[Translation]
Would the Prime Minister tell us whether the remarks of the Minister of Human Resources Development reflect his government's position on new Canadians?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period, the hon. member was criticizing the department of immigration. What I said then and I repeat now is that it is unacceptable, in my opinion, for someone who came to Canada, was honoured with Canadian citizenship and entered this House as an elected representative to the Parliament of Canada to attack policies on refugees coming to Canada, and I stand by it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has a short memory, but the blues bear witness. Hansard records what was said, exactly, and what was repeated and added to today just after the cabinet meeting.
My question, and it is a serious one, is for the Prime Minister. I would like to know how the Prime Minister can allow a member of his government, a minister, to decide that there are two sorts of citizens in Canada: those born and bred here, who may be either federalists or sovereignists, and new Canadians, who may only be federalists or find themselves another country, as he put it.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I made my comments yesterday and when I made my comments today at the end of the ministers' meeting, I was trying to explain and I will explain now for the Leader of the Opposition that-except the people who have been here from the start, the native peoples-everybody in Canada comes from another country, including my ancestors.
What I said is that someone who benefited from Canada's generosity and openmindedness and who then-because in the blues yesterday as well there was a question by the hon. member about the legitimacy of the situation involving the department of immigration-
Mrs. Tremblay: That is not true; that was not the question; that is wrong.
Mr. Young: Everything I said yesterday, I repeat today. Someone coming to Canada-
Mrs. Tremblay: You do not even know how to read.
Mr. Young: -who is elected, who enters Parliament and who defends separatism by attacking the system that enabled him to become a citizen-that is unacceptable.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister has decided to let his Minister of Human Resources Development compound what he said yesterday about new Canadians. It is an insult.
My question is for the Prime Minister, and I think it is his responsibility as Prime Minister to respond. The Prime Minister was delighted recently by the suspension of three members of the third party for similar reasons. Is he going to act responsibly today as he ought as Prime Minister? Will he act quickly and demand the resignation of this minister, who brings shame onto the entire government with remarks he made that are clearly unacceptable in a democracy?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am moved by the words of the Leader of the Opposition, by his sudden concern for the respect of individual rights.
The other day in Quebec, the Leader of the Opposition alluded to the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, as being an Ontarian, although I have had the privilege of sitting in this House since 1963, have served the people of Quebec and New Brunswick here in the House of Commons and have followed the francophones of Quebec for 33 years.
I think the Leader of the Opposition should first clean up the language of his own members, who are accusing federalists of being traitors to Quebec because they believe in Canada. The members of the Bloc Quebecois are not about to teach us a lesson in good manners.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister certainly is having trouble understanding the terms used by his Minister of Human Resources Development. He did not understand the question yesterday, and you are confusing manners-
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, you must always address the Chair.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is confusing manners and respect for democracy with unacceptable speech. Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development said, and repeated, ``While it was Canada which gave him citizenship, here he is now seated in this House preaching separatism. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker''.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if the government's policy toward Canadians by adoption is this: ``Welcome to Canada, but you are not entitled to your political opinions''?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an opinion expressed by a minister concerning an elected member sitting legitimately in this House. He told the hon. member that he was preaching separatism in a country which had welcomed him. I think that is realistic. If the member in question wishes to say that he is a federalist, we will welcome him with pleasure, but he is a separatist. Is there any shame in being labelled a separatist, when a separatist is what one is? That is not shameful.
That is what the minister said. He is a separatist and a new Canadian, and he is working to destroy this country. He is entitled to do so, just as the minister is entitled to point out to him that he is a new citizen and involved in trying to destroy the country that welcomed him. He is entitled to do so. That is the beauty of Canada, to have absolute freedom.
There are a good many countries which would not allow new immigrants to work to destroy the country, but we in Canada have sufficient confidence in democracy to do so.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not even have the courage of the leader of the Reform Party.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, it is not a question of being or not being courageous. We all have the courage of our convictions. I would ask the hon. member to choose his words with a little more care.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Human Resources Development said yesterday was that, if the hon. member for Bourassa continued to express those ideas, he would do better to find himself another country. That is what he said.
Will the Prime Minister's convictions lead him to denounce these words, as the leader of the Reform Party denounced the members of his party who made unacceptable statements? Can he do that, rather than trying to camouflage the truth?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I simply stated that he is entitled to defend his ideas in Canada, and that there are not many countries that would allow that. If we were to start going back over unacceptable statements made about members of this House, there is one person who could be on his feet every day: myself.
However, I accept the political debate and the opinion expressed by an Acadian, a francophone outside Quebec, who knows that the separation of Quebec would endanger the cultural life of his fellow francophone citizens in New Brunswick or elsewhere in Canada. His feelings are true. I believe that he is describing a reality, which is that there is a member of this House who is an immigrant and who is working to break up Canada. That is something he does not like.
Considering that a member of the party across the floor from me said, not all that long ago, that people who were not born in Canada ought not to be entitled to vote in the Quebec referendum, we do not need the Bloc Quebecois' advice.
Almost three years later we have 1.4 million Canadians unemployed, we have almost a third of our workforce underemployed and we have about one out of four Canadians worried about their future job security.
In other words, we have massive economic insecurity. How does the Prime Minister respond to this situation? He responded on his recent western trip by saying Canadians will just have to live with it.
Is the Prime Minister really telling 1.4 million unemployed Canadians they will simply have to learn to live with yet another broken promise, the broken promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the leader of the third party what I said. I have the transcript. I said that in the last two and a half years we have seen unemployment go down, although not enough to my liking. I have said that many times in the House of Commons. I will not be happy until all people who want to find work find it.
In January 1994 we were at 11.5 per cent and now we are down to 9.4 per cent. The economy has created 636,000 new jobs in two and a half years, a record unmatched anywhere in the world.
Germany and France together have not created as many jobs as Canada was able to create in the last two and a half years. I wish we had created more. That is why we had this budget. It is why we managed to reduce the interest rate to four points below what it was a year ago so that there would be more jobs created.
As long as there are Canadians who want to work, the government will work to create jobs. We have not done too badly, 636,000 new jobs in the last two and a half years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the number of jobs the government claims to have created, even if it were taken at face value, is completely inadequate in relation to the millions of jobs required.
If we subtract the number of jobs lost over the last three years, if we subtract the number of temporary jobs and if we subtract the number of Canadians who have given up looking for work, the government's job creation record is simply atrocious.
The government professes to have firm targets for deficit reduction. What is the government's target for reducing the unemployment rate and when will it be achieved?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the statistics published by Statistics Canada, it is very clear these jobs are after the deduction of the loss of other jobs. The net figures are 636,000 new jobs.
It is a very good record and we will keep working on it, as we are doing now. That is why we said we would reduce the level of unemployment. We went from 11.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent. With the policies of the Minister of Finance, approved by the government, we are doing better than any other country in the western hemisphere on that score.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these answers are simply not enough for the 1.4 million unemployed, for the underemployed and for the one out of four Canadians worried about their jobs.
On the 1993 campaign trail the Prime Minister slammed Kim Campbell for saying unemployment would not substantially improve until the year 2000. He called it an admission of failure. Then after only two and a half years in office he turns around and says almost exactly the same thing, and all this after promising job creation heaven on pages 11, 15, 16 and 20 of the now discredited red book.
Did the Prime Minister ever intend to keep this election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs or was it, like the GST, simply another cynical political ploy to get undeserving Liberals elected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the record of the government on job creation: 636,000 jobs. We have done it while reducing the deficit in relation to GDP from 6.2 per cent to 3 per cent this year.
On Monday in the Globe and Mail there was a big article saying people are running to buy Canadian bonds because they think it is the best investment they can make. Only a year and a half ago we had to explain to people abroad that Canada wanted to solve its problems. Now people recognize we are on the right track and they are running to buy new Canadian bonds.
The way the Minister of Finance is doing that, in two or three years from now there will be no more new cash requirements. It is better for them to rush to buy Canadian bonds.
The Prime Minister said essentially the same thing. My question is very clear: Does the Prime Minister, by refusing to dissociate himself from his minister's statement, support the comments made
by his Minister of Human Resources Development, yes or no? That is what we want to know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeated what the minister had said. He was referring to a comment about the fact that the hon. member for Bourassa is a new Canadian who came here, I imagine, as a refugee and was then granted Canadian citizenship. He is now exercising his democratic right to try to break up Canada. This did not please either the minister or myself, but he has a right to do so. Those are the rights given to those who become Canadian citizens. They have the right to espouse any cause they want.
I think that such freedoms are allowed in a country like Canada, and I am very happy to see that several other new Canadians from Quebec are sitting in this House, most of whom are on our side.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be careful with majorities as they may disappear quickly in certain circumstances.
Is the Prime Minister, by sticking to the comments made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, who urged the hon. member for Bourassa to choose another country, implementing plan B as a political expedient aimed at the rest of Canada, and taking members of cultural communities hostage by demanding that they share his political views if they want to become Canadian citizens?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is always the rhetoric, talking about hostages, talking about prisons.
[Translation]
It is always the same thing. They are trying to frighten people. What happened in this House? What happened is that, like his colleagues, a separatist member of Parliament did not have the courage to say he is a separatist, preferring to call himself a sovereignist.
(1435)
The Speaker: My dear colleague, again, you are asked not to question the courage of any member. If the Prime Minister has something to add to his answer, he may do so now.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the members of the Bloc Quebecois now want immigrants to be welcome in Quebec. I am very happy to hear this. I would have preferred that they not attack the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who, during the referendum, wanted them to have the same freedom of speech as that enjoyed by the hon. member for Bourassa.
The people who criticized us for allowing new immigrants to vote in the referendum are now complaining that both sides of the House can now express themselves freely. In the opinion of Acadians, those who, upon becoming citizens of all of Canada, regained the freedom they had lost in their native countries should not try to break up Canada.
If the solicitor general determines, as it is reported, that these were active KGB-FSB agents, will he and the external affairs minister immediately expel some or all Russian diplomats in Canada?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the Canadian government has undertaken a review of the two individuals alleged to be with the Russian security service operating under false identities.
These people are under investigation by the appropriate authorities. Under the Immigration Act there are proceedings underway that will determine whether they should be deported.
As this case is before the courts, and I believe the hearings will be tomorrow, it would be imprudent for me to make any further comments on the case.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the answer given by the parliamentary secretary is appropriate for this grave and serious situation.
I ask again, if these agents who firebombed a house in Toronto are determined to be active members of the KGB-FSB, will the government expel some or all Russian diplomats today?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the person who is confused here is the hon. member because the two members he is questioning regarding the firebombing in Toronto are not the two that are related.
In any event, if any person in this country is here acting illegally appropriate actions will be taken.
[Translation]
It is now official, we have learned this morning that the ruling made by Revenue Canada in 1991, which allowed one of the wealthiest families in Canada to transfer $2 billion in assets to the United States without paying a cent in taxes, may actually have created a precedent. This morning, the deputy minister of revenue stated that hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars may well have evaded and still be evading taxes.
Is the minister of revenue prepared to admit today that, contrary to what she said two weeks ago, the situation does require urgent attention and that the time to act is not sometime next fall, but right now?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows very well, my department took the report of the auditor general very seriously and responded immediately. He was concerned about documentation of rulings, and we have responded to that. He was concerned about whether rulings were made public, and we have responded to that.
(1440 )
We have also responded by making sure that these very important points of law are reviewed by the finance committee. While this important review is going on, out of respect for the work of the committee, we will suspend any further rulings that have to do with this particular aspect of income tax law.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the situation has evolved over the past two weeks. Two weeks ago, the minister said it was not urgent to act in this matter but, just this morning, her deputy minister indicated that, since December 31, 1991, when an advance ruling was made by officials of her department, there may have been further instances of flights of capital like the $2 billion that were transferred to the U.S. without a cent being collected in taxes.
The government did not act. The only way to go is to immediately suspend the 1991 advance ruling, preventing it from being extended to other families. That is what the government should do. Will the minister undertake before this House to take this action immediately?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the deputy minister indicated he had no clear understanding that there were any tax rulings which preceded or came after 1991. I would recognize again, as the hon. member points out, that 1991 was a time previous to our government and we are taking action to deal with this very critical aspect of income tax law right now.
The hon. member has a very good opportunity to listen to the witnesses who come before the finance committee to understand the complexities of this part of the Income Tax Act. It is complex. It does affect all Canadians. I would encourage him to listen closely to the testimony and be part of a good and fulsome recommendation to the Minister of Finance.
Why does the President of the Treasury Board think it is acceptable for the defence minister to engineer contracts rewarding his campaign pals through Treasury Board guidelines?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said yesterday. Department of National Defence and Treasury Board officials checked the contracts and found them to be in compliance with the guidelines regarding ministerial office budgets. I would add that we have exempt staff budgets which have different rules because there is some advice that is given which is of a partisan nature. There is a difference between these two types of budgets for that reason.
In this case advice was solicited by the Minister of National Defence. It was for advice which he judged to be necessary. Once again, it was done in compliance with Treasury Board guidelines for these budgets.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Canadian public will be happy to hear that we now have patronage budgets for ministers.
The President of the Treasury Board keeps saying that he conducted a thorough investigation into these contracts. The investigation was a joke. Whom did he ask? He asked Department of National Defence officials if they followed Treasury Board guidelines and to everyone's surprise, they said yes. It is like asking the fox to mind the chicken coup.
Given these blatant abuses and conflicts of interest, why has the ethics counsellor not been called in to look at this matter?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should recognize that he too has a political budget. If he looks at his budget as a member of Parliament, the secretary he hires and the people who are hired to give him advice under that budget are usually picked because they are of a certain political colour. Every member of Parliament and every minister has an exempt staff budget.
The member talks about patronage. He is trying to use loaded words. He does not recognize the fact that these budgets are term exempt staff budgets because they usually employ people who give advice of a partisan nature.
[Translation]
We just learned about the incredible fate of four Romanian stowaways, three of whom are said to have thrown overboard by the captain of the cargo ship they were aboard.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs provide details on the circumstances surrounding this horrible tragedy?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would explain to the hon. member that because the alleged transgression took place on the international high seas, Canada has no legal standing. The only countries that can take action are those that are party to the dispute, the flagship nation Taiwan, the Romanians or in this case the Philippines because of the crew involved.
We have offered every co-operation we can to those authorities. There have been discussions with the Romanian authorities. My officials met with the Romanian chargé d'affaires to offer our full co-operation. We are prepared to do anything we possibly can.
The Minister of Transport has said that the ship is still being held in the harbour. The Minister of Justice is working on potential extradition questions with the Romanians. Canada will co-operate in any way we possibly can to deal with this very serious misdeed.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, Romania asked him to take action regarding this incident. Will the minister intercede with international authorities so that such a tragedy can never happen again?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two levels. First, there are official agreements that we have signed dealing with extradition. The Minister of Justice and his officials are already seized with that aspect of the case. The other is political co-operation where the police, the solicitor general, the Department of Transport and my own department are co-operating fully with the Romanian officials to determine what action might be taken to protect their citizens and to react to this serious case.
We are dealing at the legal level of extradition and at the other level of offering all co-operation to the Romanian authorities.
In my riding of Timmins-Chapleau flood damage has affected the communities of Chapleau, Foleyet, White River and Timmins. The price tag is growing and our communities and residents in the wake of this natural disaster now must face the consequences.
What can the federal government do to assist the communities in my riding and others in Canada which have been so negatively affected by flood conditions?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to express the government's concern for the people who have been affected by the floods this spring in the hon. member's riding and the adjacent region.
The provincial government as the lead government is responding to the disaster and has requested help from the federal government in the evacuation of its citizens. The federal government has assigned two Hercules aircraft to evacuate people from the neighbouring area of the hon. member's riding.
If the Dubai tries to sail from Halifax without the allegations of high seas murders being fully addressed by the RCMP, will the justice minister commit to detaining the Dubai and holding its crew until the investigation is complete?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, we are operating at various levels to see that steps are taken in relation to the tragedy that has been alleged on the high seas.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has been in touch with the chargés d'affaires of other governments. I am standing by to exercise whatever authority I might have in terms of extradition. Transport is busy doing what it can to investigate. We have made it clear to the foreign government that we will do whatever we can to co-operate.
(1450 )
I want the hon. member to know that as much as we deplore and are appalled by the allegations, we do have to respect the rule of law. These events, as alleged, took place in international waters. They involve a Romanian ship and a crew from the Philippines. What is important is for us to respond in accordance with the rule of law and we will do that. It does not mean that we are without remedy but it is a little more complicated. However, I assure the hon. member that we will do whatever we can within the law to see that a remedy is provided.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not feel very reassured when it comes to human rights like this that there is very much concern there.
It has been reported that this ship has been operating out of Taiwan. We hear the minister saying that it is owned in Romania. It is owned in Taiwan. It is operated by Maersk Shipping of Madison, Wisconsin.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs end this kind of charade we see over there and call Maersk Shipping? The phone number is right here and I can table it. Will the minister ask that the ship be voluntarily held here until the investigation is completed? I have already asked them that.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motor vessel Dubai is not going anywhere. Transport Canada has had a look at the ship as a result of comments by the crew. We have determined that there are defects in the main engine exhaust system which causes fume leakage.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the point that the Reform Party seems to forget is that there are legal reasons for detaining this ship and preventing it from leaving. We are exploring every one of those reasons. This ship is not leaving that harbour until we are satisfied.
[Translation]
Independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our legal system. However, in a case heard before the federal court, an assistant deputy minister from the Department of Justice, Ted Thompson, tried to influence court proceedings through a personal meeting with Chief Justice Isaac of the federal court.
How can the Minister of Justice accept that a senior official of his department would unduly interfere with the legal proceedings, in an attempt to influence the presiding judge?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to raise this important matter. It is troubling. We have already told the court in the course of the litigation that the Department of Justice regards the meeting that was held as inappropriate and it ought not to have occurred.
In the period since the meeting came to my attention, I have asked the deputy minister to investigate the matter and recommend a course of action. Tomorrow it is my intention to make a statement in this House with respect to our response to the developments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ministers have resigned because of interference in the legal process. There are precedents.
What measures does the minister intend to take to prevent such violations of the law from reoccurring, and does he intend to report to the judicial council the overly conciliatory attitude of Chief Justice Isaac and Mr. Justice Jerome?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement to the House tomorrow with respect to the department's response to these circumstances.
I can tell the hon. member, as has been made clear to the court, I regard the meeting that was held between the justice official and the chief justice as inappropriate. Where counsels are involved in matters before the courts, those counsels should be notified of such meetings and those meetings should not take place without counsels being informed.
(1455 )
In terms of the role of the chief justice or others, I withhold comment on that until I have recommendations from the deputy minister. I will have more to say about the entire subject tomorrow when I make a statement in the House.
The Minister of National Revenue just announced in question period that she has suspended future rulings on the issue, that the deputy minister of finance said it was so simple he did not want to keep notes on it.
Will the minister of revenue appoint a public inquiry today to investigate the circumstances surrounding those two very questionable rulings?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this morning the deputy minister of finance appeared before the finance committee and went through contortions to try to justify a bad ruling that created this tax loophole. In order to justify his position he was giving new tax interpretations off the top of his head, such as all real estate owned by Canadians is now taxable Canadian property.
The Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue are digging themselves into a bigger hole. What about the Minister of Finance? Will he admit this game has gone too far? Will he plug the leak and call for a public inquiry to investigate the circumstances now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has already stated quite clearly that there will be no more advance rulings on this pending the completion of the work of the parliamentary committee.
There is a parliamentary committee. Meetings were held this morning. I am a little surprised the hon. member opposite does not take his responsibilities sufficiently seriously and he does not think that he and his colleagues are able to get at all of the details that are required. We on this side of the House have a great deal of confidence in democracy, the parliamentary system and the finance committee. We think it can do the job.
Alberta's government wants fair and efficient capital markets and enhanced harmonization of regulatory requirements between provinces. In the speech from the throne our federal government announced that it will work with interested provinces to develop a Canadian securities commission.
How would a Canadian securities commission accommodate the regional differences in capital markets that exist in Canada?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue that regional differences in capital markets are represented in a Canadian securities commission, if one should come about, and we are working at that.
We must remember that a group of provinces initiated the Canadian securities commission idea. The regional differences would be represented by commissioners from the regions. They would be represented by regional offices.
It is important to stress that Canada is the only major country that does not have a national securities commission. In other countries that have those securities commissions there are very strong regional developments.
The recent purchase by Conrad Black's Hollinger Inc. of all Saskatchewan daily newspapers has resulted in a steady drop in quality, a decline in local and balanced reporting and 25 per cent fewer jobs. Since then, Hollinger has increased its Canadian ownership to 53 per cent of all daily newspapers and 42 per cent of circulation.
Will the Prime Minister freeze these recent acquisitions until a complete review of this concentration of ownership and its effects on Canadians can be undertaken by the government through either a royal commission or through a press ownership review board?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member had included with his question his premise of the legal grounds upon which such an extraordinary measure could be taken. What he does know is that the director of the competition bureau will review the acquisitions with respect to
the impact of the economic concentration of ownership and the transactions will be considered accordingly.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
That in the opinion of this House, since global markets are becoming increasingly more open, deregulated, diverse and specialized and since not all-The Speaker: First we need unanimous consent to put the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
It is appropriate that we honour Carl's memory here in the House of Commons for it was here that he served as a page while he attended Carleton University. He was at home in this Chamber and he has left behind many friends from various political parties.
Carl was born in East Bay, Nova Scotia on March 27, 1970. He came to Ottawa to pursue his post-secondary studies in political science but his education in politics did not only come from books. He was active in student government and served as chair of the Canadian Federation of Students. He was holding that position when this government came to power. I know that some of my colleagues here on the front benches and indeed members of the opposition will remember him in that capacity. I know all of us will remember him fondly.
Carl came to my office from the Canadian Federation of Students in the spring of 1994. He shared the constant pressures and the occasional joys of the Hill with many members of Parliament, their assistants and his many friends.
For those of us who knew him, he was a great student of American presidential politics. Carl was a great admirer of the late John. F. Kennedy and I am sure he was familiar with the following quote:
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date that high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibility to the state, our success or failure in whatever office we hold will be measured by the answers to four questions: First, were we truly men of courage? Second, were we truly men of judgment? Third, were we truly men of integrity? Finally, were we truly men of dedication?(1505 )
Much was given to Carl Gillis and now much has been taken away. We are left with the answers to those four questions. Yes, he was a young man, but he was a young man of courage. He was a man of judgment, of integrity, of dedication.
The qualities he possessed in abundance are too seldom seen; now they are too soon gone. We must now find comfort in Carl's memory and in the knowledge that he enriched the lives of those who knew him. The generosity and compassion which characterized his life have also defined his death.
Our thoughts and our prayers are with Carl's family at this very sad time, to his mother Peggy and his father and nine brothers, to the extended family and to his many friends, some of whom are here.
Your death, my friend, has come far too early but your memory will never die.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was with sadness that we learned of the tragic accident that claimed the life of Carl Gillis. I did not have the pleasure of knowing him personally, but I am told that he was a good man, a generous individual who shared his joie de vivre and was loved by all who knew him.
His untimely death forces us to stop and reflect on safety in sports. To the Minister of Health, his parents, his family, and his friends, the Bloc Quebecois and I extend our most heartfelt condolences.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I too want to extend sympathies to Carl's family. It is unbelievable that a life so young would be taken from us.
At times like this we realize the tragedy that somebody as young and healthy and who spent so much time in the outdoors doing something he loved can have their life suddenly snapped away so quickly. It is easy to ask why. His family is grieving, along with many people on the Hill.
My prayer is that all of us today consider our own mortality and realize how important it is to appreciate every special day we have. It is easy to get caught up with how important issues are, yet life itself is such a gift. It is important for all of us to live each day as it is a special gift for all of us.
I extend our sympathy and profound grief at the passing of this young man. May he be an example to all of us that we cherish every day we have.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to join in these few words about my assistant, Carl Gillis, whose death last evening continues to shock us all.
As the Minister of Health mentioned, Carl came to Ottawa to serve as a page in this House where he was exposed to the political virus so many of us have contracted. He went on out of a desire to serve to be the vice-president of the Carleton University Students Association and then later was president of the Canadian Federation of Students.
He was undoubtedly one of Canada's best and brightest. He was a member of our parliamentary family. Carl, like many of the young people who come here to serve as pages, as assistants in ministers' offices or in the offices of members, came with the hope they all bring for Canada's future. Carl cared about the world he lived in. He cared about the people around him and he desperately wanted to make a difference.
(1510)
I have never met Carl's parents but he must have made them extraordinarily proud. He excelled as a student. He demonstrated qualities of honesty, integrity, perseverance, politeness, good humour, loyalty, kindness. In fact, one wonders how a young man could grow up as ninth in a family of ten boys and turn out so nice.
He first worked with me in 1992 and I quickly learned to respect his ability, his judgment, his qualities of character. When he joined my staff earlier this year he quickly became part of the team in taking up his new duties with enthusiasm and dedication.
I would like to express my sympathy, and I am sure that of this House, to the Gillis family. I also want them to know that we share their pride in Carl as we also share their loss. We will not be able to replace Carl. We will never see his potential fulfilled and we will miss our friend.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I would like to give our deepest sympathy to the family of Carl Gillis, one young man who was known not just on the Hill but back in Cape Breton as well.
When I arrived on the Hill today my legislative assistant told me about being at a prayer vigil for Carl last week and that many people were there because they loved this young man. He set an example not just for our pages but for all of us in the House. They tell me that great love came from Carl and if someone was upset about anything and just happened to sit down with him for a few moments they would come away with a smile on their face. He was a very special young man. Why he has been taken away from us so early in life, we have no answer for that.
To his family I want to say it is a great loss to all of us here, a great loss on the Hill, a great loss to Canada and a great loss to his family. Our deepest sympathy goes out to them.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is an extraordinary thing that we in this House of Commons would pay this type of tribute to this young man. Many of his colleagues are here with us this afternoon, young Canadians, proud Canadians. He served us and he served this Parliament as a page.
I have been here now some 22 years and this is the first of this type of tribute I have heard. I wish I had known that man, but we claim him as part of our family and we grieve with his family now.
I thank you all, those who have participated here with your words and those who hold him dear to your hearts.