This morning we heard that military personnel were involved in a series of incidents in Cambodia, including physical abuse, racism, arms trafficking and running a brothel.
The army has been involved in a series of scandals in Somalia, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and now in Cambodia. What does the government intend to do to restore discipline among these and all other members of the Canadian military?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
[English]
There were allegations that events occurred in 1992-93. I understand that the allegations were investigated and wherever there was substantiation action was taken. The file has been made available under access to information. It is available in the reading room of the department to anyone, including the hon. member if he wishes to review the entire history of those investigations.
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the incidents in Somalia, the government abolished the airborne regiment. After the incidents in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the army took punitive action. However, in the case of Cambodia, the government simply put the lid on the whole affair, and no one really knows whether any punitive action was taken in the case of military personnel.
I realize we can probably get the documents via the Access to Information Act, but I would ask the minister to give us a clear answer. Could the minister tell us whether punitive action or disciplinary measures were taken, and if so, what kind?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is persistent in his question.
We must remember that this action took place five years ago under the former Conservative government. It is an action that has been investigated and where there were grounds for charges, charges were laid.
The whole background of the investigation is available to the hon. member at his convenience in the reading room of the Department of National Defence.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, theft, misappropriation of funds, prostitution, racism, physical and verbal abuse of Cambodians, arms trafficking, unauthorized use of cannon and pornographic videos.
I realize people in the army like videos, but I think making pornographic movies at the Crown's expense for an armoury in Toronto is going a bit too far.
Does the minister agree it is high time the government woke up and introduced specific measures to improve co-operation between civilian and military authorities, in order to prevent further occurrences of this kind, which are totally unacceptable?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has taken a number of actions to shore up training programs to bring about better ethics and performance in the field by our soldiers and our officers as part of the renewal plan. Action is in place in our training programs at both the non-commission level and the officer level.
The article in the paper, which has been dressed up with liberal use of adjectives by the writer to gain readership, may be under question. I suggest the member take my advice, go to the reading room, read the evidence and then think it over.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the wake of these troubling revelations about the events in Cambodia, the minister ought to agree with us that the government has made a mistake in terminating the work of the Somalia Inquiry, when it would have put an end to all this secretive attitude which is so common with Canadian Armed Forces staff.
Can the minister, or his parliamentary secretary, tell us why the Armed Forces staff persist in worrying about the possible political fallout of the abuses committed by personnel becoming public knowledge, and in denying the public's right to the truth?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I address the hon. member's persistence in following up on a newspaper article.
This action took place five years ago in 1992-93. It was investigated. The file on the action is open to the member. He can review it at any time. Some of the things that were questioned may be valid. Certainly it was investigated and the file was closed, but it is available under the access to information.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the answer will not be forthcoming this morning. What the parliamentary secretary is doing at the present time is rerunning an old tape we have been hearing over and over for the past two or three years. We have asked questions about the Somalia inquiry, we have made proposals to the government, but it is obvious that nothing works; no answers are forthcoming.
(1125)
Does the Minister of Defence, or his parliamentary secretary who is here today, agree with us that, out of concern for openness, his government ought to give thought to creating, in accordance with Professor Albert Legault's proposal, a position of parliamentary military ethics commissioner reporting to the House of Commons, who could carry out a totally independent investigation into the Armed Forces?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the methodology of the hon. member is valid and honourable, but in this situation with the feigned acting we know the election is at the door.
If the member had read the report of Justice Dickson he would know that military justice was reviewed by Justice Dickson. We intend to bring forward all the information and reforms he suggested. They will be tabled and will be part of military justice in the future.
It will give us a stand alone justice system with an ombudsman to hear complaints where the justice system has gone wrong.
The first thing-
The Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. member not to get in any deeper than he is.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, when you open up the brochure one of the first things it says is: ``Why support the Liberal Party of Canada?'' Why indeed after 37 tax increases and after broken promises on things like the CBC, day care and a number of other issues? The GST promise has to be the biggest whopper of all.
It is very clear the Liberal record is in complete disarray, that the Liberal record is in flames. Why would people of right mind support the same hucksters who sold them off last time, ran away with their wallets and dashed their hopes in 1993?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal record is a solid record of achievement for Canadians across the country. If my hon. friend is aware of a bad smell it must be coming from the Reform platform he is carrying around in his pocket.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when we look at the next section of the government's election document it says: ``Liberal policies at work''.
Maybe their policies are at work but certainly Canadians are not at work. Right now we have 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, almost exactly what it was when the government came to power. There is 20 per cent plus unemployment in Cape Breton and Newfoundland. The national youth unemployment figure is 17 per cent. The real unemployment rate when we count all the people who have dropped out of the workforce is approaching 11 per cent.
Given that horrid record, is the government really intending to run on the worst job creation record since the great depression?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps making a statement at the end of his questions that is not accurate as far as I am aware. With respect to the Liberal record on unemployment there is certainly more to be done, but the unemployment rate has gone down by some two percentage points since the last election and close to 850,000 jobs have been created.
When we talk about a good start, this beats the smelly fresh start program of the Reform Party. The hon. member should clean out his pockets. Then he will feel a lot better.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, so many people have dropped out of the workforce that unemployment is virtually unchanged from when the government came to power.
One of the other headings in the document states: ``Make a donation today''. Indeed if a donation is made, in return the Liberals say they are willing to listen to you. Certainly it has worked for Bombardier. We know that.
(1130)
I think the Liberal grease my palm approach to gathering public opinion says a whole lot about their opinion of regular Canadians and about their opinion of why they should listen to regular Canadians. Given their record of pork-barrelling, scandal, broken promises and incompetence, why should Canadians believe anything they say when they go to Canadians in the upcoming election?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians will believe Liberals far more than members of the Reform Party when they listen to questions like the one just placed because there is an inherent contradiction in the Reform position.
On the one hand Reformers are complaining about not enough jobs being created and on the other hand they are criticizing measures taken by this government, like the Bombardier investment, to create thousands of jobs. No wonder the Reform Party is not believable.
Speaking of dropping out, according to the polls and according to the statements in the House every day, the dropouts are all on the side of the Reform Party. They are quitting and running as fast as they can. Why do they fear the electorate? Let them answer that question.
On April 14, the minister said, in response to a question by the Bloc Quebecois on the future of Mirabel airport, that he was prepared to co-operate with any organization wishing to improve the utilization of Mirabel, without specifying whether he would take part in the joint commission created by the Quebec government. Again yesterday, a spontaneous public protest was held. Eight hundred people gathered to oppose the closing of Mirabel, and this is just the beginning.
Given the enormous responsibility of the federal government in this matter, and considering that its mistakes resulted in considerable losses for the Lower Laurentians, will the minister finally be clear and say that he will take part in the work of the commission announced by Premier Bouchard?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member. As the member knows, she and I both represent ridings that are close to Mirabel.
The member raised a serious issue, and I find it totally unacceptable that her colleague, who represents another region, would not think that the future of Mirabel is important. It is definitely important to me and to my constituents.
Let us not forget that ADM made the decision regarding Mirabel. As everyone knows, that decision was not made by the federal government. Moreover, ADM was set up by a previous government and is structured in such a way as to preclude federal representation. I am prepared, and so is the government, to do whatever must be done to help protect the future of Mirabel airport.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the minister really cared about this issue, he would give us a clear answer today.
On April 16, the transport minister announced that he would spend another $60 million, paid in part by Quebec taxpayers, in addition to the $185 million given to Toronto's Pearson airport on March 25, to make up for his blunders.
With an election about to be called, will the minister show the same stubbornness regarding Montreal's airports and say that he is prepared to sit on the commission to correct the mistakes he made regarding Montreal and Mirabel?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, indicated that the Government of Canada had contributed as much, if not more, per passenger, at Montreal's airports than at Toronto's facilities. The hon. member opposite knows that.
The hon. member is asking whether the government will take part in a meeting convened by the Quebec premier. To this day, we still have not been invited.
Mrs. Guay: That is not true.
Mr. Boudria: If we do get an invitation, we will be pleased to attend.
An hon. member: That is totally untrue.
(1135)
[English]
I looked but there are no coupons for the 1.4 million unemployed. It is too slick to line a bird cage.
I ask the Minister of the Environment, is it true that this brochure is actually the Liberal contribution to national composting week?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I might just as well ask the hon. member about the fresh start program or the no start program that is being carried around by his colleague in his pocket, which may be why he is complaining about a bad smell. Why does it not say anything about the Reform plans to destroy the pension system, the health care system and the social welfare system for Canadians?
Furthermore, I wonder if we might get some kind of medical opinion as to why the hon. member and his colleagues are so fascinated by the Liberal program. There must be something in it they really fear if they keep talking about it. It confirms it is a good program for all Canadians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon House leader has caught me. I have found some interesting things in here. The three things I found most interesting were reforming the Young Offenders Act, reforming the parole system and reforming the employment system in this country. If we really wanted to do it right we would just elect a Reform government and this document would not be necessary.
In the spirit of non-partisanship to which we have become accustomed I wonder if the environment minister could tell us what he is going to do to protect all Canadians from the noxious gases that seem to be flowing freely here in the House of Commons today.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the answer would be embarrassing to his colleague who asked the first question because he is the first who complained of a noxious smell. I identified for him the source, the Reform program
that he carries around in his pocket. I think the two of them had better go behind the curtains and settle the problem before they create a bigger one for all of us here.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is still all over the map with the linguistic school boards issue. After cosying up to Alliance Quebec and The Gazette, he tried to drive a wedge between Quebec and the bishops; now he is painting extreme scenarios in an effort to encourage Catholic pressure groups.
Can the minister tell the House what his real objective is in making this kind of remark and in stirring up possible conflict?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's objective is of course to help Quebec society modernize its school system. That has been our objective from the beginning.
The Bloc Quebecois has given vent to all sorts of insults and accusations since this issue first came up. The question is why, and the answer is crystal clear: from the beginning, the Bloc has tried to create antagonism between anglophones and francophones with respect to the school issue, because the Bloc wants to make the Liberals out to be a pro-English, anti-French party.
The Bloc is wasting its time, because the Liberal Party of Canada includes all sectors of Quebec and Canadian society.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in psychology, what the minister just did is called projecting.
There has been a failure to act. We have heard his inflammatory remarks, and now, with the company he has been keeping over the last few days, we do not know what to think.
Can the minister confirm that his sole objective is to delay the amendments Quebec has requested by calling for a joint parliamentary committee, which will never see the light of day in the 35th Parliament in any event, and that all this is merely a strategy so that the movements opposing Quebec's consensus can get organized and block this consensus that exists in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has said it was very happy to sponsor the proposal submitted to us by the National Assembly and thus to help modernize the school system.
(1140)
We are going to do this with full respect for the democratic values of Quebecers and of other Canadians. The official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, keeps droning on about Alliance Quebec and The Gazette for reasons I explained earlier, but everyone disagrees with the Bloc on this issue.
Let me give a few examples. Agnès Gruda of La Presse had this to say: ``In the end, Ottawa is right. Pushing for a vote on the constitutional amendment before the federal election is completely artificial. It has taken Quebec City two years to come up with its request, which it forwarded to Ottawa only two weeks before the election call. There is no national emergency that requires us to move full steam ahead in an emotional climate that can only be detrimental to the debate''.
Michel C. Auger, of the Journal de Montréal wrote: ``It is very difficult to ask the federal government to hurry up when we know it took the Government of Quebec several months to decide on the wording of a constitutional amendment and another three weeks to put it to the National Assembly''.
Why should rational farmers who are going to have to deal with rail line abandonments, gun registration, grossly increased CPP payments and empty promises to modernize grain handling and marketing support their sworn enemies by supporting this elitist, urban centred government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend overlooks the reality that the Liberal Party is proud to have in the House rural members from every part of the country who are doing an outstanding job of reflecting the interests of their constituents.
It is clear from the effective action of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Liberal team on this side of the House that we have a record of achievement which fully justifies the rural voters of this country's not only returning the Liberal members from rural areas but electing a lot more and getting rid of the useless Reform members who are still hanging around.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned a few time in the
House that there are some rural Liberal members. Unfortunately their first loyalty is to the Liberal Party. About their 11th loyalty is to their constituents.
Nobody suffers more than farmers from the collapse of a national transportation system. When they have produce to move to market it is kind of handy to have a railway or a road.
When will the government allocate a reasonable share of the $5 billion that it takes out of Canadians' pockets every year in fuel taxes to help the provinces rebuild and refurbish the disintegrating highway system so that it is safe and partially serviceable?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the question from the member opposite at least unusual. He and his party criticized the infrastructure program after the last election, after proposing it to their constituents, and now they are asking for a similar program to repair roads and infrastructure again.
It is the policy of our party and I thank the hon. member for finally supporting us in our initiative for infrastructure. I hope he convinces the premier of Ontario to sign on with the rural members of the Liberal Party and with the rest of Canadians in having a new infrastructure program.
General Motors plans to invest $14.7 billion in retooling its plants throughout the world. Of that amount, $1.4 billion will be invested in China. Oshawa is also on the list of plants that will benefit, but there is nothing indicated for Boisbriand in Quebec.
(1145)
Since the federal government has loaned $110 million to the Boisbriand plant, it cannot be unconcerned about its future, which depends on a retooling which would cost $300 million.
What does the minister plan to do to ensure that the Boisbriand plant benefits from the investment required for the retooling on which its future depends?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am certain that, if an application is made which fits the program criteria, the government will be very open to giving it serious consideration. I will pass this worthwhile question on to the minister responsible.
When programs meet the necessary criteria, we are interested in developing the automotive industry anywhere in the country.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, more than 1,000 GM workers at Boisbriand are currently waiting to be called back to work.
Can the minister assure us that he will follow up on the $110 million that has been paid out, and that he will insure that the people concerned will be called back promptly?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision for such a callback is in the hands of company management. The government does not have the power to order people to be called back to work in any plant in this country.
I am sure that my colleagues with responsibility for industrial development matters will do their utmost to help this company attain greater market success, with the result that the workers will be called back. This is something we all wish for, in the interest of the region and in the interest of our country.
Will the minister of revenue tell my constituents and the people of Manitoba what the federal government is doing to help the victims of this terrible disaster?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members in this House, we recognize the concern that the member for Selkirk-Red River has on behalf of his constituents and all Manitobans who are fighting the rising waters of the Red River.
Without question, all Canadians are watching the media reports. As the water rises and we see the evacuation of Manitobans from their houses, from their properties, we feel their isolation and their concern.
We take some heart and hope when we see all levels of government working productively and positively together, the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government in support of Manitobans.
My colleague the minister of defence visited the area. He has deployed over 1,500 members of the Canadian forces to work side by each with Manitobans as they evacuate, as they sand bag. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs is there today with his constituents announcing support from the federal government, working with the province, working with the municipalities.
All Canadians are watching Manitobans with concern and with hope. Let them all understand that they have Canada in their corner.
We are coming to an election apparently. That means people seeking election will go to the electorate and make promises.
I would like to ask a question of the government with respect to a very explicit promise made in 1993 by the Liberals. It was written right in the red book. It was the one that said the government would appoint an independent, underline independent, ethics counsellor who would report directly to Parliament. These words are directly from chapter six of that book. That has not happened. The ethics counsellor is not independent. He reports to the Prime Minister and he does not report to this House. He has not yet.
(1150 )
As the Liberals now go to the electorate, how will they explain this discrepancy between what they have said in words and what they have actually done when they had a clear opportunity to fulfil that promise without anything impeding them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been a real achievement to create the position of ethics counsellor. One can debate about whom the individual should report to but I think this is a meaningful response to the commitment in the red book.
If my hon. friend is serious about his question, then he will abandon his position as a Reformer and support the Liberals so we can go on and make further progress in this area of ethics. We have a government we can be proud of when it comes to integrity, comparable to any other in Canadian history.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the question actually was not whether or not what the counsellor is doing is fine. It really is not. In the red book the Liberals promised that he would be independent and that he would report to Parliament. That has not happened.
As these members of Parliament seek re-election, what do their words, whether printed or spoken, really mean? Are they prepared to fulfil them if they get another mandate? And we do not think they will.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a very substantial part of the Liberal platform has been put into effect. We can be proud of what we have achieved.
The hon. member's question strongly creates the impression that he expects the Liberals to be re-elected. Otherwise he would not have asked the kind of question he did. I thank him for his endorsement. I will use it in my next pamphlet.
Since February 28, Quebec volunteer Serge L'Archer has been held hostage in the Sahara desert by Toubou rebels who are against the authoritarian regime of Niger.
Who is in a position to inform the House of the latest developments surrounding the detention of Mr. L'Archer in Niger?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to answer the hon. member's question.
I personally had an opportunity to meet authorities of Niger, including a number of ministers, the ambassador and several others, and I asked them to do everything in their power to secure Mr. L'Archer's release as soon as possible.
I personally spoke to members of Mr. L'Archer's family and to his employer, the CECI. The Canadian government is still demanding the release of Mr. L'Archer. Our ambassador has intervened locally, on our behalf, to have him released as soon as possible. We have reiterated our request for his immediate release to those who are holding him hostage.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since so far, the minister's actions do not seem to have been successful, I would like to ask another question.
Considering that Libya has right from the beginning financed and trained the group of rebels who are holding Mr. L'Archer hostage and that it still seems to have some influence with this group, does the government intend to put pressure on Libya in an attempt to obtain the release of Mr. L'Archer?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has not spoken to the Libyan government about this matter.
We have approached the government of Niger, the embassy of Niger in Canada, our own ambassador in the area and all legitimate authorities to ask them to intervene in this matter. We will continue to do so. I reiterate the Canadian government's request that Mr. L'Archer be released as soon as possible.
[English]
The Pearson contract that the Liberals breached prohibited the contract holder from introducing a passenger head tax at terminals 1 and 2. What is the Minister of Transport going to do to ensure that the new airport authority will not subject those using Pearson airport to a passenger head tax to pay for his costly error in handling the Pearson contract?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if this government had structured the agreement with the independent airport authority in such a way as to tie its hands completely, the member would be the first to criticize the government.
We have created a local airport authority in Toronto as we have done in other cities across Canada. We strongly believe that there is no one better than the local community to direct the airport and make it work properly and in a prosperous manner for the benefit of all Canadians, not simply to hand it over to a group of lobbyists the way the Reform Party was advocating we do not that long ago.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister completely ignored the question. I will try a different transportation mode.
In answer to an earlier question he stated that the infrastructure program was the answer to the highway repair system.
The total federal spending on the infrastucture program amounted to 40 per cent of one year's collection of federal excise revenues on fuel. The transport committee travelled from one end of the country to the other and heard from a majority of people that there had to be dedicated revenues of at least 20 per cent of that fuel tax revenue. The government ignored them.
Why does the government bother to consult with Canadians if it is going to ignore what it hears?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take note of the further input and support by the hon. member along with his other colleagues for the infrastructure program initiated by the Liberal government.
He knows of course that the program was immensely successful. Obviously that is why he is asking for an extension of the program. Need I remind Canadians as well that over 100,000 jobs were created by the previous infrastructure program. Phase two of the program is well under way. The province of Ontario has yet to sign but we hope it will very shortly. This will enable municipalities that have the greater responsibility for roads together with the province and the federal government to construct even better roads in the province, which is our wish.
I thank the hon. member for his continued support for the infrastructure program.
The minister has set that goal at $20 billion of exports by the turn of the century. How well are we doing in reaching that goal and what strategies are in place to serve agriculture in this area?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we look at agri-food exports it is certainly a good news story, the kind of story Canadians want to hear about.
[Translation]
Statistics Canada figures show that we are already exporting $18.8 billion worth of agri-food and agricultural products. We must recognize however that this could not have been achieved without the efforts by this government, and the minister in particular, in leading trade missions abroad to promote Canadian agricultural and agri-food products.
We are on the right track. We will certainly meet and quite possible exceed our $20 billion target.
If you will bear with me for a moment, since this is probably my last chance to do so in this Parliament, I want to thank you all for your co-operation and especially for your friendship.
[English]
The Prime Minister received a letter from the premier of Saskatchewan asking that the government address this problem in some way, either legislatively or alternatively, and I quote from the letter: ``that the Chief Electoral Officer provide a clear interpretation of the original intent of this amendment''.
I wonder what the intention of the government is with respect to this problem and whether it will be consulting with the Chief Electoral Officer to see whether anything can be done about this.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for a useful and important question.
I draw his attention to the actual text of the legislation. It establishes voting hours by time zone and not by province. Saskatchewan has two separate time zones, each covering a different portion of the province.
This is not limited to Saskatchewan. I am informed that part of eastern Quebec is in a different time zone than the rest of the province. It is in the Atlantic time zone. I am referring to an area in the Gaspé. Part of Ontario is in a different time zone than the rest of the province, namely, Kenora-Rainy River.
The matter could most easily be dealt with if the legislature of Saskatchewan passed a relevant resolution to declare the province of Saskatchewan all under the same time zone for electoral purposes. In any event, I am informed that because of the way the act is written it does not mean that anyone in Saskatchewan is deprived of the right to vote in normal voting hours.
I have consulted with the Chief Electoral Officer in this regard and if there is further information to provide I will be happy to do so.
I want to point out again that the legislation is not based on voting hours in provinces but on time zones. That is the reason why this issue has arisen.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close today, notwithstanding the fact that I do not have any more information than you have.
[Translation]
This may have been our last question period of the session.
[English]
I want to thank you very much for serving this Parliament and Canada as well as all of you have served our people.
I want to personally thank you for the great honour that you have given me to be your Speaker during this session. I wish you all well in the upcoming elections. God willing we will all be back to continue in our service to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be more than appropriate if I, on behalf of members of the House, thank you, sir, for your service to the House as the Speaker. You have carried on your duties with professionalism and dignity, warmth and humour, and we certainly appreciate that.
If by some chance we are here next Monday, all the good sentiments expressed about you and Parliament and the members of Parliament I am sure will continue to apply.
(1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to the government House leader's to say that, while we may not always have seen eye to eye and agreed on how things should go, we have always appreciated your honest and straightforward approach in the position you occupy.
It was a pleasure to be here to defend the interests of Quebec of course, but also, in some ways, those of Canada, since we played our part as watchdogs on a number of issues. I very sincerely hope we will be back with a new mandate to work together toward Canada's prosperity, and especially Quebec's.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker I would also like to add my thanks on behalf of the Reform caucus to you as Speaker of the House. I also note our appreciation for the give and the take, the adversarial system, the democratic system, working well in the House during the 35th Parliament.
The challenge was great for you when we started. There were some 200 new members you had to assist and bring through a very delicate process at times. We think you have done well. We would
like to thank you for your service and we look forward to the service that will be provided in the 36th Parliament of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to what has already been said in regard to the possibility that we all, including yourself, may not be here next week to enjoy each other's company.
Although our differences are a matter of public record with respect to how this Parliament was organized in its early days in terms of party status and other matters like that, I have never questioned your dedication to this institution and the fairness you have been able to exercise within the limits that have been set and that to some degree you set for yourself early in this Parliament.
For the benefit of others, although some members of Parliament may well know this, some of us have had the benefit of attending Forum for Young Canadians dinners. One thing that has always struck me in talking to these young people has been the very deep impression that you, Mr. Speaker, have made on them. I am not kidding when I say that they rave about you, Mr. Speaker, at dinner time. They have come away from the sessions they have had with you, Mr. Speaker, with a respect and an affection for Parliament, for this institution and for our country. For that in particular we owe you a great vote of thanks.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
During question period a topic came up about a smelly substance and I would like to identify that as a Liberal deodorant called Shameless.
The Speaker: That is not a point of order.