Len Hopkins

[Petitions, December 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have petitions signed by many people from communities across the Ottawa Valley requesting that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.

The World Trade Organization which Canada is joining will only work if there is a political will on the part of every nation to make it work. The Americans complain about loss of sovereignty through the GATT-tough bananas. We talked about that in this House during the free trade agreement and we did not get very much sympathy for Canada.

Whenever you join a world organization there are certain things to which you have to agree and as a responsible nation you are expected to fulfil. Therefore, every nation that joins the World Trade Organization had better know where it is going.

Just because we are having a debate in this House, just because we pass this bill does not mean that there are not going to be problems. There are also going to be many positive sides to the agreement.

The hon. member for Malpeque delivered an excellent speech on this a few days ago. He talked about the business pressures that are being brought to bear on the American Congress. Today where there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic president, it probably becomes even more underlined than it was a few months ago.

A business paper presented to the American Congress simply stated: "The only way that international bodies such as the World Trade Organization gain strength is to take power from their member countries. This is precisely what the World Trade Organization does. The World Trade Organization is a stealth-like power grab by international bureaucrats of unprecedented proportions. It diminishes U.S. sovereignty. It shifts control to a world trade system from developed nations to small and undeveloped countries. Most significant, it creates an international autocracy that overlaps United States democratic institutions". That is the kind of pressure that is being brought to bear on the American Congress by its business community.

Let us turn for a moment to what the Senate bill and the House of Representatives bill actually says to implement this legislation on the World Trade Organization.

Section 102(a)(1) states the following: "United States law to prevail in conflict. No provision of any of the Uruguay round agreements nor the application of any provision to any person or circumstance that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect". How can the United States under that condition sign the World Trade Organization agreement? It is saying it is not going to abide by it before it even accepts it.

Going on to Mickey Kantor who is the trade representative for the United States on the World Trade Organization, he said: "Our sovereignty is more protected under this new agreement than it has been in the 47 years of the old GATT.

Section 102 of the implementing legislation is clear that when there is any conflict between either the Uruguay round agreement or any regulation thereunder and U.S. law, the U.S. law applies in every case".

Those words are very familiar. I remember very clearly, as other members will, having heard those same comments in this same House of Commons when we were debating the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, that U.S. law would prevail.

Those are some of the concerns that we must have in discussing this legislation. I want to come back to my initial statement that the World Trade Organization will not work unless there is a political will on the part of every nation that signs that agreement to make it work.

I have here an example of an American law that was passed in 1930 right after the great recession started. It dealt with products going to the United States. As an example, I will cite Eddy Match Co. If the match pack had the name of a restaurant on it, the made in Canada logo had to come right underneath the restaurant name. If it had the name of another restaurant, suppose it was a chain of restaurants, the made in Canada logo had to come immediately after that in the same size lettering. Everything had to be in the same size lettering.

When this did not happen, the trucks were stopped at the American border. The trucks were stopped at the American border 62 years later in 1992 because the made in Canada logo was not in the proper place on the package of matches to suit American customs. They were looking for irritants, for ways to keep Canadian products out of the United States. If this is the way they are going to operate, then how can the world receive fair treatment under these kinds of policies?

One of the ways for Canada to go in the World Trade Organization is to follow up on the excellent example set by the Prime Minister, by nine premiers and by about 375 business people, to bombard China in a very friendly way based on our relations over many decades. The visit to Hong Kong and to other Asian countries was a phenomenal success. The same process can be used in other areas of the world. We should be targeting those countries that are developing a large middle class. That is what there is in many Asian countries today.

There is a large middle class developing there that is going to be able to do business with other countries of the world. Business people could go there and talk to them and make

agreements. Selling our technology is a big route. Canada has laid some excellent bases on R and D and technology over the years.

Private industry in Canada has one of the poorest records of the big seven nations in the areas of participating in research and development. In order to make this World Trade Organization a success Canadian businesses are going to have to set more aside for R and D.

If they do not, we will be in trouble in competition down the road. If they do, we will be able to compete with anybody at the industrial level. The sale of two Candu reactors to China is one great example of what can be done.

Here is a developing middle class. Here is a country that is moving ahead very rapidly. It is going to need all kinds of energy. There is an opportunity there for us in the future for more sales. Radioisotopes for medical purposes, there is a whole market opening up around the world, particularly in Asian countries.

There will have to be a lot of emphasis put on eastern Europe. The economies there are in very bad shape. It is to the benefit of the rest of the world to try to help those countries get back on their feet so that they too become very worthwhile trading partners.

I want to conclude by repeating an article from the Globe and Mail dated January 9, 1992. I quote:

As tariffs continue to fall under the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, Canadian exporters complain that the United States is increasingly turning to the marking rules as a trade barrier to Canadian goods.

"It's a significant irritant", said Jim Moore, vice-president for policy at the Canadian Exporters' Association. "The U.S. is the only country with comprehensive country-of-origin markings."

Those things have to go if we are going to deal with one another on a fair basis. The supply management system, which is very important to Canadian agriculture, will have to be protected in some way by this government. We have high tariffs now. We had better be ready for some strong negotiations down the road because we want those things to remain in place.

Farming is an industry in this country the same as any other. It has to be managed properly and it has to have the support of the Government of Canada.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill which sets up the Department of Natural Resources. It is a very important one. It amalgamates the old Department of Energy Mines and Resources and Forestry Canada. Forestry Canada has been of extreme importance to this nation as a whole since day one of Canadian colonial history. I have said before in the House that the three things that were the economic foundation of pioneer days in Canada and certainly since Confederation were the fisheries, forestry and agriculture. All of them certainly have their challenges in today's world.

Bill C-48, the bill before us today, makes explicit reference to the minister's duty to foster the sustainable development of Canada's energy, mineral and forest resources. This means that the government's economic, social and environmental objectives will be factored into all decisions about resource development management and use.

One way the new department will pursue sustainable development is through the work of its scientific branches. Natural Resources Canada will continue to have vibrant science and technology arms in the form of the Canadian Forest Service, the Geological Survey of Canada, the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, and Geomatics Canada.

Much has been said in the House today about the rights of the provinces. We are all very well aware that the provinces have a big say in natural resources. I, coming from Ontario, also know how some of those resources have been managed over the years. It is time for a co-ordinated and sustainable development program in co-operation with both provincial and federal governments.

There are many examples of partnerships between the federal government and the provinces. Great efforts have been made to build a bridge for the two. For instance, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers from across Canada has recently agreed on a framework for future co-operation in the areas of science and technology, international trade issues, regional development, aboriginal forestry and national co-ordination.

In the energy area the department is working closely with Environment Canada officials, the provinces and other stakeholders to develop a national action program on climate change. This is in keeping with Canada's commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

This commitment follows our international obligation under the convention on climate change which Canada signed at the 1992 earth summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The reason I raise this matter is that in today's world it is not as simple as in past Canadian history to say this little compartment belongs to the provinces, this belongs to the federal government, and so on. With new technology, new demands and our outlook in the global world today we have to have more co-operation and bridge building between federal and provincial governments at home if we are going to compete effectively and efficiently.

Across the country we have several research and development institutions with regard to the forest industry. In my own constituency we have a national forestry institute located near Chalk River. It is called the Petawawa National Forestry Institute because it is actually located on property owned by the Department of National Defence.

It is very important because of the fire research. What is better for sustainable development than to have expertise in fire research out there? How many hectares of property, how many square miles of forest is destroyed every year by forest fires? Therefore the more we know about controlling fire the better it is for sustainable development.

What better program can we have than for example the research and development on the rapid growth of trees that goes on at the Petawawa National Forestry Institute? It has experimental plantations which date back to 1917.

Base Petawawa itself was first set up by the Laurier government in 1905. Twelve years later, what is called Forestry Canada today had its roots-if I may use that term-on 41 square miles of that territory which was purchased by the Government of Canada in 1905 for a military base. The Department of National Defence has honoured the research going on in that 41 square mile area. Research cannot be turned off overnight. Some of the ongoing experiments there are decades old. It is a very important institute.

Other institutes across Canada, in western Canada, Quebec and Atlantic Canada also have a tremendous amount of work going on of a positive nature for the country's forestry industry. I have no problems with the Department of Natural Resources promoting forestry research in Canada. It has always been a federal responsibility in Canada to do part of forestry research. The provinces do part of forestry research. There is no big conflict. They are talking to each other and co-operating. That

is what Canadian federalism and the Canadian national spirit is all about.

Some other very important institutions are attached to the Department of Natural Resources. I want to talk about one of my favourite subjects today. That is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which reports through the Minister of Natural Resources to the House of Commons.

I was quite concerned one day not too long ago. I was sitting in the House listening to a speaker from across the way talk about the waste and lack of productivity in crown corporations and so on. I was trying to get the floor but time ran out so I am going to say now what I wanted to say then.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a crown corporation and has been around as a corporation since 1952. It was started by the National Research Council of Canada in about 1945. I will give some very revealing highlights of this crown corporation which has been a success to the country.

Research and development is the force that drives the economy in any nation and I will give some facts. In developing Canada's nuclear energy capability, the federal government has appropriated $4.7 billion to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since 1952. That is for the last 42 years. After putting $4.7 billion into it, what is our return?

Ernst & Young, a well-known consulting firm, has made a report on that very issue and has come up with this evidence. At least $23 billion was contributed to Canada's gross domestic product by the nuclear industry from 1962 to 1992. Within a 30-year period $23 billion came back into the gross domestic product of this country from an investment by the Canadian taxpayers of $4.7 billion over the 40-year period from 1952 to 1992. If we simply subtract $4.7 billion from $23 billion there is a gross net gain of $18.3 billion for Canada's economy. And someone has the nerve to stand in the House and state that it has been a drain on the Canadian economy.

Let me give another fact. Ontario has a large industrial community. Yes it was hurt by free trade for a while but it is coming back. A rather interesting statistic is that today 60 per cent of the energy supplied for industrial and domestic use in the province of Ontario comes from CANDU reactors. If we did not have them we would have to use more coal.

Because of geography, the coal for the southern Ontario coal burning plants has been imported from the United States. Ontario Hydro estimates that from 1965 to 1989 nuclear energy has saved the Canadian economy approximately $17 billion on foreign exchange. That is because we are not shipping money out of Canada to Pennsylvania and other areas in the United States to buy hard coal for coal powered plants. Think of what the saving is on environmental issues in the province of Ontario alone.

These facts have to be put on the record because there are too many statements made which attack Canadian organizations and other traditions and institutions of the country without having the proper facts to back them up.

In the 1990s foreign exchange savings will amount to approximately $1 billion a year.

We recently sold two reactors to China. That will mean a lot of money to businesses in this country. One thing was not highly emphasized during the recent trade negotiations with China. An important event that happened during the visit of the Prime Minister, the nine premiers and approximately 375 business people to China was the signing of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty between Canada and China.

Once again Canada is leading the way in putting in place those cornerstones of international necessity with this agreement between our two countries. That reminds us of something else. It was Canada that first recognized Red China, as it was then called, and recognized China as an official state. That opened the door for the U.S. to follow. That opened the door for President Nixon's visit to China. That opened the door for some communication which was absolutely necessary during those cold war days. It has fallen upon Canada to bridge the gap between ourselves and China and other nations can follow thereafter.

Direct employment in Canada's nuclear industry in 1992 was estimated at 30,000 jobs. Direct employment increased approximately 9 per cent in a three-year period alone. A minimum of 10,000 jobs in other sectors indirectly depend on the nuclear industry, another contribution. Nuclear energy supplied 15 per cent of the total electricity across the whole of Canada in 1992 which was valued at $3.7 billion.

Private sector companies which supply nuclear products and services had total sales of $9.4 billion between 1988 and 1992. The federal government receives approximately $700 million annually from the nuclear industry in the form of income and sales taxes. Canada's nuclear industry had a trade surplus of approximately $500 million individually in recent years.

Those are some of the facts of the tremendous contribution to economic growth that I wanted to put on the record today.

The problem with research and development in Canada over the years has simply been that people look for a return the morning after investing their money. That cannot be done with R and D.

In the future we have to encourage private enterprise in Canada to do more and more R and D on its own. However government will always have a place in Canadian research and development. Certain areas of development would not take place if they were not started by the government itself. Then private enterprise moves in and there are spinoff industries and a bigger return.

Let me give one more example of something I certainly want members of the House to know. There are 690 hospitals across Canada. I doubt very much if there is a single member in this House who is not affected by the fact that those 690 hospitals are licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board to receive medical radioisotopes for their hospitals for sterilization for example.

Where do we get medical radioisotopes? From a nuclear reactor. One thing the Tories did badly when they were in power was that they sold the radiochemical part of AECL to the company that eventually became Nordion International. The whole incident has resulted in a dispute between Nordion and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. A facilitator is trying to put that together today.

Canada controls 88 per cent of the world's market in radioisotopes. The Americans heard that the former president of AECL had cancelled the Maple-X reactor which was in the process of being built. The Americans got into the act and hauled one of their old reactors out of Los Alamos. They tried to build it up so that they could produce medical radioisotopes.

One of the greatest contributions that can be made to Canada today is getting the medical radio isotope dispute settled quickly and getting on with the business of retaining the 88 per cent of world trade in radio isotopes. It has been a great contribution to medicine. A considerable amount of research into cancer and many other medical problems has been done by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

I wish the minister well in the administration of natural resources and those organizations that are attached to her department because the natural resources department means a great deal to the future of the country. We need research and development, new science and technology and a good management system for our natural resources. That means sustainable development.

[Lester B. Pearson Act, November 18th, 1994]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members of this House.

On a Wednesday morning in caucus I delivered what I thought was a great dynamic speech. After that I was sitting in the House right over there in the back row where the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is sitting right now. A note was sent to me across the floor from the opposition. That note from a member of the opposition contained the exact words I had stated in caucus that morning.

I sent the note down to the Prime Minister and the Hon. Mitchell Sharp who were sitting together. They turned to me and shook their heads because the first thing that came into their minds was that members of our caucus were leaking information. Actually that was the period when the Liberal caucus room

was wired and certain members of the opposition were listening to every word that was being said in the Liberal caucus room. They sure had my speech right.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for allowing me that extra time. I thank the hon. member for Cambridge for recognizing a tremendous individual. One of the reasons that made him great was that he had some great people around him.

[Lester B. Pearson Act, November 18th, 1994]

He has a national spirit that he is projecting today in this bill. He has stated he is proud of Lester Bowles Pearson.

I compliment the hon. member for Laval Centre for some of her remarks. Some of them I would not agree with. Everyone has their own perspective. As I speak I am not going to be partisan in this debate either. Lester B. Pearson was Prime Minister sitting just down here when I was first elected. He was my first Prime Minister. He did not have a mean bone in his body. One could fully understand sitting in this House with the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson that he was a diplomat from day one.

Indeed, that caused him some of his heartaches during the time he was Prime Minister. He was too kind to some people who were not very kind to him.

Having known Mr. Pearson on a very personal first name basis, I had great respect for him. I was one of those first elected in 1965, that great election that Walter Gordon persuaded Lester B. Pearson to call. The only benefit the Liberal Party received from that election was the 53 of us who were new to the House of Commons. When the election was called at the advice of Walter Gordon to the Prime Minister, the Liberal government in this House had 129 seats and when the final count was in on election night the Liberal Party had 131 seats. Walter Gordon had promised Pearson a majority government. He resigned from the cabinet because he had given the Prime Minister bad advice.

When we look at the background of Mr. Pearson's life he had a very happy childhood. One thing that really strikes me, as the hon. member for Cambridge mentioned, was Mr. Pearson's experience in World War I. Can you imagine what the Royal Flying Corps in Europe looked like in World War I? Mr. Pearson was a member of that flying corps for three years.

This undoubtedly was a great experience for Prime Minister Pearson. It prepared him for the great flag debate of the 1960s which to him at times must have reminded him of World War I but he persevered through that battle.

It is rather interesting that the hon. member for Cambridge suggests that Lester B. Pearson day should be the second Monday in February because it was in the month of February that the Canadian flag was first unfurled, I believe, on Parliament Hill. It is very fitting that Lester B. Pearson who led the debate for a new Canadian flag should be honoured in the same month as the Canadian flag is honoured today.

This rather timid man had many accomplishments. When you first met him he was very pleasant and accommodating. He would always talk to you about things in your riding. It gave you that feeling that this man really knows his country and his local geography.

I remember the last time I had a chance to have a chat with Mike Pearson. It was one day after he retired. He was ill at the time. He was out for a walk. I met him at the flame on Parliament Hill. His first words to me were: "Well, Len, how are things in Pembroke today?". We had a nice chat there. Then he went into hospital. It was not long after that that he passed away. Here is a Canadian who gave Canada its flag. Today our Canadian forces honour his name in the way they carry the Canadian flag around the world and when they take part in peacekeeping duties which as has already been stated he originated in settling the Suez crisis and the peacekeeping mission of 1956.

Here was a man with immense ideas. This man when he was in external affairs had a national, indeed an international vision. He looked at the Soviet Union and saw the threat sitting in the east. He saw the threat when the Warsaw pact was formed. He saw the need for a North Atlantic Treaty Organization. To a large extent he was a formative builder of that great peace organization that saw the western world through the cold war crisis. It was the match for the Warsaw pact. It held the enemy at bay. It was a matter of which side went broke first. It turned out to be the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact.

He was president of the United Nations in 1962-63. I was looking up the date of Mr. Pearson's first formal election to this House. He was appointed Minister for External Affairs in 1948. Is it not ironic that on October 25, 1948, Lester B. Pearson became the member of Parliament for Algoma East and came to Ottawa and carried on his duties as Minister for External Affairs. He won that election by 1,200 and some votes.

The hon. member for Cambridge mentioned the lack of Canadians' enthusiasm and desire to recognize their own national figures. Here was a national figure, a man who had played a major role in the founding of the United Nations. This was a man who had played a role in the founding of the NATO alliance. He came back home and ran for election and won the election by 1,200 and some votes.

Then we go on to the election campaign of 1958. I particularly like to look back on that election for one reason alone. That is that the last political meeting Mr. Pearson had in that famous campaign of 1958 when he was slaughtered politically by the Diefenbaker forces was held in the town of Deep River in my initial riding of Renfrew North. It was before an audience in the high school auditorium. He sat on a table in the middle of a platform dangling his feet and answering questions like they were rolling off a log. He knew he was going to lose the election, but he was so candid and at ease. He came back to Ottawa and ended up with 48 seats in this House for the Liberal Party of Canada.

In 1963 he finally won the election as Prime Minister. There were all kinds of issues to be faced during the 1960s. It is much like today when every time we turn around there is a new issue facing members of Parliament. Lester B. Pearson took on many of those challenges.

He realized that Quebec no longer wanted to live under British symbols. That was very clear in his mind. That was the reason he put forward such a fight for the Canadian flag. The Quebec caucus strongly supported him on that issue all the way through even when the going got very difficult. Today Canada is known around the world by that great Canadian symbol that first flew over Parliament Hill in February 1965. That was one of his ideas of Canadian unity, but he reached out to all regions of Canada to try to bring them together.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could continue. You are giving me the signal that my time is up.

I would like to talk about being with Mr. Pearson in caucus without giving away any major caucus secrets. I remember one morning I was delivering a speech in caucus. I came into-

[Lester B. Pearson Act, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure today to second the motion of the hon. member for Cambridge as he brings in his Lester B. Pearson day bill. I congratulate him and compliment him to the nth degree on his recognition of Canadian statesmanship. This is the hon. member's first term in this Parliament and this bill is a good example of his national and international vision. I am sure that he will have a long stay in this place.

[Petitions, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition by many constituents and many people from both inside and outside the constituency in places like Calabogie within, Bancroft without, Cobden, Eganville within, Kanata without, Chapeau, Quebec outside and from many other points in Canada.

The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Canadian National, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

I wrote to Canadian National real estate on February 10 asking about the CN abandoned railway line between Renfrew and Arnprior. I received no reply. I wrote again on June 10-no answer. Repeated phone calls finally produced a letter on October 25 ignoring my concerns.

Canadian National real estate cancelled an appointment to meet with me this week.

Will the Minister of Transport tell the president of Canadian National that the corporation has the responsibility to answer mail from members of Parliament and that it has no right to treat Parliament with contempt? We have to represent constituents.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for certainly raising so much attention to this great issue. I also want to thank him for reminding the Reform members that the Canadian people voted for the Liberal Party and its policies in the red book. They did not vote in favour of Reform Party policies.

I would ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, what would be the impact today if the Reform Party policies were actually in place? How would they differ from the actual policies that are going into place by the Liberal Party right here in this House of Commons? We never promised what the Reform Party is talking about, so we do not have to deliver that. What we have to deliver is what we promised.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has been very explicit in what he has said. He held up the books which contained the discussion papers. But the Reform Party is talking about figures. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands knows very well that when you have a discussion paper you do not have bottom line figures. If you had bottom line figures to go on to begin with, why would you even have a discussion paper?

I want to ask the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands what is the purpose of the discussion paper? Would he explain that. I know, but I want him to explain to these people across the way who seem to think that the Canadian public voted them into office instead of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Remembrance Day, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, every November 11 Canadians take time out to remember those who served in two world wars and in the Korean war. Now must be added the several peacekeeping and peacemaking expeditions where several young Canadians have lost their lives.

Korea was the first big test for the United Nations when the North Koreans crossed the 38th parallel. It was a case of the United Nations proving itself and its role within the international community by keeping boundaries stable or losing its clout in the world.

Sixteen nations went to the aid of the United Nations and between 1950 and 1953 brought order back from the chaos of that particular area of the world. Five hundred and sixteen young Canadians today rest in Korea.

During World Wars I and II the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Canadian Merchant Navy and the Royal Canadian Army and Canadians who served with other forces played their roles.

In World War I, 66,605 young Canadians lost their lives. That talent was lost to this Parliament, to municipal governments, to provincial governments and to all walks of life.

In 1939-45, 45,000 more young Canadians lost their lives in battle; 55,000 came home wounded. All told, including our peacekeeping expeditions, this great nation has lost more than 114,000 young Canadians in war.

Can we as members of the House of Commons today, right now, fully realize the atmosphere that prevailed in this Chamber when Canada declared war in World Wars I and II and the Korean war?

On September 1, 1939 Germany and Russia invaded Poland and Poland collapsed. France and Britain had promised that they would come to Poland's aid, and they both declared war on Germany. On September 7 the House of Commons of Canada was called into special session to decide what Canada was to do. By September 9 it had decided it would support Britain and France. On September 10, 1939 Canada officially declared war.

The battles of Dieppe, Hong Kong, the Italian campaign, the Battle of Britain, the freeing of Holland, the north Atlantic battle and the war at sea generally, and the D-Day campaign were among many in which Canada participated. The only great conclusion is that no matter where these campaigns took place, wherever they will take place, war is hell.

The joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate has recommended a one day debate per year on Canada's international role, a very important debate. If we do not work toward keeping peace in the world, we are not keeping faith with those 114,000 young Canadians whom I mentioned earlier.

The world is not a happy place today. It has some 75 to 80 hot spots. The greatest service we can do is to try to keep cooling them off. This process is to a great extent shaping our world today.

On behalf of all members in the House, I congratulate the 1,700-plus Legion branches across Canada for inviting all Canadians to attend a November 11 Remembrance Day ceremony to remember those young Canadians who left their high schools, their universities and their careers, who left their jobs in the factory or the corner store, who left their ploughs and cultivators and their farms; people from all walks of life who left loved ones to go out to fight for freedom and for eventual peace.

Canada has a great role to play in the negotiations for peace in the world. Think of those today who are far away from home on peacekeeping duties. Think of their families who are at home awaiting the return of their loved ones. These people are keeping the faith with those who died. If we do not give them our support

and if we do not play our role around the peacekeeping tables and at the United Nations, then we are not keeping faith with those who died.

By our own neglect we may well be promoting another debacle and more loss of Canadian lives. As we leave the House of Commons today, let us remember them. Let us not just remember them on Friday next as we stand around the Cenotaph. Let us remember them 365 days of the year because they gave their all.

What we should do as Canadian parliamentarians and as Canadians is work toward the peace and the sanity of a good world for our young people. We must not neglect our duties and allow international plans that might hinder their lives.

Let us think of our families and all young Canadians who are looking forward to a future. If we keep faith with those who died and keep faith in international relations we will indeed be remembering them.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask all members of the House to rise for one moment's remembrance.