Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2016

Opposition Motion--Appointments to the Supreme Court

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, believe that I am the voice of the people of Atlantic Canada, where I lived between the ages of two and 11. Acadia is still very much a part of me, and that is why I absolutely had to speak about it today.

Right in the middle of summer, the Prime Minister arrogantly and unabashedly announced that he intended to change the historic process for appointing Supreme Court justices that has been in place since 1875.

More than any other, this government announcement has made me dislike the political party that currently governs our great country. Yes, like many Canadians, I am outraged by such actions and attitudes that show the true arrogance of this government.

I am saddened by this unsettling desire, so brazenly expressed by the Prime Minister, to radically alter our constitutional customs, the very customs that have informed government policy for so long in Canada.

If this Liberal government decides to change the constitutional convention for choosing Supreme Court justices without first obtaining the consent of all parliamentarians in the House, it will be going too far. Therefore, and I am choosing my words carefully, this government's actions in the past few months make me fear the worst for the federal unity of this great country.

The Prime Minister is not just interfering in provincial jurisdictions whenever he feels like it, but also interfering in his own areas of jurisdiction by planning to make sweeping changes without even consulting the opposition parties or the public. This is nothing short of anti-democratic. There are other examples of this.

First, the Prime Minister plans to change Canada's nearly 150-year-old voting system without holding a referendum to do so. It is no secret that he and his acolytes are doing this for partisan reasons and to protect their political interests as well.

Then, this same Prime Minister shamelessly suggested just this morning that he wanted to put an end to a 141-year-old constitutional convention. I am talking about the constitutional convention whereby a Prime Minister selects and appoints a judge to the Supreme Court when a seat becomes vacant while ensuring that the new appointee comes from a region similar to that of the person who occupied the vacant seat.

The purpose of this constitutional convention is to guarantee that the decisions rendered by the highest court in the country reflect the regional differences in our federation. Must I remind the political party before me that Canada has five distinct regions and that those regions are legally recognized?

The fact is that Jean Chrétien's Liberal government passed a law that provides for and gives each of the regions of Canada a quasi-constitutional right of veto. Accordingly, the Atlantic provinces, and their region as a whole, do have a say when it comes to the Constitution Act of 1982.

What is more, the British North America Act guarantees the Atlantic provinces fair and effective representation in the House of Commons. For example, New Brunswick is guaranteed 10 seats. The same is true in the Senate, where it is guaranteed just as many seats. Under the same convention, each of the Atlantic provinces holds at least one seat on the Council of Ministers.

How can our friends opposite justify threatening, out of the blue, to reduce to nil the Atlantic provinces' presence in the highest court of the country? If the government moves forward with this new approach, will it do the same to Quebec, the national stronghold of French Canadians? That does not make any sense.

I invite the government to think about this: can the Supreme Court of Canada really render fair and informed decisions on cases affecting the Atlantic provinces without any representation from that region?

Justice for Atlantic Canadians means treating them as equals. It seems the Liberals could not care less about the regions even though every one of them includes distinct communities that want Supreme Court decisions to reflect their values, goals and ideas about the world.

For the Prime Minister to suggest, if only in passing, we defy the convention whereby one seat on the Supreme Court of Canada's bench is reserved for Atlantic Canada is offensive to many legal experts and associations, including Janet Fuhrer, a past president of the Canadian Bar Association, and Ann Whiteway Brown, president of the New Brunswick branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

Echoing this sentiment are the Law Society of New Brunswick, the Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association, and the Société nationale de l'Acadie, which advocates on behalf of Acadians worldwide.

Disregarding this constitutional convention is tantamount to stripping four out of ten provinces of their voice in the highest court in the land.

Must I also remind members that the Atlantic provinces have a large pool of extremely qualified legal professionals who come from every region and background and who are perfectly bilingual? More importantly, these are candidates who have a vast knowledge of the Atlantic provinces' legal systems and issues. Is there anyone in this House, or elsewhere, who would dispute that?

Even more importantly, there are a few significant constitutional cases on the horizon that could have major repercussions on the Atlantic provinces. Consider, for example, the case referred to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal regarding the elimination of protected Acadian ridings. Hearings on this are currently under way.

Is the Prime Minister really thinking about having judges from other regions rule on a case that deals with how Acadians are represented, when Acadians have been fighting for their survival on this continent for generations?

Is that really what our friends across the aisle want? Do the Liberals from Atlantic Canada really want to muzzle New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, two founding provinces of this great country?

The change that the Prime Minister wants to make to how judges are lawfully appointed to the Supreme Court is essentially a total and complete reversal of this country's established constitutional practices. How shameful and how arrogant.

It would seem the son is following in his father's footsteps. Do hon. members not see what is happening? Just like his father before him, the Prime Minister wants to alter the constitutional order of our country.

Fear not, however, because we in the Conservative Party are not buying it. We not only see what this Prime Minister is doing, but we also see know full well that behind this change in convention is a much greater ideological design.

There is an underlying desire to profoundly change Canadian constitutional arrangements and replace them with a post-materialist world view that is a departure from our constitutional traditions.

In this world view, the main objective is to eliminate from our government institutions, in this case the Supreme Court, the historical and traditional community characteristics that have defined Canada since day one by replacing them with individual and associational characteristics.

In other words, the Prime Minister obviously wants to eliminate the political predominance of certain constituencies in the Canadian constitutional order, at the Supreme Court in particular. He wants to promote a new political predominance, that of associational groups that bring together individuals who share individual rights rather than constituent rights.

Although that may be commendable in some ways, it is a major change because the Prime Minister is ensuring that the very essence of political representativeness and the concept of diversity within the judiciary is changed. The Prime Minister wants a representativeness based on a concept of individual diversity and fragmented by idiosyncratic characteristics.

In light of this potential change, Canadians across the country, including those from Atlantic Canada, must protest and call on the Prime Minister to answer for this. The Prime Minister cannot act unilaterally in this case and must involve all the players concerned.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. I have several questions I would like to ask him.

First, is he aware that regional representation is one of the criteria that will be considered by the committee and by the Prime Minister?

Is he also aware that we support the motion that is before us today?

Can he recognize that the process proposed by the government is far better than the process used over the past 10 years? The bar was set very low.

Can he also recognize that the process will be very open and transparent? Does he recognize that for the first time in Canada's history, we will formalize what I think is an essential criterion, the bilingualism of Supreme Court justices, which is already a requirement for the position?

Can he recognize that?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my dear colleague from Louis-Hébert that it is all well and good that the committee will consider regional representation, but that it should not be a consideration. It should be a given for the government, which would do well to accept it and choose a judge from Atlantic Canada.

As for the new consultative groups, I believe that they are puppets whose role is to hide the true interests of the Prime Minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before recognizing a member, I would like to remind members to direct questions through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried a couple of times now to comment on the intervention by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North a while back. He spoke of my Conservative colleagues' perhaps lack of confidence in the highly qualified panel making the selection for the next Supreme Court position.

Much like the provinces of B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan, it is the lack of confidence Atlantic Canadians have in the Liberal government doing the right thing. The Liberals have lied to them over and over again. They made promises. There was no approval of a softwood lumber agreement. There was no approval of any job creation projects. They seemingly have forgotten the promises they made during the campaign.

I offer to the House that our lack of confidence is not in that of the selection committee. It is Atlantic Canadians' lack of confidence in the government.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is supposed to be on questions and comments on the speech by his fellow member, not responding to something the member for Winnipeg North said.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We have allowed a certain amount of latitude throughout the day and throughout the speakers, but I thank the hon. member for his point.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything my colleague said. The important thing to remember is that, in a letter published in a newspaper, the Prime Minister announced his intention to change the process for selecting Supreme Court justices in Canada. That is what we need to remember.

Just this morning, the member for Louis-Hébert mentioned that his colleagues were going to support the motion, but they announced it this morning. This is not just about supporting a motion. It is about appointing a judge from Atlantic Canada to fill the next vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned because, when I went to Halifax last week, I heard that people are worried. Members from Atlantic Canada are asking very few questions.

I am concerned because if the people in the Atlantic provinces do not feel represented here, that will be even worse if they are not represented on the Supreme Court. Does my colleague share that concern?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has 45 seconds or less to answer the question.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I completely agree with her, particularly since, if we want to be completely loyal to our colleagues from Atlantic Canada, we need to recognize that, since 1867, the Atlantic region has been shortchanged within the Canadian federation. It has been shortchanged in terms of public contracts and wealth creation. The government therefore needs to recognize constitutional conventions, not just in institutions such as the House of Commons and the executive branch, but also in the Supreme Court. These constitutional conventions are extremely important even if it is only to leave a little bit of room for the Atlantic provinces, which are at a numerical disadvantage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Sometimes we get excited and things go on. Before we resume debate, I want to remind hon. members that if they want to speak in the House, they have to be in their seat when they bring up a point, whether it is a point of order or a speaking point.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Central Nova.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to point out that I do plan to share my time with the hon. member for Long Range Mountains who is sitting just to my right.

It is always an honour to rise to speak in the House on any issue that has the importance to get to the floor, but today I am particularly excited because I have the opportunity to speak to an issue with which I am not only familiar but that I care about. It inspired me to get involved in politics in the first place and it impacts a region that I care about more than any other place on planet earth, and that is Atlantic Canada.

Today we are debating a motion in the House involving the appointment of Supreme Court justices, namely the custom to appoint a Supreme Court judge to fill a vacancy that was left after the retirement of a judge from that same region.

This whole debate arises out of the new process that the Liberal government introduced to introduce an open and transparent process that is independent from the executive and non-partisan in that it has a former Progressive Conservative prime minister, and that is different, chairing the committee that is overseeing this whole operation. This is the kind of process that the International Commission of Jurists implored the previous government to introduce when it came to the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

If we set aside just for the moment, but I will come back to it, the importance of regional diversity on the court, this process would be stellar. There would be no questions, and I expect it would not even be controversial enough to make it to the House because it would get universal support. However, on the issue of regional diversity, it is important, and I am supporting the motion for this reason. It is about federalism.

Federalism is part of the constitutional fabric that makes Canada the country that it is. As discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada, an institution I deeply respect, they described it as a political tool that promotes diversity within our country and enhances national unity at the same time.

In the Nadon reference, which I will come back to again in a moment, the Supreme Court flagged that it is not just sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act that make regional representation in government important, it is also about the understanding of legal traditions and social norms. We could supplant Nova Scotia's name or Quebec's and the argument would remain the same. I do support regional diversity on the court, and I hope Atlantic Canada is represented on the court. This idea that 32 Atlantic Canada MPs are silent while we are actively speaking out like this in the House of Commons is laughable and false.

What I really have to get to here, and this is the grand take-away from my remarks, is that given the messenger, it is hard to take this criticism seriously when we had 10 years of a Conservative government that sought to undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court of Canada, the justice system in Canada, and indeed to diminish Atlantic Canada as a region in our federation.

I mentioned the Nadon reference previously. That case revolved around the attempted unconstitutional appointment of a Supreme Court justice. In that case, what made it worse was that on the back end of the decision, the Conservative executive, the Prime Minister's Office, was involved in a spat with the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She is a tremendous jurist who we are lucky to have in this institution. Instead of abiding by a decision that they disagreed with, which would have been the mature thing to do, the Conservatives launched an adolescent spat to try to undermine the integrity of the most pre-eminent legal institution in our country. They should be ashamed of themselves.

In addition to the Conservatives' disrespect for the Supreme Court of Canada, their attitude toward justice in Canada boggles my mind. What they sought to do was spend millions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to defend charter violations time and time again, which makes it hard to take criticism legitimately from the opposite side on how we are dealing with the Supreme Court of Canada.

When it came to assisted dying legislation, the Conservatives sought to ensure that the legislation the Supreme Court required would not get passed. When it came to protecting vulnerable people such as drug addicts and sex workers, they sought to introduce criminal legislation that would make these people less safe. The Supreme Court of Canada said no, they were not allowed to do that. When it came to their attempts at Senate reform, the Supreme Court said they were doing it wrong again.

When it came to trying to deny full access to aboriginal title to our indigenous population in western Canada, the Tsilhqot’in case, the Supreme Court said no. When it came to a ban on medicinal marijuana, on the basis that marijuana cannot be a medicine that patients use, the Supreme Court said no. When it came to introducing mandatory minimum sentences, the opposition, when they were in government, took the attitude that they were better positioned as legislators in Ottawa than a jurist sitting on the ground with the accused before them and access to a full body of evidence. I cannot understand it, and again the Supreme Court said no, that is not allowed.

It is not just the Supreme Court that the Conservatives attacked, it was the justice system from top to bottom. We need to look no further than their attempts to, again, spending taxpayer dollars, refuse the integration of Omar Khadr into Canadian society. When it came to the case of Ron Smith, they got tied up in litigation that was based around the refusal to ask diplomatic services to protect a Canadian who was on death row in another country.

I apologize in advance if I get emotional about the next one because it strikes home with me. The Conservatives spent $1.4 million Canadian taxpayer dollars to deny health care benefits to refugees. I am particularly emotional about this one given the experience that my community has had in welcoming refugees to rural Nova Scotia on the eastern shore in Pictou County and in Antigonish.

I feel compelled to draw attention to one example who have now become my friends, the Hadhad family in Antigonish. They ran a chocolate factory in Damascus that employed 30 people and in a week, they lost everything, a lifetime's worth of work, to the war. When they landed in Nova Scotia with nothing but the goodwill of the community to welcome them, they started from scratch. However, they said that if they had to start from scratch they would start that day and they started making chocolate in the basement of the home the community found for them. When they were on their feet, they decided they wanted to give back and when the wildfires broke out in Fort McMurray, they donated a month's worth of profits to the relief efforts in Fort McMurray.

These are not only the kind of people we should be welcoming as newcomers to Canada, but we should be aspiring to be as Canadians. While we welcomed them to our shores, the Conservatives now in opposition spent $1.4 million seeking to deny them access to a full range of healthcare benefits and it was disgraceful.

Continuing on the theme that it is hard to take this criticism legitimately, there is a latent narrative the Conservatives are trying to push in the motion that Atlantic Canada is not being effectively represented despite the fact that there are 32 strong Liberal MPs. I find it ironic that the Conservative Atlantic MPs have been silent on this. Perhaps it is because there are none, because they do not speak to issues that matter to Atlantic Canadians.

Since the election we have been focused on growth in Atlantic Canada. We are constantly advocating for the rights of Atlantic Canadians and investment in the region. Just this summer when the Prime Minister visited New Glasgow and 4,200 people came out to see him, we had announcements of $190 million in infrastructure, $75 million in affordable housing, and $50 million in small craft harbours. These investments create work in the short term, but lay the framework for economic growth in the long term and that is what matters to Atlantic Canadians.

What excites me most is that these are not one-off investments. These are part of a strategy that was announced in July called the Atlantic growth strategy and this strategy was not something that we campaigned on. It was not in our budget. It was a plan that was formed in direct response to the feedback of 32 Liberal MPs working with the government to ensure that the interests of our region are represented in the priorities of the government, and we are having success. This plan focuses on immigration, innovation, infrastructure, trade, and tourism. These are the priorities of the Atlantic caucus that have made it into federal policy and will help Atlantic Canada grow.

It was difficult, 10 years of watching Conservatives diminish my region economically by revamping EI. Their plan for Atlantic Canada was to encourage young people to move to Alberta. The kinds of investments we are making are going to allow young people and families to stay in our region. I cannot stand here and listen to criticism either about the role of the Supreme Court of Canada or members' supposed defence of Atlantic Canada after the record they had in government. I am very pleased to stand here knowing in my heart of hearts that we have been standing up for the rights of Atlantic Canadians, acting on their behalf. I will continue to act as an advocate within our caucus and in public for my region because that is the job I was elected to do.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back and the question will also apply to this member, but we heard earlier this afternoon many members speaking and trying to change the intent of the motion. The motion was put forward to bring attention to the importance of appointing a Supreme Court judge from Atlantic Canada. Liberals have tried to twist the intent of the motion into simply respecting a custom. They show interest in it, but there is nothing to say that they would enforce having that Supreme Court justice from Atlantic Canada.

If they are going to try to change the intent of the motion, they should follow parliamentary procedure and put forward a formal amendment. However, I see no one from that side, especially from Atlantic Canada, even thinking about putting that type of amendment forward to enforce and strengthen the wording to make sure we had a Supreme Court judge from Atlantic Canada. Would they be willing to put that type of amendment forward or not?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find the question bizarre. We have a question about the opposition's motion and why we would not amend it to suit their purposes. The motion on the floor specifically refers to a custom in respect of replacing Justice Cromwell's seat on the Supreme Court of Canada. It is something that I support. However, I also suggest that when we finish question period the member logs onto CPAC and revisits the portion of my remarks that dealt with the importance of federalism to promote diversity within national unity.

I have said, and will say again, that I support the idea of having an Atlantic Canadian justice on the Supreme Court of Canada. I do today, I will tomorrow, and I will next year.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, during the speech today by my hon. colleague from Central Nova, he mentioned the Atlantic growth strategy, the historic investment into infrastructure in Atlantic Canada, and the significant investment into small craft harbours.

Does he think that those would be possible if it were not for the 32 strong voices from Atlantic Canada?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Atlantic growth strategy was not something that actively formed part of the election platform, though I would say it certainly jives very nicely with the theme of helping the middle class and campaigning on the basis of things that will actually help Canadians in my community. The Atlantic growth strategy was something that was developed through the leadership of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the four provincial premiers, and based on feedback the government received from 32 strong Atlantic Canadian Liberal MPs who were promoting values, ideas, and investments that make a difference in our community.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our hon. colleague's entire rant has nothing to do with the motion that is before the House today. Indeed, the follow-up question from our hon. colleague from across the way is only pandering to that question and that rant. We should be staying on topic, and I would expect any interventions and speeches to speak to the motion that we have before the House today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

As I have said earlier, we have allowed a certain amount of latitude. I find that the point you have brought up is a bit more debate than it is a point of order.

We have time for another question. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke glowingly to the process and criteria that were put in place. What would he say to National Chief Bellegarde and Senator Sinclair who have said that the criteria with respect to bilingualism is discriminatory against indigenous people because there might be someone who speaks Cree and French but would not have that capacity? Indeed what have been created with this new system are barriers for indigenous people to get their first seat ever on the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would thank the member for reaching out to me on this and continuing the conversation that we have been proactively starting with indigenous leaders across our entire country. The Nova Scotia caucus met for the very first time with the Nova Scotia first nation chiefs. I would say that we are proactively trying to build a relationship that has not been there for at least a decade. I would say that the court should represent all of Canada. We may not fix every single problem in a day, but we should pursue having an indigenous leader on the court, bilingual jurists on the court, and regional diversity on the court. These things are not mutually exclusive, and I would hazard to guess that there are indigenous leaders who speak more than one language as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate. Before we continue with the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism, I want to point out that we have approximately five minutes until question period. What will happen is she will be able to take up the following 10 minutes once we resume debate on this topic.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today with many of my colleagues from the Atlantic caucus, all 32 of us. Many of us were here this morning, and those of us who were not were busy doing work for their constituents and parliamentary affairs throughout Parliament, and so they were working hard for their constituents.

I am pleased to be rising in the House to speak on the opposition motion moved by the member for Niagara Falls, which does deal with regional representation on the Supreme Court and in particular Atlantic Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada affects all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Thus, a rigorous appointment process is of the utmost importance to ensure that Canadians of all walks of life can be represented in this important institution.

Our government has committed to an open, transparent, accountable process to appoint jurists of the highest calibre who are functionally bilingual and representative of the diversity of our great country. I would like to take a moment to discuss what exactly this will mean for the constituents of my riding of the Long Range Mountains in Newfoundland and Labrador.

My constituents voted for change, clearly. That change means a functional, effective, and representative government that respects the institutions of our country and our regional diversity. Atlantic Canada's representation on the Supreme Court bench is just one example of the new tone that Newfoundland and Labrador can expect from this government. Our position on the motion, presented by the Minister of Justice, is one that I am proud to take to my constituents and Canadians everywhere.

When appointing Supreme Court justices, the former Conservative government used an opaque, outdated process that desperately needed overhaul. Canadians had limited information about the nominees, and the criteria for their selection was unclear. We heard the frustration that Canadians felt with the way the former government operated.

We listened to Canadians, we heard their concerns, and we campaigned on a platform of open and transparent government. In this case, that means when we are selecting justices for the Supreme Court, our government will make public the members of the independent advisory board, the assessment criteria, the questionnaire that all applicants must answer, and certain answers provided to the questionnaire by the Prime Minister's eventual nominee.

Not only that, but the Minister of Justice and the chair of the advisory board will appear before Parliament to discuss the selection process. A number of members of Parliament and senators from all parties will also have the opportunity to take part in a question and answer session with the eventual nominee before he or she joins the bench. That means members of Parliament can truly represent their constituents in this process of utmost importance to our region.

My home town in Newfoundland and Labrador has its own unique issues, as does all of Atlantic Canada. I have one of the largest ridings in the country. My riding of the Long Range Mountains starts at the southwest coast of the island, taking in the little communities of Grey River and Channel-Port aux Basques. It then runs along the Great Northern Peninsula to St. Lunaire-Griquet.

When I mention the size of my riding, it is not just as a geography lesson for the members across the aisle about a region of the country they forgot in their time in power, but it is also to give folks a sense of the scale of the region.

It takes about nine hours to drive the 700 kilometres to Channel-Port aux Basques, and if I go to the areas on the south, it is a six-hour boat ride. With all due respect, some members from other parts of the country may not realize the sheer size of Atlantic Canada. While this is only an example, it highlights the desire and importance of having somebody on the bench who can understand the unique challenges and issues that come up when dealing with court cases at the Supreme Court.

The regional perspective is crucial and so important when it comes to future members of the bench. As I said earlier, the Supreme Court has a direct effect on every part of the country, but there are very few areas of the country where federal government decisions can have such an impact on people's daily lives. People from Atlantic Canada understand that reality.

One of the largest industries is the fishery in my riding. Because of that, when I speak with my constituents, as I did on wharves all summer, one thing is always clear to them, the decisions made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I raise this because I find it interesting that the members opposite have suddenly developed an interest in Atlantic Canada. They suddenly decided that Atlantic Canada is important to them. I find it ironic that this recognition was missing for 10 years while they were in government. It was clear that they did not understand or recognize the importance of the Long Range Mountains.

I look forward to concluding my remarks after question period.

Carp Fair

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to invite all my colleagues and all Canadians to the best little fair in Canada, which begins in the small town of Carp in my riding.

The Carp Fair, now in its 153rd year, celebrates agricultural excellence and is a great source of pride for the people of Kanata—Carleton. There will be animals, rides, games, terrific live music, and for those who like to eat, there will be an opportunity to thank a farmer.

I would especially like to thank general manager Joyce Trafford, who will be overseeing her last fair. She is to be congratulated for her 27 years as the general manager of the Carp Fair. I would also like to congratulate presidents Ron Bidgood and Tracey Zoobkoff, and the entire leadership and volunteer team for all their hard work.

I hope members accept my invitation. I look forward to seeing them in Carp.

Norman Kwong

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize a great Canadian, a great Albertan, and my neighbour, Norman Kwong, who passed away recently at the age of 86.

The Minister of Veterans Affairs, the member for Calgary Confederation, and I had the opportunity serve in the Alberta legislature when Mr. Kwong was the lieutenant-governor of Alberta. He was also a Canadian Football League Hall of Famer and a successful businessman, but he may be best known for his one-liners at sports dinners. I would like to repeat some of those one-liners, but I could not find one that was politically correct enough to cite in the House.

I want to tell members the story of when Mr. Kwong was approached by former Prime Minister Paul Martin to be the lieutenant-governor of Alberta. The conversation went something like this: “This isn't really you, is it? No, no, it can't be you.” Finally, the prime minister said, “I understand, but it is the prime minister speaking to you”, and he said, “But if I were called at 8:30 in the morning by someone who said he was Normie Kwong, I wouldn't believe him either”. So that one is politically correct enough.

I would like to thank Mary and their four sons for sharing Normie Kwong with us as Albertans in the Alberta legislature.