, which then says “Have we got a program for you”. These programs simply do not cut it for the majority of Canadians.

One commentator spoke about the only specific in the Prime Minister's speech, which was to extend maternity leave. The commentator said:

If Canadians were taxed less, they could have a whole range of choices. Taxes are the business of government. Parenting is not. If this government truly wants to help Canadian kids, it should ease the tax burden on parents.

We need flexibility and choices as parents and as citizens of this country, but no, the government wants to take our money, put us into its little box, its little program and it will decide what we can choose. It decides where we can go. It decides what kinds of choices are available to us. That is not the way to run a good country.

We have the Liberal record that my colleagues have talked about so many times over the last few days; a government that says it will give tax relief when in fact it is taking $2 billion more in taxes next year than it did last year. That is not tax relief, except to a Liberal who wants to say one thing but do the total opposite.

What about health care? Health care transfers have been cut. Cash transfers are still over $4 billion a year below what they were when the government took office. That is $4 billion that should be going into health care services in the country which the Liberals have taken out and not returned.

The government talks about wanting to help our children. Look at its track record on that. Ask aboriginal children how well the government has looked after them. Many of them are living in poverty and squalor, and they lack services.

What about military families who are getting by on subsistence wages with substandard housing? The government is totally responsible for the wages and housing of our military and their families.

What about farm families, children who are losing their entire heritage while the government stands by without a word?

What about the children whose parents have hepatitis C from the ineptness of government? The government says “Sorry, your parents cannot get insurance. They cannot get mortgage insurance. They cannot do a lot of the things they need to provide for you and your future. Too bad, you lose”. That is how the government looks after children.

I have already mentioned health cuts. How do they impact parents and children? Yet, the government has the nerve to say it cares about children and families when everything it has done in the past shows completely the opposite.

We need a plan that will really carry us into the future, with something solid that we can count on and something that really gives us choice, flexibility and a bright future. That plan was enunciated in the House by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech that had the substance that this tired, sad, incompetent government failed to deliver.

I commend to all Canadians the plan we have put forward, which would give real choice, flexibility, freedom and the protection of family resources and the resources for which we all work so that we could build the future we want together.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill. I thought she gave a very thoughtful analysis of the throne speech.

I see some commentators have taken to calling this the drone speech rather than the throne speech in that it lacks a vision for our country entering a new millennium.

I thought my colleague said it pretty well, but I am really interested in her analysis of the government's 50:50 proposal for spending our so-called surplus. I would like to find out where my colleague stands on the whole issue of 50:50.

In my mind it sounds good. However, I think the Canadian public are being fooled into thinking that 50% will go toward new spending and 50% will go toward the reduction of the debt and the massive tax burden in this country. In fact, we are finding out that basically there is no surplus to split 50:50. I would like to have her analysis of that situation.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue is, is government spending enough of our money or not? That is the real question that Canadians will be asking themselves. Most Canadians are saying that the government spends enough of their money and that it spends a whole lot more of their money than it should.

Our money is burning a hole in the pocket of the government. It thinks of wonderful new ways to spend it, like sending young people across the country who are trying to get an education, some skills training and looking forward to a stable job with a decent income. It thinks of feel good programs instead of the substance that our country needs. Then the government says “We are going to spend half of your money for you because we know better”.

The real question for Canadians is, do they want government spending more and more of their money? Or, do they want to say to the government that it is spending enough, that it needs to put some of the money it has been spending on wasteful, frivolous things back into key programs like health care, solid education for our children, proper salaries for our military and addressing the real problems of this country?

Let Canadians spend their own money. They will do it better than the government.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member who mentioned the children on reserves, the lives they are leading and the squalor and poverty that exist.

As she knows, I spent two years visiting the homes of these people across the nation and it is a very broad and serious problem. We always look for explanations, and I am sure that she does not have any. I know I do not.

I would like her to comment on why in the world a government that has been in power for the length of time that this government has would continually ignore the auditor general's statements which blasted the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for its lack of accountability in looking after these matters. Why does the government continually ignore that?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I commend my colleague from Wild Rose who has spent more time talking to real aboriginals about their real life problems than, I would dare say, either the minister or anyone in the minister's department.

I believe that the government cares more about its image, its legacy, about politicking and feel good words than it really does about doing something serious, practical and specific for the people of this country.

The hon. member for Wild Rose is one who knows very well that when it comes to delivering, the government gets a big fat zero.

[Yolande Thibeault, Liberal, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Chatham—Kent Essex.

As we all know, my role as Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole limits my interventions in this House to procedural matters. I am therefore grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for finally giving me an opportunity to speak to my colleagues about a topic which is dear to my heart and which was mentioned briefly in the throne speech. I am referring to the plight of the homeless.

Naturally, however, I want to begin by thanking my constituents in Saint-Lambert, to whom I owe the great privilege of sitting in this place.

My riding consists of four large municipalities: Greenfield Park, Lemoyne, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, the western portion of the city of Longueuil and, finally, Saint-Lambert, which gives my riding its name.

As is the case with many urban ridings in Canada, contrasts abound between and within these four municipalities. They are essentially suburbs of Montreal—what are often referred to as bedroom communities—where the quality of life takes precedence over industrial activity. The proportion of anglophones, francophones and new Canadians also varies widely in the municipalities contained within the riding's boundaries.

My constituents back home have been generous enough to put their confidence in me. I renew my pledge to represent them loyally and efficiently, notwithstanding their social background, their cultural origin or their political affiliation.

But I also wish to pay special attention to a very serious problem. That problem is homelessness, the terrible and hopeless situation in which thousands of homeless people, particularly youth, find themselves.

The gap between those whose circumstances are improving and those for whom, on the contrary, they are worsening, also exists in my riding. At the close of the century, with the effects of globalization and technological innovation increasingly transforming not just relations between countries but also the daily lives of all citizens, I feel we must pay special attention to the life of the community.

In fact, I believe that one of the vital roles of the governments of today, as well as of each and every member of this House, must be to work toward the economic and social integration of all those who are at risk of being pushed aside in a competition-, innovation- and knowledge-based economy.

In this context, the situation of the homeless is a particular concern. It is true that this is a problem that is hard to get a proper handle on. There is no typical homeless person, although we are too often tempted to lump them all in together without thinking.

In reality, all homeless people have their own stories, their own experiences, their own lives. They may be children abandoned by their parents, ruined businessmen, battered women, aboriginal people who have not managed to integrate into big city life, refugee claimants, or people who have been released from correctional or psychiatric institutions and are having difficulties fitting back into society.

People end up on the street for all kinds of reasons. Among the main causes of homelessness are: mental illness, family violence, addiction, poverty, loss of income, less affordable housing, and migration to major urban centres.

In Ottawa, our nation's capital, an estimated 4,500 people including 375 families with children are homeless. As a matter of fact, the fastest growing group of homeless is families with children, and 18% of the homeless population of Ottawa are children under the care of single parents.

In the street, all suffer in the same way, young and old, university graduates and the functionally illiterate, members of our first nations and recent immigrants; all are discriminated against in the same way. What almost all of them have in common is the fact that they did not choose this lifestyle and cannot change it unaided.

I take great pride in being part of a government that has set itself the priority of improving the quality of life for all Canadians.

In particular, we set up several programs specifically for the homeless. However, these measures could lose their effectiveness and end up being too scattered if they were not all co-ordinated by a single minister. Fortunately, the Minister of Labour and federal co-ordinator for activities related to the homeless displays remarkable energy and sensitiveness in dealing with this delicate and complex task. The Canada-wide tour that she did this summer to consult stakeholders shows that she is taking that responsibility very seriously.

When the governor general read the throne speech last week, I was very pleased to hear her say that “the Government will continue working with its partners in all sectors to address the root causes of homelessness”.

However, even a government with the best of intentions, or all levels of government working together, can never solve the problem of homelessness without the support of the whole population. Homelessness is a societal problem that must absolutely be dealt with by society as a whole. It is imperative that we develop common approaches and initiatives with all public administrations, community groups, educational institutions, the private sector and everyone who wants to contribute to the betterment of their community.

As Canadian citizens we are justly proud of our first place ranking in the United Nations human development index, but such classifications are meaningless for the individuals who struggle every day to find something to eat and do not know where they will be sleeping at night.

Over the years successive Canadian and provincial governments have achieved much, more than most countries in fact, to provide Canadians with an effective and affordable social safety net, but we still have a very long way to go before coming to grips with the problem of homelessness. Homelessness is growing in number and diversity at an accelerated pace.

All Canadians are about to celebrate, in their own way, the arrival of a new century and a new millennium. This is an opportunity for us to proudly celebrate a remarkable past and to look confidently to a promising future.

On the occasion of my first speech in this house, I am making the wish that, during these celebrations, we never forget that thousands of our fellow citizens need us in an urgent and critical way. We must listen to them. We must speak to them from the heart.

There are of course no homeless people in this house. However, each and everyone of us here represents some of these people in the Parliament of Canada. The homeless, as well as all those who live in need and uncertainty, are also Canadian citizens. They too are entitled to a brighter future.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the problem of homelessness.

She made a very eloquent and good case for concern for the homeless. It is a very important issue that must be dealt with. She also mentioned that she is pleased to be part of a government that made the statement in the throne speech that it would continue working with its partners in all sectors to address the root causes of homelessness and to help communities respond to the needs of their members for shelter and other support. Other than that sentence I did not see anything concrete to tell me what the government is actually doing to help those people who are living on the streets and who were so aptly described by my hon. colleague.

Would the member comment on what practical steps she sees the government taking to provide a housing program, or something which will address the issue in a very concrete fashion?

[Yolande Thibeault, Liberal, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind comments. Indeed the Speech from the Throne was not very specific on the provisions the government intends to take to try to solve the problem.

As I mentioned in my speech, the Minister of Labour travelled widely throughout Canada last summer. We will receive her concrete suggestions in the very near future.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened to our colleague's speech. The problem with the government is that it talks a lot but does nothing.

First, there was the appointment of the minister for the homeless, an appointment without portfolio. Then employment insurance. This I will repeat until the next election: How will people manage, especially the women, many of whom work part time and cannot obtain employment insurance because of the number of hours required?

I would like our colleague to tell us what this government, which she so strongly believes in, intends to do or should do if it really wants to help the homeless in the country, not only in words but in deeds.

[Yolande Thibeault, Liberal, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. The Prime Minister has already taken a big step by asking a minister to take on the problem of the homeless.

This is a relatively recent problem. It is new in the scope it has assumed in recent years. I remember watching American television programming on street people and reading reports in American papers about them, like many of you. We thought the Americans had a problem and one that we would not want here.

Unfortunately, however, it has arrived here now, and I am sure, with all the work the Minister of Labour is doing at the moment, we will have results very soon. In any case, I hope so and I hope we will have the co-operation of all the members of this House as well.

Canadian Forces

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 3, 1998, the Canadian forces dental services forensic team became involved in the response to the crash of Swissair flight 111. The dental forensic operation lasted until the identification centre, located at 12 Wing Shearwater, closed on October 30, 1998.

Throughout Operation Persistence the 46 team members drawn from across Canada provided over 7,500 hours of forensic dental services that were crucial in identifying many of those lost in this tragic mishap. They performed superbly under extremely demanding and emotional circumstances that required a special kind of fortitude, stamina and emotional strength. Few of us can imagine the trying circumstances under which these personnel served.

On October 12, the chief of defence staff presented a Canadian forces unit commendation to members of the team in an official ceremony that recognized their exemplary actions.

I would now ask all members of the House to join me in acknowledging the fine work performed by these dedicated people.

Child Pornography

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians trust the Liberals when they say they will protect children and then avoid positive action on the possession of child pornography?

The recent throne speech said that the government would work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to be safe. Its focus will be balanced, combining prevention and a community centred approach with action to deal with serious crime.

Child pornography is a serious crime and in response on Friday 300,000 Canadians voiced their community-centred approach through a petition against child pornography insisting the government defend the law.

In response, the justice minister accuses Reform members of being scaremongers. Obviously the minister does not feel obligated to the community will, and also has no ability to get cabinet approval for action.

Children are the most vulnerable members of society and they deserve the fullest protection of the law. Liberal sentiments delivered in regal fashion do not close legal loopholes or defend families. The poor Liberal justice system will only be improved when the system defenders are replaced by the system changers in the opposition.

Ywca

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October 17 to 23 is the YWCA's fourth annual Week Without Violence.

Each year the YWCA holds activities across Canada that help to raise awareness about violence in our communities and its impact on all of our lives. Last year local activities and initiatives touched over 20,000 individuals. This year's focus on youth is expected to touch even more lives.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the YWCA for its ongoing efforts on behalf of all Canadians. I would particularly like to congratulate the YWCA of Cambridge for its ongoing dedication to making our community a better and safer place to live. I would encourage all Canadians to participate in local activities during this year's Week Without Violence.

Médecins Sans Frontières

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Nobel Peace Prize for 1999 has been awarded to Médecins Sans Frontières.

Founded in 1971 by a group of French doctors and now active in 80 countries, including Canada, Médecins Sans Frontières provides direct, in the field medical help to victims of armed conflict, without regard to political allegiances.

The committee of the Norwegian parliament which chooses the laureates has normally favoured national political leaders but it has also recognized non-profit, humanitarian organizations. The International Red Cross has been honoured three times, beginning with the first award to the Swiss founder, Henri Dunant, in 1901. The Nansen committee and the later UN High Commission on Refugees have also been recognized three times. The Institut de Droit International was an early laureate in 1904. Very recent recipients have included the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in 1985, the Pugwash Movement for Nuclear Disarmament in 1995 and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines in 1997.

The award to Médecins Sans Frontières continues this contemporary trend of recognizing the role of volunteer, grassroots, private citizens' organizations in advancing world peace today.

Women's History Month

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October was designated Women's History Month by the federal government in 1992 to celebrate the past and present contributions of women in Canada and to recognize their achievements as a vital part of our Canadian heritage.

October was chosen because of the historical significance of the Persons case. On October 18, 1929, after a lengthy political and legal battle led by five Canadian women, the British Privy Council declared that the reference to persons in section 24 of the British North America Act did indeed include women, thus making them eligible for appointment to the Senate.

Today marks the 70th anniversary of the Persons case decision and the 20th anniversary of the Governor General Award in commemoration of the Persons case. May we congratulate the five Canadian women who will receive this year's Governor General Award.

These remarkable women have followed in the footsteps of the famous five of 1929 and the 107 other Governor General Award recipients since 1979.

Agriculture

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a recent Angus Reid survey shows 46% of prairie farmers are seriously considering getting out of farming or have already ceased operations because of high taxes, unfair foreign subsidies and low commodity prices.

By the end of this year, thousands of farmers will be forced from their farms, not by choice, but by this government's inaction and lack of interest.

Unless the government takes immediate action to resolve the farming crisis, our farmers face a bleak future.

The Prime Minister continues to boast about Canada being the best place on earth to live. I wish he would face a group of Canadian prairie farmers and make that statement. But true to form, the Prime Minister and his government will continue to avoid addressing this very important issue.