Debates of March 21st, 2001

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his remarks. He brings a usual calm, deliberate approach to the debate. He has made a number of graphic illustrations on how things have gone on a dysfunctional track in many instances.

My question to the hon. member is about debate in the House in terms of how we might improve the way we interact with one another. We have had a number of occasions where we have looked to the Speaker to be more interventionist and to act a bit more like a referee if rules are being flouted, if closure is being invoked too soon, or if omnibus legislation is deemed to be improper. We have seen the theatre of the absurd in question period with members of the government not answering questions.

When somebody is asked a direct question, particularly in debate where members tend to interact on a more one to one basis, sometimes the question is asked for partisan reasons but there is a point behind it. The question is asked to illustrate something that is perhaps difficult to reconcile, given the circumstances. Does the hon. member favour having the Speaker try to keep members more on topic and force them to be more relevant in the way in which we interact in the Chamber?

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Speaking of referees, I imagine we could give you a whistle, Mr. Speaker, and we would have this place under control in a minute. I would have to agree with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that the Speaker should be given more control.

I speak to lots of kids in high schools about their attitude toward each other. I will use the same words that I use with them. It boils down to having a bit of respect for each other in this place. More than anything else, the bottom line is that we need more respect for each other in this place. We can disagree because that is what this is all about, but we need more respect for each other. It would make the Speaker's job a lot easier if we could bring that about.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and we are approaching midnight. The fact that so many members are present and anxious to continue debating this matter speaks a great deal to the passion and determination on the part of parliamentarians from all parties in the House about the need to change this place to make it more functional and to regain the golden age of true parliamentary tradition that many have spoken about today.

I feel an obligation this evening, no matter how late, to put forward my thoughts and to repeat some of the concerns expressed by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I feel that compulsion in part because the seat I represent was held by two of the greatest parliamentarians this place has ever seen.

I follow on the heels of Stanley Knowles and David Orlikow, two individuals who devoted their entire lives to service on behalf of the people they represented and in the interest of preserving parliament and all its traditions.

Those two individuals certainly taught me, and I am sure many other members of the House, the importance of preserving and respecting the role of the individual member of parliament and always coming back to that driving force which caused all or us to run for political life and to enter this place.

Stanley Knowles and David Orlikow epitomize the desire to serve public office in order to represent and empower constituents. The desire to pursue change, to devote our lives to using parliament to make society a better place, from whatever perspective we come from, from whatever political philosophy that is driving us and encouraging us in our chosen career, and the desire to empower the people we represent is surely the essence of the debate tonight.

Some have suggested in the course of today's debate that there are other motives, that in fact some of us are trying to grab more power for the sake of having more power. Some have questioned individual motives and intentions. I hope that is just an indication of the frustration members are feeling about this place in terms of it being a functional institution.

I believe there is not a person in the House who is seeking to change the rules, to push for parliamentary reform, just to have more power, just to wrest power from the government or just to have more avenues to embarrass the government of the day. We are all seeking and striving for parliamentary change to allow us to be more effective members in doing what we sought to do when we entered this very difficult career path.

As the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona said, this debate is all about getting some balance in this place, about giving members the ability to exercise the responsibilities they have embarked upon. It is about living up to the notion of independent minded elected representatives. It is about allowing MPs to play a decisive role on legislation and to pursue the role that electors expect of us, which is to be watchdogs of the public purse.

We are desperately trying to rebalance power in this place and to deal with the fact that power has shifted so much from individual elected representatives, from members of parliament, to forces outside the elected arena. It has shifted to forces outside parliament, to forces with little accountability and ability on the part of people to know that they have some control, some power and some ability to influence the shape of their own lives and the destiny of the country.

The debate is surely about trying to ensure that we can participate in the democratic process to encourage the people we represent to be more active in democratic institutions, in the political process.

How do we deal with the sense that people have of being helpless and hopeless in the face of many external factors when we start feeling helpless and hopeless in this place? Could there be any among us who do not feel helpless and hopeless from time to time and sometimes more often than not?

I entered this place in 1997 with great expectations, anticipation and hopes about being able to exercise the responsibilities handed to me by the electors of Winnipeg North Centre. I held out great hopes and aspirations about being able to influence the course of events and being able to pursue change, the very force which caused me to enter politics in the first place. I am not discouraged and I have not given up, but I can say that my experience in this place has been much less than I expected.

I made a deliberate decision to move from provincial politics to the federal arena because I believed that there were traditions and institutions, as a part of this place, that would allow me to be an effective representative and to give me the opportunity to pursue the kind of change that I thought my community needed.

It has been rather disappointing. I especially expected that this place would offer an opportunity to pursue thorough independent research and investigation through our process of standing committees in the House of Commons. I expected that because it is a process we do not have in the Manitoba legislative assembly. We do not have standing committees that function on an ongoing basis which allow for independent research and investigation. Needless to say I have been very disappointed by what I have experienced, at least with one committee in the House.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Not the health committee.

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

My colleague says it for me, the health committee. I want to say the health committee may be unique in terms of being dysfunctional. However, based on what I have heard today, it is not that out of character. We have a systemic problem in terms of our committee system.

Our committees, and certainly the health committee, are used and abused by the government of the day. We have problems with the chairing of our meetings but our problems go much deeper. I have said this before in the House. Our fundamental problem is that the committee system has become a tool of the government to shape its own agenda. We are used to keep busy, to rubber stamp government programs without being allowed to pursue any kind of independent research and thorough investigation.

I do not need to go into great detail tonight about all the difficulties we have experienced on the health committee. Suffice it to say, we have to change the system because we are not doing our job as parliamentarians. We are not serving the public on some of the key issues of the day.

When it comes to the health committee we have been used by the government and directed in terms of our efforts as opposed to being allowed to pursue what is clearly at the top of the minds of Canadians. That certainly has to be at the heart of what we do. We have to be allowed the ability and the resources to pursue the issues that are at the top of the minds of Canadians.

In terms of all the issues being discussed today, if we can do one thing, that is if we can reform the committee system and allow members of parliament to do thorough independent investigative research on issues that are at the top of the minds of Canadians and need to be explored by parliamentarians, we will have done parliament and the country a great service.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whereas it is now midnight, for all intents and purposes I wonder whether we could give permission to the pages, if they wish, to take their leave of this place. I am sure we could manage without them for now and that they need to sleep so they can study.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not see any opposition to the suggestion by the hon. member for Elk Island. I suppose we could call it a day for our pages and we will carry on.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, parliament Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member who just spoke is too modest. She has a good reputation in the House, and it is well earned, for being prepared and doing the best that she can with the resources available. I think all members would agree.

Let us not be too full of ourselves, though, because we all know that 99.99% of the people in this place could never get elected as an independent. Therefore, we cannot consider ourselves to be members of parliament elected to come here to do a bunch of things as members of parliament.

I believe the member would concede that we are elected primarily as members of a parliamentary or political team. We run under a banner with a leader, with policy. In fact, what the people are voting for is a parliament. They are voting for members as members of a team. If their team forms the government, they expect them to work very hard to implement the platform they brought to the House with them. If their team is not elected to government, their role will be the role of the opposition.

We have the official opposition. We have the other parties of the opposition. Their role is not to govern. It is to be the opposition and to do it very well. It is to seek accountability where there is none, to seek clarification where there is none, to seek information where there is none, and to point out deficiencies where there are deficiencies. It is a very difficult job. Many backbenchers in a majority government would say the opposition members have a better job because they have an opportunity to become national figures. They ask the questions they want to ask during question period.

Opposition MPs are different. Government MPs have a responsibility to support the team and the platform on which they ran and on which they were elected. They have a constitutional obligation to follow through on the things they ran for. If as a member of the government team I cannot support the government platform, if I cannot stand here to vote in favour of it, I should not be a member of that caucus. I should withdraw from the caucus and sit as an independent or maybe even resign.

Perhaps the member would like to comment on anything I have said. In fairness, it is how I feel about the different roles of opposition members and government members.

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

Mr. Speaker, in case my comments were misinterpreted by the member, let me be clear that I was not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting we leave aside our political labels and forget about the party system. I am a firm believer in responsible government and in the role of political parties. I bring to this place my views as a New Democrat.

I want to be clear with the member that when I talked about independent research at the committee level I was talking about work that is independent and free of political manipulation by the government of the day. That has been the experience of those of us who have served on the health committee for the past four years.

I am not sure if any other committee has experienced this, but each and every time our committee sat down to determine the agendas and the projects we wanted to undertake, the Minister of Health sent a letter to the health committee suggesting the topic of discussion and the Liberal members around that committee table sat and said “Yes, sir; no, sir; three bags full, sir”.

That is the kind of difficulty I am talking about. I am not talking about giving up our party philosophy and our commitment to the beliefs that brought us here. I am talking about a process, a system of committees that allows members to sit around the table and reach some agreement based on the priorities of the public and based on the issues of the day. We have not been allowed to do that in the health committee.

I ask the member for Mississauga South to work with us to end political manipulation and interference by the government in the work of a standing committee of the House.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate.

Members of parliament are supposed to be elected to come to this place, to provide solutions to problems and to contribute to the improvement of our nation's policies. What we have seen over the last decade more than ever before is a significant growth in the concentration of political power in the Prime Minister's Office.

As the executive branch of parliament gets stronger, our legislative branch, the House, gets weaker. MPs find themselves with less meaningful roles to play in our legislative process. The opportunities for members of parliament to improve legislation and participate in policy development is decreasing. Members of parliament and Canadians become frustrated.

The long term objective of political parties is success in elections. It is at the expense of or to the detriment of the work we are supposed to do here. The government often chooses to pass legislation as fast as possible. This thwarts the efforts of the opposition parties to ensure that the House passes the best possible legislation.

Opposition parties are not willing to let legislation pass quickly for the sake of passing it, so they tend to slow down the passage of legislation for the purpose of improving it. The government uses time allocation and closure to curtail or even shut down debate in the House to prevent the efforts of opposition parties.

The weak Liberal government has an abysmal record when it comes to using closure and time allocation to limit debate on the business of the House. This results in a less co-operative atmosphere and produces a more confrontational environment in the House. The media dramatize and promote that confrontation. This parliamentary battlefield prevents the House from pursuing its mandate to be a forum that improves legislation and forms or tests new policies. It causes debate to be redundant and meaningless many times.

Very few members of parliament attend the daily debate in the House. Most MPs leave the Chamber immediately after question period. Debate in the House should allow for passionate arguments to provide political persuasion. Debate should be free, open, fair and not subject to arbitrary limitations.

The proceedings of the House have become no more than a formal exercise. Members of parliament, the media and the public in general pay very little attention to debate in the House. On the government side most of those speeches are scripted anyway.

The Prime Minister never attends debate in the House, while cabinet ministers also very rarely—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I remind members not to reflect on the absence of members.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the intervention. I will take your advice. The purpose I was trying to communicate was that debate should be meaningful and more members should be listening and participating in debate in a meaningful way.

Nothing in the contributions during debate changes what cabinet has decided. The ministers adopt none of the recommendations made by members of parliament in debate in the House.

The outcome of the votes in the House can be predetermined because there are no free votes allowed by the government. Not everything has to be a vote of confidence. In other words, what I am saying is parliament has become a rubber stamp for the agenda of the Prime Minister's Office and the passage of legislation is reduced to a formality or a constitutional requirement.

All MPs are in the House for question period anyway. Why will the government not allow scheduled votes to take place immediately following question period? It would save some time.

Speaking of question period, the defining moment each day in the House is question period and it has become a circus. There are virtually no informative answers given even to important questions asked during question period.

Private members' business is another example of where the influence of individual members of parliament has been diminished. Virtually none of the private members' bills or motions are passed by the House. The very few that are passed are usually killed in the Senate. All private members' business should be votable.

The resources available at the House of Commons to assist private members' business have either shrunk or dried up. This includes legislative drafting lawyers. Private members' business is just like a pacifier given to a baby. The baby quietly keeps on working with it, in the hope that something will come out of it. Despite a lot of hard work, nothing comes out of it. That is what private members' business has become in the House. Nothing comes out of it.

The committee system in this place has become more important than the work in the House because that is where the field of action has moved. Even the committees are stifled because of the partisan nature in which they operate. Their membership is dominated by a majority of government members who tightly control the work of the committees. Government members often gang up on opposition members.

The chairs of the committees are appointed or designated by the PMO. They are not elected. Future business of the committee and witnesses to appear before the committee are decided in a partisan manner.

The government is also fighting to prevent committee hearings from being televised. It knows that the way it runs committees is a farce. Ministers just go there to introduce bills but do not hear the witnesses, the debates or the amendments to legislation with which the committees deal. Debates in committees also become redundant and meaningless most of the time.

Canadians engage in a great deal of time and effort preparing petitions. After the submission of petitions in the House by their representatives, the petitions are put on a shelf and a small reply, which is meaningless most of the time, is issued after a few months. The government takes no effective action on petitions. Since I have been elected I have not seen any significant action being taken by the government on petitions.

Whenever delegations from the Parliament of Canada travel abroad, it should be a team effort. Many times opposition MPs are denied briefings and are left out of some of the events and meetings abroad.

The ethics counsellor should be appointed by parliament instead of by the Prime Minister and only reporting to the Prime Minister.

An additional standing committee should be created and chaired by the opposition. Its mandate should be to review and report to the House on all aspects of acts and reports of the privacy and access commissioners and of the ethics counsellor.

The appointment of the clerk of the House, with due respect to the clerk who is a very nice person, by the Prime Minister defeats the purpose of election of the Speaker by the House. The appointment of officers of parliament, for example the privacy and access to information commissioners and auditor general, et cetera, should receive a committee review before the motion is presented to the House.

Most of the time too many government bills are empty of content. They do not go far enough and are only window dressing. I am talking about many bills. Too many government bills are followed by a large number of regulations which are not debated in the House. I consider that to be governing through the back door because regulations which control the whole intent of bills are not debated in the House.

[An hon. member]

You are speaking the truth.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Absolutely. The government prevents the House from dealing properly with the expenditures of the government. The supplementary and interim supply budgets are hardly dealt with at all. Even the scrutiny of money spent by the government, the real purpose of being here, does not occur in the House most of the time.

With the large number of MPs being re-elected and returning to the 37th parliament, the time is ripe for change. MPs should be considered as a resource, capable of adding value to the legislation introduced by the government.

Committees should be used to test the soundness of policies in different parts of Canada. This could help to bridge the gap between regional differences that we saw in the last election. Strengthening committees could also result in a more public or transparent legislative process. It could also contribute to a diffusing of the confrontational environment in our parliament. This in turn would enhance the public's image of parliament.

The present parliamentary system is an assault on the rights of the elected representatives of the Canadian people in the House. This government must wake up to the needs of people in the new millennium.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to light that members of the Canadian Police Association were just on the Hill to politely lobby all members of parliament to address some very serious concerns that the security personnel of our country, our front line enforcement officers, want to bring to the attention of all members of parliament in a very serious manner.

To their surprise, they were advised that all the Liberal members of parliament were given speaking notes by the Prime Minister's office on what to say to them when they got here. It is absolute nonsense when members of parliament cannot even speak their own minds or freely offer an opinion.

Talk about manipulation 101. It is absolutely incredulous that the government would even attempt to do that. I understand it happens all the time.

Would my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance Party comment on that, please?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, who works very hard, like a few the other members in the House, for his valid question and valid concern. It is not only of concern to members of the House, it is also of concern to the public.

This is the highest Chamber in the nation and we are honoured and privileged to be here to represent our constituents. However, when we are muted not to say what our constituents are telling us to say in this Chamber, that is an affront to democracy. In my opinion, it is not only anti-democratic, it is a dictatorship in the House.

The hon. member noted one particular occasion where members were given talking points and could not talk outside those talking points. That is a shame. We need parliamentary reform in the House so that members are able to speak their mind in the House.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to pay homage to the member for Surrey Central who, I suspect, if one were to analyze Hansard , speaks more frequently on bills and motions than any other member of this place, certainly of my party. One exception might be the hon. member for Pictou-Antigonish—Guysborough who has to carry about four different portfolios.

The member for Surrey Central is profligate in his contribution to debate here. He makes those many interventions precisely because he does believe profoundly in the importance of the deliberative function of this body. I know he has studied political science and has travelled and seen parliaments in the British system and other congressional systems abroad.

Perhaps he could reflect for a moment on whether he believes that other parliaments take more seriously the sort of debate to which he so frequently contributes than we do here in this parliament and how we could perhaps emulate the more sober use of parliamentary debate that other institutions use.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and compliments. He is a very articulate member of the House when he speaks. I always look forward to listening to him and to learning from him when he speaks.

Talking about other parliaments in the world, even smaller democratic countries have made lots of progress.

When I was the co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee I noticed that the regulations in Canada that had been disallowed, were in the pipeline for the last 25 years. When the committee contacted the ministers and other members of the government, they stonewalled the committee. Those regulations have been in the pipeline for 25 years. The number of those regulations is about 800. That is one example of how the government stonewalls its own committee.

Talking about private members' business in other parliaments, I have visited parliaments in other countries. I was amazed at how conducive the environment in other parliaments was when free debate took place. I even think the environment in Quebec's national assembly is more conducive for reasonable debate compared to any other legislature in this country. The committees have also made a lot of progress in that field.

I concur with the hon. member when he says that the government should allow free debate in the House.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is case of who is going to tire here first, you or myself.

I think this is one of the few times when we could say that the tone in the House tonight was more conversational than what it normally is. Maybe we are a little more reflective which is what comes, I guess, with the late night sessions. However it has really been an interesting night.

I have a few comments that I want to make. The member of parliament whom I replaced in the House was Fred McCain. He had been a member of parliament for many years representing a riding called Carleton—Charlotte, a riding that I first represented. He was a great parliamentarian. Before him, there was a member of parliament named Hugh John Flemming, the former premier of the province of News Brunswick. I am following in some pretty big footsteps.

One of the things Mr. McCain mentioned to me early in my parliamentary career was that my constituents want to be proud of me. That is so true. I think we all have seen that they really do.

There are some obvious examples of that tonight here in the House of Commons. We have a group of young Canadians with us. I think every member who is presently here in the Chamber is or has been involved with the Forum for Young Canadians. I know you, Mr. Speaker, have been involved in that program where young Canadians come to Ottawa and learn firsthand how parliament works. They come to question period. I know as Speaker, you have them come into the Chamber. They take seats in the House. It is really educational. I know their teachers look forward to having some of their students come to Ottawa. It is a really well run program sponsored by certain corporations, as well as the Parliament of Canada. Some very dedicated government officials make sure this program works.

I had the pleasure of having supper with those students tonight, because they always have a supper with members of parliament. I know the member from Winnipeg, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and other members were also at the supper. After supper we brought some of the young forum members over to the House to watch tonight's late night session. They were absolutely fascinated with the process of parliament. Some of us went to the control room where they do all the filming of the House with the cameras and all the technology that allows us to be broadcast across the country.

I actually took two of them into the East Block. One of these young Canadians sat down in the very chair that our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, sat in. The security guards were generous enough to let us in. It was a real thrill for them to be here. Truly, they are proud of their members of parliament. It is something that I think we should do more of with Canadians. We should engage Canadians in the process of how government works and how well it can work when we can focus on some of the big issues.

I want to specifically talk in terms of reinventing parliament and talk about some of the things that we can do in this institution that would help us a little. I think we are all offering some advice here and there, some advice bigger than others, but one of the particular things that concerns me, which I guess our House leader often calls my hobby horse of the day or my little pet peeve, is the questions we put on the order paper.

Members of parliament are entitled to four questions and four questions only on the order paper. For the viewing public, if there is anyone left out there watching us at this late hour, the reason we have questions on the order paper is because we cannot expect ministers, for example, to answer a very technical, detailed question on the floor of the House of Commons. It is impossible for them to do that. Some of the questions demand more than a 35 second response, as in oral question period, to which the ministers are restricted, so we put some of the questions on the order paper. It is our belief, as opposition members of parliament, and even as government members who sometimes put questions on the order paper, that Canadians are entitled to know questions of concern to them. They want the answers.

As an example of how flawed the system of putting questions on the order paper is, we are entitled to only four questions at a time. Presently I have four questions on the order paper. Unbelievable as it may sound, two of those questions will be celebrating their first birthday in the House in the next 30 days. I can see the Speaker grinning. It is hard to believe that a member of parliament could put questions to the government in written form which have gone unanswered for an entire year. As I said last week, I will be blowing out candles on their birthday cake very shortly. It is very frustrating.

The difficulty is that it is, in some cases, in the government's best interest not to answer those questions because sometimes it is an embarrassment to the government. The government asks why it should be in a hurry to answer questions from the member for New Brunswick Southwest or the members from Winnipeg or South Shore because if it answers those questions, more will be put on the order paper. It then stalls, and if it does not have to answer the questions, all the better because the member is limited to four questions. That is the position I am in as a member of parliament.

The questions are very serious in tone. One question has to do with the selling of 40 Huey helicopters by the Government of Canada. This was brokered out to a firm by the name of Lancaster Aviation Inc. Those 40 helicopters were actually purchased by a U.S. firm but our belief now is that these 40 Hueys have shown up in Colombia. For what purpose? That is basically sidestepping the rules that we have employed as a peacekeeping nation.

In addition to that, I have a question on 10 Challenger aircraft that were auctioned off or brokered through that same company by the name of Lancaster Aviation Inc. The question had to do with where those Challenger aircraft wound up. Again, I think the Canadian people have a right to know the answers to those questions.

In the British parliament, the government has two weeks in which to answer those questions.

If the Prime Minister of Canada, tomorrow morning, wanted answers to those same questions, would he have to wait a solid year for them? I think he would have them in an hour.

The parliamentary secretary in charge of this file is completely embarrassed, on a personal level, that members of parliament on this side of the House have to wait a solid year for answers to legitimate questions. The Canadian public does have a right to know.

That is just one small example how this place could be reformed. Some of it is common courtesy to the people we represent.

You could never get elected, Mr. Speaker, and you are a long serving member in this House, as a member of parliament if you went back to your constituency week after week for a solid year without answering some of the questions and concerns of constituents. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

All the government has to do is say that there will be a change in attitude and in culture at the time, and it will not cost us anything.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, two of the recent speakers, who are still in the House, spoke about the great members of parliament who have served before them. This gives me an opportunity to do something I have wanted to do for some time, in a non-partisan and co-operative way.

I would like pay tribute to two of the great parliamentarians who were in my riding Yukon before me. One person is Erik Nielsen, who commented on the House in a book entitled House is not a Home . The other person is Audrey McLaughlin, the first woman to lead a political party in Canada. Those are two great parliamentarians who partly shaped the history and the changes in this House. I think as former Yukoners, we should all pay tribute to them.

The member from the Conservative Party asked me where the aircraft went. My father worked for A.V. Roe. I would like to you to tell me where the Avro Arrow went?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to make sure that we have not forgotten about the Speaker. Please, when you are directing your questions or your answers it might sometime be handy to come through the Chair. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to resurrect Mr. Diefenbaker tonight. We will get the crystal ball out or maybe the Ouija board and maybe John himself could answer that.

Anyway, I do not know where the Avro Arrow is. It is a mystery to me.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Where did the GST problems go?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Where did the GST problem go? I do not know.