Debates of Feb. 6th, 2003

Supply

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance for making the debate today possible. We have before us a motion that asks that we concur in any decision by the government regarding Canada's involvement in military action. What we are doing is asking that we actually bring our involvement in a potential war to a vote in the House. That speaks to the persistence of the disintegration of democracy in the House.

I understand and I believe Canadians understand that the fact that we are actually discussing Canada's role does not mean the government will listen. However that does not diminish the fact that this debate should take place.

Unlike many members of the House, many of my constituents are directly affected by any decision to join the war against terrorism in Iraq.

As the home of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, many of the young women and men who will be called upon in service to their country, should they be called upon to actually go to Iraq, are currently serving in Petawawa.

I know the shudder that moves through a military community whenever bad news is received. I remind the Minister of National Defence that it was under his watch when the two helicopter pilots died last summer in Labrador and it is for the spouses of the dead pilots that I speak today when I join with the families of our soldiers in urging the government to take caution in whatever action is taken.

We must remember that the debate about whether or not the government is properly funding the military boils down to the people in uniform who are expected to carry out the government's wishes. As the soldiers are called upon to make do with scarcer resources, it is the families who suffer as they wait for the uncertain news of whether their loved ones will be returned to them safely.

To put this debate in context, I will share with all members of the House a letter I received recently from a constituent about the prospect of war in Iraq and Canada's participation in that exercise. The letter reads:

Yesterday was bitterly cold in Pembroke.

Nonetheless, about 90 of your constituents turned out at the corner of Pembroke and MacKay streets (me included) to demonstrate against war with Iraq and in favour of peace.

I urge you to vote against any legislation or resolution promoting war with Iraq, either in conjunction with a UN resolution or with the U.S. and Britain alone. Saddam is a monster, no one could deny that, but there are many others just as bad.

And there are some whose actions pose a far greater threat to the west than Saddam.

One inevitable consequence of war in the Middle East would be the death of many non-combatants: women, children, the elderly, the disabled.

Please use your vote in Parliament and your influence with your colleagues to prevent war and work for peace.

Sincerely, John Pepper.

I shall be thanking John for his correspondence sent on January 19, which urged me to vote against any legislation or resolution promoting war with Iraq. However I cannot tell him that we will be even voting on this.

Certain members of the government try to portray those of us in the official opposition in simplistic terms when it comes to a complex situation, when it comes to something like Middle East politics, when thoughtful observers know otherwise.

Supporting our allies any more than not supporting them is not something that we determine easily, so let us examine the facts. Saddam Hussein killed 200,000 Iraqi Kurds using high explosives and chemical weapons in the 1980s. This will be included in my letter to John Pepper.

After the 1991 gulf war Saddam Hussein killed 20,000 more Kurds to crush an internal intifada. He ordered the killing of 60,000 Shiites to pre-empt an uprising against Sunni role. Saddam is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of his own constituents, including women, children, the elderly and the disabled.

The UN inspectors have found 16 undeclared, empty chemical warheads and 3,000 pages of documents regarding nuclear weapons technology.

On January 19 Hans Blix said that a lot of the documents concerned nuclear and some missiles. They had not been declared and should have been declared. He also said that the warheads should have been properly declared and in fact destroyed.

UNSCOM said that Hussein had 30,000 such warheads, plus 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas, 400 biological weapons, 26,000 litres of anthrax, as well as botulism, VX nerve agent and sarin gas. These were supposed to be turned over and destroyed but have never been accounted for.

The onus is on Hussein to show compliance, not on the UN to find a smoking gun. When the gun is smoking it is too late.

On January 16 Dr. Blix stated:

We have found several cases where it is clear that Iraq has imported weapons related material in violation of the prohibitions of the Security Council.

Whether these items are related to weapons of mass destruction is a matter that still has to be determined. He also said that some of the illegal importation occurred as recently as 2002.

Both Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell have suggested that Iraqi leaders go into exile to avoid war. News reports in the Middle East say that Saudi Arabia and others have made overtures to Iraq about such a plan. Saddam insists that he will stay and fight to defend Baghdad despite this potential solution.

French President Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder announced on January 22 that both countries would vote against any UN resolution for war against Iraq and that they would oppose any U.S. led invasion.

By coincidence, France and Russia, both veto bearing members of the UN Security Council, have made oil deals with Iraq that blatantly contravene UN resolutions. So has Syria, a known state sponsor of terrorism, an Iraqi ally and temporary member of the Security Council.

The UN meekly accepted the eviction of UN weapons inspectors in 1998. The oil for food program has not been affected by Hussein's outright belligerence. Flagrant violations have gone unpunished for years.

The UN failed to act in Rwanda, in East Timor and in Kosovo. Thousands upon thousands of civilians were massacred. The future of the UN is at risk if it fails to act in Iraq. UN authorization to confront Saddam is already in place. There was never an armistice to end the last gulf war, only a ceasefire.

Because of Iraq's continued violation of the ceasefire's disarmament resolution, the ceasefire no longer exists. Canada must work with our allies to disarm this rogue Iraqi regime. We must work with our allies to ensure that UN resolutions are enforced.

I thank John Pepper and all the constituents from the Ottawa Valley who have written to me and for taking time to communicate their concerns. The House is divided about war in Iraq and so is the Canadian public. At the end of the day a position has to be taken and hopefully voted for here.

When faced with the choice in taking Saddam at his word versus the safety and security of our citizens, trust that I together with my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance shall put Canadians first.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully and worked hard to follow the thread of the hon. member's thought. However I got lost along the way.

What does the hon. member intend to tell Mr. Pepper who was one of 90 peace demonstrators? Could she clarify for me her and her party's position that because their sense of the United Nations potential is not up to their bar, they are advocating war and going ahead with a war against Iraq outside of the United Nations with allies. Is that going to be the content of the hon. member's letter to Mr. Pepper?

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to advocate the right of all parliamentarians to vote on whether we will participate in a war and so we all have an opportunity to concur with the decision of Parliament to go ahead with the continued war on terrorism now in Iraq.

I quoted the letter in which I was responding to Mr. Pepper. However once again I emphasize that when faced with the choice of either siding with Saddam, the way the government is, or putting the safety and security of Canadians first, I will side with the people of Canada.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is clear with John Pepper who made a very honourable stand on this issue.

The honourable thing for the opposition to do is to ask for a vote before we send the troops, not after. We cannot call back the troops when we start shooting. We cannot call back the troops when we start bombing. The vote has to take place before.

I hope, when the hon. member writes that letter to Mr. Pepper, she sends a copy of the motion which she proposes we support. I will not support this motion. If we are to have a vote, the vote has to be before, not after. Her party has a chance to change the motion now to have a vote tonight or tomorrow night or Tuesday next, before we send the troops, not after.

Will she make that change and come clean with Mr. Pepper? The honourable thing to do would be to change the motion.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the member across the floor ask his own leader, the Prime Minister, whether he will provide us with the opportunity to vote before the troops go to war.

We know the decision to go to war is an executive decision but we want the basic, fundamental democracy of having the ability, as the elected representatives of Canada, to participate in vote on such an important issue as our country participating in a war.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank the member for her speech. She has really hit the nail on the head.

What the parliamentary secretary, who is doing quite a bit of yelling all of a sudden, does not seem to understand is that Canadians expect the government to take the leadership role and show leadership. We understand that cabinet will receive information that most of us will not have in our possession, and understandably so for the sake of intelligence security and all that. I can understand that as do most people.

However what the member has pointed out loud and clear is once the decision is made by the cabinet, then it is time for it to convince the rest of us that its decision is correct and we should have a vote on that decision, not whether we call troops back. That man is way out to lunch. He does not understand the debate. That is the trouble with most of the government members. They do not seem to understand.

Take the leadership role, make a decision and convince me that the right decision has made on the basis of intelligence, then give me a vote on it. Is there anything wrong with that?

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the question that rings through my mind and the minds of Canadians across this great land is this. Will the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs state absolutely that there is positively no chance that people have been retained to launch these missing materials in Iraq, the anthrax, the VX, the mustard gas, the nuclear technology, into North America or into any of our other traditional allies' homelands? Can the ministers guarantee that there is no chance they will be attacked?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the next few weeks hold great uncertainty for our world. We could find ourselves at war, but with decisive action we might still achieve Iraqi disarmament by peaceful means.

War is a horrible thing. Let us avoid it if we can. However we cannot avoid war at all costs. If Iraq continues to challenge the will of the world, we must respond forcefully. The serious consequences of UN security resolution 1441 cannot be an effective threat without the understanding that we will follow up that threat with action. We are not at that point, but the Canadian people deserve to have this issue voted on in Parliament when we are. Today's motion is not a call to arms. It is a call for a democratic vote if military action in Iraq becomes a reality.

Any rational person does not want war if it can be avoided. The Canadian Alliance is very clear on this point. Just last week the leader of the official opposition stated in Parliament:

War is at worst horrific, and at best a terribly inadequate way of dealing with the problems of humanity.

For peaceful nations like ours, Iraq is a difficult problem. Hussein is a dishonourable tyrant. Yet this does not excuse us to act in kind. We must show honour in the face of evil. Unlike Iraq, Canada is a nation founded on justice and due process. So too are our allies, Great Britain and the United States. It is for this reason that these nations brought their cases to the UN Security Council.

I have had my doubts of the ability of United Nations to resolve these situations in the past. With all of its competing interests, the organization often acts too slowly or not at all. How the UN responds to this crisis will decide a great deal about how effective it is viewed in the future. Still, I recognize that the UN is founded upon the same principles as Canada: freedom, tolerance, inclusiveness, equality and due process of law. It is these principles that give us our strength. When the UN strongly defends these principles, it deserves our support.

Obviously after 11 years we are past the point of letting Iraq delay any longer, but if giving weapons inspectors a few more weeks might gain Iraqi compliance, I support that. Hans Blix makes his final report on February 14. We owe it to peace to wait to see if there is improvement at that time.

As leaders we also need to face the alternative. We must admit that Saddam Hussein might not comply. Iraq has wilfully and systematically undermined every term of the 1991 gulf ceasefire and every resolution it agreed to in that time since. It is a brutal regime, with little or no respect for international law or even those basic rights of its own citizenry.

These facts are not in dispute. The UN has previously issued at least 30 statements citing specific violations of the 16 binding Security Council resolutions put in place at the end of the gulf war. With the passage of resolution 1441, a strong framework for responding to the threat of the Iraqi regime was established. Yet it his report on January 27, Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix stated the following:

Iraq appears not to have come to the genuine acceptance--not even today--of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

Yesterday Colin Powell confirmed to the UN what Blix stated a week earlier; Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Satellite imagery and intercepted radio transmissions paint a grim picture of Iraq. As one intercepted radio transmission between two Iraqi officers clearly demonstrates, “Remove the expression “nerve agents” wherever it comes up in the wireless instructions”. It is pretty hard to believe that this is anything except a wilful attempt to hide these dangerous and banned weapons. It is also hard to believe this pattern of lies will change.

This comes to the crux of the difference between the Canadian Alliance and the Liberals: We have to send clear signals.

The government's response to this crisis has been a miserable failure, playing one opposition party against another but saying nothing. That is not leadership. We need to send stronger signals that Iraq's continuing deceit will not be tolerated. Canadian non-action simply encourages non-compliance and more than anything else, this non-compliance risks war.

Without the buildup of U.S. forces in the region, one has to wonder whether Iraq would even pretend to co-operate. It should be remembered there was no end to the Kosovo genocide in the former Yugoslavia until NATO ground troops arrived in neighbouring Albania.

Even France, one of the most reluctant nations to go to war, is still preparing for that possibility. The Telegraph reported on February 4 that France sent an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine and other warships toward the gulf. The French defence minister stated, “French military forces will be ready to intervene in Iraq, should the decision be taken”. Our government has not even done that.

A strong response from all nations may have an effect on the situation in Iraq. Hans Blix has asked for more time, and I support giving it to him. However it must be made clear to Iraq that time is not unlimited.

Our government has done nothing. The only hope for a peaceful resolution is to send troops over there and to camp on Saddam's back door to show him that this threat is real. Our government has sat on the fence, a timid player at best. If all the other nations did that, we would have war.

We are being painted as warmongers, but nothing is further from the truth. We want peace. The way to achieve peace is to have the entire military force stare down Saddam Hussein's throat so he knows he has no choice but to disarm. That is how we will avoid a war.

Today is about a vote. Our party has put forward this motion. The wording is complicated, but in practice it is very simple. We are asking the House of Commons to promise to hold a vote if war becomes necessary to disarm Iraq. This is no different than what was asked for in 1991. We are waiting for more information to come to light. We are not voting on whether to send troops today. We believe that would be premature.

We are only want to be assured that should the time come, the government will allow every member of Parliament to express his or her conscience. This has become necessary because the government refuses to lead on this issue. It fears to be caught in the tides of public opinion or in the heated discussions of its caucus chambers. This is not leadership. The government's political selfishness is embarrassing to our country and dangerous to world peace.

In 1991, when the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded a vote when troops were sent to the gulf war. They said that the Canadian people had the right to have their voices heard. What has changed?

If we truly believe in our values, we should stand up for them, at home and abroad, not blindly as a tool to start wars, not blindly as an excuse to avoid them, but simply and with conviction. Hopefully we will never need such a vote. Hopefully Iraq will co-operate, but we need to prepare for the alternative. We need to show leadership. We need to show the UN and our western allies that we also support the rule of law and that we value democracy and due process. We need to show Saddam Hussein that if he subverts these principles, it is at his peril.

The difference between us and the government is we want to have a peaceful solution and we can do that by having a strong military presence so Saddam Hussein takes this threat seriously. The government has at best sat on the fence and flopped back and forth and side to side. If all western allies had done that, Saddam Hussein would be laughing at us and would continue to build weapons of mass destruction.

I ask members to vote in favour of this motion so they can exercise their democratic right as their leader demanded in 1991.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that France had sent vessels to the area. I want him to know that we have many vessels in the area, one of them in the Arabian Sea.

Would he be good enough to check his facts and come back to us to correct his statement saying that we have no troops in the area. We have them in the area and we have a vessel in the Arabian Sea. For my colleague's information, geographically the Arabian Sea is very close to Iraq. If he does not know that, he knows it now.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware. In fact on Sunday I was there when the HMCS Regina sailed off. I have seen many ships leave from the harbour of greater Victoria. I have spoken to the men and women aboard ships going to the war in Afghanistan and patrolling the oil embargos.

We stand behind those men and women who are defending our country. The difference is that our country has waffled and flopped back and forth on taking a position. It has not been strong. It has not been out there saying that the way to disarm that man is to say that if he continues to subvert the process and make a mockery of it, we will be there with all of our force and might, whatever we have to offer, with our allies to ensure that the peaceful democratic world is not put at risk by that raging tyrant.

It is only through a strong military presence staring down the throat of Saddam Hussein will there be a possibility of having a peaceful resolution to this matter. That is the only thing that man could possibly listen to. The only reason Saddam Hussein has come as far as he has, that he has pretended to co-operate, is that the Americans have been staring down his throat and it is time we did the same.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the contentions of the hon. member that the only way to solve a dilemma like Saddam Hussein and Iraq is to have him staring at the end of a gun. The incongruity is that the member quoted his leader and what his comments were initially with regard to war as an instrument of state craft.

My difficulty also extends to the comments that there has been no leadership on this side of the House. Support has been given by the government to bring the United States into the Security Council, to support the tenets and articles of resolution 1441. To stand firm in all regards on putting the pressure in a united, multilateral way on Saddam Hussein has been very much part and parcel of the initiatives taken by the government.

I am at a loss to determine just what leadership is according to the member's definition. Is it only to be at the end of a gun? Is it not to include all of the work that we have done with the United Nations for many decades?

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member thinks that she is going to sit across the table from Saddam Hussein and find a nice, peaceful resolution and believe it, after what he has done in the last 11 years, it is ridiculous. If that man is going to respond, and hopefully he does for the sake of world peace, it will only be from a real threat of military action against that country and nothing else.

For the member to suggest that her government can take credit for resolution 1441, the truth be known, we are not even thought of by the other nations. Our name never comes up with the major players. Canada is a very small bean because of the Prime Minister's inability to get involved with the other leaders. He has hurt the Canadian reputation so badly through his inaction, through his lack of leadership, that we are not even taken seriously. That really could hurt Canada's interests in the future.

Shirley L. Thomson

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House of the important contribution made by Shirley L. Thomson to Canada's arts community.

When she was named director of the Canada Council for the Arts on January 1, 1998, a position she held until last December, with distinction I might add, she brought with her with her already vast experience as director of the National Gallery of Canada for ten years, and director of the McCord Museum in Montreal in the early 1980s.

Ms. Thomson was also the first chair of the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies.

A champion of funding for arts and culture, Ms. Thomson has worked tirelessly to develop the arts in society.

The triple E formula is often mentioned in this House, with respect to the other place; we might describe Ms. Thomson as a triple E woman: she is erudite, elegant and eloquent.

On behalf of all artists in Canada, I want to thank her for everything she has done for us.

Member for LaSalle--Émard

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the former finance minister's leadership campaign is a non-event. What it needs is a symbol, but what would work for the man who has everything except a fixed position? He has had more flip-flops than a catfish in a canoe. On democratic reform, Kyoto, election finance, you name it, the position seems to depend on the audience, not on any firmly held views. So I went looking for some ideas.

I said to the weather vane, “Any way the wind blows, you would be a good symbol”. He said, “No way. I have a fixed position”. I talked to the middle of the road and said, “How about you?” She said, “No. You know where I stand. Right in the middle”. Then I ran into a chameleon. The chameleon said, “I could be a good symbol because when there is trouble, I am very hard to find and when I am under stress, I change to suit my nearest environment just to blend in”.

There is my contribution to the former finance minister's leadership campaign, a new symbol: the chameleon. It is a great symbol. It could have been a dead skunk.

Food Freedom Day

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is Food Freedom Day. Today Canadians have earned enough money to pay for their entire year's food supply. It takes just 37 days out of the whole year for the average Canadian to pay for his or her groceries.

In 1999 Canadians spent 10% of their personal disposable income on food. That compares to 13% in France, 15% in Germany and 33% in Mexico.

Farmers are earning just a fraction of the average food dollar. While Food Freedom Day is February 6, January 9 is the day on which we have paid for the farmer's amount. That is right, it takes only nine days to pay the farmer for a whole year's worth of food.

Nine cents of a $1.50 loaf of bread is returned to the farmer. Sixteen cents goes to the dairy farmer on a $1.50 glass of milk. A waiter or waitress in a restaurant earns more on tips for serving the food than the farmer who produces it in the first place.

We need to recognize our primary producers so that Food Freedom Day can be a day that everyone can celebrate, including our farmers.

If you ate today, thank a farmer.

Family Mediation

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to express my support for the “Helping Families Succeed” initiative that has been launched by Family Mediation Canada, a national organization dedicating its efforts today to raising public awareness of the benefits of mediation.

Canadians have clearly signalled that families need services like mediation when parents separate or divorce.

While the amendments proposed in Bill C-22 are a very positive and timely step forward, changes to the law by themselves are not enough to improve the family justice system in Canada. Services are needed to ease the conflict and stress that come with separation and divorce and to help parents while they are making decisions about the care of their children.

Some parents need support to make decisions about their children's care. They need tools to help them minimize conflict, cooperate and work out child focused parenting arrangements. Alternative methods of resolving conflict, like mediation, can help Canadian families achieve these goals.

Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the recipients of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal for northern Saskatchewan.

They are Adam Charles from Stanley Mission; Carol Janvier from La Loche; Jason Robillard from Stoney Rapids; Francis P. Hankey from Goodsoil; Lloyd Yew from Dillon; Rachel Jobb from Southend; Leonard Adam from Fond Du Lac; Robert H. Gardiner from Île à La Crosse; Sheldon Natawayes from Sandy Bay; Marcia Merasty from Flying Dust; Robert Augier Jr. from Uranium City; Ovid Campbell from Beauval; Alice Tataryn from Anglin Lake; Oscar Beatty from Deschambault Lake; John Carriere from Cumberland House; Tammy Cook Searson from Lac La Ronge; Carol Gillis from Buffalo Narrows; Ron Michel from Pelican Narrows; Terri Daniels from Wollaston Lake; and George Smith from Pine House.

The honourees were equally recognized as elders, youth, women and men. I ask members to join me in congratulating these very special individuals.

Conditional Sentences

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

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to ensure that sentences actually reflect the magnitude of the crime.

Two street racers each received conditional sentences of two years less a day and three years probation following their convictions for criminal negligence causing death. Irene Thorpe, out for an evening stroll, was struck and killed by one of them as they raced their cars on a Vancouver street. This sentence is entirely inappropriate. Criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum of life in prison. Allowing these men to spend their entire sentences at home devalues the life of their victim.

On the same day that these two were sent home as punishment, two others were allegedly racing on a street in Abbotsford. One of them T-boned a car driven by an elderly couple, completely destroying both vehicles. The estimated speed was more than 100 kilometres per hour. Police say it is a miracle the victims survived at all. The conditional sentences handed down earlier that day obviously had no deterrent effect.

Why is the government so reluctant to send a message that Canadians will not tolerate this carnage being inflicted on innocent victims?

Eating Disorders

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, disordered eating constitutes a spectrum of behaviour such as compulsive eating, unhealthy body fat, anorexia and bulimia nervosa and habitual dieting. Obesity affects one-quarter of Canadians. Some 1% to 2% of our population are diagnosed with anorexia nervosa and 3% to 5% with bulimia. One in four adolescents exhibit disordered eating habits and behaviours. Disordered eating can affect any socioeconomic status or gender. There is no single cause or cure, but the negative health effects are clear.

February 2 to 8 is recognized by health professionals as a week to increase awareness of disordered eating. I urge the federal government to take steps to increase public education on this issue and officially proclaim February 2 to 8 eating disorders week.

Circus Industry

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers started from nothing and are now among the best in the circus business. The 24th Festival mondial du cirque de demain de Paris decided to put the spotlight on Quebec by honouring, last Sunday, the Quebec circus.

This tribute is not the result of a sudden interest. In less than 20 years, Quebec has become a key nation in the development of circus arts. The Quebec circus has a distinct identity and style. It is the Middle Ages meets street theatre, with computers and tight management.

Quebec performers found themselves under the prestigious big top of the Cirque d'hiver de Paris. Mr. Daniel Cyr, from the Cirque Éloize, won a silver medal in competition.

Denys Tolstov, of the Cirque du Soleil, won a bronze medal for his impressive handstand performance. The young troupe Les sept doigts de la main won the Youri-Nikouline trophy, given to clowns under 30 years of age, for Diabolo juggling and balance.

Bravo to these artists and long live the circus.

Community Access Centres

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

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs announced, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, a contribution of $136,000 to open eight community access centres in the riding of Repentigny.

The minister said the following:

Repentigny residents will benefit from affordable, convenient Internet access. The Community Access Program is an excellent example of partnership among governments, business and community groups.

Since 1995, more than 1,400 sites have been approved and set up in Quebec for a total investment of more than $33 million by the Government of Canada.

This is yet another example, among many, of the federal government's constant funding for projects to—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

Northern B.C. Winter Games

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Friday, February 7 marks the official opening of the 28th annual northern B.C. winter games. The games are being tri-hosted by the district of Fort St. James, the district of Vanderhoof and the village of Fraser Lake, all located in my riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

Fourteen hundred participants from 35 different central interior and northern communities will compete in 21 different sporting events. Twelve hundred volunteers will support and coordinate the games, all fulfilling the games' mission statement “to be the northern opportunity for community and sport development”.

It is a great honour for me to represent these communities in the great riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley. I look forward to participating in the celebrations this week.

I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing them well in the most successful B.C. winter games.

Black History Month

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is a celebration designed to recall, recognize and teach the importance of the history of Blacks in North America.

In Canada, this month was firstcelebrated in the 1970s and has now become an annual event celebrated across the country, particularly in large urban centres.

In order to honour and recognize Black History Month, the Government of Canada established the Mathieu Da Costa Challenge Awards in February 1996.

Mathieu Da Costa was the first of many persons of black ancestry to contribute to the building of Canada, the first recorded black person in Canada, arriving at the start of the 1600s, an interpreter who succeeded in bridging the linguistic gap between the Mi'kmaq people and the French explorers.

The Mathieu Da Costa challenge encourages students to research, discover and celebrate the contributions of Canadians of diverse ethnic and racial origins to the building of Canadian society. It helps them to develop a more inclusive notion of Canadian citizenship and identity and it underscores the values of equality, respect and tolerance which should inspire us all.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month, a month in which we recognize the significant contributions that people of black heritage have made to Canada.

As a major terminal on the underground railway, Windsor was a central destination for those escaping slavery in the U.S., many of whom settled in and greatly enriched the development of the Windsor region.

Black Canadians have, in the fields of science, medicine, business, the military, politics, arts and sports, made Canada a richer country. In every walk of life, people of black heritage have played an important but unfortunately often overlooked role in the development and growth of this nation.

During Black History Month and throughout the year I encourage people to celebrate our diverse multicultural heritage. In particular, I encourage my colleagues to take the time to celebrate the many contributions that people of black heritage have made to Canada.