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 4 of 136)


April 18, 1984

Mr. McRae:

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for his support of the Bill. I agree with him entirely that we should move it along, get it into committee, have a good look at it in committee and make the changes necessary. But let us get this thing going. However, I tend to agree to some extent with his answer to the last question.

When he is talking about the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) peace efforts, has he examined very closely the ten points which I think are tremendously important which really represent a distillation of what the Prime Minister found out when he talked to dozens and dozens of world leaders? Has he examined whether or not these ten points do not offer a much better approach to solving the world's problems than the arms control approach, which is the one we have been using?

Let me give you a quick example, Mr. Speaker. Imagine two people standing in a tank of gasoline; one has ten matches and the other has seven. One says, "You have more matches than I do". Maybe the answer should be that we should try to drain the gasoline away. Perhaps that is the real answer since we are not very successful at the other one; the weapons might disappear at some particular point if we do this other thing. But included in those other points, one of which is destabilizing weapons, which the Hon. Member has mentioned, is the Pershing II.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Full View Permalink

April 18, 1984

Mr. McRae:

Mr. Speaker, this was not my question, but since the Hon. Member brought it up, I am a little disturbed about his concern over the peace group being sponsored by my office. I am glad to sponsor any legitimate peace group which wants to have a meeting on the Hill if a room is available. All Members have this privilege. It is my understanding this group talked to the other Parties, it was not a single Party operation. What they are trying to do is worthwhile. I am a little surprised that the Hon. Member would see this as a partisan effort because we have both worked together very hard on this thing.

I want to preface my question by saying that it is extremely important to us both that this be the most independent body we can possibly find. We know what it was like when we were sitting in committee and listening to one-sided information coming steadily at us. The Hon. Member would remove the word "shall", and we talked about replacing it with "may". I agree with that entirely but I suggest we should leave the clause in. I would like him to think about this and comment on it.

It seems to me that if the clause was left in, then there would be no question about whether the Government could make a private agreement with the institute, that it would do what it is asked to do. However, if the word "may" were left in, then the organization itself could say: "But it says "may"; that means we may not if we do not want to". I suggest that would be a much better idea in order to give it the kind of

April 18, 1984

International Peace and Security

independence we want it to have. I say this with the idea in mind that 1 want this thing to be completely independent.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Full View Permalink

April 17, 1984

Mr. McRae:

I suppose if the issue had arisen a year or so before, and if the Prime Minister's moves had been made a year or two earlier-and I believe the Prime Minister's moves had a lot to do with a number of factors-I feel it would have been nice to get this thing going before. However, I consider that, having gone through all of this and having laid out these points, now is the time to try to get this particular piece of legislation through. It seems to me that there has been negotiation going on for several weeks on this legislation and other related matters. I still believe there is no great rush. I think the time available between now and the end of this sitting in June is more than adequate to deal with this particular legislation. I just do not see that this is being done in a rush. The Chairman of the committee was sitting here this morning and he indicated quite clearly that we could sit five days a week for a whole month, if necessary, and it may very well be. I believe the Bill is very simple, but certainly we should have a great deal of public input. The people of this country should be able to participate and there should be an occasion for a real discussion of this particular point. But I do not believe the time is too short.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Full View Permalink

April 17, 1984

Mr. McRae:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for a clarification of the word "independence". I have great concerns about this particular organization. I feel very strongly that it should go through, and I will be speaking on it in a few minutes. The independence I am worried about is that it be completely independent of Government Departments such as the Department of National Defence or the Department of External Affairs and that it functions independently in that way.

I am beginning to get the feeling that the Hon. Member is talking about political independence, that it be sort of non-partisan. I think it should be too, but I am wondering whether the Hon. Member is thinking about both kinds of independence, whether it be a Liberal thing, a Tory thing or something like that, or whether basically he is thinking about an organization that is quite independent of other parts of government in terms of coming to its own decisions. This kind of independence is crucial, and I think the other kind of independence can be easily worked out in the way we work out the Bill. However, there are two different kinds of independence. I would like the Hon. Member to distinguish between one or the other. Perhaps the Hon. Member could indicate whether he is in favour of

April 17, 1984

this organization functioning without being dependent upon other organs or departments of government.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Full View Permalink

April 17, 1984

Mr. McRae:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the endowment part of the question, I believe the Hon. Member has a very good point. I personally would have preferred an endowment partly because one does not have to go from year to year on a set fund which has been established, having to go back to the appropriate Minister. I believe an endowment has some advantages and, personally, I believe that it is worth negotiating. I am not sure of the Government's view on this particular point. I feel there are some negotiable items here, but since I am not part of the Government to the degree that I can say, "This is the way we should go", I will just say that I feel this is something worth looking into.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Full View Permalink