For three years the Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing these tax havens, yet now, because the auditor general has confirmed what we have been saying, that billions of dollars are going out of the country tax free, the Liberals are questioning his competency and the way he is fulfilling his mandate. And this is someone appointed by the House of Commons.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he dissociates himself from the opinion of certain members of his party or whether he rejects this report?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the finance committee for its report. I would like to thank the representatives of the government for the majority report, and the opposition members from the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party for their minority report. I intend to examine it with care.
As for the comments about the auditor general, someone who, as the hon. members are well aware, has always had our strong support, I must admit that there was a difference of opinion in the committee on certain steps taken or recommended by the auditor general.
(1420)
Differences of opinion are, I feel, part of democracy. What I do not understand about the tone of the comments on the auditor general in the Bloc Quebecois minority report-for it is not merely a disagreement with the government-is that the Bloc seems to hold the position that the committee, that Parliament, does not have the right to make comments about an employee of Parliament, which is what the auditor general is.
It is the role of Parliament, and the role of the members of Parliament, to make comments, whether about the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, other ministers, or the auditor general. That is part of what democracy is all about, and that is what they have done.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance has given up his fancy footwork for the summer. He was much more nimble when it came to skating around the GST issue.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by remaining mum, he is sanctioning the report by his MPs and making a direct attack on the very institution of the auditor general, the protector of the general public and the one whose job it is to call attention to the faults in the public administration? Does the Prime Minister realize that he is backing up his MPs by his silence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is really doing is confirming the point I wanted to make in my response, namely that the standing committee does not have the right to make comments about an employee of Parliament. This is totally ridiculous. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to speak about the substance of the majority report, a report which I applaud. This is a very meaty report, with a great deal of merit, and we on this side plan to examine it carefully.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk substance, we will talk substance. We will talk of the very philosophy of this government. It has to be understood. When the Somalia inquiry tries to cast some light on administrative and leadership failings in the Army, the Prime Minister discredits the Commission. When the auditor general tries to cast some light on the matter of family trusts, government members discredit the auditor general.
How can the Prime Minister explain to us the new philosophy of his government, which to all appearances consists in discrediting those who are not in agreement with it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition has not had time to read the majority report. First, their criticisms were made very respectfully, and second, they accepted most of the auditor general's recommendations very favourably. They thanked him for them, point by point. That is in the report, the thanks to the auditor general. Moreover, we in government thank the auditor general for the points he had raised, and because of the fact that he
did raise those points-and the majority report says this-the Ggvernment will be in a position to act.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past three years, we have been asking the government to get to the bottom of the family trust scandal. It was not until the auditor general recently condemned the scandalous transfer of $2 billion in trust funds to the U.S. tax-free that the Prime Minister finally decided to ask the finance committee to review, to shed light on this matter. The Liberal majority tabled its report yesterday and all they did was attack the auditor general.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Who is the Prime Minister trying to protect?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, this matter was first raised in 1991 under the previous, Tory government. Second, right after we came to office, we dealt directly with the matter of family trusts and, in our second and third budgets, we eliminated all the fiscal abuses associated with family trusts. Third, the hon. member must know that this matter has nothing to do with family trusts. It was indeed a family trust, but the real issue is how to collect taxes from immigrants when they leave the country. That is the real issue.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if this is only a Tory matter, why should they be afraid to get to the bottom of this scandal? Why? While the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are stalling, more billions of dollars are leaving the country tax-free, because the government refuses to plug the loophole created in 1991.
The Prime Minister is aiding and abetting the flight of capital, and I ask him again the same question: Whose interests is he trying to protect?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate on a matter of some seriousness that the opposition is unable to treat a serious matter with the serious degree of concern that it requires.
Instead of yelling here in the House or trying to seek a diversion, why does the opposition not deal with the fundamental matter which is what the majority report did? This occurred in 1991 under the previous government. Immediately upon taking office we eliminated all fiscal abuses having to do with family trusts. We then asked the finance committee to take this issue on. It has in fact made a serious number of recommendations that we as a government intend to look at.
I only wish the opposition parties had been able to sit down and understand the issue. Under those circumstances they might have been able to deal with the debate in an intelligent way.
Why will the Prime Minister not simply admit that if the Minister of National Defence and Jean Boyle were really capable of doing their jobs, the commission would have had all the documents and the Somalia inquiry would be on track today?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the government cannot have it both ways. I would submit that her party cannot have it both ways. Her party advocated the establishment of the commission. That commission, as I have reminded hon. members, will allow for an impartial setting to hear all of the evidence and have everyone dealt with fairly.
However, for the last three days in the House, if we look at Hansard, what have we seen? We have seen accusations coming from the other side, imputation of motive and reflection upon evidence. One cannot one day advocate having an inquiry with an impartial setting and then the next day come in the House of Commons and do the opposite. It is the opposition that wants it both ways.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this very minister, by appearing on TV and pronouncing Jean Boyle innocent even before the thing was finished, has castrated that commission and that is all there is to it. It is as simple as that.
The Somalia inquiry is having such a hard time doing its job because the department does not have any real leadership. We then see a minister step in and think that he can make announcements about it before it is even over.
The minister and Jean Boyle himself do not know up from sideways. There is precious little respect in the military across the country for this minister and for Jean Boyle. That is why the department is in such a mess and why the Somalia inquiry has taken so long.
I will ask one more time. If the Prime Minister is really serious about mopping up the mess in the military, why will he not start at the top with the minister and Jean Boyle?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has uttered an absolute untruth. I am sure she has done this inadvertently. I defy her to show any time where I reflected upon evidence before that inquiry.
(1430 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not on evidence but by inference he was saying that Jean Boyle is a great guy. On national television the minister stood up and said: ``He is a fine man, we support him and he is doing a great job''. I do not know how much more clear I could get that he is trying to influence and interfere with the commission and its findings.
The only reason the Prime Minister will not fire these guys is because he is worried about potential political damage. Let me tell him from Canada: There is far more damage in keeping them than in letting them go.
I ask the minister, the Prime Minister or whoever is going to juggle and get themselves up on this one, why does the Prime Minister not just admit he was wrong, cut his losses and let these guys go?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have an inquiry that is doing the job it was asked to do. We would like to have the results as quickly as possible so we can deal with the matter efficiently.
In the meantime, I urge everybody to let the commission do its job, let General Boyle run the armed forces and let the Minister of National Defence do what is needed in national defence to give it some stability and the political leadership that is needed. In the previous nine years, in the previous administration, the department had seven ministers. There was no connection between the political needs and the administration. The stability that is needed is being established at this moment by the good work the Minister of National Defence is doing.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister not want to look into this scandal in which billionaires are able to transfer huge assets to the United States to avoid paying taxes like everyone else?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, regarding the substance of the question, the majority report contains a series of recommendations vital to ensuring that any loophole that may have existed is plugged.
That said, the hon. member used the word ``scandal'', implying a lack of credibility on the part of certain people. We were not in office when this took place, the Conservatives were, and I must point out that the auditor general himself, whom the hon. member quoted, confirmed the integrity and credibility of all concerned.
Is the hon. member telling us that the auditor general was mistaken?
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister justify refusing to review such an unfair tax system, which always benefits the same people, unless he is trying to protect those around him who contribute to his election fund?
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, the question itself seems to be imputing motive and that should not be a part of the questions we address to one another. I would caution all members to please be very judicious in their choice of words.
I saw the hon. Minister of Finance was moving to answer. If he so wishes, I will permit it. If not, we will pass on it.
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem in dealing with this issue is that the hon. members opposite have been overtaken by the events.
(1435)
We set out to tackle the family trust problem immediately upon taking office. We started by repealing the 21-year rule.
Then, we eliminated the choices that applied to the privileged. As a result of the steps taken by this government, the fiscal abuses associated with family trusts have been eliminated. Unfortunately, the hon. member is two years out of date.
[English]
In the tragic death of Corporal MacKinnon, his commanding officer Major Hirter said he is responsible and he has been charged. Boyle said he is responsible yet nothing has happened.
Is this glaring double standard the kind of management the Prime Minister is proud of?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is yet another example of the hon. member reflecting upon something on which he knows I cannot comment because of my obligations under the National Defence Act.
He has made reference to potential proceedings against one member of the armed forces and he wishes to have this debated in the House of Commons. We have a justice system within the military and the people in the military are subject to it. It is constitutionally sanctioned by the supreme court. It could, perhaps, be in need of some updating and I hope Parliament will help us in that.
I think it is grossly unfair for the hon. member to raise the cases of individuals knowing that I cannot reply because of the obligations I have under the National Defence Act.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, again the Minister of National Defence tries to spin the argument in his own favour. He knows full well that Major Hirter will get due process. The problem is that a political appointee of the government does not seem to be able to be lowered to the due process the law system should provide. There is a clear double standard.
Canadian Armed Forces personnel were ordered not to use work or business hours or resources to prepare their testimony for the Somalia inquiry. Yet despite this order, access to information documents show that General Boyle spent more than 50 business hours preparing to testify.
Is this glaring double standard and violation of orders the kind of management the Prime Minister is proud of?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows I cannot comment on any matter before the inquiry. Even if I could, it would be very difficult to cut through the convolutions and non sequiturs in his question.
The Prime Minister's silence today speaks volumes. So do the comments made by the Minister of Finance, who tries to cover up his colleagues' blunder.
I ask the Minister of Finance: What does he have to say to the statements made by the auditor general, Mr. Desautels, who said he would do the same work again, and by the former auditor general, Mr. Dye, who said the Liberal government does not understand anything about the auditor general's role?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the majority report said that the advance ruling process must be protected. The auditor general said the same thing. Is the Bloc Quebecois for or against that?
The majority report says the credibility or the integrity of the public servants involved is not in any way at issue. Similarly, the auditor said he had no intention of attacking the credibility and the integrity of these public servants.
(1440)
The Bloc Quebecois cries foul, but the auditor general does not agree. There is no scandal, as stated in the majority report.
Clearly, we must now follow up on the substance of the comments made by the auditor general, and the majority report agrees with that.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I can remember seeing the Minister of Finance more comfortable than he is today. If anyone was attacked, it is the auditor general, yesterday. The members opposite are having a hard time dealing with the substance.
I ask the Minister of Finance why he is taking cover behind something which is said to have occurred in 1991, on December 23, around 11 p.m., just before Christmas, when everyone is partying. Some hard-working public servants can come and find a little hole to slip $2 billion through. This still goes on every day, and the hole is not being plugged from the other side.
The auditor general called for an end to it. Why not take action? Why not follow up on the auditor general's recommendation? Who are you protecting?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member name these public servants. He is attacking the credibility of the public service. If he wishes to do that, then he should give names. Who is he attacking? If he has the courage to talk about substance, then he should read the majority report. We must deal with fundamental issues here. Why is the Bloc Quebecois afraid to tackle these issues, preferring to create a scandal on the grounds of lack of substance.
Not only is the Prime Minister critical of the independent inquiry into Somalia but the Liberal dominated finance committee has also found fit to interfere with the day to day affairs of the auditor general.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What is the purpose of this attack on the auditor general, who is an independent officer of the House and whose job it is to investigate the government and report back to this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have committees of the House of Commons that look at reports from a lot of officials from many important sectors of public administration.
When the committees meet, the duty of the members of Parliament is to look into the report and express their point of view about it. We have different parties in this House and sometimes the parties do not agree.
We are not about to ask the committee to meet and not to look and not to report. They are there to do just that. Now the report will be studied by the Minister of Finance. There are in this report suggestions by the people from the government side, people from the Bloc and from Reform. We will look at all the suggestions, take the good ones and reject the bad ones.
The committee members have to do their work, to study the report and have the honesty to report to the House what they believe should be reported to the House.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this report is extremely critical of an officer of this House. It was not the officer, it was not the auditor general, who waived the $500 million in tax revenue. It was the Department of National Revenue. It was not the auditor general who approved a tax waiver of that magnitude with no documentation in the files whatsoever. It was his duty to report these facts to the House.
Clearly this government favours the rich and taxes the poor.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the government act today to close this loophole that has been wide open for several months and stop it right now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member earlier said that the committee had interfered in the work of the auditor general. That is obviously nonsense.
The committee, immediately on receipt of the report of the auditor general, convened, heard the auditor general, heard a number of experts on the issue and came out with a report that largely agreed with the auditor general on the steps that had to be taken. In fact we have now received the report and we are going to act on it as quickly as we possibly can.
It is really nonsensical for the member to say what he has said. What is even more nonsensical is for a member of the Reform Party to talk about somebody preferring the rich over the poor. This is the party which has consistently for three years stood up and said eviscerate the poor, get rid of them so that we can protect our friends. This is the party which has said let us get rid of old age pensions. This is the party which has said let us eliminate health care. This party which has tried to destroy the social fabric of this country, and he has the nerve to stand up here and say that. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears.
[Translation]
This morning, the CBC took action in response to the Liberal government's order to reduce spending. When it has completed the operation, it will have reduced its budget by one quarter, or $414 million, and its staff by one third, or 4,000 positions.
How can the minister explain that, with one hand, she is cutting the CBC's budget by $414 million, while, with the other, she is creating a $200 million patronage fund, in the guise of promoting the production of Canadian content?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the cuts made today to the CBC, in response to our budget, are not easy. I must remind the hon. member that the cuts were made to several levels of government.
Over the next three years, the federal government will let 40,000 people go. I must remind the member that, last year, even
Radio-Québec had to reduce its staff by half. It is true that we are losing positions, but during the budget cuts last year Radio-Québec, now Télé-Québec, had to let half its staff go.
I am satisfied that the CBC's president and board of directors have done their best to at least respect the CBC's right to be heard throughout the country in both official languages. They were not forced to cut as deeply as Radio-Québec did.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister would do well to get her facts straight. Télé-Québec may have made cuts, but it reopened all the regional stations, it did not close them, like the CBC.
Are we to understand that by transferring money from the CBC to the television production fund, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who until today had no influence over the CBC's editorial content, has finally given herself the power she has always wanted and that she will control the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is not easy to make cuts. Radio-Québec dropped from 629 employees to 329, a reduction of 50 per cent. One thing is certain, and that is that the programming fund, half of which has been set aside for the CBC, was supported by all of Quebec's artists, by Quebec's cultural community.
What is interesting is that this will give the CBC, working in partnership with the private sector, access to funds that will give priority to Canadian production, up to a total of $650 million. We are creating 10,000 jobs.
There is no doubt that these are difficult times and this is why we must work in partnership with film makers, the true creators of Canadian and Quebec culture.
Both the food fishery and the commercial fishery for cod has been closed for several years now to allow for rebuilding after a catastrophic decline. Conservation has been our first priority. Would the hon. minister explain to his colleagues why he has allowed the resumption of the food fishery?
(1450 )
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this year I implemented the continuation of the sentinel fishery. This is a survey designed for fishermen and scientists to determine the rate of return of the cod stocks that were decimated. The results are optimistic. In some cases the results this year as compared to last year are from double to 25 times greater.
This is not sufficient for a commercial fishery but after consultation with every aspect of the industry, all the stakeholders, including the senior scientists, I have decided that it is prudent to allow a very limited, very closely controlled food fishery for two weekends. Essentially this will allow the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and those of the Quebec lower north shore to return to a traditional association with cod as a food in a very limited manner that they have been associated with for hundreds of years. I was very pleased to do it.
Given a record that would make Pinocchio blush, why should Canadians believe anything at all this government has to say?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when you are looking to find out who is telling the truth, I have a hard time taking the question of the hon. member seriously when he and his party have a stated policy of abolishing the CBC.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Deputy Prime Minister to stay away from those bank machines.
I would like to quote from the Liberal Party policy convention: ``A Liberal government would reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax free status for the printed word and remove the goods and services tax on reading materials''. The Liberals have put it in writing for us and we are very appreciative of that.
Since the finance minister likes to talk about his government's commitment to education and literacy, I wonder if he can explain his broken promise, for instance, to medical students at Memorial University who are going to have to pay $400 more for their books because of a promise that the Liberals did not keep. In fact, not only did the government not keep its promise it doubled the GST on books.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, there has been no change in the GST on books and there has been no doubling.
At the same time I indicated very clearly in this House on numerous occasions that we are very open to the concept of examining the way in which books are taxed. However, we raised certain questions which the hon. member has not yet answered. In fact, is this the best use of $140 million or are there other ways in which one can support literacy?
We will continue in that vein. Our basic goal is certainly an improved workforce and more educated Canadians. I ask the hon. member, why is it that in the last budget we increased educational credits for students? We made it easier for students to go back to school and to afford it. We made education easier in the last budget and Reform voted against it.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the army was at a standstill. Obviously, its chief of staff is busy defending himself, preparing his testimony and trying to get out of the mess he is now in.
Are we to conclude from what the Prime Minister said that he admits the army is paralysed because he refused to suspend his chief of staff at a time when the latter's credibility is being questioned? In other words, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that if he had suspended the general, the army would not be at a standstill?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, General Boyle has finished his testimony, and now the commission is continuing its work. We hope the commission will be able to finish its business as soon as possible, so that we can bring the necessary remedies to the present situation.
(1455)
We should all let the commission go ahead with what it is supposed to do, which is to do its job so that the necessary reforms can be implemented as soon as possible.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the present context, could the Prime Minister tell us how much time General Boyle can spend on leading the army, carrying out his tasks and playing his leadership role, considering that for more than 12 months he has been busy managing the mess he himself helped to create?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process of change in the armed forces is going on very rapidly. I am pleased that the chief of the defence staff and his colleagues have been at the forefront of bringing some very important changes to the armed forces.
Yesterday in a speech in Ottawa the general talked about some of the real accomplishments of giving commanders more control, of devolving more authority to base commanders across the country, of looking at terms of service for military personnel so that they can be assured of service depending on performance.
Lots of reforms are going on. It is a pity that people have become so obsessed with some events that they are overlooking the fundamental changes, the good changes, that are putting the Canadian military in the forefront of reforms of all military in the world.
Last week, the Liberal member for St. John's West gave an ultimatum to the town of Placentia. The ultimatum was this. Sell two surplus fire trucks for a token fee against your will or face losing a $350,000 federal grant for an arena.
I would like the Prime Minister to explain to us why Liberal MPs can use the money from taxpayers' pockets across Canada to force provincial or municipal governments to toe the Liberal line and to agree to individual MP's projects.
The Speaker: The way the question is worded, I am trying to see how it fits in with the administrative responsibility of a minister. I see the parliamentary secretary has risen. If he wishes to answer the question, I will permit it.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statement that was made and attributed to the hon. member is not government policy. I understand that she has apologized. That ends the whole matter.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what do we say about this? It is not government policy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Why is it that time and time again in this House, the Prime Minister of this government defends unacceptable behaviour by ministers at times, by backbenchers? Why does that happen? All they say is: ``Ain't our fault, folks. It is not government policy''.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister has the courage to call in the ethics counsellor-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
Nevertheless, they did make some recommendations. I want to ask the finance minister, who claims that the Liberals have already dealt with this problem, why the finance committee would make such recommendations to deal with the problem if, as the finance minister says is the case, the government has already dealt with the problem.
(1500 )
I would like to further ask the finance minister when he is going to wake up to the fact that Canadians who pay their fair share of taxes are sick and tired of people getting away with this stuff and they want something done about it. They want the government to revisit this tax decision because it is legally possible to do so. Get that money back so we can-
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, immediately upon taking office the government dealt with the question of family trusts. It took away all of the abusive tax advantages that accrued to family trusts. We did that immediately upon taking office.
That is not the issue in this case. What happened in 1991 brought up the issue of how we should treat property owned by somebody who is a resident of Canada who is leaving Canada, of how we should treat the property of an immigrant. It was not a family trust question. It was really a question that dealt with very wealthy Canadians but every bit as much could have dealt with a widow of an immigrant who was returning to her homeland and how she should deal with that property. That is the basic issue at stake here.
The auditor general made a series of recommendations and the majority report made a very important series of recommendations which the government intends to study very carefully.
Last week the annual meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization was held in St. Petersburg, Russia. Would the minister inform the House of the results of that meeting, of the impact on Canada's fishery and fishery resources that are so critical to my riding, my constituents, and all of eastern Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to report on a meeting that took place in St. Petersburg two weeks ago. It was a very important meeting to us because of reasons everyone in this House will be familiar with, related to the importance of the fishery to Canada.
There were three points that were achieved through careful negotiation and a lot of homework. The first is that Canada will control the total allowable catch when the fish recovers in NAFO area 2J 3KL, which is adjacent to Canada's coast. The second is that the amount of total allowable catch for a NAFO non-Canadian will be restricted to 5 per cent. The third is that a dispute settling mechanism will be allowed to look at the difficulties we have experienced in the past.
These measures and the continuation of Bill C-29 will ensure that the uncontrolled fishing that has taken place in the past will cease.
As I understand it, it is the responsibility of the government and a minister to fairly distribute regional development grants. My question was related to the purview of the minister and the question went to the Prime Minister in that regard.
I was asking whether it was right or wrong for a Liberal MP to interfere with the minister's role. The Speaker called that question out of order and I would like you to review-
The Speaker: In the course of question period I give as much latitude as I can. But when I do not know where a member is going in his question, when and I give every latitude for him to get to the question and the question is not arrived at, I feel it is my responsibility to intervene. I made a decision and my decision stands.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for clarification, the question asked was about referring something to the ethics counsellor which is under the purview of the Prime Minister. Is it not appropriate to ask if something can be-
(1505 )
The Speaker: I invite the hon. whip to see me in my chambers. I will be happy to discuss this with him.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I can inform the hon. member that I did not hear the word but I will check.
I would ask all members of the House to please not use words like ``hypocrite'' or ``hypocrisy'', because members get angry and sometimes respond in ways the Chair considers out of order.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the House shall consider third reading of Bill C-45 concerning section 745 of the Criminal Code. If this is completed, we will return to debate on Bill C-53, the corrections legislation.
Tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-54, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act. If this bill is completed, we shall return to the point where we left off today.
On Monday and on the days following, we shall pick up the list from Friday, followed by Bill C-41 respecting child support payments, Bill C-26 regarding oceans, Bill C-44, the marine bill, Bill C-47 respecting reproductive technologies, and Bill C-29 concerning fuel additives.
We shall likely designate next Thursday as an allotted day.
The Speaker: We will move directly to tributes.
I had the honour of being a colleague of Arnold's all too briefly from May 22, 1979 until he was not re-elected in the general election of February 18, 1980. During that time I came to appreciate him greatly as a happy warrior who knew Parliament well, who knew his constituents well and who knew where he stood.
Arnold stood on the side of working people and he made no bones about it. He was a rough but gentle person with strong roots in the mining and logging communities of northern Ontario. He loved the people of these communities and worked hard for their welfare. He had worked in various capacities as a union organizer and was very clear on who he represented when he came to Parliament.
Arnold and his CCF colleague Frank Howard were responsible for reforming Canada's archaic divorce laws in the late 1950s. As I understand it, divorces in some provinces used to have to come before Parliament, something that seems ridiculous to us now. By discussing or reading into the record each divorce claim that came before Parliament, Arnold and Frank made the ridiculousness of such a process obvious and it was soon changed.
Arnold knew the rules and he knew how to use them. He was not one to be pushed around politically or personally. He did not mince words, and stories abound about how direct Arnold could be with bureaucrats who were frustrating the legitimate needs and rights of his constituents. As a rookie MP, I always knew that we were in good hands when Arnold was around.
Arnold Peters also had a reputation as one who worked to reform the prison system in his day. He was also, I might add, an advocate for those who worked for the House of Commons without benefit of collective agreements.
I spoke with a long time colleague of Arnold's this morning, Mark Rose, who told me that Arnold at one time could fairly have been called an ombudsman for House of Commons security and other staff who needed someone to go to bat for them on many occasions.
(1510 )
During the second world war Arnold Peters served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and we honour his service to his country in time of war, as we have honoured it in time of peace.
I last saw Arnold at the unveiling of the plaque in the Centre Block where the names of those who served in former Parliaments are inscribed. The name of Arnold Peters is inscribed there nine times. But more important, Arnold Peters' name and memory is inscribed in the hearts and minds and stories of all those who love justice and who fight for the common people. Arnold Peters was such a person and we loved him for it.
To his wife Alma, his sons and all his family, I express sincere condolences on behalf of the NDP caucus in Parliament. We
continue to be inspired by Arnold's legacy and we will honour his memory by continuing to fight the good fight that Arnold fought so well and for so long in the House of Commons.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute today to Arnold Peters who served with distinction for many years as the MP for the riding of Temiscaming in Northern Ontario.
I remember him well, for Arnold Peters was my member of Parliament during the years I was growing up in Kirkland Lake. Arnold Peters died on Tuesday.
Before his election in 1957 Arnold Peters had been a gold miner, a union activist and had served during World War II.
[Translation]
When Arnold Peters was first elected, in 1957, I was still quite young, but, as my family lived in Kirkland Lake, I remember very well when he became the member for our riding of Temiscamingue.
[English]
He very quickly made a name for himself in Parliament when he and his CCF colleague Frank Howard successfully managed to reform Canada's divorce laws. As a result he became known around here as one of the divorce twins.
As an opposition member first with the CCF and later with the NDP, he was certainly outspoken. I am sure some of my colleagues on this side of the House can still remember this northern Ontarion's spirited questions from his seat across the way.
He was rewarded for his dedication to his constituents in Temiscaming and for his service to all Canadians in the House of Commons by going on to win eight more elections. With 22 years in this Chamber he was the longest serving member in the riding's history.
On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, I would like to extend our sincere condolences to his family.
[Translation]
Again, we extend our most sincere condolences to the family of the late Arnold Peters.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the Reform member from Ontario, I rise in the House today to join my hon. colleagues in paying tribute to Mr. Arnold Peters, who passed away this week.
Mr. Peters served in the RCAF during World War II and in 1957 was elected as the member of Parliament for the Ontario riding of Temiscaming, an office he held for 23 years, winning nine successive elections.
Mr. Peters served both his country and his constituents with distinction and honour.
On behalf of the Reform Party I want to give thanks for his years of service and to extend our sympathies and condolences to his family and friends.
The Speaker: Before we had Statements by Members today, we had a few more petitions that I said I would take in and also answers to Questions on the Order Paper.