Peter MacKay

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of much consternation, even within the member's party. I fully acknowledge that decisions made in the House of Commons and in parliament generally will affect the current law. They will change the current law in most instances.

The definition of marriage and all the implications that flow from marriage, be it a legal definition, a moral definition or a person's own personal decision, will not be decided ultimately here. I suggest there are constantly changing definitions and constantly changing views of what is and what is not traditional in the country.

It is fine for the hon. member to suggest that we should clearly state that this is black and this is white, but that is not the case in an issue such as this one. Try as we might to cram things into small packages and to paint people into a corner, I do not believe we will further the debate by taking that stance, which is classic of the Reform Party.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to take part in this debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has brought forward an issue that raises a great number of questions, perhaps more questions than we will be able to deal with in the time allotted for this debate.

The difficult aspect that I have with the motion and the wording of the motion is that it talks of the need to deal with this issue, which suggests that it is one of timeliness. I have to take some umbrage with that. I find myself agreeing with much of the discussion and the debate that is taking place, in particular when it was stated clearly by the Minister of Justice and echoed by other members that the definition of marriage already has quite a clear definition in common and civil law in this country. The acceptance of that reality in Canada is such that it leads me to question the necessity for this debate at this time, particularly given some of the very topical and more timely issues that exist.

We know of the strife that currently exists in places like Yugoslavia. We know, as well, that within our current justice system there is much that needs more full and open debate. We know that there is a crisis on the agriculture scene in western Canada, where most, if not all, Reform Party members find their homes. We know that tremendous challenges are being faced by our citizens in Atlantic Canada because of high unemployment and downturns in traditional industries like the fishery.

That is not to say for a moment that this issue is not one of importance. It is certainly one that I would suggest raises a great deal of emotion, which sometimes leads to extreme lines of thought.

Although it is an important issue, and is indeed important for those assembled here today and for those across the country to reflect on, I would suggest, given the amount of time that we have and the issues that are currently before us, that this is not something in which we should become bogged down. In acknowledging that marriage has very sacred and religious connotations and implications, and that there is always the need for the involvement of the church in this type of debate, there is also a need to acknowledge that there is a great deal of tolerance and clear thinking that has to be put forward before one draws clear legal definitions in the sand.

In my previous statement I said that the definition of marriage remains in place and intact to this time. To suggest, as is presumptive in this particular motion, that this is somehow under attack and is an issue of panic or urgency for Canadians is a misrepresentation.

This motion is very broad and asks for an affirmation, I suggest, of what already exists. The motion restates the current state of the law, both common and civil. Therefore, I question the nature of the motion, but I also question the motive for this debate. I cannot help but suggest that it is a presumptive and provocative attempt to raise what is considered a very divisive issue.

That is not to undermine the importance of the issue. There are many who would argue, in fact we have heard the argument today, that there is an erosion of social morals and that it stems from a decline in the institution of marriage. I personally do not prescribe to that thought. I believe that it runs much deeper and is far more complicated. My friend, the previous speaker from the New Democratic Party, spoke very eloquently about the intimacy and the personal elements of marriage. I believe that to be very true.

This motion does not call for specifics. It does not call for an amendment to current legislation, particularly the Criminal Code. It does not speak of charter amendments. It does not speak of highlighting one particular right over another. It calls for the Government of Canada to acknowledge that this is an important issue. I think we have been given fairly concrete and static assurances from the Minister of Justice in her appearance in the House today.

What the motion does not do is dwell on the important issues which, in a sense, I feel we have perhaps a higher degree of responsibility to respond to in a timely fashion. We do not talk about jobs, health care, education, a desire for a better quality of life or deal with conflict where we find it. In fact, this is an attempt to seek out a conflict on a moral issue. I am afraid that leaders sometimes simplify issues that divide instead of bind our Canadian people.

Some day there may be a challenge to the constitutional definition of marriage. We heard from a speaker today that this has occurred in the province of Ontario, and it may occur again. Again, it underscores that there is a sense of paranoia that the courts will completely betray us. There have certainly been controversial decisions made, but they will be remedied over time. There will be an opportunity for us to reflect on them and to make corrections when needed in this legislature.

Why on the last day do we find ourselves, before we are to grant supply to the government, discussing an issue such as this? I cannot help but suggest that there is some degree of an attempt to raise ire and hackles and to divide individuals, not only in the House amongst party affiliations but around the country, for crass political gain.

We are going to be exercising our rights in the House of Commons today to raise grievances before voting on all of the money that the Government of Canada is going to spend in the coming year. To a certain degree this allotted day is a little different than any other day. This day has a greater priority. We have an opportunity to bring grievances to the Government of Canada. This is an ancient right that we can exercise in this place. It is an opportunity for us to remind the government that there is a greater degree of accountability and responsibility that it should be exercising.

I suggest that the government has in many ways abused the privileges and its relationship with parliament. To a degree we know this is happening. There is strife within the caucus of the government.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the government today with respect to our confidence in the job that it is doing in representing Canadians. One of the messages that I believe should be sent is that we are not having enough opportunity to interact directly with ministers of the crown at committee or in the House. Time and time again we see important announcements made in the press gallery instead of here in the House of Commons. We have a very limited opportunity to interact at the committee level. We have one hour wherein we might be able to pose a handful of questions and receive very packed, evasive, non-informative answers.

There is a message that can be sent tonight with respect to the confidence that we have in the government when we stand in our place to vote. I believe that, in and of itself, it is an important message which should be sent and received by the government.

Turning back specifically to the motion before the House, I do not profess to stand to speak for every member of the Progressive Conservative caucus when I say that this is a motion of importance which needs to be flushed out. It is not the priority of the government at this time, nor should it be. This motion is an attempt, I believe, to somehow give Canadians the sense that a crisis exists and that is simply not the case.

I believe that we should be having consultations. I am sure the mover of this motion has heard from his constituents. I know that in my constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there are many who have very strong and very reasonable attachments to the institution of marriage. That is fine. That is the way it should be. I do not believe that the institution of marriage is under attack or is in jeopardy, as this motion might suggest.

There are two very separate and distinct issues. I believe the hon. member would acknowledge that the issue of financial security, the issue of same sex benefits accruing to partners, is quite separate and apart. I do not believe the suggestion that one leads necessarily to the other. The courts themselves have given very clear rulings. The legislatures throughout the country, provincially and at the federal level, have in some cases led and in some cases followed. However, I do not believe that in this forum, in this debate today, we are going to find the magical answers that will preserve or fortify the institution of marriage. That is not going to be accomplished.

Again, I do not believe that the institution of marriage is in jeopardy. I believe that it is going to remain a very strong and important institution. When we talk of family and family definitions we find that traditional views of family have changed and they will continue to change and evolve. That is not to say that they will change necessarily for the worse, where there will be a clear reversal of what we have traditionally viewed as family. The importance of fortifying values in this country is recognizing what is safe, what is healthy and what is going to create a better citizenry.

I am afraid that this debate will not further that, at least not to the desired end. When we have an opportunity to vote this evening, the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting individually.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have always felt that he was a very good sport.

My understanding of the intent and the spirit of the Bloc motion is one of setting a priority between any commitment of fiscal responsibility on the part of the government toward professional sport coming subsequent to the issue of a firm commitment to amateur sport and the development of our programs on an amateur level. That is my reading of it.

As for any concrete dollars or any figures that permanently attach, I am afraid I am not familiar with them, even having sat as a member of the committee. The chair of the committee might be able to provide that information. As far as the dollars go, I know one figure that was mentioned here. That was $1.3 billion in terms of revenue returned to the economy as a result of the contribution of professional sport in Canada.

The crux of the matter, as the member is aware, centres around the issue of offering some form of subsidy or financial incentive to our current franchises. This is what we are at a sticking point on.

Do we put that priority ahead of the other priorities that were set out quite clearly in this report, that we should be putting money into amateur sport, the development of Olympic programs, the development of community sport and all the very positive benefits the member has pointed out which flow from that level of sport as opposed to professionalism?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to finishing my remarks as they pertain to the Bloc motion before the House for debate.

I was at a point in my remarks where I was emphasizing the importance of recognizing not only the contribution that sports make in terms of the effect it has on providing children and youth with an activity, but the downside of not putting financial resources into that aspect of Canadian culture and the effect it will have on the other end. If there is not sufficient emphasis put on activities such as this there is a social cost to pay with respect to our criminal justice system.

I think the report highlights the importance of putting emphasis on Canadian sport. Another aspect that is somewhat intangible and somewhat difficult to quantify in terms of how much money should go in is the aspect of Canadian culture and the sense of pride it gives to Canadians in having competitive sporting teams, not only at the professional level but at the amateur level as well.

I also believe that the report, under the guidance of the Chair, highlighted the cultural aspect and importance of sport in the country to give Canadians a sense of pride and to give them something to unify them and cheer for collectively at times of international competition, such as the Olympics, and regionally at the Canada Games.

I have a constituent in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough named John Brother MacDonald who has been a fierce competitor, a tireless supporter of amateur sport and, later in his years, a coach and referee. He epitomized this concept and this psychology that sport makes many contributions at many levels. He used to say, sometimes jokingly, “f you cannot be a good sport, you can at least be an athletic supporter”.

The debate taking place today is certainly one of great importance. It should not just be focusing on whether we give tax breaks to the NHL. That is an obvious issue of great consternation and it is an issue that will continue to plague the national hockey league in the country because of the economic issues that surround it.

It also comes down to priorities. Do we as a country, specifically as a government, decide to allow an industry, which professional hockey has become, to be subsidized when we know there is a huge surplus in the players' fund that is untouchable and untaxable? We also know there are markets, particularly in New York and in Florida, where Canadian hockey clubs cannot be competitive, cannot return the revenues and do not have the market to accumulate revenues like those teams? Sadly, we have seen, and it has been noted, the loss of teams in Winnipeg and Quebec and some of our clubs are currently in jeopardy of moving south of the border.

I congratulate the Bloc for having the foresight to bring the matter forward again. I would suggest, on the specific issue of subsidies for professional teams, that it comes down to one of priorities. Canadians, for the most part, have said quite clearly that it is not palatable at this time to offer tax breaks when we still have huge problems with unemployment, health care, and other sectors of our economy. It is simply a matter of choosing priorities and singling out where the money is most needed and will be best received.

I again put forward that the Progressive Conservative Party's position is in support of the motion. I would suggest that we have an opportunity here to single out and look separately at the issue of professional franchises and their subsidization, but we should be encouraging and implementing the other very important recommendations.

I wish we had time to expound on one other aspect, that of gambling and the huge revenues that are generated both legally and illegally. We know that the provincial and federal governments have stepped into this area with respect to professional and sometimes amateur sport. However, I suggest there is more we can do in terms of having a return from the aspect of gambling that stems from sport.

We have to develop sound fiscal policy that is consistent with the development of amateur sport and the preservation of professional sport in Canada. With this in mind, I and the Conservative Party support wholeheartedly the motion put forward by the Bloc. I would once more put forward a request for unanimous consent to we make this a votable item.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the Bloc motion.

It is my pleasure to say that I was part of this debate from the beginning with respect to the subcommittee that was headed by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. I congratulate him on the effort and passion he brought to that subcommittee. I know the work of all the members was appreciated.

Members of the subcommittee on sport heard hours of testimony. We heard a passionate debate on both sides of the divide. We read hundreds of pages of documents which spoke of the benefits of active and well funded amateur sport organizations.

The most contentious issue was obvious. It is the same contentious issue which is before the House today, the issue of some form of subsidy for professional sport. Hockey is the sport that has been singled out most often, but it is fair to say other sports are being jeopardized as well. Here locally the Ottawa Lynx are under a very crucial time period with respect to their funding. The Montreal Expos have experienced problems. The CFL time and time again has been struggling to make budgets and payrolls.

I want to state quite clearly on the record that the Progressive Conservative Party supports all of the recommendations with respect to amateur sport in Canada. We are strongly in favour of the recommendations that encourage Canadians to engage in a more active and healthy lifestyle as well as those that promote the idea of ethics in sport, the integration of disabled persons into sports and their governing bodies and the support of parents and coaches in Canada.

Canada urgently needs an overall improvement to amateur sport. It bears mentioning that if we do not make those recognitions and contributions financially there will be a price to pay at the other end. I am talking about the criminal justice system.

I was raised in a small community in rural Nova Scotia. I participated in amateur sport, rugby, hockey, baseball and most sports on the go at high school and at the amateur level. I was constantly reminded by parents and coaches that I would stay out of trouble if I hung around ballparks and rinks as opposed to standing on a street corner and getting involved with drugs and criminal activity. Those are real facts and challenges faced by Canadians, parents and children alike.

I refer to some of the correspondence I received in regard to the issue before the House. I received a letter from Dal Bryant on January 14 which I will quote in part: “I am a parent of three athletes. My observation however was that unless you were very well off, your children would not even be provincially competitive and just plain forget the national and international levels”. This comes from a parent.

Charles Schafer wrote on January 7: “Amateur sport is a benefit to all communities at the grassroots level. These sports and athletes have been underfunded and often ignored by the media and politicians alike. This is where I would like to see my tax dollars directed”.

The final reference is to the Nova Scotia director of the Federation of Canadian Archers. Eric Mott wrote the following words: “Our national athletes receive zero dollars. We presently have several athletes who are in training at the National Archery Centre in Quebec, one of which trains eight hours a day and has to pay for her training to represent her country internationally. Imagine having to pay to train to represent your country”.

It is obviously not just professional hockey. It is not just any one sport we are talking about in the broader context of this debate.

I state again quite clearly that the Progressive Conservative Party does not endorse recommendations that would hand over subsidies outright to professional sports. This would be a failure to account for the actual overall costs of the subsidies and the effects they might have on those franchises.

Before the recommendations can be truly debated, there is a need for a full and proper examination of the concept of income sharing among professional organizations such as the NHL and a concrete plan for how any form of subsidy would benefit the greater overall community and promote greater community involvement.

No real assurances have been given from the league, the players, the owners, the associations. Mr. Wayne Gretzky has a bit of spare time on his hands now. Perhaps we could get some of his wisdom and insight because it is the wisdom of Solomon, and I am not talking about the previous speaker, that is required here. We need a real debate on how the effects of subsidizing sports ahead of important issues like health—

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again to speak in support of Bill C-251. I am pleased to follow the comments of my colleague from Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. He raised some very soul searching and gut wrenching questions in his commentary.

Obviously today's debate and throughout the time that we have seen this issue arise in the House and in committee it invokes a very emotional response, as do victimization and violence in most instances.

I pay tribute again to the member for Mississauga East for her tireless work on the issue and for bringing it forward. Today's vote will be a testament to that hard work and determination. It is because of this perseverance and persistence that we will have an opportunity to bring about a law that will in my opinion more accurately reflect the conscience of the country and the need to protect individuals from violent offenders.

The basic and just principle of consecutive sentences has proved to be too much for some soft on crime members of the Liberal government. As many members know and as has been previously stated, previous polls have been conducted which seem to suggest that Canadians overwhelmingly support the principle of stiffer sentences when it comes to the issue of high end violence, the violation of people and their lives.

While some members of the Liberal government defend rehabilitation and parole for multiple murderers and rapist, Bill C-251 calls for the House to defend the rights of victims of multiple offenders such as Mr. Olson's victims numbered one through eleven. The bill would given individualized recognition to those victims and give their families some much deserved justice for the atrocities that were committed against them and their loved ones.

It would also send a strong message to potential criminals that the Canadian justice system would no longer ignore the number of innocent lives that are shattered. I urge the House to take action and follow the lead of the hon. member for Mississauga East to stop the volume discount for crime sprees, for serial rape and murder.

Perhaps our actions today will impact on the future of some loved ones. This current incarnation of Bill C-251 reflects a compromise, an improvement and an explanation of many of the clauses that previously existed in a bill which the Progressive Conservatives also supported.

While the current proposal cannot address the concerns of every member in the House or every member of society, it is a concrete shift in the right direction. It will not be retroactive. There have been many arguments about discretion and the imposition of judicial discretion on an issue such as this one. It has been used on both sides of the argument quite ironically. I suggest in this instance that it allows a judge increased discretion to reflect the applicable laws upon the conscience of the community.

No one is suggesting for a moment that we remove all other sentencing principles, the protection of the public and the need for rehabilitation and general or specific deterrents, considerations with which my hon. colleague for Sydney—Victoria would be familiar.

It certainly does not remove the situation where a person can in fact be rehabilitated. I am of the personal belief, and I have read extensively on this issue, that there are some in society who simply are not amenable to rehabilitation. They simply cannot be rehabilitated. They are those who are at the very high end of the violence inflicted upon individuals.

It is extremely unfortunate. It is not something that a person wants to admit quite readily, but if we are to believe that the protection of society is the primary responsibility of legislators and the primary responsibility of our justice system then we must recognize that a very small minority of criminals in the country are simply beyond that rehabilitative scope.

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria spoke of a 50 year foresight, that he did not believe there could be such a thing. I suggest quite the opposite. I would rather have an attempt at a 50 year foresight than a one year after the fact contemplation of what could have been done when a person was released for whatever reasons or whatever criteria and went out to rape and kill again.

Bill C-251 was previously introduced and dealt with in the justice committee. It has had intense scrutiny. There has been an opportunity for members of that committee and members of the House to look at the issue in depth. There has been a concerted effort on the part of some members of the justice committee to undermine and completely dismiss or remove the issue from public debate. That is very unfortunate because there are significant number of members in this place and an overwhelming number of Canadians who support the initiative of the hon. member.

The fact that this is a tough, philosophic issue, as are many issues that we often find ourselves debating and facing in the House, is not justification for turning a blind eye or refusing to deal with each.

The current language in the bill shifts sentencing for multiple crimes of rape and murder from concurrent to consecutive but the discretion still exists. There is no mandatory minimum or maximum reflected in this change.

The current bill and its amendments do not guarantee consecutive sentences in any way. It grants judicial discretion for cases where consecutive sentence would not be in line with our fundamental principles of justice.

The bill does not change the status quo from mandatory concurrent sentences to consecutive, barring any judicial discretion on behalf of defendants. When justice chooses not to enforce these consecutive sentences, however, the bill has amendments that would require that justice explains to the victims and their families why these sentences would not be served concurrently or would be served concurrently as opposed to consecutively.

If this legislation is enacted, judges will be given the opportunity to mete out an appropriate sentence for animals like Bernardo, Olson and Roby. I want to put these cases forward because it is important in the context of the debate.

After being found guilty of the savage sadistic murders of two teenage girls in the 1990s, Paul Bernardo received two concurrent life sentences. He can apply for judicial review of his sentence in 2008 and is eligible for day release in 2015.

Clifford Olson is serving 11 concurrent life sentences. His sentence is not all that more serious than if he only took one life. That is to say all of his sentences together reflect the same sentence that a person would receive for taking one life.

Pedophile John Roby was convicted of 35 counts of sexually abusing children. The victims' families were shocked to learn that after being convicted of 27 accounts of these assaults, Mr. Roby received a two year prison term. After several other victims came forward, the Ontario Court of Appeal increased the sentence just to five years.

In 1995 serial killer John Martin Crawford was charged with three counts of first degree murder. After being convicted he will be eligible for early parole in just 15 years under the faint hope clause.

They are just some examples, some of the more extreme high end examples, but nonetheless they are examples for the need of this legislation. It would be a shift in the right direction. It is my hope that this bill will also mark an important shift in the mindset and the philosophy of the government.

It is also a welcome example of what can occur with co-operation. In tribute to a member of the government, a backbench parliamentarian, without the support of her party leaders and without the support of a logical explanation as to why that support does not exist, she has persevered. Under the current government, the debate let alone the passage of this bill has been opposed by a number of party members, her colleagues. This is a rare occasion where a vote will take place that would allow a very logical and very worthwhile piece of legislation to pass.

Much semantics and rhetoric accompany the debate but it is important to point out again that life in this country does not equal life imprisonment. That attachment does not occur. Parole eligibility in 25 years is not the equivalent of life imprisonment.

Very few high end criminals make it to that 25 year point before they apply and are indeed accepted for parole. Fifty years ineligibility would be a more reflective response. It would be a move in the right direction if judges were permitted to mete out a sentence that was more reflective of the public sentiment. Rehabilitation and other principles of sentencing will not be overridden.

This greater discretion should be encouraged and embraced by members of the House. Democratic principles should be respected as they were when previous occasions allowed members of the House to vote in favour of this bill. I encourage all members present to support Bill C-251.

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to address again an issue that should come as a real shock to most Canadians.

The Liberal government, through Canada's Corrections and Conditional Release Act, through the CSC, has this insidious plan that it wants to release 50% of the inmate population by the year 2000.

We have been looking at this issue at the justice committee. We had the privilege of having the CSC commissioner, Ole Ingstrup, bless us with his presence the other day. He still denies that this is even a fact.

This is absolutely shocking. This is a malodorous plan that was hoisted upon an unsuspecting public some time ago. If this is allowed to happen, once again the Canadian public will be affected by this. It will be an absolute disgrace if this is allowed to happen.

We know that there have been internal memos circulated by CSC officials setting out specifically that there are targets. The unfortunate language used was that there are numerical goals, balanced distribution, a reintegration agenda, plan or process, achievable numbers, release objectives, equalization between institution and community population, and agreed upon goals. They are very careful never to use the word quotas, though, but we do know that a quota is a quota is a quota.

Nowhere in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does it ever talk about numerical goals, targets or redistribution. Yet this is the type of language that very clearly sets out this insidious plan.

The commissioner was very reluctant to admit that this has happened. Yet it is very clear that there was a plan to open the doors of the jails and let 50% of the inmate population back out on to the street without following the proper process that is put in place to determine the criteria as to whether inmates should be released.

Another very disturbing point about it is that it is completely contrary to law. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever that it is even happening, although in fact this documentation clearly shows that there has been directions given to corrections and conditional release officials. There is obviously a disincentive for wardens not to follow the directives which have come from deputy commissioners such as Brendan Reynolds in Ontario.

There are even specific numbers referenced for the province of Ontario: 660 inmates are to be released by December 31, 1999. It is absolutely unbelievable that this could be going on at a time when our law enforcement community is working harder and harder with less resources, at a time when the public confidence is perhaps at an all time low in our justice system. Yet this plan is hatched in a very secretive way.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence that these statistics are referenced in internal documents, the commissioner simply says unfortunate language was used. There is a complete denial on behalf of the solicitor general's department that it was even happening.

Although their knuckles have been rapped and this has been exposed for what it was, which is an absolute sham, the government is now saying it never happened and that it was not in place at all. I suspect the government will slink away with its tail between its legs and simply proceed in perhaps some other fashion.

This is an extremely dangerous initiative. What has taken place should come as a great shock to anybody who is working currently in corrections.

There is absolutely no doubt that this plan was afoot. The parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general will rise shortly and tell us that it was not happening. We know it was happening. Thankfully, through the diligence of the opposition, we have exposed it. Through the diligence of Ontario victims services, it has been exposed for what it was. We hope it will be changed. We do not want to see it proceeding any further.

[The Late Douglas Harkness, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness but also honour that I rise today to pay tribute to the late Hon. Douglas Harkness who died in Calgary at the age of 96.

His gallantry during World War II was recognized by the awarding to him of the George Medal, truly an exemplary accomplishment.

Mr. Harkness was elected to the House of Commons in 1945 and retired in 1972 as the member for Calgary Centre. Those 27 years of public service were ones of great change and great challenge in Canada. He helped mould those changes on both sides of the House and in the cabinet room.

Those members who came to parliament after the second world war must have been a very distinct breed. They came from the battlefields directly into the House, determined to build a great nation. They recognized the debt owed to their comrades in arms. They had a vision of a better country and they set about to bring that vision to fruition.

This was reflected in Mr. Harkness' first speech in this place. He had served in the Royal Canadian Artillery and yet his first act when he appeared in the House of Commons was to make a plea for better treatment for the foot soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces, the lowest paid men whom he regarded as being part of the most significant effort in the war in Europe. He championed better pay and conditions for the services which are more in keeping with the risks they run and the conditions they endure.

The Canada that we see today is different from what we saw in 1945. Douglas Harkness and his family, his wife and son who predeceased him, helped build this into a better nation.

I am very honoured to stand in this place and express the thanks of Canadians for his decades of public service and express our regrets and sympathies to his family on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister spoke of being a good member of parliament. Good members of parliament certainly should not approve grants and loans to questionable individuals in their ridings, particularly before receiving departmental approval. Certainly, a good member of parliament should not be funnelling $6.3 million to Liberal supporters who bailed out his own troubled numbered company.

Can the Prime Minister explain how such a blatant abuse of taxpayers' money is his definition of being a good member of parliament?

[Government Contracts, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can do three simple things to clear the air over this growing scandal.

He can release the 363 pages withheld from the member for Markham's access to information requests. He can disclose all of the documents regarding the CIDA contract to Claude Gauthier. He could direct the auditor general to investigate this entire matter by invoking section 11 of the Auditor General Act.

I ask the Prime Minister, why will he not do these three simple things?