[Translation]
from numerous tax shelters which are costing us dearly at a time when no one is having an easy time of it.
At a time when the government is squeezing the unemployed, cutting transfer payments, hunting for money everywhere, how can the Minister of Finance provide us with any serious explanation for the fact that, in three and a half years, he has not found a way to systematically assess personal tax expenditures in Canada, particularly those of rich taxpayers.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will understand that I have only just learned of his report and am therefore not in a position to comment on it. The hon. member must be aware that, since coming into power, we have studied the taxation system in depth. Moreover, as he knows, our study will be ongoing, since the taxation system is constantly evolving.
I have before me a list, which I could read out, at least three pages long, of tax shelters we have done away with in order to make the taxation system more equitable.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance for Canada not concerned by the fact that, with the services of a tax specialist with any skill at all, many rich taxpayers in Canada manage to avoid paying a red cent? Is he not troubled by this, as Minister of Finance, if he has any concern for equity whatsoever?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that the federal taxation system bears a great resemblance to the provincial tax systems, including that of the province of Quebec. I would be greatly interested to learn how my counterpart, Mr. Landry, reacted to the previous Bloc Quebecois report. I saw no public comments.
As for myself, I can state that it was the federal government which abolished the lifetime $100,000 capital gains exemption. It was the federal government which broadened the minimum replacement tax base. It was the federal government which did away with the tax advantages offered by the use of trusts. I could go on and list many more. We have made a good deal of progress in three years.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is offering me a great opportunity here. He knows very well that, as long as Quebec is not a sovereign country, the Quebec Minister of Finance, like those in the other provinces, is required to harmonize his taxation system with what the federal minister decides on. When Quebec is sovereign, things will no longer be the same. For the moment, we are stuck with him. I profoundly regret bringing partisan politics into this, as I did not intend to, but I have to remind him of an unfortunate reality.
From 1984 to 1993, 1,500 Canadians earning in excess of $100,000 paid not a red cent in tax. In 1993, the Conservatives' last year, there were 2,230 Canadians earning in excess of $100,000 who paid not a red cent in taxes, and in 1994, the last year for which there are statistics-and this is my question for the Minister of Finance-what is his reaction to the fact that 4,260 Canadians paid not a red cent in taxes on earnings of over $100,000?
Does the Minister of Finance not consider that this would be worthy of his attention, and ought to have received it a long time ago?
(1420)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the main reason certain rich individuals paid no income tax is the existence of that $100,000 capital gains exemption. That is the loophole we closed when we came into power.
Secondly, the hon. member refers to the situation of Quebec and the federal government. Representatives of the Quebec commission on taxation and the funding of public services have stated the following: ``Overall, there is little difference between taxable income for federal income tax purposes and for Quebec income tax purposes''. They went on to say: ``Since March, we on the commission have learned that there is no hidden tax treasure we can unearth anywhere in Quebec''. The same holds true for Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that although there may be no hidden treasure, there certainly is a small part of the Canadian population that has its hand in the till.
For three and a half years we have been asking the Minister of Finance to cut down on all these corporate tax loopholes. But the Minister of Finance keeps repeating the same old story: We are engaged in a process in the course of which we have improved the situation. For two years he has waved those three pages containing a list of the loopholes he closed. I would ask the Minister of Finance to table those pages for the benefit of the House. Let him table them. We would like to see them.
Second, as far as the tax system-
The Speaker: I know the question is on its way. The member will please get to the question.
Mr. Loubier: I was getting to my question. He did nothing for individual taxpayers either.
Here is my first question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister agree that by making sweeping changes in the corporate tax system, as the Bloc suggested last November, he could collect as much as $3 billion which he could use to create thousands of jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to, I would be delighted to table the list of all the loopholes we put in place. It is too bad we have to table them for the hon. member to see what they are. Since we did this for every budget, I would have thought the hon. member, being the
opposition finance critic, would know about these loopholes. In any case, we will table them.
Meanwhile, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on the start of his campaign for Mr. Duhaime.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): I want to thank the Minister of Finance for the publicity he gave my candidate for the leadership. He is a great man for the job.
The Minister of Finance actually said, actually referred to the tax loopholes he put in place. Just imagine. He produced these tax loopholes and that is the problem: he did nothing about it. In three months and a half, with a small team, the Bloc Quebecois did what he failed to do in three and a half years. That is a fact.
I have a second question. Regarding the changes in personal income tax, is the Minister of Finance prepared to give serious thought to a proposal by the Bloc Quebecois for creating a kind of employment RRSP to help people who are unemployed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to correct a mistake. Obviously, we closed the tax loopholes on this three-page list, and we intend to table those pages.
Meanwhile, we have introduced many measures to help people save. For instance, I was told, since I did not have a chance to read it, that in its report the Bloc Quebecois mentioned ways of helping students. The hon. member should know that we are well ahead of the Bloc Quebecois in this respect.
(1425)
For instance, in our last budgets we increased the education credit from $80 to $100 per month; we raised the limit on the transfer of tuition fees to those who are paying for a student's education from $4,000 to $5,000 per student; we raised the annual limits on contributions to registered education savings plans from $1,500 to $2,000 and the lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000. And I could go on.
On November 6, 1996 he said: ``I have guidelines for ministerial conduct which have been transmitted to the ministers. They have read them and they follow them''.
We are wondering what kind of ethical guidelines would allow denial of the broken GST promise, political interference in the Somalia inquiry, the use of the justice department for a political witch hunt and the stonewalling of the inquiry into tainted blood.
Do any of these activities violate the Prime Minister's ethical standards, or by his standards are all these activities ethically acceptable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we formed a government three years and two months ago. The ministers have shown that the government is a government that is very ethical and respects all the norms. No ministers were involved in any scandals of any nature.
In political debate we may have differences, but to tackle this very negative approach by the Reform Party, as it was published Monday morning in the Toronto Star, that it will be only negative, is a big contrast with the promise he made when he became the leader that he was to have the highest standards in this House.
I know they want to do everything, even have the people in the gallery to protest, people ready to go in the scrum and say they are journalists.
On top of that, I learned this morning that to succeed in that, the leader of the third party is trying to become an actor. He has hired somebody to train him how to look mad when he is not mad.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1991 the Prime Minister did proclaim one of his ethical guidelines. He promised that every minister in his cabinet would assume full responsibility for any bungling in their departments.
How is letting the defence minister gag the Somalia inquiry assuming full responsibility? How is letting the justice minister go on a political witch hunt with the justice department assuming full responsibility? How is the Prime Minister's promising to scrap the GST and denying the promise was made assuming full responsibility for the commitment?
When the Prime Minister promised to hold his ministers responsible for any bungling, did he mean what he said or was this just another empty promise like killing the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a witch hunt. The leader of the third party has been taking lessons from someone so he could act in the House of Commons.
The Minister of National Defence has given until the month of June to finish the inquiry. There were three extensions before. The minister of defence has explained very well the reason why. What is very surprising is that he is just responding to the request of the leader of the third party, urging us to terminate it quickly so that
there will be no inquiry during an election. We are doing exactly what he is asking.
Why would the man who is talking about integrity say that in October and today say exactly the contrary to what he said at that time?
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we want truth before the election.
The Prime Minister's vague and confusing answers on ethical questions lead many of us to believe that there are no ethical guidelines.
(1430 )
Time and time again we have asked the Prime Minister to table those guidelines in the House and he has not done so. Perhaps, like his homeless friends, they are imaginary or maybe they got caught in the shredder somewhere. When he and Mr. Mitchell went up on the mountain perhaps they forgot to bring down one of the tablets, the one about accountability, integrity and responsibility.
How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister to enforce ethical standards for his government when the Prime Minister will not let the public see those ethical guidelines?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking about integrity, what about the Reform Party's question period strategy which I read about in yesterday's Toronto Star, asking negative and accusatory questions, coaching Reform sympathizers to take part in media scrum, causing disturbance in public galleries, disrupting royal assent in other places. What happened to the Reform Party pledge to do politics differently?
I have never seen a party use and abuse an institution to try to move up in the polls. This is something I know will not succeed.
Earlier this week, the Minister of Health intimated that he is currently considering changing his policy on the sponsorship of events by the tobacco industry. It would appear that pressure from all those involved and the members of the Bloc Quebecois finally succeeded in waking up the minister and making him aware of the legitimate concerns of the organizers of sporting and cultural events.
Could the minister confirm that he is seriously considering the possibility of changing the measures that apply to the sponsorship of cultural and sporting events and could he provide more details on the solutions currently being examined?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not speculate about speculation.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would have liked a fuller response given that, if the minister were to read the papers, he would see that these are his own statements.
Could the minister confirm that he is currently examining the possibility of changing the measures that apply to the sponsorship of cultural and sporting events and of making an announcement before the election?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that 40,000 Canadians die each and every year. Bill C-71 was for the purpose of health, enhancing the health of young people in particular.
I said on the record for members to view that last week we received a number of representations and various technical amendments from a variety of different groups which we are examining at the present time. When I complete my examination I will move forward.
General Jean Boyle was bumped up to chief of defence staff. Admiral John Anderson was shuffled off to NATO headquarters. Commander Serge Labbe was also shipped off to NATO. The Prime Minister's long time friend Bob Fowler was sent to safety at the United Nations. These people must be held accountable.
When are we ever going to hear their story about what really happened in Somalia?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a question the minister of defence has answered many times. There is an inquiry and the inquiry can call any witness it wants. It still has two months to do that. There is nothing I can do. We are not calling the shots. There is a commission to decide and it can call anybody it wants.
As far as personal friends, I never knew many of them before. I had never met these people before they were in these jobs. They were all appointed by the Conservative government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, talk about a flip-flop. First the Prime Minister said last fall that it is fine and the commission can have all the time it needs. Now he says that it is good enough and it will just be shut down. This government and this defence minister have castrated the commission. It is as simple as that. They have cut it off. They have not allowed it to do its work. This Prime Minister knows full well that it is not able to get to the post-deployment phase, which it thought it was going to have time to do.
(1435)
We need to hear from witnesses like Major Buonamici and Barry Armstrong, whose allegations first initiated the whole Somalia inquiry.
The Minister of National Defence says that Canadians do not really want a historical document. I think he is quite right, but what they do want is the truth.
Why cannot Barry Armstrong be allowed to testify and Bob Fowler be forced to testify?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to the hon. member's question is that it is totally within the purview of the commissioners to ask whomever they wish to come. I am sure that the people to whom the hon. member has referred are more than available to come before the commission if, in the wisdom of the commissioners, they feel these are the appropriate witnesses to hear.
The hon. member knows, because she talks about flip-flops, that in this very place, Mr. Speaker-and I say this to you because I am sure you would have been here-on September 17 the hon. leader of the Reform Party said, from page 4308 of the Commons Debates:
Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there is no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime Minister guarantee to this House that the results of the inquiry will be made fully public before the next federal election?We are trying.
My question is for the Prime Minister. With the remarks of his Minister for International Trade, it is a grave moment for Quebec's and Canada's cultural sovereignty, and the Prime Minister cannot remain silent. He must respond. Which of his two ministers represents his government's position? The one he made responsible for culture or the one ready to fritter culture away.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in government policy. Certainly the government wants to continue to promote Canadian culture both in the domestic sense and on the international stage. In fact, over the last few years Canada's exports in terms of its cultural sector have grown enormously. It is now a $3 billion industry.
Times have changed, and so I have raised some questions with respect to how we go about continuing in our promotion of culture, particularly in the context of trade and globalization.
Certainly the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I are working together to ensure that the government continues to promote the cultural product of this country, of all parts of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out whether the government is on the same wavelength. I would remind you of the 1994 Tassé report, because all recent commissions agree on the need for cultural protection and funding of cultural development.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage says she will appeal the decision of the World Trade Organization in the matter of Sports Illustrated, while her colleague for international trade is saying that no decision has been made in the matter.
Could the Prime Minister tell us who in cabinet is responsible for culture and who in cabinet is defending the government's official position?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as the decisions of the World Trade Organization are concerned, it is true that there is nothing final yet.
(1440)
Once a final decision is made, we as the Government of Canada will certainly do our utmost with allies like France and Ireland, allies that fear the Americanization of culture around the world, to fight the globalization of the industry in Hollywood.
because of his involvement in the Somalia affair. He refused because all the allegations would be sorted out by the inquiry. To quote him, as he likes to quote so much from Hansard, on March 21, 1995 he said: ``The inquiry will be comprehensive and everything can be discussed at this inquiry''. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's words have been proven totally untrue.
I want to know if the Prime Minister is going to apologize to Canadians for this latest Liberal broken promise.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for the hon. member to attempt to prejudge the testimony or what went on at any of the events. That is for to the commissioners to look into.
I find it rather unusual that the hon. member has already decided, for whatever reason, that the person to whom he has referred will not be called before the commission of inquiry. The commission can continue hearings until the end of March.
The hon. member is making known his views as to who he thinks should be called. I have said it is not my intention to comment on the roster of witnesses nor on the testimony given before the inquiry because I do not think it would be appropriate. If the hon. member wishes to continue with his campaign to have certain people heard, he has until the end of March to make sure they are, if the commissioners believe it is in the best interests of getting to the bottom of this affair.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of this kind of rhetoric from the minister.
One year ago, following the serious allegations from Kim Campbell, we again asked that Mr. Fowler be recalled to Ottawa. This time the Minister of Foreign Affairs refused with the following excuse on April 16, 1996 in Hansard. He states:
Mr. Fowler will appear under oath before the inquiry to give all the information he knows-That is another broken Liberal promise, given here in the House. Is the Prime Minister willing to admit that he and his ministers systematically abused the trust of the House and of the Canadian people?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is getting easier and easier to respond to the ethics manual produced by the Reform Party in question period. When you get that kind bafflegab in a question, you can actually respond on the basis that the Reformers have told their supporters what they would like to have.
In the guidance given to members before this session Reformers were told that questions should not be used to get straight information. I do not think that means you cannot ask a straight question.
[Translation]
Air Canada's 900 regional pilots, whose collective agreement expired in May of 1995, have been out on a legal strike since December. The federal mediation and conciliation service made two unsuccessful attempts at bringing the two parties together. This strike has been going on for too long. It is seriously affecting the economy of the regions.
Since labour relations at Air Canada come under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, will the minister undertake to do everything in his power to bring the parties together and set the stage for serious negotiations, conducted in good faith, on the basis of the December 4 proposal?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I welcome this opportunity to give you an update on the situation.
As he rightly pointed out, from the outset the federal mediation and conciliation service provided assistance to the parties to try to achieve a negotiated settlement. Federal mediation and conciliation officials are still working at it as we speak. They are trying to get the parties to at least come back to the bargaining table and look for a solution.
(1445)
I do hope common sense will prevail and that they will start negotiating again so that this whole issue can be settled as soon as possible and service restored to Canadians.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find that answer a bit disconcerting because there are no negotiations going on at the table.
The minister must have been told of Air Canada's management using strikebreakers from the U.S. through AV Atlantic, of Miami, and Reknown Aviation, of Santa Maria.
Does the minister not think he has the duty, as a minister, to condemn such a practice?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the situation full well. In fact, he sits on the House of Commons human resources development committee and the committe tabled its report before the Christmas
break. I take this opportunity to thank the committee for the outstanding job it has done.
The bill is now before the House, at report stage, and I hope I can count on the co-operation of all hon. members for a speedy passage. The bill contains amendments to the Canada Labour Code that would help both parties remedy certain ongoing situations, which, though regrettable, are nonetheless legal.
Canada signed the Pacific salmon treaty with the United States over a decade ago. This treaty is crucial to B.C.'s coastal communities and to a sustainable Pacific salmon fishery. The Americans have failed to live up to the equity provisions of this treaty.
Could the minister brief the House on the measures that the government will take to resolve this ongoing dispute with our U.S. neighbours on the Pacific salmon treaty?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we all know how important the Pacific salmon treaty is for ensuring the proper management of the Pacific stock on the west coast. Unfortunately, the breakdown of discussions several months ago have led to a series of disputes.
I am very pleased to announce today that through discussions with the United States government, we have come to an agreement on the beginning of a new initiative. We are beginning new negotiations that will involve the major stakeholders at the regional level to deal with some of the crucial issues such as equity and conservation.
There is a very strict timetable between ourselves and the Americans. The meetings will begin February 10. We will review progress in the middle of March. This demonstrates what can happen when there is a constructive dialogue between two countries.
Would the health minister tell us exactly when he knew of this bureaucrat's identity?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. member's question all I can say is that the information was forwarded to the deputy. Action was commenced by her and recommendations which have come from the information commissioner have been acted upon.
In terms of the specifics, I will have to check my files and get back to the hon. member.
An hon. member: Hopefully they are not shredded.
An hon. member: We will wait it out.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a declassified letter that tells me that the minister clearly knew all about the scandal on December 3, 1996.
It is interesting that Dr. Hauser was then conveniently let go by the department just days before this information was made public by the information commissioner. That information was made public January 23, 1997. That information said that this was done to thwart the public's ability to know.
Instead of punishment and instead of investigation, he ends up with a golden handshake. Why?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House should be aware that the accusations and the implications of the hon. member's questions have to be understood.
The incidents to which the hon. member refers occurred in 1989. The hon. member is trying to imply that somehow someone in this administration did something wrong.
(1450)
The information commissioner has filed a report. We have accepted all of the recommendations of the information commissioner. Furthermore, we have forwarded a copy of that report to Justice Krever for his adjudication. In addition to that we have forwarded all of the information to Royal Canadian Mounted Police so they can examine it in its entirety.
On January 1, Quebec's new pharmacare plan came into effect. While the Quebec government managed to reach an agreement with the majority of employers and insurers in the province, Treasury Board, which is the employer for federal public servants, refuses to adjust its employees' insurance plan according to Quebec's new pharmacare plan.
Will the minister confirm that his government refuses to adjust the federal public service insurance plan to Quebec's new pharmacare plan?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal insurance policy, which covers at least 30,000 federal public servants in Quebec, offers more than the minimums required by the Quebec legislation for 98 per cent of those insured.
Our policy covers a wider range of drugs. It includes medical items such as glasses, which are not covered under Quebec's health insurance plan. Our deductibles are also lower.
Therefore, given that 98 per cent of our members have a better policy than the one available, we feel justified in keeping it.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the vast majority of employers and insurers in Quebec have already agreed to adjust to the new provincial pharmacare plan, will the minister admit that Ottawa's refusal to co-operate with the Quebec government does, in any case, adversely affect over 100,000 people, including retired public servants and their family members?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is false to say that keeping our policy unchanged adversely affects 100,000 federal public servants in Quebec because, as I just indicated, 98,000 out of those 100,000 are better protected by our policy than they would be if we made adjustments like those made by private employers in Quebec.
Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that we provide better protection of the rights of Quebecers who are or were public servants, and of their families, by keeping them under the protection provided by our policy.
Why did the justice minister not issue his half-hearted apology over a year ago, as soon as he knew of his department's slanderous mistake?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember what the facts of this case are.
This case, in terms of the sending of the letter of request, was processed like any other over the last 11 years since this procedure was put in place by the last government. The letter of request was initiated and drafted by the RCMP and it was sent after being signed by an official of the justice department to the Swiss government.
After it came to my notice, after the complaint was made about it, a second letter was sent to Switzerland underlining and emphasizing the fact that the statements made in the first letter were allegations only. That was done and it was clearly stated.
Since then various steps have been taken to change the system. I am the first to concede it had shortcomings and should have been improved. It has now been improved. We have afforded an independent third party to do an audit of those improvements and let us know whether we have done enough.
That is the approach we have taken to this problem and it reflects ministerial responsibility.
(1455 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear the justice minister bungled this case. He could have stopped this action by withdrawing the letter on which the $50 million lawsuit was based. He chose not to do it.
The million dollar Airbus deal was designed to protect the reputations of the justice minister, the solicitor general and Brian Mulroney. The justice minister apologized to Mr. Mulroney. Is he now prepared to apologize to the Canadian taxpayers for the needless waste of millions of their dollars?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am the first to acknowledge because I am the minister responsible that the procedure put in place 11 years ago had its shortcomings. It has now been fixed.
The hon. member refers to accountability and responsibility. I want to remind the hon. member that he and his colleagues in the Reform Party are accountable as well. They are required to act responsibly.
Earlier today in question period the leader of the Reform Party in a question to the Prime Minister referred to my use of the justice department for a political witch hunt. I want the hon. member and his leader to know that if they know anything, if they have any allegation against me to justify the assertion that I used the justice department in a political witch hunt then they should put it on the record. They are accountable and if they use that kind of irresponsible language without something to show for it, they will be held responsible when we go to the people.
In vernacular I hope the hon. member will understand, on that account he ought to put up or shut up.
Can the minister put an end to the tobacco lobby fearmongering and assure young Canadians that this legislation will not take away their jobs?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. He is quite correct. A lot of misinformation is being put out concerning the contents of Bill C-71. The hon. member knows this information is inaccurate and the claims people are suggesting are absolutely false.
I wish the record to be clarified and I thank the hon. member for the question. Yes, retailers will be able to continue to hire persons under the age of 18 to sell tobacco products.
In her heart does the Deputy Prime Minister believe the promise to create jobs has been fulfilled? Can she indicate whether she can feel the pain and anguish of unemployed Canadians not being able to pay rent or to put food on the table? If she does, what does she intend to do-
The Speaker: The Deputy Prime Minister.
(1500 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, it should be clear to the hon. member, who was a part of the government for most of that period, that during the period in question this government created more jobs than England, France, Germany and Italy combined.
It is also true that there are still too many Canadians who cannot find work. As far as I am concerned and as long as I am a member of Parliament, if there is one person in the riding of Hamilton East who wants to work and cannot, then I have more work to do.
I have discussed the situation with the Speaker who was here at the time. I have reviewed not only the blues but Hansard. I have reviewed the video tapes and also the sound tracks.
In my view, for whatever reason, unparliamentary language was used in the Chamber and I would like to remedy that situation because the two members of Parliament who were involved are in the Chamber now.
This is the situation as I understand it. One member of Parliament for the Reform Party, the member for Okanagan-Shuswap, was on his feet giving a speech and in the course of his speech there were exchanges. According to Hansard and according to what I heard and saw, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre interjected a word. That word I judge to be unparliamentary. Because the hon. member is here now I will address him directly and ask him to please withdraw the statement he made in this House yesterday.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to clarify as to how this word was used or not used. I certainly want to state, as I have all along, that the word was used in a plural sense, not a singular, and certainly not addressed to the hon. member.
Out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker-
(1505 )
The Speaker: These situations are always unpleasant in the House. I put it to the hon. member directly and clearly, will he withdraw categorically the word he used, yes or no?
Mr. Cannis: Out of respect for you and the House, Mr. Speaker, I do.
The Speaker: Thank you.
An hon. member: Point of order.
The Speaker: I am dealing with this matter. I will come to the point of order in just a minute.
Evidently the word that was used by the member on the government side was reacted to, of course, by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap. He, in his excitement, and we sometimes get excited in the House, used words which in my view were unparliamentary.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap is here now. I would ask him to please withdraw those remarks from yesterday which were unparliamentary.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I respect your request that I withdraw my statements. However, the member for Scarborough Centre has made statements which demean me and my colleagues in this House, as well as millions of Canadians. He has made statements to the same effect-
The Speaker: I know hon. members want to explain but for our purposes here in the House, I simply want to address the matter of unparliamentary language which was used. I put the question to the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap: will he withdraw, categorically, the unparliamentary language that was used yesterday, yes or no?
Mr. Stinson: Yes I will, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to defer to tomorrow at three o'clock.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have addressed the hon. member and I thank him for withdrawing categorically, as the other member did.
As I said at the beginning, it was an unfortunate situation that happened. Points were brought up. I have asked for withdrawals from both sides. I do have the withdrawals now and as far as this situation is concerned, unless members have other points of order they want to bring up, this situation as it refers to yesterday, as far as the House is concerned, is closed.
I want to refer to something which has just happened today. Let us hope this is not going to be a regular thing.
When you were on your feet trying to get order after the member did not only just say he had called one a racist but that it was in the plural, the member for Vancouver South hollered across at us: ``The truth hurts, doesn't it guys?''
If this Chamber is ever going to be elevated to anything that is above sub-human, it is this kind of behaviour over there that I will not put up with as a member any more-
The Speaker: Like all hon. members, I hope that-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I did not hear any comments while I was on my feet.
Colleagues, I have appealed to you before and I appeal to you again. We are in the profession of using words as weapons. We also use them to compliment, many times. Surely we use words to defend our constituents and those things which we believe in.
Like all of you who are here, I would hope that debate would be carried on yes, forcefully, but yes, in a civilized way. Unless there are further points of order which do not deal with the situation from yesterday I would be prepared to move on to our business of the day.
The Speaker: In the last few days and in fact in the last few hours in one case we have had two deaths of former parliamentarians. With your permission I propose to move to tributes for the former member for Timmins, the Hon. Jean Roy.
[English]
Jean Roy was first elected in 1968 in the riding which was then called Timmins in northern Ontario. He was re-elected in 1972 and in 1974 and served until 1979 when he had to leave politics for health reasons. I know that his constituents would have loved for him to have represented them for much longer.
He went on to serve on the international joint commission for the Great Lakes and as president of the Standards Council of Canada.
Jean Roy was born in Timmins in 1923 and took great pride in his home town, the town where he spent most of his life. Deeply devoted to his family, he was a very special person, gifted with a strong and wonderful personality and with many talents which he put to the service of his fellow citizens.
(1515 )
A successful businessman, he contributed to the economic development of his beloved Timmins. If in the best interests of his community there was a board to serve on or a committee to start up, Jean Roy was always there. His many and significant achievements will serve the people of Timmins for many years to come.
During his 11 years in this Chamber, Jean Roy was never very far from his constituents. He was always ready to serve them with a helping hand and an attentive ear. He will be remembered as an MP who wanted the best for his riding and as a parliamentarian who was not afraid to stand up for causes he believed in.
A man of vision as well as of action, he was inspired by Liberal ideals that secure real opportunity for every citizen in a just and
caring society. As Timmins Mayor Vic Power so aptly put it, Jean Roy believed in Canada for all Canadians.
Jean-Robert Roy was a politician in the most noble sense of the word, someone who committed his life to the service of his fellow citizens. We in northern Ontario have lost a friend, a champion for our region. The Liberal Party of Canada has lost an outstanding member. On this side of the House, we all know of his dedication to our party and to its ideals.
On behalf of the Government of Canada I would like to extend our deepest condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.
[Translation]
Mr. Roy was a francophone and proud of his heritage. A man with an engaging personality, Jean Roy used his talents to serve his fellow citizens. As the member for Timmins, he was also sensitive to the concerns of those he represented in this House.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, and of all my colleagues in the House, I offer our sincerest condolences to his wife Georgette, his son Jean and his daughter Louise.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Ontarian and former member of Parliament. Jean Roy was first elected to the House of Commons to represent Timmins, Ontario in 1968. He was re-elected in 1972 and 1974.
Mr. Roy devoted much of his life to public service. Born in 1923 in Timmins, Mr. Roy attended school in that city before setting off to Queen's University in Kingston. His career began as an accountant before entering into the construction industry in the United States and other parts of Canada. He spent three years as a construction estimator in Buffalo, New York and then returned home in 1955 to become a partner in Roy Construction Limited.
He immediately became active in his community, serving on the board of directors of the Children's Aid Society, the board of governors of St. Mary's Hospital and as a trustee of the Timmins High School board where he later served as chairman.
Jean Roy was a member of the Canadian Institute of Quality Surveyors. He and his brother Octave were partners in the Senator Hotel in Timmins and Sudbury.
Mr. Roy's devotion to public service was second only to his devotion to his family. In 1947 Mr. Roy married Georgette Clément. He was a father to two and a grandfather to two. Jean Roy passed away last week. To his family we offer our sympathy. He will be missed by all who knew him.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague from Sherbrooke and the Progressive Conservative Party, I would like to convey our deepest sympathies to the family of Jean Roy.
I did not have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Roy personally but I understand he was a tireless worker on behalf of his constituents. His involvement in his home community, serving on the board of the St. Mary's Hospital, the Timmins High School board and the Children's Aid Society is an example to all of us.
Mr. Roy had a lengthy career in public life by serving 11 years in this House of Commons. Mr. Roy is noted as being the driving force behind the expansion and modernization of the Timmins airport during his time as an MP.
His former campaign manager was quoted as describing him as being a born leader and always striving for the best for the riding and never accepting second best.
It is with great sadness that I express our heartfelt condolences for Mr. Roy's wife Georgette, and his children Jean and Louise.
The Progressive Conservative Party extends our prayers and best wishes for the family of Jean Roy.
(1520 )
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to add my words to those of others who have spoken with regard to Jean Roy.
Jean Roy was a personal friend of everybody in this House during his days here. He was a loyalist to his community, he was a loyalist to this House of Commons and he was a loyalist to Canada. His heart was in what he was doing. He was a man of principles. He never laid back in the harness; he was always there pulling his weight.
I want to say to his wife Georgette and his family today how proud I am, as others are, to have been their friends over the years. I say to them that they have every reason to be proud of that wonderful Canadian, Jean Roy, who served so well in this House of Commons, in his community, across this country and in the business world.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus I too would like to join with Jean Roy's many colleagues here in this House and former colleagues, family and friends in honouring his memory and expressing our gratitude for the service that he rendered to Canada as a member of this House for 11 years.
I did not know Mr. Roy; he left the House of Commons the year that I arrived. But one can certainly tell from the information that is available about his life that he was a person who served his
community well in this House of Commons and in a variety of other ways and in the community-
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois-
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, the hon. member has an excellent point.
[Translation]
I would like to ask all our colleagues to pay close attention for a few minutes. The member has raised a very serious question.
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: I am sure if we were talking about one of their people they would be quiet.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that Mr. Roy served the community of Timmins well, as we can see from the information that is available to us. He was one of those people of which there are many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands in this country. Far away from the national limelight in communities like Timmins, Sudbury and other northern and rural communities, they are known to people in those communities as people who are willing to do almost anything to advance the well-being of their community. It is with that notion in mind that we in the NDP join with others this day in celebrating the life of Mr. Roy and in extending our condolences to his family and friends.
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was struck with sadness when I was informed that my good friend and former parliamentarian Jean Roy had suddenly passed away at his home in Timmins on December 28.
Yesterday Jean and his good wife Georgette would have celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. The longevity of their marriage speaks volumes of how Jean viewed all his relationships with people, whether that relationship was in matrimony, in family, in business, in friendship and with his colleagues in this Chamber.
For 11 years, from 1968 to 1979, Jean occupied this seat from which I address this House. He won three consecutive elections and no doubt would have continued to serve his constituents and his country but for a heart attack in 1977. This event forced Jean to retire from active political life and was the reason he did not seek re-election in the 1979 general election.
He loved this Chamber. He worked endlessly. He was never shy to express his strong views on any major topic or issue, whether in caucus, in this House or in public. He was a great parliamentarian.
(1525 )
Although Jean was forced to retire from his political career at a young age, he never ceased to be involved in politics. He loved talking about politics and was involved in every election after his retirement. He was deeply involved in his many community initiatives and contributed much to the community. As a young man I was very much involved and contributed much of my time to his elections in 1968, 1972 and 1975.
I am convinced that was the reason Jean sought me out to be one of his golf partners after he retired. Much of our conversation on the golf course was about the political climate of the day and the future of our country. Jean always had strong opinions and was able to express them clearly.
Jean prompted me to offer my candidacy as a Liberal candidate in the 1988 general election and again in the 1993 general election. Jean had by then become one of my greatest supporters and closest advisers and a friend. As a personal friend of Jean, I benefited much from his optimism, his positive outlook and his political counsel.
Jean was a man who gave everything of himself not only to those around him but also to the society in which he lived. He was a good family man and a good provider. Jean's wife Georgette, his children Louise and Jean, and his grandchildren were always his first priority. Jean served his family and his country well. When all else has been forgotten, service to others endures. What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us. What we have done for others remains and is immortal.
Jean loved much and he was loved by all. Love is the greatest transformer. It turns ambition into aspirations, selfishness into service, greed into gratitude, receiving into giving, and demands into dedication. Jean loved much and his deeds will truly live forever.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we did not know Mr. Roy. However it is clear from the tributes paid him by his former colleagues and those who knew him that his reputation was well deserved, and I would therefore like to join with his colleagues in offering his wife and two children the most sincere sympathy of all members of the Bloc Quebecois.
Norman was a community leader in the town of Capreol and in the region of Sudbury. More important, he was a family man and a highly respected member of his community. He will be sadly missed by his family, friends and the community.
Norman was originally from Adanac, Saskatchewan where he grew up and later took up farming before moving on to British Columbia to take a job as a logger. He later settled down in northern Ontario, in Capreol, where he worked as a miner and then as a conductor with the CNR. He retired from the CN in 1975. This breadth of experience and pan-Canadian view of things provided Norman with a unique and penetrating insight that served him and his constituents well throughout his political career.
In my youth I vividly recall following his political career in Capreol and Ottawa. His years of public service began in the late forties with his election to the executive of a local of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen as it was then known.
(1530 )
In this difficult period for the labour movement, Norman was known as a man who stood by his members and his principles. The membership later rewarded Norman and I believe they rewarded themselves by appointing Norman to various positions of strategic importance to workers' rights and to collective bargaining.
In the early 1960s he entered municipal politics where he served as a councillor and deputy mayor for the town of Capreol. In 1965 he moved to the federal scene as the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt. In 1969 he returned to municipal politics and served as the mayor of Capreol and later on as a councillor and deputy mayor. He retired from municipal politics in 1991.
I do not think it is possible to walk through Capreol without seeing or touching the works to which Norman contributed, the parks, the athletic field, the museum, the library and so many others.
However, for Norman elected office was only one part of public service. The other was community activism and volunteerism. I believe that Norman will be remembered as much for his volunteerism as for his political contributions. I believe it is what defined him as an individual. He gave of himself.
The library board, the horticultural society, the local conservation authority, the Capreol Credit Union, the Lions Club, the Capreol senior's housing development and more all benefited from his leadership and commitment to his community. Public service, volunteerism or to offer one's self to the democratic process is a noble calling.
Mr. Norman Fawcett's life, his accomplishments and his contributions testify to this statement. However, as all members of the House know, it is family and friends that really matter. Norman lacked neither. Norman lacked neither.
He was a committed and devoted family man. He leaves behind his wife Elizabeth, seven children, 20 grandchildren and 21 great grandchildren. I know they will miss him.
On behalf of the people of Nickel Belt and the members of the House, I wish to offer Elizabeth and her family our sincerest condolences on the loss of her husband. He was a great Canadian.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Reform Party, I would like to pay tribute to a former member of this House, Norman Fawcett, who passed away on January 26 at the age of 86.
One word comes to mind when reading about Norman Fawcett, and the word is devotion.
Although Norman Fawcett only served in the House for one term from 1965 to 1968 as the member for Nickel Belt, his entire life was devoted to public service. Besides his involvement in various community organizations and boards, he served on the municipal council for the town of Capreol where he held the positions of councillor, deputy mayor and mayor before finally retiring from politics in 1991.
He was a conductor with CNR for over 30 years and was also a lifelong member of the United Transportation Union and also of the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Fawcett's dedication to public service is carried on through other members of his family with their service to their community. Several of his family members are currently involved in municipal and provincial politics in the province of Ontario. His legacy and commitment live on through them.
On behalf of the Reform Party, I would like to express our sincere condolences to his wife, children and other members of his family. He will most surely be missed.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the federal NDP caucus to pay tribute to Norm Fawcett, who died on January 26, 1997 at the age of 86.
As has been pointed out, he was federal NDP MP in the House starting in 1965 and served for three years. Norm spent his whole life, not just his time in the House, but an entire lifetime working on behalf of other people. Although his service in this House was brief, he had a lifetime of service to his community and to his country. He was very much a community based man. He started by helping his fellow workers with the railway unions in the 1950s. He was a conductor with CNR for over 30 years, retiring in 1975.
(1535 )
Although I never met Mr. Fawcett, I certainly sense in him, coming from Transcona, a railway town, a kindred soul and of course, given his origins in western Canada, my fellow New Democrats appreciate that as well, those of us who come from the west.
He was chairman of his union's grievance committee and served as the local union representative. Norm Fawcett served as chairman of the Capreol Association of Railway Running Trades and worked hard to represent the united front on behalf of union members from conditions imposed by CNR.
This power struggle resulted in a wildcat strike. As a result of the strike, he was one of two members appointed to appear at board of transport commission hearings to present the union's case.
Even during these tense times, Norm Fawcett was described as a man who spoke with quiet authority. He gave thought and heart to what he said and people listened.
As well as being a federal politician, Norm Fawcett served as a municipal councillor in 1962 and also deputy mayor. He was elected as mayor of Capreol in 1969 and served four years. He was again elected to council in 1976 and served seven out of nine years as councillor and deputy mayor, retiring in 1991. He also served on the Capreol hydro commission.
It was not enough, however, for Norm to be involved just in collective politics on behalf of his community of Capreol; he was also involved in sports projects such as the minor baseball league, economic development with the Capreol Community Credit Union and served as a represent with the Nickel district conservation authority. He was a life member of Masonic Order and a member of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows and the Capreol Lions' Club.
Norm Fawcett is survived by his wife Elizabeth and his children Donna, Gaye, Penny, Pat, Ken and Heather. He was a grandfather to 20 grandchildren and great grandfather to 21 great grandchildren.
Norm Fawcett was a role model for many NDP activists. They were inspired by Norm's quiet and persuasive ways. They watched in awe as Norm fought CNR from closing the Coniston, Ontario railway station. His thoughtful manner won the day and the station remained open.
In 1972 Norm Fawcett did not run again in the federal election and passed the NDP mantle along to John Rodriguez who went on to represent Nickel Belt for many years.
His hard working and steadfast style also inspired his own family members. His son-in-law is former NDP MPP Elie Martel who represented the provincial riding of Sudbury East from 1967 to 1987. Elie was always proud of the fact that for one year, in 1967, he was the provincial NDP representative at the same time as his father-in-law was the federal representative.
Norm Fawcett's granddaughter, Shelley Martel, also followed in her grandfather's footsteps and was elected as the NDP MPP for Sudbury East in 1987 and remains the MPP today.
The NDP federal caucus offers its deepest condolences to the family.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, and the Progressive Conservative Party to pay tribute to the late Norman Fawcett. We wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to Mr. Fawcett's family.
Although I did not know Mr. Fawcett personally, after reading his background I wish I had had that opportunity for I found out that Mr. Fawcett and I shared many similarities. Mr. Fawcett was a railway man. He served as a railroad conductor with CNR for over 30 years and he knew the importance of rail and watched how its introduction built this great nation of ours.
Mr. Fawcett also served on municipal council. He was first elected in 1962 and was again elected in 1964. He also served as the deputy mayor.
In 1965 Mr. Fawcett was elected to Parliament as a New Democratic member representing the riding of Nickel Belt. As the MP for the area, he fought successfully to prevent the Canadian National Railway from closing the Coniston station. He served one term as MP and later went on to be elected mayor of Capreol.
His political career spanned 17 years of dedicated service to his community and his country.
The Progressive Conservative Party extends our prayers and our best wishes to Mr. Fawcett's wife Elizabeth, his children, as well as the many members of his extended family.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we did for Jean Roy, and for the same reasons, we wish to offer Mrs. Fawcett, his children and all those Mr. Fawcett leaves behind, our sincerest condolences.