Paul Edmund MCRAE

MCRAE, Paul Edmund, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Thunder Bay--Atikokan (Ontario)
Birth Date
October 20, 1924
Deceased Date
November 3, 1992
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McRae
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=5d169cac-f116-46fd-9ff6-73cffa8348d5&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
school principal

Parliamentary Career

October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
LIB
  Fort William (Ontario)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  Fort William (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (October 10, 1975 - September 30, 1976)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (October 1, 1976 - September 30, 1977)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
LIB
  Thunder Bay--Atikokan (Ontario)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
LIB
  Thunder Bay--Atikokan (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 136)


June 20, 1984

Mr. McRae:

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I consider the proceedings are getting ridiculous. It seems to me that we have all made our point. I would suggest that the three House Leaders absent themselves from the next vote. I would be glad to absent myself as well so the two Opposition Parties would not consider there was a unevenness between the two sides. Perhaps the House Leaders can come to some agreement as to how this thing can be ended. I do not believe the public of Canada finds this a very pleasant proceeding and finds it ridiculous.

All I am suggesting is that three House Leaders absent themselves for a few moments. I would be glad to do what I said I would do, absent myself from the vote so there would be no unevenness. Let us see if we can come to some reasonable conclusion to what is becoming a farce.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Full View Permalink

June 20, 1984

Mr. McRae:

Point of order.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Full View Permalink

June 4, 1984

Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved

that Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it would be proper for me to indicate that while my name is on the Bill, the work which has been done in putting the Bill together has been done by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Blaker) who is also the Hon. Member for Lachine. However, as a Parliamentary Secretary I am informed that he cannot be the author of a Bill. Therefore, I will say a few words and will move a motion at the end of my remarks.

I am concerned about the people who work for Members of Parliament. They have given faithful service, are well-acquainted with the operations of Government, have worked long hours, and have gained a great understanding of the various departments and what government is all about. But, for one reason or another, when the Member of Parliament for whom they work ceases to be a Member at the end of a particular term or at any particular time when the Member is defeated or when he decides not to run in the election, they are out of a job. I am told that in every Parliament approximately 100 Members cease to be Members of Parliament for one reason or another. What this Bill says is that after approximately three years of service, these people should have the same priorities as a public servant. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that these priorities, in terms of moving into the civil service, are held by people working in Minister's offices and so on. We feel that those persons who work hard for Members of Parliament should have that same privilege after three years of service. I, therefore, feel this Bill is very important. I understand there is some disposition on all sides to let this legislation go forward. There may be some amendments which will be required but, certainly, we hope that this Bill will be accepted by all Parties.

In view of the fact that I was not the author of the Bill, although I was certainly involved in and very much in favour of it, and in view of the fact that the author of the Bill is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, the Hon. Member for Lachine, I would ask for unanimous agreement of the House to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to speak for the next few minutes in my place so that the balance of my time would be given over to him. I believe that would require unanimous consent, but if that is possible I believe it would give a better understanding of what is in the Bill and would not necessitate the Hon. Member's speaking at a later date. If it is possible, I would yield the floor, as is common in the United States, to the Hon. Member, with unanimous consent.

June 4, 1984

Public Service Employment Act

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING STAFF OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Full View Permalink

May 29, 1984

Mr. McRae:

If we do not close the gap, then the war occurs. We are pure, we are not doing anything wrong, but how are we closing that gap? It seems to me that we would then invalidate anything that could happen because the two super powers would not speak to us.

I would like to begin to understand the dimensions of this issue. I simply do not believe that in this world, Canada will be able to change anything. One might think that we could change things by bringing the two super powers together. In those ten points of common ground to which I have referred many times, there are areas about which both sides can agree and there are more to those areas than what appears on the surface. Then, with the right negotiating techniques, we may be able to change things.

I would remind Hon. Members on both sides of the House that the issue we are dealing with today will be a very large issue in the elections in both the United States and Canada. Both countries will be holding elections during almost the same period of time. If there is a change in the U.S. Government after the November election, then we will be faced with a new situation and we will have a chance to develop these things. I believe that that is what will happen. However, I am opposed to trying to inject ourselves into a situation in which we would hope for some successful negotiations between the two super powers in such a way that we would automatically and without any question be rejected. I do not think that that will achieve anything positive. In fact, I think it may achieve the very opposite.

May 29, 1984

Let us talk about what is happening now. I would like to talk about this hardness that exists. There is a group called the Arms Control Association in the United States which has a very distinguished board of directors. That board includes people like Admiral Gayler, the former Commander in Chief for the Pacific of the United States Navy; Gerard Smith, a former arms-control director for the U.S. Government; Paul Warnke, a former arms-control director for the Carter U.S. Government; Robert McNamara, a former Secretary of Defence; and others. These people recently commissioned a study and a report which indicated that the Reagan Government has basically destroyed arms control negotiations. It indicated that such arms-control measures as the START talks and SALT I and SALT II will be destroyed.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Full View Permalink

May 29, 1984

Mr. McRae:

If I have only two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I think that I can get along without the question. I have a very serious point that I want to ensure the House understands.

If I were an American today and was centre to centre-right in my leanings, which I am not, I would be very, very concerned about the policy that the Reagan Government is taking in the United States. I do not think that the United States stands taller than it did before. I think that it stands weaker. It stands weaker because it has created far, far more dangers: the deployment of the Pershing II, the flight trajectory, and the threat of four to six minutes. These kinds of things are the tensions which create a war. There are far more SS-20s than there were before. There is a very large build-up in the Sea of Japan, the Kuril Islands and the surrounding areas of Soviet Typhoon submarines. Each submarine has 80 warheads. That kind of build-up is there.

There is a breakdown in the NATO alliance which is very serious, certainly at the political level. There is great concern among people in NATO about whether the alliance will continue in the way it has. I am speaking from the point of view of an American who would be of the middle to middle-right persuasion. We have a Lebanese situation which is frightfully dangerous and ridiculous. As well, there is the Grenada scene and the situation in Central America.

The most important issue is not whether we declare ourselves a nuclear free zone and test the Cruise, it is what will happen in the United States in the next six months. Anything

we can do to help that situation, I am in favour of that. But, I will not count on us getting involved in something which will discredit Canada or create a situation in which we are turned down again. We cannot afford that situation. Although I agree with the Hon. Member, I am worried about other things which his Party does not seem to be worried about.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Full View Permalink