David Dingwall

[The Late Hon. Joseph Ghiz, November 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian, a former provincial premier, an eminent jurist and a dear friend.

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.

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.

[Krever Inquiry, November 18th, 1996]

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.

[Krever Inquiry, November 18th, 1996]

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.

[Krever Inquiry, November 18th, 1996]

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.

[Krever Inquiry, November 18th, 1996]

None, Mr. Speaker.

[New Reproductive Technologies, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members opposite were the first political party to call on me, as the minister responsible for health, to move with dispatch as it relates to new reproductive technologies. We have done that.

We have come forward with a bill that will go to committee. It will be examined. Hearings will take place. If improvements are necessary, they will be made.

It is certainly not the intention of the government or the administration to have any overlap and duplication. Where it is pointed out, we will act accordingly.

[Health Care, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we were told by the leader of the third party that he wished to reduce taxes. Now the hon. member is in favour of a tax increase.

We accept full responsibility for a comprehensive package as it relates to tobacco and we will introduce the legislation when I am ready to introduce it.

[Health Care, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, they do not know when to stop.

I would like to know where the Reform Party really stands. The hon. member for Macleod has said that he does not support tobacco legislation. He said: "I do not for one second believe that an advertising ban is the way to go". Then on February 7 he wrote to me and said that he would give me unqualified support for the new strategy for tobacco advertising.

Yesterday he said: "Reformers see the answer to reducing tobacco consumption in education, not legislation". But on June 21, 1994 he said that education campaigns were not the way to go.

Canadians and the House would like to know where the Reform Party stands on the tobacco legislation. Is it with the hon. member for Macleod, the leader of the party or the hon. member who has just spoken?

[Health Care, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, flip-flops and inconsistency have been characterizations of the members opposite.

In September 1993 the leader of the third party said that his party "would support user fees or deductibles and would eliminate universality". Days before the federal election in 1993 the Reform Party said it was opposed to private health care and user fees.

If that is not a flip-flop, if that is not an inconsistency, I say to the hon. member to go back to med school and become a real spin doctor.

[Health Care, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important subject in terms of breast cancer. I do not think there is anyone in the House on either side of the aisle who is not supportive of initiatives as they relate to breast cancer.

The government, in co-operation with a variety of different groups, is contributing a fair sum of money in terms of research and how we can effect positive solutions.

Over the last number of years $25 million have been directed toward research. More has to be done.

We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States to focus not only our capital and our money but our human resources to find the kinds of solutions women and society in general would like to have as they relate to breast cancer.