Len Hopkins

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member that it is quite obvious that I got through to the true intention of the Bloc Party in the House of Commons today when he turns around and makes a personal attack on me. My hide is thick. I can take that. But I can also dish it out.

I am going to say to him today that the Auditor General of Canada has always had the highest respect from the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

I have no hesitation in saying that it was this government which took the initiative. It was not the Bloc. Do not stand and say that the Bloc took the initiative. The Government of Canada took the initiative and referred the matter to the finance committee of the House of Commons and the finance committee brought in the report.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak on this motion today I am really amazed with its content. It has been some time since I saw a motion in this House that is worded in the way this one is today. It is really trying to get at rulings that were made in 1985 and 1991 relating to the immigration of taxpayers and the distribution of Canadian trust property to a non-resident beneficiary. It is also very much about migration taxation.

The opposition motion today tries to convince people that the doors are open for other transactions to leave the country and they talk of this in terms of hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. This is an absurd assumption. What they are trying to do is create a perception of a loss of tax dollars. The finance committee has brought an excellent report into this House and found no such transactions taking place.

As I have said, this is an absurd assumption. Are billions of dollars leaving the country tax free? The answer is a clear and unequivocal no. Revenue Canada is not aware of any similar transactions since 1991, and the finance committee confirmed it found no indication of large revenue losses or tax planning opportunities that occurred because of the 1991 ruling.

The minister of revenue, as she said today, has placed a moratorium on any such rulings in this area of the Income Tax Act until such time as the government plugs the loopholes.

The hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans indicated today that the Liberals would be blaming this on the Tory administration. The Canadian public has already passed judgment on the Tory administration. It did that on October 25, 1993 in the general election. Therefore we do not have to pass it on to it, it was there during its time. However, there was no evidence found of wrongdoing on the part of tax department officials in this ruling. That is in the report that the finance committee brought into this House.

I want to emphasize that the Minister of National Revenue has stated that we have a moratorium on any such procedures until the government plugs the loopholes. This is in effect a freeze on all procedures, and no decision to let money out of this country can be taken while that moratorium is on. How do we get fish out of a lake when the lake is frozen? We have to drill a hole. But the finance minister and the Government of Canada are saying they are going to plug the hole. The Bloc can try as it likes but it will not be able to drill a hole in the ice on that lake and get the fish out. The Government of Canada is going to review these tax laws which have not been reviewed for 25 years. It has already taken many measures in this regard.

Therefore let us not get carried away with the idea that something terrible is going on today because the finance committee, the auditor general and other officials, six leading auditors of this country, have said there was no wrongdoing. The Department of National Revenue says that nothing has happened since 1991.

If they are trying to put a hole in the Liberal armour in Quebec, they will have to try harder than this. The people of Quebec are smart enough to know they are not being led down the garden path by tactics such as this. Just reading that motion is the worst bedtime reading anybody could possibly have.

The government has stated on the floor of this House that the problem today is how to treat capital gains when someone, an immigrant, a person, a trust, a company or a partnership wants to leave Canada. That is the question. That was the auditor general's main point. The majority finance committee report of the House endorsed it by saying action must be taken. The Minister of Finance said: "We agree and we intend to take action".

At another place in Hansard on September 20, the government said that the majority finance committee report was very thorough in the way it dealt with this point and that the government intends to take action. The Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, said: ``We wanted to shed some light on the matter and the majority report of the finance committee did so, and we intend to act''.

It becomes very clear that the motion which the House is debating today has been placed on the Order Paper by the official opposition as an example of straight crass politics, and that is why it does not mention the positive approaches that have been taken by this government to update the Income Tax Act. The average Canadian needs the facts surrounding this issue and they are getting them. They do not need the kind of political rhetoric portrayed by this motion.

I repeat that a moratorium has been placed on all rulings with respect to taxpayer migration until the government has introduced legislation and taken other steps to plug the loopholes. It wants to study the finance committee report in depth.

Let us compare ourselves with other countries. In the House we are always downgrading ourselves in many ways. I want to compare Canada's tax laws with those of other countries.

Our tax laws are tighter than those of other G-7 nations. Our tax administration system is the most highly respected of any today. It is pure speculation that money has been lost. There is no evidence from any source that money has been lost.

It is another matter when we come to a debate such as this to examine the issues in their full complexity, not just in simplistic statements such as those stated in the motion today. It is another matter to examine the actions of hardworking and dedicated officials in the context in which those actions occurred.

It is very easy to criticize somebody, talk about the good and the bad, put people into categories of heroes and the villains. But that is why it is absolutely necessary to explain the whole issue on the floor of the House. It is quite another matter when we consider that one of the central issues we are examining today relates to the highly complex and frequently uncertain area of the tax treatment of taxpayers who migrate.

Chapter 1 of the auditor general's report issued on May 7 of this year raised issues related to income tax rulings and in particular Canada's tax policy as it relates to persons who become or cease to become resident in Canada.

The fact that these concerns dealt partially with family trusts should not obscure the fact that the principal issue in this matter is the tax rules relating to taxpayer migration.

I think this is something which is very relevant. It has been said that the period since the end of the second world war will be regarded by historians as the twilight of the nation state and the dawn of the single world economy.

According to Webster's Dictionary the term globalization did not even exist until 1944. Today it is the defining watchword of our modern world. Yet surprisingly tax rules relating to taxpayer migration were not enacted by Parliament until 1971 and have not been significantly reviewed in the 25 years since they were enacted.

[The Late Dr. Victor Railton, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Victor Railton, whom we are fondly remembering today, was a great Canadian by virtue of his many achievements and his dedication to each cause he undertook.

Victor Railton was a no nonsense person when it came to getting a job done, but at all times he practised a sense of decency and was always considerate of other people's feelings. These qualities helped him to exercise excellent bedside manners as a physician and surgeon and also served him extremely well in carrying out his duties both here in the House of Commons and with his constituents during his tenure as a member of Parliament from 1972 to 1979.

He and his wife Ruth, who predeceased him in 1987, were highly regarded both on and off the Hill.

With regard to his academic background, Victor Railton graduated from Brantford Collegiate and then from the University of Toronto in medicine in 1929. He practised family medicine in Port Colborne, obtained a fellowship in surgery as a specialist and served brilliantly in the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps from 1940 to 1945 as a surgeon in France, England, Belgium and Holland where he played a leadership role in field hospital work.

After he came home he practised surgery in Welland where he became chief of staff of the Welland County General Hospital. This outstanding Canadian served as chairman of the board of education for the city of Welland and was awarded the Centennial Medal in 1967.

He was a dedicated, talented person who led many fine community causes. He became a volunteer surgeon in Nigeria during the Biafran War in 1970.

In 1972 he was elected as the member of Parliament for Welland and was re-elected on July 8, 1974. He served as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and served on several committees in the House. Dr. Railton always delivered well informed speeches in this House.

He is survived today by his wife Deirdre Railton, his sons Richard and James, and his daughters Jane and Eleanor. He is also survived by eight grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. We extend our sincere sympathy to all of them on this occasion. He was predeceased by his daughter Nancy, and three sisters. We thank his family for sharing the life of their wonderful father with us.

As an MP he was everybody's friend and adviser and indeed a doctor to many of his colleagues, including yours truly. It was not his nature to become rattled or upset in any way. He always had his feet planted firmly on the ground and his head on his shoulders.

Dr. Railton was a hardworking MP, a friend and a very congenial and jovial person at all times. Victor Railton was over 90 years of age when he passed away. Those 90 years were productive, dedicated and a fantastic service to his family, his community, his country and the international community.

Today as we pay tribute to this remarkable man, many members and aspirants to public office could well use his exemplary life to help them mould their own future.

We thank his family for sharing his life with us for the betterment of Canada.

[The Late William Marvin Howe, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today we pay tribute to the late Marvin Howe, a member of Parliament in this House from 1953 to 1972. He was predeceased by his wife, the former Helen Ruth Blair.

We in the House extend our sympathy to his children Bill, Peter Marvin and his wife Doreen, Mary Ellen McNaught and her husband David, and Sandy and his wife Susan. We also extend our sympathy to his grandchildren and to his great grandchildren.

Marvin Howe was a graduate of Listowel High School and Toronto Teacher's College. After a short stint at teaching Marvin established a small business in Arthur, Ontario. Before coming to the House in 1953 he was reeve of Arthur, chairman of the local school board and a member of county council.

After he became the member of Parliament for Wellington-Huron he served on several committees in the House of Commons and was chairman of the transport committee on two occasions.

I remember him as one who got along well with other members and was always a jovial type of person. He served in Parliament under four prime ministers, the Rt. Hon. Louis St. Laurent, the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker, the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson and the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

During his tenure in the House between 1953 and 1972 there was considerable rapport among members of Parliament from both sides of the House of Commons. As a result members tended to get to know one another extremely well. That boded well for this institution. Regardless of the different party affiliations each of us realized the other person had some good community and national spirit to share. Marvin Howe was a hard working MP and was always a friend.

It is ironical that today we are paying tribute to two former members of the House, both of whom lived to be over 90 years of age. Marvin Howe was one who spent those years trying to help his neighbours and his country and we thank his family for sharing him with us for a long period of time.

[Privilege, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you are in the chair, along with the three other people who chair this House of Commons, and I would like to extend to you and to the others in the chair and at the table a big thank you on behalf of this House for your patience, the esteem in which all of you are held and the fairness in handling this boisterous crowd out here on the floor of the House of Commons. It is at a time like this that I think we should recognize good habits and practices in the House. We thank you and the others for your fairness in handling all situations.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions from people throughout the Ottawa valley.

They wish to draw attention of the House to the fact that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which states on page 2: "Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, `the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth"'.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

[The Late Hon. George Hees, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, George Hees was married on June 30, 1934 to Mabel Dunlop of Pembroke, Ontario. Mabs Dunlop, as she was known, was the daughter of A.E. Dunlop, the provincial treasurer in the Conservative government in Ontario for many years. George was very proud to have married into that family. The Hon. A.E. Dunlop, the former treasurer of Ontario, died earlier that year just before George and Mabs were married.

As Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Hon. George Hees invited me and others in the House at the time to the 45th anniversary of the Dieppe raid. I can recall how emotional he was at times during that visit. He did a great job for Canada as a spokesperson, as one to represent the veterans, and we had many cenotaph ceremonies remembering those who died at the battle of Dieppe.

As veterans affairs minister George Hees was very personal, very in depth and had a great empathy for his job. All veterans got the benefit of the doubt when they asked George Hees to look into a case.

One of the reasons George Hees lived from 1910 until 1996 was that he was a great believer in physical exercise, as mentioned by a previous speaker. He was always out doing his thing early in the morning and even in the evenings. Besides being a great person in phys-ed, he was never at a loss for words either.

He was first elected in 1950 and then re-elected in 1953, 1957, 1958 and 1962. He did not run in 1963. He came back into the House in 1965, when I was first elected. He was in the House for the next 23 years after that.

Of interest, I believe nearly all of the ministers from the Ontario cabinet came to Pembroke for his father-in-law's funeral in 1934.

George was a hail fellow well met. When we came back from the the 45th anniversary of the Dieppe raid, I delivered a statement in the House praising George Hees and thanking him for doing such a fine job in leading that delegation to that very important memorial. I recall at the time Mary Collins from Vancouver sent me a kind note across the House thanking me for saying something nice about George Hees because in those days not very many people said nice things about anybody. Nevertheless he was a tremendous fellow.

I have one last comment with respect to George's in-laws. It is of interest to note that Paul Martin Senior first ran in the old Renfrew North provincial riding against A.E. Dunlop who was George's father-in-law. The most interesting part of that story is that Paul Martin Senior's father worked in the lumber yard for A.E. Dunlop and his son was running against A.E. Dunlop in the provincial election. That created a little interest. George was always one to tell a lot of stories of his background.

Today we are really celebrating the life of a person who spent 35 years of elected service in this House of Commons. As the representative for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I extend to George's family and all his relatives and friends sincere condolences from Lois and me today.

[The Late Stephen Neary, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Steve Neary today because I used to have constituents from time to time come to talk to me about him. Many Newfoundlanders were members of the Canadian forces. They would end up in Petawawa and retire there. They all knew Steve Neary.

Lois and I want to extend our very sincere condolences to his wife Mary, to Andrea, Stephanie, Monique and Pierre. It is a big parting moment for them, but I can say that, from having known Steve for a long time, he was a great Canadian. He was a great Newfoundlander and he was very proud of his wife and family.

He was a gut cause guy. This has come out in the words of other people today: to spend 23 years in the legislature of his province of Newfoundland, to be in the cabinet of Joey Smallwood, but most of all to remain dedicated and loyal to his leader, to his party and to his cause. That is what real public service is all about.

He was a great orator, which has been alluded to today. We have had a few other great orators who have come to this place from Newfoundland over the years. I have seen them come and go and they have made a great contribution to Canada.

As I think of Steve Neary's life today, he was outstanding for the labour movement. It has been pointed out that he was a fighter for the underdog. He had his cause. I always called him the gut cause guy. The more gut cause people we can get in Canadian politics and in our provincial legislatures, the better off our legislatures, our provinces and our Canada will be.

I want to say how privileged I feel to have known Steve Neary, how proud I am of his public life. Canada needs such hardworking and dedicated people in public life. We can well look to Steve Neary for our example.

[National Unity, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, during current times Canadians from all over Canada must never lose sight of the fact that in the years leading up to 1867 the Fathers of Confederation laid the foundation for our Canada with the full intent that the country was to be indivisible and indissoluble. There has never been any change in that intent nor in that purpose. Neither in the Constitution of Canada nor in law is there any provision for the separation or splitting away of a province or territory.

We as Canadians have a moral and civic obligation to maintain the territorial integrity of our country. Let us never sway from our firm conviction toward Canadian nationhood. Let us resolve as a Canadian family to continue to protect each other's culture, language and religion so that Canada will forever be a national dream in the eyes of an envious world.

[Stanley Knowles, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to comment on the Hon. Stanley Knowles, whom I have known since long before I became a member of the House.

In my teaching days I brought 35 students to visit Parliament Hill and as we stood outside the doors of the Chamber, looking at all the seats inside, there was only one person sitting in the House of Commons, Stanley Knowles.

The constable explained to me that Mr. Knowles quite often did his office work in his seat in the Chamber because at that time individual members did not have an office of their own. Members had to share offices and staff and it was not a very peaceful exercise.

Stanley Knowles has always championed the cause of war veterans, senior citizens and medicare. I remember the teasing he got about his own pension on the day he became a senior citizen.

The Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau appointed him to a place of honour at the table in the Chamber.

It is fitting that this man be recognized by the academic community and remembered as a champion of social justice in Canada.