Preston Manning

[Canada Post, November 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks Canadians have been enduring the threats and counter threats of strikes and lockouts at Canada post. The government says that negotiations will produce a settlement. But last night we got the chief negotiator for Canada post and the negotiators for the union wrestling on the floor in Hull. They are going to be on WWF next.

My question to the Prime Minister is, why does the government not get off the sidelines and legislate a labour dispute settling mechanism for Canada post that works?

[Airbus, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, what has this bungled Airbus investigation accomplished? It has wasted a lot of taxpayer money. It has tarnished the reputation of the justice department and it has tarnished a lot of personal reputations as well.

I am no fan of Brian Mulroney but even he has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Who in the government is responsible for this mess? Was it the solicitor general, is it the justice minister, is it the former justice minister or is it the prime minister?

[Airbus, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the prime minister says that no Liberal politicians were involved.

Yesterday outside the House the Deputy Prime Minister admitted that the Airbus investigation is continuing, it is still going on. When he was asked if Brian Mulroney is still a suspect, he did not rule that out.

Is Brian Mulroney still under investigation or not? If he is not, why does the government not retract the letter to the Swiss which started this whole mess in the first place?

[Airbus, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is about time for some answers on this Airbus affair.

The former prime minister says there was a high level government plot to smear his name and then an attempt to cover up the plot. The current prime minister denies the whole thing. He says there were no Liberal ministers involved. He says the whole idea came from a lowly RCMP sergeant who was just sitting around in the police station and decided to go after the former prime minister.

Two prime ministers and two different stories. Which prime minister is telling the truth?

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with the minister and other hon. members in paying tribute to those brave Canadians who lost their lives or suffered injury in the wars of the 20th century. We also pay tribute to those who came home, our veterans and those who serve in our armed forces today.

The veterans that I know face each passing Remembrance Day with a combination of pride and sadness. The pride of course comes from knowing that they participated in the preservation of freedom and democracy, not only for themselves but for other generations of Canadians and other people around the world. Their sadness arises from the lurking fear that no one really remembers or really cares.

I am reminded of a sad, old World War I song by the Australian Eric Bogle, sung so well by Canada's John McDermid, which puts the following words into the mouth of a crippled vet. He said:

And so now every April I sit on my porch And I watch the parade pass before me; And I see my old comrades, how proudly they march, Reviving old dreams and past glories.

But the old men march slowly, Their bones stiff and sore, Tired old men from a tired old war, And the young people ask, What are they marching for? And I ask myself the same question.

To those who feel this sadness on Remembrance Day, I want to say not as a member of Parliament or as the Leader of the Opposition but as the father of five children, that we do remember what you are marching for and that we are eternally grateful.

Two years ago my wife and I took our oldest son to the airport from which he was to leave for a year of travel and study in Asia and the south Pacific. It was a time of mixed emotions for us, sadness that he was leaving home for an extended time for the first time, but excitement that he was now through high school and off to see the world before going on with his studies.

I could not help thinking at that time how different our situation was and how infinitely preferable it was to that of parents who took their young people to the bus station or train station 80 years ago or 60 years ago at the outset of the first and second world wars and the terrible emotions they must have felt as they sent their young people not off to study, travel and work abroad in peace, but to fight in a war from which they might never return.

It is because those parents and those young people were prepared to make those sacrifices that we have not had to make them. It is because they suffered those terrible emotions that we do not have to suffer the same.

When I see the veterans marching past the cenotaph, even if their step is slower now and the bones may be stiff and sore, that is the answer we should give to those who ask, what are they marching for. They marched long ago and they march today for you and for me. And for that we owe them our profound and everlasting gratitude.

[The Senate, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows better than that. There is nothing in the law that prevents the Government of Canada from appointing to the Senate someone who has been elected provincially.

Albertans are sick and tired. They have made this clear numerous times. They do not want unelected, unaccountable senators having anything to do with passing laws or spending money.

When is democracy, not patronage, going to govern appointments to the Canadian Senate?

[The Senate, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the prime minister angrily dismissed the idea of letting Albertans elect their own senator. In doing so he stuck his finger in the eyes of Alberta's premier, Alberta's Liberal leader, the legislature and the people of the province.

As a diversion he pointed to the Charlottetown accord but, as the justice minister will know, there is nothing in the current Canadian Constitution which prevents the government from appointing the winner of a provincial Senate election to the Senate.

What possible legal and constitutional reason does the government have—

[Environment, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is emitting a cloud of confusion. Yesterday the prime minister said in the House that everything was made public when he signed the nuclear deal with China, but that is not true.

The Liberals refused to reveal whether Canada must accept China's nuclear waste. They will not reveal the secret financing deal and it is still a secret whether or not Canada has agreed to be held liable for nuclear accidents in China.

Why does the government not clear the air and make public all details of the AECL sales to China and to Turkey?

[Environment, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, forgive us if we are a little sceptical about the reply of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Yesterday he tried to hide the fact that the Liberals sold nuclear reactors overseas without following Canadian environmental protection standards. He said “The policies of AECL are to conduct environmental analyses of all its projects”, but last night AECL said that it does not do these assessments on foreign sales.

I ask the minister of natural resources who is telling the truth, the minister or AECL.

[Environment, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, government members profess to be the great guardians of the environment. Greener than grass they are. They are going to save the planet at Kyoto.

Yet this same government, when it smells cash, bypasses its own environmental review laws to sell nuclear reactors to China and bypasses its own environmental protection standards to sell nuclear reactors to Turkey.

Why does the government violate its own environmental standards?