Airlines resigned en masse on Friday, for fear of being held financially responsible in the event of a bankruptcy.
The crisis at Canadian is blatant proof of the government's mistake in maintaining two international carriers in Canada with public funds. The Bloc Quebecois, it will be remembered, proposed the amalgamation of Air Canada and Canadian to ensure we would have a solid air carrier in Canada and to save as many jobs as possible.
Can the Prime Minister assure us today that his government is not intending to inject more money in Canadian, as his Minister of Transport has said on several occasions in recent weeks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Transport has said in the House. He is following the situation at the moment. The company, the union and other groups have held negotiations. The government is watching the situation, but I have nothing to add to what the Minister of Transport had to say ten days ago.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport had a bit more to say. I see that things are changing perhaps somewhat. The Minister of Transport told us that there was no question of more money being injected in the current situation. To my knowledge, the situation has worsened with the resignation of the board of directors.
The Globe and Mail also pointed out on the weekend that the government was prepared to help Canadian if employees agreed to the company's restructuring plan, which included a salary cut of 10 per cent.
Could the Prime Minister also assure us that his government is not getting ready to provide renewed assistance to Canadian should the employees agree to the restructuring plan?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of putting money into Canadian in this particular situation.
The hon. member opposite spoke of the employees at Canadian. I think it is important for the House to know that the Minister of Transport had this to say to the Air Transportation Association of Canada in Montreal just a couple of hours ago. He said:
I know it requires very difficult decisions from the employees-employees who have sacrificed much already. I have always been impressed by the dedication of Canadian Airlines employees, their commitment to quality, their commitment to service, and their belief in their airline. That dedication, and that spirit, will be just as crucial to Canadian's future as to its past.Structural problems require structural solutions. The president of Canadian Airlines has brought them forward. We hope that Cana-
dian Airlines is successful and remains another one of our proud airlines in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have to assume that there is some slight problem, since the entire board of directors resigned. I would assume something is awry.
The federal government has also, we think, made a mistake in allowing American Airlines to acquire a significant number of Canadian shares. This did not enable Canadian to become cost effective, as we have seen. On the contrary, this decision gives rise to concerns over American control of the air transportation industry.
Would the Prime Minister make a commitment to not change the legislation and the regulations in the air transportation sector, which would have the effect of allowing greater foreign, especially American, involvement in this sector?
(1420)
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Airlines has not come forward to this government with any proposal to increase foreign investment.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In the event that Canadian, a major air carrier in Canada, goes bankrupt, the government would havet to decide on the redistribution of the international routes it currently holds.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee today that he will not allow foreign companies to get hold of these international routes and that he will preserve the Canadian character of this industry?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, this government is not going to practise the politics of division. We are going to hope that Canadian Airlines is successful. We do not want to look at the glass half empty, as the hon. member does so well.
Canadian is doing the best job it can. Right now it is trying to restructure to ensure that it is a viable airline in this country, and that is what we are hoping for. We are not looking down the road at the failure that this hon. member hopes to see, obviously, in the way he has been questioning this government.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by not being forward looking to the future, this government is going to ensure that Canadian has no future whatsoever.
Canadian's financial difficulties also directly affect the public purse, for the company has to repay loans from the federal government.
Can the Prime Minister commit to bring pressure to bear on Canadian as a debtor in order to encourage the only possible solution, namely amalgamation of Canadian and Air Canada, the only way to ensure the future of this industry and the only way to save thousands of jobs?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian Airlines, again we say, has brought forward a plan to restructure its airline. Let us have a look at the plan that President Kevin Benson has brought forward. Let us hope that the plan, in concert with the contributions that would be made by the employees of Canadian, would help to see this airline get back on its feet and be a viable competitor in the airline industry in this country.
This government needs to make Canadian families a priority. It needs to lesson their tax burden and give parents back some choice in how they raise their own children.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why will the government not convert the child care deduction into a tax credit and extend it to all parents with children 12 years or younger, including those parents who choose to raise their kids at home?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reality of child poverty in this country, which is a rich country, is of course of major concern to the Government of Canada.
Last week the Canadian Council on Social Development reported that most children in Canada are doing well. That is partly good news. However, we cannot ignore those children who actually live in poverty. This is why campaign 2000 recognized that the major reason for children not doing well is unemployment. For this reason, this government is insisting a great deal on improving the economic climate in this country. That is the way we will be able to do more.
This government has already done quite a lot in the last few years. This government has doubled the working income supplement provided to low income families. The Canadian government spends more than $5 billion a year on child tax benefits that has been paid to three million Canadian families already.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about campaign 2000, we have our own plan for that as well, and that is that every Canadian family would have a tax break of $2,000 by the year 2000. I think that would be far more practical.
The Reform's fresh start platform makes Canadian families a priority. It will increase the spousal exemption by over $2,500 and extend child care deductions to all parents, including those who choose to raise their kids at home. That was my initial question and I did not hear anything like an answer for that, and so I will just ask it again.
What sort of specific tax relief does the minister have to offer Canadian families?
(1425)
First, why will he not consider raising the spousal exemption, which would be a fairly simple thing to do, and second, to extend the child care deduction to all parents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cares to take a look at the existing provisions for married families, as my colleague has said, first of all in the last budget we doubled the working income supplement for families with four children by $1,000. At the same time the married credit exists which reduces income taxes by as much as $1,500 a year. There is a special supplement out of the child tax benefit for parents who care for preschool children at home.
The fact is if one takes a look at the vast range of policies introduced by this government and by previous Liberal governments, the hon. member will see that it is concern for children that has been upper most in the government's mind. If one would like to compare that to the vast majority of recommendations from the Reform Party, which would maintain the level of poverty as opposed to alleviating it, one would begin to understand that the line in the sand has been drawn and no amount of camouflage by the Reform Party will hide that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our recommendation is that parents who choose to raise their kids at home up to age 12 should be celebrated, not just the preschool ones he talks about.
The average Canadian family pays a staggering 46 per cent of its income in taxes. Children across the country are living in families where both parents are stressed out from having to work nights and weekends to pay for this Liberal government's spending habits.
Canadians have suffered a $3,000 pay cut since this government took office in 1993, and the finance minister knows that.
Instead of being satisfied with the status quo of high taxes, why will the minister not simply balance the budget and then give Canadian families some much deserved, much needed tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. member not admit where she and her party are going to find the money to provide the tax cut for the rich? The first area in which they will find it is by abolishing the Canada pension plan which is very crucial for Canadian families. It is the principal source of support. Under the Reform Party the Canada pension plan will disappear.
The second thing they will do is eliminate equalization for a number of provinces. Is she saying that people who live in Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia do not have families and are not entitled to the same level of public services as Canadians in other provinces?
The Reform Party would eliminate the maternal benefits under the employment insurance program. Is the hon. member in the process of saying that people who are on employment insurance are not entitled to maternal benefits?
Let us understand that what the Reform Party is suggesting is that in fact those programs which go to help low income families, families on welfare and middle income families would be gutted and eviscerated by the Reform Party in order to take care of the richer people in this country. This government will never accept that.
Before the House adjourned, probably looking for an excuse to extol the virtues of the employment insurance reform, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated, and I quote: ``Five hundred thousand Canadians who were not previously covered by unemployment insurance will now qualify''.
Will the minister confirm that, instead of more Canadian workers being covered, starting on January 1, 1997, some 500,000 workers, mainly very low wage earners working fewer than 15 hours per week, will start paying premiums they are not required to pay at present, while the vast majority of them will never receive benefits because they will not qualify?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. It has been raised time and time again. I must emphasize that the employment insurance reform promotes active measures, in contrast to the previous system, which was universally condemned as inefficient and encouraging people to stay at home.
(1430)
We now have a system ensuring that, by the year 2000 or 2001, the $800 million investment fund we are creating will be the sole source of funding. Those who work part time may of course pay premiums, but they will also be covered by the employment insurance system to the extent that they pay premiums.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has given workers earning between $39,000 and $42,500 and the businesses they work for a break on premium payments. The truth is that an additional 500,000 people will have to pay premiums.
I would like the minister to tell me if he has read his department's paper on this and if he can confirm that only 45,000 of these 500,000 new contributors, very low wage earners, will be eligible, as indicated in a paper released by his own department on January 23, 1996. Is that how the Liberals intend to fight poverty?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will confirm this: Starting January 1, 1997, an additional 500,000 Canadians will be covered by unemployment insurance, while they were not previously, because they will now qualify for coverage under this system.
My question for the Prime Minister is what about those Canadians who cannot afford to buy a home or a new car and who work two or three jobs to feed their kids. What is the government going to do for those children who do without so much, including time with their parents who have to work so hard and so long to feed this hungry government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is if the members of the Reform Party will take a look at what has happened over the course of the last three months in terms of the benefits of the reduction in interest rates, what they would see is that housing starts are up. They would see that the announcement came out today that manufacturing shipments are up. They would see that the basis of the economy is becoming stronger and stronger. And as a result of that, thousands of Canadians are going back to work and it is the families of those Canadians that are going to benefit.
Over 700,000 new jobs have been created by the private sector; 46,000 jobs were created last month alone by the private sector. The fact is these people who are going back to work will be able to provide for their families as a result of the economic conditions set in place by this government.
The members of the Reform Party, they who have no policy to increase employment, no economic philosophy designed to help the middle class in this country, should not stand up in the House and essentially say that we will live with the dual economy, that we will live with an economy that benefits the rich and ignores the poor.
Canadians will not put up with it and neither will we.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it sad and unbelievable that this finance minister will stand up and brag about an unemployment rate of 10 per cent when the United States has an unemployment rate of 5 per cent.
The Reform Party has brought forth a tax relief plan that will completely eliminate the tax burden of over 1 million Canadians. Our plan will leave more money in the pockets of these families to spend on groceries, rent and clothing.
My question for the prime minister is specifically how and when will his government provide tax relief for Canadian families.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. The Reform plan will not leave more money in the hands of average Canadians.
(1435 )
The Reform plan will take away their pensions, it will take away their health care, it will take away welfare benefits for those who are at the lowest end. The fact is that what the Reform Party will do will gut the Canadian dream for the vast majority of those who depend on government for help.
There is one other thing. The Reform Party ought to understand that what it is in fact advocating is a tax cut now and a massive tax increase for the next generation of Canadians. What it would do is impose on young Canadians a burden of deficit reduction, and we will not do that.
[Translation]
The minister, who is bent on implementing a new tariff structure, will release this week an impact study on the fee structure for services provided by the coast guard to commercial shipping. However, we have serious reservations about the credibility of this study, which we have with us, since it seems to have been drafted specifically to support the minister's intentions.
Will the minister admit that the study, which he commissioned, is nothing but a report to accommodate him, since it does not take into account several essential parameters, such as the increase in the price of oil in the east that will result from the new tariff structure, and the jobs that will be lost because of increased competition from American ports?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee that asked for the study, I am sure the hon. member is very much aware that the study is a very objective study. In fact, it is so objective that it has looked at seven of all the activities that impinge on ports and indeed the whole business of shipping.
I will go a little further. This report looks at 1,200 critical movements of commodities in the Canadian shipping business and has examined a dozen or so of them in particular. It has consulted from coast to coast, many meetings in this country. I have met with the marine advisory board. I met with certain other sectors of the shipping industry to discuss the progress of this report.
I have to tell the hon. member that despite his misgivings it is a very objective report carried out by a very credible third party with no connections to the government. It was done at the behest of the committee on which the hon. member serves. He will be apprised of the results when it is completed in the very near future.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister accept a study which says the impact of its tariff structure will be negligible, considering that, for example, this new tax will reduce by 15 per cent the profits of iron ore companies on the north shore and will result in the closure of the Port-Cartier mine two or three years earlier than expected, thus worsening the unemployment situation in a region that is already hard hit?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will say it in another manner. The hon.
member is aware of the objectivity of this study. It has examined seven aspects that impact on the marine transportation business in this country and on the commodities. In fact, the 1,200 runs I talked about cover almost 90 per cent of all the commodity runs by shipping in this country.
I see the hon. member smiling. I do not know where he is getting his figures with respect to Port Cartier and its closing down, but it is impossible to measure every single aspect. I remind him that the study that was done was done at the request, in fact at the insistence, of the committee on which he serves.
We are responding to the request of the committee, of which he is a member. The results are objective and the study will show that there are some conclusions that he will be able to study in the very near future.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Given that these American competitors have significantly lower fuel taxes and that fuel costs are a major component of an airline's operating expense, will the minister take immediate steps to lower the tax on aviation fuel in order to permit Canadian aviation companies to compete equally?
(1440 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we in this government, and in particular the Minister of Transport, pride ourselves in listening to any suggestions being brought forward by the members opposite.
The member also spoke of the open skies agreement that has taken place between Canada and the U.S. Let us look at what it has done. It has created 100 new scheduled transborder routes, 24 new routes by Canadian air carriers, 33 Canadian air carrier flights which are now scheduled flights, 54 new U.S.-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Keyes: I guess they do not want to hear the good news.
It has created 54 new U.S. destinations non-stop from nine Canadian cities. For Air Canada there are 1,000 new jobs. For Canadian Airlines there are 700 new jobs. It is a good news scenario.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the parliamentary secretary talks about 700 new jobs at Canadian when 16,000 are in jeopardy through its policies.
This government supported free trade with the U.S.A. and open skies with American airline companies, both of which have increased competition against Canadian companies. Airport and air navigation service deficits are now nearing full elimination.
Given the government's agenda to open the borders to American competition and the removal of many aviation oriented expenses to the government, can the minister advise this House why he continues to allow aviation companies to be charged an unfair level of special taxes, taxes that are destroying Canadian Airlines and putting 16,000 jobs at risk?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a question that deals with two subject matters.
Quite frankly, when he talks about 16,000 jobs being at risk, this has to do with an airline called Canadian that is trying to restructure its organization, trying to make a viable airline of itself.
I am surprised by the remarks from the Reform Party because it is the Reform Party itself, the member for Calgary Centre who said that there is no viability in making cash flow from the government to Canadian Airlines. That is not what Canadian Airlines is asking for. It is not asking for anything more than the time it needs to restructure its organization in order to save those 16,500 jobs.
Last November 13, Marcel Audet, an RCMP informant, revealed that he had arranged, on behalf of the RCMP, to buy cases of machine guns, explosives, grenades and even rocket launchers with arms traffickers associated with the Akwesasne reserve.
Since it is worrisome, to say the least, to know that an individual can purchase rocket launchers in Canada, can the minister confirm whether the Akwesasne reserve is still an important point of entry for arms traffic and can he tell us what his services have done to stop these illegal activities?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give such a confirmation. The problem is not confined to one location, but police forces, both federal and provincial, are working jointly to tackle this situation. They are making extraordinary efforts to limit this situation.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Still according to Marcel Audet, ``senior officials'' in the RCMP put a stop to his mission and blocked the arrest of kingpins in the trafficking network.
Can the minister explain to us why the RCMP did not arrest such dangerous traffickers when it was possible to do so?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of my hon. friend's question. I cannot confirm these allegations, but I can add that Mr. Audet's complaints are subject to investigation by the RCMP's Public Complaints Commission, and I think that we should wait for the result of that investigation.
Today we will be signing a free trade agreement with Chile in Ottawa. When we look at the profile of trade and investment between Canada and Chile, it looks pretty positive already. Could the minister please tell the House what additional advantages we will be achieving from this agreement?
(1445 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning President Frei of Chile and our Prime Minister signed a protocol on a free trade agreement that will bring about tremendous new momentum in terms of trade and investment between our two countries. That will lead to jobs and economic growth for both Chile and Canada.
Immediately, Canadian exporters will no longer face an 11 per cent duty when their goods and services go over the border. This will give them a considerable cost advantage. More secure investment can now be obtained in Chile for Canadians.
All of this will be in advance of when Chile comes into the NAFTA, giving Canada a head start on our friends in the United States who hopefully will now come to the table to bring Chile into the NAFTA and complete the arrangement the Prime Minister was a part of just four years ago. This will lead to hemispheric free trade and again, more jobs and economic productivity.
What possible public interest is this weak health minister protecting?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): None, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these secret cabinet documents bracket the time when the Liberals were taken out of government by the Tories. It looks very much like health scientists had told cabinet far more than previously had been thought.
Which administration is at fault: the Liberals under the current Prime Minister or the Tories under Mulroney?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is obviously reading a lot of spy novels and has a collection of conspiracies which he wishes to put forward from time to time.
The hon. member ought to be aware the decision was reached not by Health Canada but by the Privy Council Office that certain information would not be forthcoming. That goes back well before we became part of this particular government.
If the hon. member has a specific question on a specific point in terms of the evidence act or anything connected thereto, he should pose that question, put it in writing, and I am certain the clerk of the Privy Council will provide all of the necessary information.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last week we learned that the government has once again refused to provide documents vital to the needs of the Krever inquiry. These documents, which date back to 1984, could provide details to the commissioners on the circumstances underlying the crisis.
Would the minister tell us why the government is refusing to provide the Krever commission with the documents requested of it?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to be clear here. This government has provided literally hundreds and hundreds of documents to the Krever inquiry. Numerous individuals from various departments have provided testimony under oath to the Krever inquiry.
I believe the documents in question go back to 1984-85. If there are specific concerns or requests that the hon. member has, as I indicated in my previous answer, the clerk of the Privy Council, where the decision has been made-it was not by the Minister of Health-will provide the necessary information to the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that it is up to Mr. Justice Krever and not the minister to decide whether these documents are useful? Will the minister agree to leave the decision up to Mr. Justice Krever and to provide him with what he has asked for?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question.
First and foremost, the Government of Canada has provided a great deal of information. All of the information that I have within my purview I believe has been provided. However, if there is a specific request, the decision has been made by the clerk of the Privy Council and that is where the question should be posed. That is where the written question should be posed. I am sure the clerk will provide the information to the hon. member.
My question is for the finance minister. Is this infomercial and all this propaganda all that Canadians can expect for their billion dollars?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that underlying the hon. member's question is a deep feeling of resentment that Atlantic Canada is getting its act together.
What is very clear is that the hon. member simply cannot stand to see those provincial governments on behalf of their populations in co-operation with the federal government providing a base for sound taxation and competitiveness of their small and medium size businesses.
I would have thought that the hon. member, in support of Atlantic Canadians, would have stood up here and congratulated those provincial governments because what they are doing is saying they do not want dependence. What they really want to do is to be able to govern for the benefit of their own populations.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of resentment out there but it comes from all the other provinces that are footing the bill for the billion dollar payoff to Atlantic Canada, especially to the premiers.
The Halifax chamber of commerce is also resentful. So is the Retail Council of Canada and the Canadian Real Estate Association. They all have grave concerns with this deal. It is complicated, confusing and a killer of jobs.
Even those groups who before were supportive of the harmonization deal now have grave reservations about this particular brand of snake oil. Will the minister scrap it and go back to the drawing board?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member ought to know, the fact is that we have told the retail council that we will sit down and work out any administrative glitches. In fact, we are in the process of doing that.
That again is not what the hon. member is really driving at. What he stood up and said was why should Atlantic Canada be able to benefit when the rest of the country does not in this particular deal. The fact is that Atlantic Canadians did not stand up and complain when the minister of energy dealt with the tarsands in Alberta. Atlantic Canada did not stand up and complain when Ontario was provided with stabilization payments.
What we are really dealing with here is a rump of a party that refuses to take a pan-Canadian view of what the nation is all about.
In view of the recently announced unemployment rate of 10 per cent, can the President of the Treasury Board inform this House whether the government intends to launch a new infrastructure program this winter?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate at 10 per cent is too high, but I think we should remember that since we have come into office we have helped to create about 700,000 jobs. The unemployment rate has decreased from 11.4 per cent to the present 10 per cent.
The best way in which a government can help to decrease that unemployment rate is obviously by helping to decrease interest rates. We now have the lowest interest rates in 30 years which of course helps investment and creates jobs.
The infrastructure program has created jobs, probably more than 110,000. We are still in the process of considering the pros and cons and the decision should be made within a few weeks.
This coming November 23 to 25, the 18 heads of state who are members of APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum, will be meeting in Manila, the Philippines. José Ramos Horta, Nobel Peace Prize winner and human rights activist in East Timor, has been denied access to the Philippines at the time of the summit, however.
Does Canada intend to make protests to the government of the Philippines for reversal of this decision and for José Ramos Horta to be allowed onto its territory?
(1455)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision as to who is allowed into the Philippines is one to be taken by the Government of the Philippines alone.
During the meeting of the Asia-Pacific group, I will certainly be meeting on a number of occasions with other ministers of foreign affairs to discuss human rights issues in that region of the Asia-Pacific. As I have already said, it is very important to have direct and constructive commitments with other countries. This is, unfortunately, a decision for the Government of the Philippines and there is nothing Canada can do about it.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister not acknowledge that such treatment of a Nobel Peace Prize Winner is truly unacceptable, and that Canada ought to react vigorously?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly support the whole notion of having NGOs and a wide variety of people meeting in a parallel fashion during the APEC meetings. We have pioneered in those areas and I hope that during the course of the meetings there is the opportunity to visit the NGO groups and an opportunity to have exchanges with them.
However in this kind of case I do not think it would be proper for us to interfere in the decisions of another government when it has made a decision based on whatever the situation is there. I can
certainly assure the hon. member that we will be continuing our own dialogue with the NGOs about the situation in the Asia-Pacific.
Now that we know that no scientific evidence exists to justify the food fishery in the largest fishing areas surrounding Newfoundland, why does the minister continue the crime of ravaging what is left of the Atlantic stocks simply to buy votes?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question, although I certainly do not accept the premise.
I would advise the hon. member that he should stick to the subjects he is aware of and knows. I make many decisions.
Mr. Morrison: Why? You do not.
Mr. Mifflin: The member has asked a question, he should please listen for the answer.
All scientific decisions like any other decisions are made on different pieces of advice. I have to tell the hon. member that this particular memo which I have not read because it was not addressed to me was addressed internally.
I went ahead with the food fishery on the basis of the advice from my senior scientist. The advice was that a closely controlled food fishery like the one which was implemented and executed with lots of surveillance would not impede recovery of the cod stock. That came from my senior scientist and it was on that basis that I went ahead.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the food fishery was opened up based on scientific evidence and analysis. The conclusion of this letter is: ``I am disappointed and disheartened that important decisions are being made that disregard the scientific advice from this region''.
Canadians and Atlantic Canadians want to know why the minister went ahead and opened up the fishery against the advice of his own scientists?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member one more time and more forcefully that the advice I got from my scientist was that a closely controlled food fishery executed the way it was would not impede the recovery of the cod stocks.
The food fishery was done for the right reasons; 94,000 Atlantic Canadians had the advantage to engage in the food fishery like other people in the gulf area; 5,000 checks were made; 1,200 tonnes were caught all within the parameters of the advice given by the senior scientist.
What does the Reform Party have against Atlantic Canadians? Once again it is fighting the last war on the wrong information.
(1500)
Has the federal government done any substantial analysis on the same situation and what changes, regulatory or financial, is the government prepared to make in the face of these potential losses?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have said time and time again in this House today, and on previous days from the Minister of Transport, that the entrepreneurial spirit which gave birth to Canadian Airlines in western Canada is alive and well in western Canada, especially in Alberta and B.C.
We think on this side of the House that this airline has a bright future if it can take the difficult steps to reorganize. That future is based on hard work, good business and not on government handouts to fund losses.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to inform the House that Thursday, November 21 shall be an allotted day.
The Speaker: We will now proceed to tributes, first for the Hon. Joe Ghiz, former premier of Prince Edward Island, and then for Mr. Tom Bell, a former member of Parliament.
Joe Ghiz was born in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island in January 1945. He was educated at Dalhousie University where he obtained degrees in commerce and law, and thereafter obtained a master's law from Harvard University in Boston.
Each of us will hold a different memory of Joe Ghiz. We might recall his passion for this country and his devotion to keeping it united and strong. We will think of how a premier from Canada's smallest province contributed in such a way, a significant way if you will, to the public policy process of the country.
We might recall how his father was a shopkeeper, an immigrant from Lebanon. We might also think of his passion for constitutional reform and how he pursued that goal so fervently; how his love for his country characterized both his private and, yes, his public life.
Or we might think of the islanders he represented as premier, constituents who knew that when Premier Ghiz went to Ottawa he was there to fight on their behalf.
Our individual memories of this remarkable man reflect the depth of this contributions to our country. His ability to balance regional interests with the good of the country was not only remarkable, it was refreshing.
At 51 years of age the contributions of Joseph Ghiz far outstripped his years. We cannot help but pause and regret that he has passed at such a young age.
As a friend he was generous with his kindnesses and generous with his time.
(1505)
He was acclaimed as one of Canada's greatest orators but he was also a great listener. He was a serious man who believed very strongly in his views. He never took himself seriously. His sense of humour was engaging and it was genuine. He has left with us a marker for our identity as a nation, the duality of interest that pulls a British Columbian out of B.C., a Manitoban out of Manitoba, a Quebecer out of Quebec and, yes, an islander out of Prince Edward Island.
Joseph Ghiz will always be remembered as an islander, but it is for his contribution to Canada and to the unity of our country that we stand in tribute for him today.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to join with many Canadians and members in this House in offering my deepest condolences to his wife Rose Ellen, his daughter Joanne and his son Robert, and to assure them that he will be remembered and be remembered with great affection.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I want to pay tribute to Joe Ghiz, Premier of Prince Edward Island from 1986 to 1992, who passed away recently.
Born in 1945 to parents of modest means, he was the eldest of five children. He was a law student at Dalhousie University, where he graduated with top honours.
This Premier was particularly well-known for his work on constitutional matters and his defence of the rights of francophones when he improved the francophone school system in his province. He had also hoped to conclude a treaty of reconciliation with the native people. Under his government, the smallest province in Confederation enjoyed exceptional visibility.
More than anyone else in English Canada, he defended special status for Quebec. In January 1995 at McGill University, at a seminar on the future of Canada, he said that since the quiet revolution, English Canada had not understood the legitimacy of the aspirations of the people and the government of Quebec, hence the failure of Meech and Charlottetown. People criticized Quebec's veto, although the accord granted the same privilege to Prince Edward Island. People criticized the concept of Quebec as a distinct society but there was no objection to his province having special status regarding the number of members of Parliament it could elect, irrespective of its population. When Quebec got something from the federal government, it made the headlines in English Canada, but there were no headlines in the Globe and Mail when the federal government moved 2,000 jobs from Ottawa to Summerside and Charlottetown.
Mr. Ghiz understood Quebec. Unfortunately, his premature decease has bereft English Canada of a voice for moderation, of a man who understood the Quebec people and their political aspirations.
Speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, I wish to extend my sincere condolences to the family and relatives of Mr. Ghiz.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would like to join with other members of this House of Commons in paying tribute to a friend and certainly a leading Canadian, the Hon. Joe Ghiz.
Other speakers, certainly the Minister of Health, have already mentioned some of Mr. Ghiz's political aspects and aspects of his legal career. What I would like to do is just make a few personal comments in terms of my association with Mr. Ghiz on more than one occasion.
I had the opportunity work with Mr. Ghiz specifically during the Meech Lake negotiations in 1990. I found that in the formal and informal associations that we had and the conversations at that time I came to understand his political objectives, his concern for
Canada and certainly his own personal story which was often brought into a variety of situations and discussions at a time when we were negotiating the future of Canada.
I remember that one day after a lot of meetings and discussion, some of us were together to talk informally and sat together to unwind. In that conversation I remember Mr. Ghiz in an informal, interesting and entertaining way telling of his father's corner grocery store and how the son of a Lebanese immigrant could grow up, receive a law degree and become premier in this country of ours that he so lovingly and compassionately called Canada.
(1510 )
For Mr. Ghiz, Joe, Canada was a land of freedom and opportunity where everybody had a chance to achieve their own personal dreams just like he was able to during his short period of time on this earth.
I know many people, and in our personal conversations I found him to be a warm, considerate, down to earth person who genuinely cared about other people's families, their communities and certainly their personal concerns. In his own humble way he wanted to build a nation and find a place in that nation for Prince Edward Island.
Today we offer the sympathies and prayers of all of us in Canada to his wife and children at his home. He will be long remembered, and his contribution will be remembered specifically by those in Prince Edward Island, but all other Canadians who associated with him will never forget Mr. Joe Ghiz.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I permit myself a few words on your behalf. I too knew Joe Ghiz personally. When you are in opposition and you travel around the country, it is not always that a premier receives you in his office. But he did that for me on a visit to his island.
Reference has been made by other parliamentarians to the fact that he came from Prince Edward Island, undoubtedly the smallest province in Canada. But on your behalf I note that not only did he come from our smallest province but our smallest province gave us one of our biggest Canadians.
Tom Bell was a quiet, gentle, caring man who touched the lives of all those who knew him. He left an indelible mark on the hearts of many of us. He was a personal friend. Tom always had a smile on his face. Tom left us with his distinguished record of service and many fond memories of the times we shared with him. The judge with the big heart will not easily be forgotten.
Tom's career began in my home city of Saint John where he was born in 1923. He grew up in the city, married his wife Patricia, and attended the University of New Brunswick. During the second world war Tom served in the merchant navy and always remained deeply committed to the welfare of our veterans. The merchant navy men had an honour guard for him at his funeral which I had the honour to attend. He was a long time member of the Royal Canadian Legion as well.
Tom was called to the New Brunswick bar in 1951 and began his law practice in Saint John. In 1953 his career took a turn and he decided to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather, who had represented Saint John in Parliament for 10 years, from 1925 to 1935.
Tom ran for the Progressive Conservative nomination in 1953 in the federal riding of Saint John-Albert, as it was known then. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1953 and was re-elected seven times, in 1957, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968 and 1972. During his distinguished 20 year parliamentary career he served as parliamentary assistant to the minister of trade and commerce, parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, opposition House leader and party whip.
From 1956 to 1958 Tom was president of the Young Progressive Conservatives. His parliamentary career lasted through the terms of four Prime Minister, Louis St-Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.
(1515 )
I remember a conversation I had with a senior Liberal senator last year who talked about Tom Bell. He said: ``Politics is not like it used to be during our time, Elsie''. The senator said that he and Tom would stand in the House, point fingers and debate, but at the end of the day they would sit down over coffee and discuss together how they could help their people in the region.
In 1974 Tom Bell left federal politics. He was appointed to the provincial court where he presided over the family, youth and traffic courts for 20 years. The people of Saint John lost a great member of Parliament, but gained an honest and fair judge. Despite his career change, he remained as deeply committed to his constituents and to his community as the day he was first elected.
He was a member of the Carleton and York Club and an active member of the Trinity Anglican Church. He was a former member of the Kiwanis Club, the Byng Boys Club of Saint John, the 26th Battalion Overseas Association and chairman of the board of the
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island division of the Canadian Corps of Commissioners.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was honoured to be represented by such a great man. Tom Bell set an example not just for our party, but for all politicians, personally and professionally. He was a man of integrity.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to Tom's family, his wife Patricia, his sons Michael, Andrew and James, his daughter Melanie, his brothers Robert and Lawrence and his many nieces, nephews and cousins.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week, like all Canadians, I was deeply saddened to learn that Judge Tom Bell, a fellow New Brunswicker, had passed away.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my condolences and the condolences of the Liberal Party and of all of our Liberal colleagues to his wife Patricia and to their four children, Michael, Andrew, James and Melanie, whom I have known for many years and have had the pleasure to teach, and to his brothers, Robert and Lawrence.
Tom Bell was elected in 1953 to represent the riding of Saint John-Albert, which is now part of my riding of Fundy-Royal, where, as my hon. colleague from Saint John has just said, he went on to serve seven consecutive terms as the member of Parliament, spanning more than 20 years.
During his political career he served in numerous positions. He was the opposition House leader, the party whip and the parliamentary secretary to the ministers of industry and justice.
We younger members of Parliament are sometimes told that things were different in the old days. We are told that, even when debate in the Chamber became heated, outside it was civility and courtesy that prevailed. Often when we are told this, we are told that the reason for this was that there were leading members like Tom Bell.
Tom Bell was that kind of member who could be vigorous with his advocates, vigorous on behalf of his constituency and vigorous on behalf of his region and his party in this House. Harsh things could be said in debate, but afterward they were not only fully prepared to relax and talk things over with colleagues and adversaries alike, if they were like Tom Bell they sought out their fellow members, regardless of their political affiliation.
It was for that reason that Tom Bell had only friends here. A tough partisan in the House, outside he was a convivial and wise friend and counsellor to all.
On leaving politics he was appointed a provincial court judge, where he served the people of Saint John for 20 or more years, presiding over family, youth and traffic courts, as well as carrying out general provincial court work.
He is remembered as the gentle judge, as someone who always maintained a positive demeanour and who took an avid interest in those who came before him. Many will remember him fondly for his humour, his wit, his enthusiasm and his positive outlook.
(1520 )
Judge Bell had strong ties to his community. He was a lifelong member of branch 14 of the Royal Canadian Legion. He belonged to the Carleton and York Club and he was a former member of the Kiwanis Club. He was the former chairman of the 26th Battalion Overseas Association, president of the Byng Boys Club of Saint John and chairman of the board of the New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island division of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.
I first became interested in politics in my early teens and it was Tom Bell, his stature and his integrity, that inspired me to look on politics as an honourable profession. I know that even members of my family supported Tom Bell, the man, in spite of political affiliation.
I knew Tom Bell and of his commitment to his family, his God and his country which is unrivalled and unsurpassed in Saint John. I am proud and honoured to have known him and our community is richer for his life which lives on in a better New Brunswick.
Perhaps Dennis Boyle, a Saint John lawyer, summed it up best when he said that the community will be a poor place because of this loss, but it will be a better place because he was in it. With his passing last week, our country has lost a great public servant and we will all miss him.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues of the Reform Party and all parliamentarians, I would like to join in the tribute to Thomas Miller Bell.
Mr. Bell passed away after a long illness on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 at the age of 73. Thomas Bell was born in Saint John, New Brunswick on January 11, 1923. He served in the merchant navy in World War II, sailing in the North Atlantic, the Mediterranean and in the Far East. After the war, he played an active role in the welfare of veterans and was a long-time member of the Royal Canadian Legion, branch No. 14. He received his law degree from the University of New Brunswick at Saint John in 1951 and worked as a barrister at law for several years.
Tom Bell had a long and distinguished career in this House. He was first elected in 1953 in the riding of Saint John-Albert. He was re-elected seven times. He was appointed to several positions both in opposition and the government such as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of trade and commerce in August 1957 and parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice in 1959. He
also served as the opposition whip from 1968 to 1973 and as the opposition House leader from 1973 to 1974.
After his service in this House, he was appointed to the bench in 1974 where he was known as the gentle judge. He presided over family, youth and traffic courts as well as general provincial court work.
Everyone who knew Tom Bell has fond memories of this outstanding individual. He was best known for his sense of humour and his unwavering commitment to the community.
As a member of Parliament, he modestly and quietly supported his constituents, whether it was representing them here in Ottawa or meeting with them in his riding.
As a judge, he upheld the spirit of the law, never losing sight of what was best for the individual or the community. He was known for saying: ``Do what is proper and people will acknowledge it''. I am certain that those who knew him have acknowledged all that he did for the people he served.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Reform Party, I would like to extend our deepest sympathies to his wife Patricia, his sons Michael, Andrew and James, his daughter Melanie, his brothers Robert and Lawrence and other members of his family. His presence will be sadly missed.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I inadvertently did not see one of our colleagues who wanted to pay tribute to Joe Ghiz. Would you give me permission to re-open tributes to Mr. Ghiz?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
We wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to Mr. Ghiz's wife Rose Ellen, his mother Marguerite and his children Robert and Joanne.
(1525 )
The nation shares in their grief. Canadians strongly admired Mr. Ghiz's commitment to the people of Prince Edward Island and the people of Canada. Canada has lost one of our strongest defenders.
Mr. Ghiz became leader of the official opposition in 1982 and premier from 1986 to 1993. Following his departure from public politics, he was appointed as a provincial supreme court judge.
He will be remembered in Prince Edward Island as the man who signed the deal that built a bridge from the island to the mainland. It was one of Mr. Ghiz's dreams but he built many bridges in our Canada of today.
Across Canada he will be remembered for his tireless support of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and his support of a united Canada. The failure of both accords was a severe blow to him. Yet despite these setbacks he was always viewed by islanders and Canadians from coast to coast as a winner.
It is always tragic when someone leaves us so young. This country has lost a great Canadian too soon.
Members of the Progressive Conservative Party extend their prayers to the family of Joe Ghiz. He was a great man and he will be greatly missed.