Let us not forget that the minister has admitted that the information he communicated to the RCMP originated with an unidentified journalist.
I am asking the minister whether he advised the Prime Minister of the approaches he was planning to make to the RCMP, before he was appointed Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, but there is an assumption in the question that is wrong.
The hon. member asserted in his preamble that there has been an omission that I involved myself in the Airbus investigation. That is plain wrong. The choice of language and precision of expression is important in this matter.
The House will know from what has been said that I have made it a matter of public record that after consulting with my deputy minister and the Solicitor General of Canada, I communicated to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in November 1993, or thereabouts, information which I had received with respect to the previous government.
The RCMP then communicated with me after they had looked into those matters and said that there was no basis for investigation.
Subsequently, separately, the RCMP commenced an investigation into what is now called the Airbus affair. I had no knowledge of or involvement in that investigation. My first knowledge of it was derived on November 4, 1995 when one of the lawyers for Mr. Mulroney telephoned me at home.
Those are the facts. In communicating information to the RCMP that I had learned early in November 1993, I was not only acting after consulting with the deputy minister and the solicitor general, but as it appears from reports in the media in recent days, I was doing exactly the same as at least one former minister of justice, John Turner, said he did when he was fixed with information of that kind.
Therefore, I invite the hon. member to be careful in how he expresses himself. I had no involvement in the Airbus investigation, as that is known. That is a matter for the police.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister tells us that he communicated information to the RCMP. I an not making any assumptions on the role he played in the affair.
Having this information, however, and intending to communicate it to the RCMP-I am not saying he interfered in the investigation-I am asking him, knowing all this, when the Prime Minister invited him to be Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada, did he not find it appropriate to inform the Prime Minister of his intention to communicate that information to the RCMP because, after becoming Solicitor General and Minister of Justice, he would be the one responsible for the case.
Is this not a lack of judgment? Let us keep in mind, all ministers speak on behalf of the government, commit the Cabinet, commit the Prime Minister. Why then did he not inform the Prime Minister?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, it is not.
In the first place, at the time when I was sworn in I had not yet consulted either with the deputy or the solicitor general with respect to the information in my proper role. Second, a police investigation is not the responsibility of the attorney general and the Minister of Justice.
If the hon. member will look at the roles and responsibilities of officers of the government, he will see the RCMP conducts investigations on its own. It is the solicitor general, not the attorney general, who reports to Parliament for the police.
These are not simply matters of detail. They are fundamental issues, as I said in response to a question last week from the hon. member's colleague. Police investigations are run by the police, not by politicians.
It is only those who choose not to see it who say there is no distinction between an attorney general acting responsibly in communicating to the RCMP information so it can pursue it and exercise its own judgment about its importance and an attorney general saying to the police: ``I will have no role in a police investigation. That is up to you to decide''. Those are the principles.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us that he did not speak to the deputy ministers or the people in the department before becoming minister and Solicitor General. I can understand that, as he was not yet in the position. The opposite situation would have surprised me greatly.
What I am asking the minister is that, when invited to join the cabinet as Solicitor General and Minister of Justice-he was the one who would have to deal with this matter later on. I am not speaking of the investigation, or of the letters sent to Switzerland, to a foreign government, by his department, which was nevertheless responsible-would it not have been appropriate at that time for him to inform the Prime Minister that he was privy to some information, that he had heard certain things, allegations from a journalist, in order not to be in conflict of interest or to appear to be in conflict of interest?
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I know this is an important matter. I try to give all latitudes à celui qui demande les questions et à celui qui répond. For the rest of question period I ask that you be very precise in the question. Maybe we can cut down a little on the preamble.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will poke in vain through the entrails of this affair to find some squalid political advantage.
There are two principles in operation here, and I abided in them both. First, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, when I am fixed with information and consult with my deputy and with the solicitor general and am then advised that it is properly communicated to the RCMP, I do so. That is fulfilling a moral obligation. I am encouraged to see that predecessors in office have done the same, including John Turner.
The second principle is the police conduct investigations without interference from politicians. When I communicate information, it is up to the police to decide what to do with it.
In this instance they wrote back and said ``we have looked into it and we are doing nothing with it''. Then if they on their own decide to commence an investigation, as apparently they did, they are to do that investigation without being controlled or influenced by politicians. That is the second principle and that principle was also respected.
(1425)
The hon. member will look in vain for any wrongdoing in this case.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Justice denied the report by the CBC to the effect that the libel suit brought against the government in the Airbus deal might be settled out of court.
However, by indicating that an out of court settlement is always the best solution, the Minister of Justice admitted that the government was trying to get that kind of settlement in the Airbus case.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us if, in the Airbus case, the main objective of the government is to settle out of court and if the department's counsels have made a proposal to that end?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of whether litigation should be settled is a matter for lawyers. As I said yesterday, I think in civil litigation the interests of the parties are always best protected, best served, by settling rather than by litigating issues.
There is no settlement imminent in this case that I am aware of. There is no concrete proposal on the table that I am aware of. If the parties through their solicitors have communication, so much the better. We will always be mindful of the public interest in whatever settlement discussions take place.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that the department's counsels heard the minister say that a settlement out of court was the best solution. I do not think they are deaf.
Would the minister not agree that his own poor judgment put the government in a very bad legal situation, that will cost a lot of money to the Canadian taxpayers and undermine the credibility of the whole government?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that this litigation was commenced by the plaintiff, not by us. As to what it will cost the taxpayer, the hon. member ought to wait and see how the case turns out.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this airbus scandal continues to take flight. Although it is clear there have been gross errors of judgment, errors of commission and omission, the minister continues to confuse the people of Canada by denying all responsibility and says he is taking no part, no play in this comedy of errors.
Now the Liberals are talking about a payoff to keep Mr. Mulroney quiet and taxpayers are on the hook for millions.
If the minister is not responsible for this Keystone cop routine, who will he blame? Is it the RCMP, the reporters? Who is he blaming?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the matter is in litigation. The questions I was asking had to do with the prospect of settlement.
As I said, there is no settlement imminent, no concrete proposal for settlement. There is no issue at present of spending any taxpayer money. I said earlier we should wait and see how this litigation turns out.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the news even the Prime Minister mentioned he would be open to the idea of settling this out of court. He did not mention numbers, but I suppose he would agree even if it costs millions of dollars.
I think Canadian taxpayers are upset. The Minister is acting like Monte Hall: ``Brian Mulroney, let's make a deal''. I think that is unacceptable. Why did the minister and his department not get the facts straight before he risked millions of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have his facts straight. I said no such thing. Negotiations and litigation for the settlement of cases are for lawyers and should be left to the lawyers acting for the parties.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this Airbus investigation, regardless of who is to blame, has been bungled right from the word go. The screw-up has cost Canadians and it will cost, starting with this payoff to Mr. Mulroney, millions of dollars. What is more disturbing is that no one on that side of the House will take any responsibility for anything that has happened to date.
Will the minister take ministerial responsibility for the crash landing of this Airbus investigation? If he wants to know what to do, there are two seats in the front, two on the side and two in the back.
(1430)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take responsibility for the Department of Justice. From the outset the Department of Justice has acted in an appropriate fashion.
As to the litigation, if there is any settlement to be discussed it will be discussed between the lawyers for the parties, the people who should be undertaking that work.
Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was asked about the Charlottetown style model of federal-provincial relations that the government is putting forward and he said, and I quote: ``The Government of Quebec has certain responsibilities. It has a hard time assuming them all the time, and we are offering government assistance to ensure that this responsibility is carried out as well as possible.''
Are we to understand that the minister believes the provinces are unable to manage the programs from which they want the federal government to withdraw and that that is why the government wants to remain in charge, set the standards and keep the money, simply letting the provinces carry out the orders? That is indeed the way he sees it.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the provinces of Canada are limited to carrying out the orders, what about the German L«nders, the Swiss cantons, the American states, the Australian states, all federated entities that dream about the powers the Canadian provinces have?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a learned constitutional expert, the minister also said yesterday and I quote: ``The Government of Canada has the responsibility of ensuring that these moneys are administered responsibly.''
The minister talks about co-operation, but at the same time he questions the provinces' ability to administer the moneys responsibly. Does that mean that the federal government will continue to act as a big brother to the provinces it considers incompetent and totally irresponsible?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if, for once, just for once, the official opposition members were to look at the problems we have not through their glasses which make them see plots everywhere, but with the best interests of Canadians in mind, they would have to agree that we have a wonderful federation that gives us the best standard of living in the world and that we can work together to improve it even further. You only have to believe in this federation of ours.
Premier Clark said he will not participate and yesterday premier Bouchard repeated he will not participate in constitutional discussions at the first ministers conference.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make a commitment that at the FMC any discussions of the Constitution will either be public and open or the agenda item will be withdrawn?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat to the hon. member that the sole aspect of the Constitution that will be discussed is to fulfil article 49 and it is to discuss the process by which we will have an open discussion among Canadians about the amending formula.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted to the House yesterday that this condition has already been satisfied at least three times. That still does not answer why we are discussing it at all.
Can the minister make two other commitments, if he is so committed to public consultation, to describe to us the public consultation which has taken place leading up to this first ministers conference and will he commit, as the Liberal Party did in 1992, that no constitutional change will be made unless it is submitted to a national referendum?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this meeting is certainly not to discuss the Constitution except for the specific matter of section 49.
(1435 )
The hon. member mentioned Premier Klein. I quote Premier Klein. He said the agenda of this conference is a good one, that we finally have some meat and potato items on the agenda that affect social policy reform, labour training and governmental harmonization and environmental assessment. It deals with overlap and duplication which exists in a lot of inspection and security services. We are actually addressing some of the issues that go right to the heart of the problem of the rebalancing of federal powers.
Yesterday, in response to a question by the member for Ber-thier-Montcalm, the minister stated, with reference to federal
responsibilities in the area of manpower and provincial ones in the area of education, as follows:
-the provinces are responsible for education, which is rather closely related to occupational training. It is, therefore, all these constitutional responsibilities which the Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, will be better assuming, thank to the reform proposed by the minister.Can the Minister explain this statement, which suggests that the federal government has not really given up interfering in education, through national standards in particular?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in all other federations, federal spending power is exercised without limitation. The division of powers is, substantially, legislative. Where spending power is concerned, in the U.S., the federal government spends money in the various sectors.
Here in Canada we shall go further than all other federations. For the first time in the history of this country, except for constitutional negotiations and acts, the Government of Canada has committed to a more harmonious federation in which the federal spending power will be directed in such as way as to allow us to work in conjunction with the provinces.
This, then, is the Canada the hon. member wants to break up.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I gather from that, that all you have to do is believe. Believe, when all of the premiers of Quebec, since 1960 at least, have tried to ensure Quebec of the means for development. We are not speaking of other federations, we are speaking of the people of Quebec in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Lalonde: And it is precisely because they have had no response that we want to get out.
Can the minister guarantee that the federal government will respect Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction in the area of education, that it will not in any way use the amounts allocated to it for this to impose national standards?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada respects the Constitution of Canada and the official opposition wants to tear up the Constitution of Canada. That is the truth of it.
I ask the minister why he waited until there were only eight sitting days left before the summer recess to introduce this flawed, half measure of a bill. Why did he not introduce it months ago, providing the House with ample opportunity to deal with it at all stages before the summer recess?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have just concluded a long and very important consultation process, speaking with victims groups, crown attorneys, judges, defence lawyers, police and others in relation to section 745. The bill is now before the House. I invite the hon. member and his colleagues to support it so we can put it in place and have it available in the law at the earliest possible date.
(1440)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that his officials have been in touch with me and other members of our caucus. Every overture that has been made has been met with a clear statement that although we oppose the bill we are not interested in delaying its passage.
Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which allows for the expenditure of additional funds for section 745 appeals for early release by first degree murderers. I ask the justice minister, what are the additional expenditures? How much more will his modifications to section 745 cost the Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the royal recommendation is there because there will be additional incarceration costs since fewer people will be released. That is where the extra money is being spent. That is the answer. The hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party would repeal section 745 altogether. That would cost even more money.
I am gratified to hear the hon. member say that he and his colleagues in the Reform Party will not stand in the way of speedy adoption of the bill. This bill is going to strengthen criminal law and improve section 745. I look forward to the day when it is law.
With the Quebec government's announcement in May of a change in the rules for awarding student loans, the minister said that he intended to examine the scope of Quebec's decision. The
federal government contributes only $98 million of the $472 million in the Quebec program or 20 per cent.
With its 20 per cent contribution to the Quebec loans and bursaries program, would the minister confirm the government's intention to push Quebec to change its policies?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are neither intending nor in a position to force any province to change its policy on student loans.
However, I think that the vast majority of young people, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, would like the opportunity to study in the institution of their choice. This has been an honourable tradition in Canada for a very long time.
The only thing I can say to him is I have suggested and continue to hope that, in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada, men and women wanting to pursue their studies may do so with as much freedom as possible.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, as with the proposed partnership in the area of manpower, will the minister acknowledge that his government is simply meddling further in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. The hon. member's question about student loans has nothing to do with meddling. We respect Quebec's jurisdiction.
However, we suggest, discreetly I hope, that it is for the good of young people-just like people in this House who have studied outside their province-be they young New Brunswickers studying in Quebec or young Quebecers coming here to study in French at the University of Ottawa, or Albertans heading to McGill in Montreal. This is a longstanding practice.
I think, on the whole, that young people in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada want to be able to continue their studies in their home province, in their country or abroad. This freedom and this flexibility are what strengthens young people and Canada.
The Government of China is demanding the expulsion of all Vietnamese in refugee camps before Hong Kong is transferred to China in 1997.
[Translation]
Since several of these people have relatives in Canada, will the minister take the necessary measures to speed up the processing of the applications made by these Vietnamese so as to reunite them with their families?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note at the outset that these people are not bona fide refugees. As things stand now, all these cases have been examined by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Hong Kong government. As you very well know, in 1989, several countries made a commitment to act on a global action plan for Vietnamese living in camps. We welcomed in Canada our share of these cases that were considered to be refugees.
(1445)
As for the others, there was an international agreement providing that these people could go back to Vietnam and the Office of the High Commissioner assures us that it will control the return of these people to Vietnam. By the way, a high proportion of these people are already back in Vietnam.
That being said, I assure the hon. member for Saint-Denis that all the applications made in Vietnam by people who want to come to Canada to reunite with their families will be met with our usual open-minded approach to such cases.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is he willing to stand up for the Canadian people by demanding an apology from Prime Minister Juppé?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a whole series of allegations but has not provided the basis upon which he is suggesting apologies be made.
When the Prime Minister was here, he made it very clear that relations with Canada are proceeding well. There are no irritants. He has no interest in interfering in the internal affairs of this country.
Time was spent talking about how we can increase investment, how we can increase jobs, how we can increase cultural relations
and how we can work together in a series of matters dealing with disarmament and international affairs.
It seems to me to be a little ridiculous to be asking for an apology when someone comes to our country and wants to substantiate and expand relations with our country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: Look at the Bloc. The Bloc members are applauding.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious where the support comes from for what the Prime Minister has done.
What would it be like if our Prime Minister went to France and started talking about how great the Basque separatists were? That is exactly what happened. The Prime Minister of France did one thing in Ottawa and another thing in Quebec City. What he did in Quebec City has insulted Canadians. It stomped on our pride in our country and did nothing for unity. What is the Prime Minister going to do about this?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only comments I read recently about Basque separatism were made by the hon. member for Red Deer.
Fortunately we are blessed in this country with having a Prime Minister whose prudence and good judgment are well known. He would never say anything quite as stupid as the member for Red Deer said.
We learned this morning in Le Devoir that the Department of Foreign Affairs would reduce by almost 60 per cent its assistance to cultural organizations for their international tours.
How can the foreign affairs minister explain the decision of his department to cut by almost 60 per cent its assistance with regard to the exportation of Canadian cultural products?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that we support culture as a basic element of Canada's foreign policy. However, we do have to make cuts to stay within our budget, and these cuts affect all activities within my department.
(1450)
At the same time, I would like to find new approaches with regard to culture. We invited the private sector to form a partnership with us. Recently, there was a huge Canadian celebration in Sao Paulo that was paid for entirely by the private sector. This celebration, the purpose of which was to show the strength and excellence of Canadian culture, cost $2 million. Several groups were involved, including some from Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the same source, namely Le Devoir, Quebec companies are more affected than others by the minister's cuts.
Does the minister realize that, by making these cuts, he is compromising the very existence of several cultural groups that are known worldwide and that, in the short term, it will be difficult for him to show Canadian culture outside the country?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me set this straight. The purpose of the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs in culture is not to provide basic subsidies to groups, it is to promote Canadian culture abroad. We do it in a variety of ways. We provide support for groups to travel. We provide money for exhibitions in which we can demonstrate the good quality of our cultural products.
We are now developing new ways to bring the private sector in to work as partners with us. A good example is that this fall we are opening a new Canadian cultural centre in Paris. It will provide a permanent exhibition and display area using the latest multimedia and video techniques. It will give Canadian cultural groups a broad audience.
That is the way we promote culture. That is why we are trying to find the most innovative ways working with the private sector and the cultural groups. The judgment cannot be made based simply upon the number of grants given to groups. It is what is done to promote the entire field of culture abroad.
The rural municipalities are being offered only five times for specific land claims, a loss of tens of millions of dollars to the municipalities. My question for the minister of Indian affairs is why?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just prior to the last government's demise, the minister sent to some a letter which had to be cancelled saying that the ministry would go 20 times taxes. If expanded across the country, this would cost approximately an extra $50 million. If the hon. member is prepared to put an
amendment to our next budget asking for an additional $50 million, I am sure we would support it.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these land claims are supposed to be a cost borne by all Canadians, not by rural municipalities in Saskatchewan.
The minister is offloading federal responsibility on to the municipalities. They had a previously negotiated agreement. The minister has usurped that agreement and is now threatening to create tax exempt reserve lands over the objections of the rural municipalities unless they agree to this unfair five times formula.
Why is the minister bullying the municipalities? Why is he offloading federal responsibility on to their backs?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are trying in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to go back and deal fairly with treaties because there were wrong counts. This is the party that said we should deal fairly with the aboriginal people and we have done that. The remaining issue is the tax issue.
The Reform Party which says that we have to be fiscally prudent is saying to the government that it wants an extra $50 million. This cannot be done just in Saskatchewan. It has to be done in downtown Vancouver and in Halifax as well. If the Reform Party is saying that, then rather than hiding behind this rhetoric, when we are doing the budget next year, stand up and say so.
The Reform Party at its convention last weekend proposed a flat tax, although it is clear that many of them did not understand what it meant. The Reform Party thought that taxing the middle class and giving to the rich would be a fresh start for Canadians.
Can the minister comment on this policy of Robin Hood in reverse, taxing the lower income workers while giving to the rich, and what is he doing to bring more fairness into the income tax system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to comment on the tax policy of the Reform Party. I am afraid he is asking me to comment on the indecipherable but I will attempt to make some sense of what appeared at the Reform convention to be a great deal of incoherent and inconsistent meandering around the subject.
The flat tax has been with us for a long time. In fact a number of Liberal Party members have examined this issue in considerable depth. At the same time-
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): This is out of order.
Some hon. members: Order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): I must say, Mr. Speaker, they are in particularly good voice.
Some hon. members: Order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I judged the question to be a valid question in the sense that it does deal with the minister's responsibility of taxation.
Mr. Abbott: A Reform policy?
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): He should cross the floor.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask all members to please listen to the answer. I give the floor to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to explain the Reform Party's tax policy. The difficulty the rest of the country has in understanding it is that the type of debate we have just heard is what happened at their convention.
The flat tax has been around for a long time. The Liberal Party looked at it. Some of our members were pioneers in it. A number of Republican Party candidates in the United States have dealt with it. They have consistently run into the same problems in that it is very difficult to come up with a flat tax which does not benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, or it is difficult to come up with one that does not have so many exemptions and such a great deal of complexity that it vitiates its very purpose.
The fact is that-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
Taking the whole world by surprise, the public ministry of Vietnam has decided to bring Tran Trieu Quan before an appeal court at a hearing to be held on June 17. Meanwhile, Mr. Quan continues to be shackled every day from 3 p.m. until the following morning.
Given the rather timid reaction by Canada to the treatment being afforded Mr. Quan, can the minister at least make a commitment
that the Canadian consul in Hô Chi Minh will attend Mr. Quan's hearing, in order to ensure that the rights of this Canadian citizen are respected?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the comment by the hon. member is not accurate. When our consul in Vietnam visited Mr. Quan and discovered that manacles had been placed on his legs, we immediately issued a very strong protest to the minister of foreign affairs and directly to the Vietnamese officials. We have taken a very strong stand against that.
The fact that the appeal is about to be held is a useful sign. We have been waiting for the appeal to be held. We have been able to exercise pressures by making a number of visits and a number of representations. The appeal in the case is proceeding which is the outcome we have been trying to achieve.
(1500 )
We will certainly provide all the support, legal assistance and presence we can to Mr. Quan during in this period and assure he has the full support of the Canadian government in terms of giving him the kind of presence required.
For the third day in a row I want to ask the minister about the notional input credit on used goods. Let us look at cars. In Ontario there are 9,000 used car dealers. The removal of the notional input credit will mean that all those people who can afford only to buy used cars will have to pay a lot more. Maybe members across the way cannot relate to that but there are many people like that.
Why is the minister sucking hundreds of millions of dollars from low and middle income Canadians and putting many people out of work in all the used good sectors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as with everything else, the member has it exactly wrong. Under the previous regime when someone traded their car in they were taxed on the full price. Now as a result of this change they are taxed only on the differential. This is a major benefit to the consumer.
Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House if he intends to live up to a commitment made by a previous minister of the environment and use whatever federal powers at his disposal through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and in other ways to institute a federal review of that decision before anything further happens in that area?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question as well as for his concern in relation to the environment in Manitoba.
The ministry of the environment for the province of Manitoba has issued a licence based on a number of terms and conditions. My officials are currently engaged in reviewing those terms and conditions as they relate to the protection of the environment. Once a full evaluation has been done, the government will be making its pronouncements.
Colleagues, as many of you know, this year's group of pages will be leaving us to pursue other goals and aspirations.
[Translation]
These pages are living examples of the great promise of our Canadian youth. I wish to thank these young men and women who have served us so well during the 35th Parliament, on behalf of all of you.
[English]
As members we hope all the pages have benefited from their experience here and that someday some of them, one of their number, might return to serve their country again.
(1505)
[Translation]
They have put a great deal of energy into trying to make our lives easier and learning the ropes in Parliament as well as learning more about their country, while at the same time continuing full time university studies in first year.
[English]
Our pages are very special to us. They help us in doing our daily work. At the beginning, when they came to us, I addressed them as my pages and I surely would claim any and all of them. However, in effect they are not only my pages as your Speaker, they are your pages as members of Parliament in a very broad sense because these young men and women have served our country through us in
the House of Commons and in that sense they are pages for Canada. In your name, I want to thank them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall consider Bill C-45 respecting eligibility for parole. The business for the next week will be arranged through the usual channel of discussions, which is how the House has been working very well in the past weeks. I appreciate and thank my colleagues.
The business next week will also include the bill I just mentioned as well as two other bills the Minister of Justice is discussing with the members of the opposition.
[Translation]
We hope to make some progress with the list of bills I had submitted to this House and to the House leaders of the opposition parties. That list comprises bills C-36, C-34, C-38, C-29, C-30, C-4, C-37, C-39 and C-40.
[English]
We are also awaiting with keen anticipation a message from the Senate that will require further action by the House.
Next Thursday has already been designated an allotted day.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this afternoon by way of a tribute to a friend and colleague. Death claimed Steve Neary last Friday. His passing should not go unnoticed by the House.
Steve was first and foremost a son of Bell Island, a very famous iron mining community in Conception Bay. Bell Island and her people were always a part of him. They have always been a very proud and hard working people. The beliefs and the causes for which he fought so hard and so passionately were instilled in him there in Bell Island and he was always true to them.
Bell Island was also a strong labour town and Steve became involved in the union movement as a young man. He rose to be president of the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. He first sought public office in the 1959 general election as a candidate for the labour party, the Newfoundland Democratic Party as it was then called.
(1510)
Steve was both a big L and a small l liberal. It was as a Liberal that he was elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1962 as the member for Bell Island. I know hon. members would appreciate he was a member until he retired in 1985, winning re-election six times.
He served in the cabinet of Premier Joey Smallwood from 1968 to 1972 and as the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador from 1982 to 1984
Steve was a parliamentarian in the very best sense of the word. He loved the institution and he thrived on it. The whims of fortune decreed that most of his time was spent in opposition. Nevertheless, he mastered the political arts and became a formidable force in the House and throughout the province.
He fought for the cause of the common man, the average person, the little man, in the phrase often on his lips. He was fearless in debate and firm in his convictions. He was fiercely proud of his Newfoundland heritage and equally proud to be a Canadian.
Steve's mastery of the legislative process was legendary. If I may be permitted, one of his most memorable moments came in 1975 or 1976 during a budget debate in the House of Assembly. My good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, was the opposition's designated spokesman and as such had the right to respond to the rather lengthy speech of the government finance minister and the corresponding right to speak for an unlimited time.
Steve realized, however, the rules gave him the right as the first opposition member to be recognized by the Speaker rather than to the particular member designated by the leader of the opposition. He was quick to his feet and when the finance minister finally finished the speech he too had unlimited time. Steve caught the Speaker's eye and was duly recognized and began his speech.
Members can imagine the chagrin of those who wanted another member to speak first and at length. Their emotion grew stronger for every one of the six sitting days Steve continued this debate.
Steve was a highly esteemed person and held a highly esteemed place in the hearts of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He was a friend to everybody no matter what their circumstances or their calling. He stood and fought for any person who sought his help. Fair treatment to all was his common cry.
Steve Neary was a remarkable man. He made an outstanding contribution to his province and to his country. I was proud to be his friend, a pride I share with thousands upon thousands of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is fitting that we in this House mark his passing and honour him for his life and his work. We are all the better because of him.
I am sure the House will join me and other members in conveying our message of deep sympathy to his wife Mary and their immediate family Andrea, Stephanie, Monique and Pierre, their sons-in-law Aubrey and David, as well as all of Steve's many relatives and friends.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I would like to express our sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Stephen Neary, who passed away a few days ago.
Mr. Neary began in union circles and was first elected to the Newfoundland Legislative Assembly in 1962 as the member for Bell Island. From 1969 to 1972 he was Minister of Social Services and led the Liberal Party of Newfoundland from 1982 until he retired from political life in 1985.
As fellow parliamentarians, we know how demanding political life is and how much commitment and generosity it requires. It is therefore important to call attention to the 23 years in which Mr. Stephen Neary gave unselfishly of himself during his political career.
His family and friends have every reason to be proud of him and all that he has done for his fellow citizens.
On behalf of the official opposition, our most sincere sympathies to the bereaved family.
(1515 )
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, as the House leader I would like to extend my condolences and sympathy today to Stephen Neary's family, his wife Mary and their children.
We certainly understand why a person such as Steven who made such a major contribution, not only to his province but to his friends, neighbours and his community, should be honoured today in this assembly.
I have spoken with other people about Stephen's contribution, beyond what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated to us today. Stephen was a person who worked with the people at the grassroots level, in the community, in their homes, the coffee shops and businesses. He understood what they wanted to do with their lives and in building their local communities and Newfoundland as well.
That is part of our democratic process which is maintained by the integrity of people such as Stephen Neary.
On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to him and thank he and his family for making a public contribution to Canada. We honour his memory.
[Translation]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my fine friend from Joliette for his sentiments on our friend Steve Neary. I would say Steve Neary and he are similar sorts.
[English]
Yes, Steve Neary died in his sleep Friday morning, two weeks short of 71. At least that is what his birth certificate would indicate. But he was much younger, probably 25 or 30, if we judge by the steel trap which was his mind.
As a fighter, Steve was an eternal terrible two. He knew what he wanted and he was single-minded in going after it, and he got it.
That he made the transition so tranquilly from this world to the Parliament of heaven will seem, to some, to be at odds with how he lived. To many, including me before I knew him, Steve's life was a tornado, a turbulent affair. There never seemed to be a time when he was not at odds with someone. Always, there was a battle to be won, a cause to be championed, a case to be argued. And argue he did, and fight and scratch.
Newfoundland is so much the better for his having fought, our people the richer and the institution of Parliament and public debate so much the healthier because of Steve.
But Steve had another side which few saw because he hid it so well. The centrepiece of Steve's life was not turmoil, but purpose. As a result, Steve was actually very much at peace with the world. He always knew what he wanted for himself and he got it. What he wanted for his family, he got it. What he wanted for his people, he got it. He loved to call his people, the ``the ragged-arsed artillery''.
His family was his pride and joy. If you knew Mary, Pierre and the girls, Andrea, Stephanie and Monique, you would know why. His wife Mary was his pit stop. She kept him on the ground and she recharged his batteries. If you were too big for your boots, Steve could fix that in ten seconds. It takes Mary about five seconds.
Steve knew what he did not like and the top of that list of dislikes were people who took themselves too seriously. Equally, Steve knew precisely what he liked and topping that list was loyalty. He practised what he preached.
During Joey Smallwood's retirement years, when he was abandoned by every ungrateful wretch that he had plucked from anonymity during his premiership, it was Steve who stood by him and carried the torch.
(1520 )
When I first went into politics provincially, Steve was one of my mentors. His straight talk and his uncanny ability to get right to the heart of an issue with lightning speed and humour made me an early convert to his brand of politics.
After his retirement from politics, he came here and did me the honour of being on my staff for two years in 1989 and 1990. What two marvellous years they were. It was a marvellous doctoral degree for me sitting at his feet and having him around.
It is Thursday, six full days since Steve's promotion to that other place. If heaven was not unionized, it is now. If heaven did not have an opposition, it has one now. The word was out, heaven needed an ombudsman. We sent Steve.
I sat with Steve two weeks ago outside his home. He did not reminisce and drool and paw about past glories. He was too busy talking about what had to be done, wrongs to be righted, causes to be fought. The fire was still in his belly.
That is the legacy Steve leaves us. That is why Steve did not simply pass from the scene. Oh, no. He has only taken his seat in that other parliament for which we are all running. Yes, we have lost a friend. We have gained so much from that friend that we will continue to benefit from it for many years to come.
My sympathies to each member of his family, all of whom he is very proud. There is not only Mary, the girls and Pierre, but also the extended family, the grandchild, the brothers, the sisters and the nieces and nephews.
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too want to pay tribute to a close family friend, Stephen Neary, who passed away on May 31. He leaves to mourn his wife and his four children.
I was first introduced to him by my father, Mr. Joe Ashley. I knew Mr. Neary through most of his political career. I am extremely saddened to see him go.
Steve was active in politics for more than 20 years on both the political and federal scene. Mr. Neary spent a great deal of his career working with the past premier, Mr. Joey Smallwood.
He was first elected to the Newfoundland House of Assembly in 1962 to represent Bell Island. In 1988, Steve attempted to break into federal politics by running in a riding that I now represent, St. John's East.
Good hearted and outspoken, he was always a champion of the poor and downtrodden. He aggressively represented his constituents of St. John's East and Bell Island. Never one to back down from a fight, he worked tirelessly to ensure their views were well known in the political legislature. He accomplished a great deal for his constituents right to the end of his day.
Bell Islanders knew he was always available to champion their causes. Mr. Neary will leave a great void on the Newfoundland political landscape as well as here in the House of Commons.
He worked very hard for his constituents and he has great friends in the Mr. Simmons and Mr. Mifflin. It is indeed a sad occasion to have to say goodbye to such a man. He will be missed by his family and friends.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Steve Neary today because I used to have constituents from time to time come to talk to me about him. Many Newfoundlanders were members of the Canadian forces. They would end up in Petawawa and retire there. They all knew Steve Neary.
Lois and I want to extend our very sincere condolences to his wife Mary, to Andrea, Stephanie, Monique and Pierre. It is a big parting moment for them, but I can say that, from having known Steve for a long time, he was a great Canadian. He was a great Newfoundlander and he was very proud of his wife and family.
(1525 )
He was a gut cause guy. This has come out in the words of other people today: to spend 23 years in the legislature of his province of Newfoundland, to be in the cabinet of Joey Smallwood, but most of all to remain dedicated and loyal to his leader, to his party and to his cause. That is what real public service is all about.
He was a great orator, which has been alluded to today. We have had a few other great orators who have come to this place from Newfoundland over the years. I have seen them come and go and they have made a great contribution to Canada.
As I think of Steve Neary's life today, he was outstanding for the labour movement. It has been pointed out that he was a fighter for the underdog. He had his cause. I always called him the gut cause guy. The more gut cause people we can get in Canadian politics and in our provincial legislatures, the better off our legislatures, our provinces and our Canada will be.
I want to say how privileged I feel to have known Steve Neary, how proud I am of his public life. Canada needs such hardworking and dedicated people in public life. We can well look to Steve Neary for our example.
>