My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree that the American reaction affects Canada first and foremost, because Canada is Cuba's principal trade partner, according to recent figures?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this problem with the President of the United States last week. I informed him that it was unacceptable to Canada that legislation passed by the U.S. Congress could apply outside that country.
On Monday and Tuesday, I had an opportunity to discuss the same problem with 13 Caribbean heads of government. In the joint press release issued at the conference, it was stated unanimously that laws with extraterritorial jurisdiction are unacceptable under international law.
Obviously, Mr. Helms' statement speaks for itself. My conversations with the president indicate that he is aware of Canada's objections, and that the bill is currently before Congress. We hope that people will become aware of the long term consequences if, at the international level, all countries took the same kind of initiative as the U.S. has.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the current protectionist atmosphere in the U.S., does the Prime Minister not feel that, over and above the conflict with Cuba, we are dealing here with a challenge to the very terms of the Free Trade Agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill reflects the atmosphere in the aftermath of the Cuba-U.S. incident. As the House is aware, we have clearly expressed our disapproval to the Government of Cuba concerning their attack on civilian aircraft flying outside Cuban territory. At any rate, the International Civil Aviation Organization is addressing the problem today in Montreal.
I have learned from experience that U.S. pre-election fever often leads to statements that are more heated than they would be at other times. After the election, perhaps Senator Helms or others will be more approachable.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade made a statement here in this House in which he expressed a hope that the president will use the discretion available to him to reduce the impact of the bill. Should that hope not be fulfilled, however, what action plan does Canada have in mind to protect the thousands of jobs that would be affected?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after a law is passed in the United States there is always room for the administration to take some precise action. I discussed that possibility with the president and he will look into it. We do not think this law will be in operation for many months to come, not before the end of the summer.
(1420 )
Therefore we will see how the administration deals with this piece of legislation and we will advise.
On February 29, the Minister of Justice said in this House that, in order to avoid a conflict of interest, and I repeat, in order to avoid a conflict of interest, he had asked certain individuals to be represented by counsel of their choice rather than counsel from the Department of Justice.
How does the Minister of Finance explain the fact that the highest ranking officers currently under investigation, that is, Lieutenant-General Gordon Reay, General James Gervais, General John de Chastelain and Admiral John Anderson along with the former deputy minister, Robert Fowler, continue to be represented by counsel from his department?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that the commission itself, when it undertook its work, said it would focus the inquiry on the senior members of the forces.
In recent months it has interviewed some of the more junior ranking officers and enlisted personnel. This matter came up in the House last week and I take this occasion to repeat what I said then. The fundamental principle on which we have operated is that where interests conflict separate representation will be afforded.
In 13 cases so far we have arranged to have separate lawyers retained and paid for by the Government of Canada so that individual interest can be represented.
Whenever in the course of an interview or in the course of testimony it becomes clear that there is a difference between the interest of that person and the institutional interest of the government, we ask that the proceedings stop and we advise the person of the right to separate counsel. If the person makes that choice, we arrange for them to get a separate lawyer.
As I said last week, if the hon. member is aware of any case in which justice is not being served because that process is not being followed, I encourage them to tell me about it so that we can redress it immediately.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice does not consider this a flagrant conflict of interest, what does he think of the fact that lawyers from his department are concocting both the prosecution and the defence of the senior ranking officers and that, moreover, they are sitting at the same table during the hearings and regularly consulting each other about the course the hearing is taking?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the point the hon. member is trying to make. I hear words being used but they do not add up, at least in my mind, to an effective criticism of the process.
The commission is represented by separate counsel, not government counsel, paid for by the people. The government and the Department of National Defence are represented by justice lawyers.
As I have said, if others appear who happen to be present or former employees of government who have a different interest they will be separately represented.
The lawyers acting for the commission are not government lawyers, not justice lawyers. If the hon. member has a specific concern in mind I invite her to write me about it. I will look into it and I will respond to it directly. However, at the moment I am not able to see in anything she said today grounds for complaint.
Surely it is time for the government to do more than wring its hands and do something decisive to protect Canadian interests from these disturbing American actions.
Can the Prime Minister explain why his personal appeal to the U.S. president and the personal intervention of his trade minister have failed to produce any support for the Canadian position in Washington, thereby placing Canadian interests, jobs and trade at risk?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. leader of the third party supporting our position. We have made all the representations we think are appropriate at this time.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will talk with Mr. Christopher later this week. As Mr. Helms is good a friend of Mr. Gingrich, perhaps the leader of the third party could call Mr. Gingrich and ask the Republicans not to vote for that bill.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the protectionist speeches given in the American Congress are a carbon copy of those made by Mr. Turner and others in this country in 1988. Perhaps the Prime Minister could arrange for those speeches to be burned-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Manning: The actions the Prime Minister has mentioned here today, phone calls to the president, media releases, negotiations at the highest levels, are essentially political actions to deal with this problem.
When the government has taken the political route to dealing with trade disputes the U.S. has usually been the winner, as with the grain imports case. When Canada has used the practical and business like dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA Canada has tended to be the winner.
Has the Prime Minister instructed his trade minister to launch an immediate challenge to the Helms-Burton bill under the dispute settlement mechanism of the NAFTA?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill has not been passed. We should let the bill pass, see what the president will do with the bill and how it will be applied.
In terms of trade relations with the United States, we have done very well. At this moment we have the biggest surplus we have ever had with the United States.
The biggest trade relations in the world are between Canada and the United States and so there are always problems of this nature. We have been reasonably successful at resolving them. Sometimes we refer disputes to panels under the NAFTA. We might use this route if needed once the bill is passed. Then we will see the effects.
However, we have done what we can to this point. I am delighted that the leader of the Reform Party is supporting this government. I will send a copy of Hansard to Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident why Canada's trade interests are not being properly represented. If the Prime Minister would go back to the NAFTA and read the dispute settlement mechanism he would see what it says: ``The dispute settlement provisions of this chapter shall apply whenever a party considers that an actual or proposed measure of another party would be inconsistent with this agreement''.
It is quite clear that the Helms-Burton bill in the American Congress is a proposed measure in violation of the NAFTA.
Why does the Prime Minister not direct his trade minister to file an application to the dispute settlement mechanism with respect to this bill?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill not been passed yet.
When we formed the government there were 130 grievances between the two governments. The number is down to below 10 at this moment because we have done it in the proper fashion. We believe that if we have a civilized discussion with the Americans we will probably have a better result. Then it will be time to move if we feel we are going nowhere.
However, I do not think Canada will gain a lot in losing its cool.
[Translation]
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage. Since the recommendations of the Juneau report will likely result in the closure of Radio-Canada affiliates, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage categorically reject these proposals?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the request of the Bloc, we will not reject all the recommendations of the Juneau report, because there are good things in them. I would like the member opposite to get involved in a good debate to find ways to provide long term funding for Radio-Canada instead of dumping on the Juneau report.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the three recommendations in the Juneau report are even identified by the report's author as the weakest ones.
Given that Radio-Canada's contract with its affiliates ends March 31, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to calm the fears of the people in the affiliate stations by declaring a moratorium on the recommendations that affect them?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's proposal is unreasonable. He is asking us to reject the recommendations of the Juneau report, when one of them was long term funding for Radio-Canada. Clearly I am not going to reject the recommendations of the report. I am in fact working to have it in effect shortly.
It is an election year in the U.S. and it has decided Canada is an easy target for its bravado and bullying. Not only have Canadians had to put up with the Jesse Helms anti-Canadian rhetoric, but today on CBC a U.S. congressman said Canada had violated international law by imposing fees on the inside passage, which puts us in the same category as Cuba.
When will the Minister of Foreign Affairs stop allowing Canada to be a patsy to the bravado and bullying of foreign politicians and forcefully defend Canadian sovereignty on trade and on our territory?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member had now spent sufficient time in politics to not get overly disturbed when the odd congressman, senator or other representatives find their way into the Canadian
media. They do not reflect the policy of the U.S. government or its administration.
Furthermore, we have made it very clear, as we have been doing for the past many years, that the inside waters are our waters and that there will be no payment to the United States of any compensation. Those waters are ours to determine what will happen within them.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government has caved in on softwood lumber. It has failed to stop the Helms-Burton bill and when the Americans unilaterally declared the B.C. inside passage to be international waters, the Liberal government, as we heard yesterday, simply sent a message. This is some defence of our sovereignty.
The Liberal red book said: ``A Liberal government will end the Conservative's junior partnership relationship with the United States and reassert our proud tradition of independent foreign policy''.
What happened between the writing of the red book and what we are observing now?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what seems to have happened is that the reform party was down holding hands and making sweet talk with the Republicans in the U.S. Congress and perhaps got the false impression that the entire Canadian public reflects the position of the Reform Party that there is no sovereignty in Canada.
The reality is that the Prime Minister has taken the lead in mobilizing Caribbean and Latin American countries. We have the European Union on our side. The Russians are on our side and countries around the world are on our side. We are leading the charge against the extraterritoriality of that bill. We just wish Reform would get on side.
[Translation]
Two days ago, the defence minister stated in this House that the suicide rate in the Canadian Forces is, and I quote: ``about half the rate of Canadian society as a whole''.
The reality is as follows: in the last four years on record, the Canadian average was 13.2 per 100,000 people, compared to more than 20 for the same number of people in the armed forces.
In light of these facts, does the minister still stand by the statement he made two days ago in this House denying any problem in the armed forces?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, knowing the hon. member, he has been quite selective with the information he has presented to the House. I stand by what I said.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the minister that the information I have comes from Lieutenant-General Paul Addy and was published by Le Devoir in April 1995.
The minister is still trying to play down this scourge. Will he finally give this problem the importance, the attention it requires?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the incidence of suicide in the Canadian Armed Forces is about half that of the population as a whole. I would like to see the hon. member's data because I am sure they have not been correctly presented to the House.
What concerns me is the motive behind the hon. member's playing on the whole question of suicides in the armed forces as they play against the general population. I can only suspect this is another measure with which the Bloc Quebecois wants to destabilize Canada's military.
The Speaker: Neither in the questions nor in the answers should we attribute motives. I ask members to keep that in mind.
In response, the current Prime Minister said the government had been humiliated and that the whole nation had been humiliated by this challenge to our sovereignty.
What will the Prime Minister do now that once again the U.S. is threatening to, in his words, humiliate us by challenging our sovereignty?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend to the hon. member that before he uses that kind inflammatory language he look specifically at the so-called U.S. legislation, the fishermen's protective act. It does not authorize the United States to use the coast guard against Canadian fishing boats. That is called a finding. It has no legal impact or legal authorization.
I suggest to the hon. member that before he begins to beat the drums and raise the temperature he read the legislation and realize that Canada has full rights, which we have exercised and continue to exercise, and full sovereignty over our inside waters.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the language is the same as in 1985. Yesterday the transport minister said: ``You cannot win with the Americans with rash and foolish behaviour''. He should have given that advice to Brian Tobin before he slapped a transit fee on the Americans.
Negotiations over salmon with the U.S. broke down yesterday. There is no sign of an agreement. Now the U.S. has turned a fish dispute into a sovereignty showdown.
When will the government wake up to the needs of the west coast and figure out some way to undo the damage done by Brian Tobin, damage that could result in a violation of Canadian sovereignty?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the former minister of fisheries, now the distinguished premier of Newfoundland, is one of the most ardent and effective representative this country has had in defending Canadian interests. We know full well that the present minister of fisheries from Newfoundland will follow in that tradition.
(1440)
I want to point out a fundamental error in the hon. member's comments. Negotiations have not broken down. Both the United States and ourselves issued statements yesterday stating that negotiations will continue. We will continue to talk about a new fishing regime for this year's fishing season. We will continue to work out the criteria and the formula for a long term solution.
We believe in finding effective solutions to these problems, not engaging in wild rhetoric.
On February 12, the Bloc Quebecois demanded that the Canadian government suspend all deportations of refugee claimants to Algeria, a country on the brink of civil war. Yet, as recently as yesterday, immigration officials were still deporting people to that country.
Does the minister agree that it is unacceptable to continue deporting people to Algeria and essential to review the cases of all Algerian nationals in light of the explosive situation prevailing in that country?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is an advisory committee that examines conditions in countries to which people are to be deported. Whenever this committee meets, it reviews the situation as a whole, what is happening inside the country, how past deportations went, whether the situation changes from day to day, and whether or not deportations should be temporarily suspended. In summary, every time someone is deported from Canada after having exhausted all avenues of appeal provided for in Canadian legislation, we assess the potential risks of sending this person back to his or her country. If we do send someone back, it is with the assurance that this person will be able to go home without facing persecution.
At this time-which does not mean that the situation will not change in a few days, next week or next month-we are still deporting people to Algeria.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the climate of violence prevailing in Algeria, does the minister recognize that Algerian nationals should benefit from a suspension of deportation measures just like the citizens of Rwanda, Burundi and Afghanistan?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each situation is assessed on its own merits. Again, the situation is reviewed on a periodic basis. Even in the case of Burundi or Rwanda, the situation will be assessed regularly week after week. All deportation suspensions are temporary. In this case, there is no temporary suspension for the time being.
Now that the firm Aéroports de Montréal has indicated what its plans are for the two airports, could the government tell us whether it is prepared to grant free zone status to Mirabel to promote and ensure its long term economic development?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
As you know, last December, we tabled Bill C-102 to enhance Canada's duty referral program.
This new legislation provides for the creation of so-called free zones, which are actually free trade zones. Businesses and regions looking to implement very innovative projects may request the designation of such zones. Officials of the Federal Office of Regional Development and of Aéroports de Montréal are currently
considering, in collaboration with Revenue Canada, whether or not a free zone could be created under the new legislation to help the Mirabel area.
[English]
Yesterday the finance minister waved the red book around, somewhat like a white flag, and said that the government meant harmonize, not scrap. In fact it meant augment, not abolish. Canadians know what they heard from Liberals during the last election campaign. They simply will not forget it.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will he live up to his promise and the promise of members of his caucus, to scrap, that is kill, that is abolish the GST, unlike what he says on page 22 of the red book?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a book that is quite well known across the country.
On page 22 it said: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenue, is fair to the consumers and small business and minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization''. That is the promise.
The Speaker: Members can quote directly from whatever books they like, but I would ask them to please not show them off. We are going to get into the use of props.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thank you. Red is dead, because here are some of the things they said during the election: ``I would abolish the GST''.
Mrs. Finestone: Take your jacket off, Deb.
Ms. Clancy: Time to be true blue.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think during International Women's Week that I was being undressed in the House of Commons by this government.
During the election-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: One day we are being seduced; the next day we are being undressed. Before we go much further, would the member put her question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, regardless of what was in the red book, the finance minister said: ``I will abolish the GST''. ``We hate it and we will kill it,'' said the Prime Minister. ``Scrap it,'' said the revenue minister. And of course there are those words that we have all come to love: ``If the GST is not abolished, I will resign'', said the Deputy Prime Minister.
Why is the government going to expand and hide the GST in a secret supertax, instead of just plain killing it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to deal with the bare facts.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have put in writing that the GST will not be there and will be replaced by a system that will be a better one.
(1450 )
As it is the tradition, I can table the red book and the hon. member can table the red coat and then she would be dressed in black which will show the future of the Reform Party.
Does the minister agree that this situation could have been avoided if more Canadian Coast Guard air cushion vehicles had been available and could he confirm plans to procure two additional crafts for the Coast Guard?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we regret very much that this took place. The coast guard has only one air cushion vehicle, a Hovercraft, in the region and it was in refit at the time. It was January and that was the normal time to refit these kinds of crafts. I think the hon. member would agree that it was impossible for any other vessel to get there because of the depth concerned.
I will take into consideration what the hon. member has said. We will try to make that craft available as much as possible, given the contingencies that one would expect under the circumstances.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, given that the St. Lawrence region has only one air cushion vehicle in operation at present, could the minister promise
in this House that the St. Lawrrence region will have two such craft in operation by next fall?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provision of emergency services in the tributaries of the St. Lawrence River, as in other rivers in Canada, is the responsibility of the province. The Canadian Coast Guard provides ice-breaking services in the tributaries at the request of the Quebec ministry.
I will take into consideration what he has said and we will do what we can with the resources that we have.
Canada has a long tradition of meeting its obligations to the United Nations in full and on time. It was $270 million last year. Thanks to political manoeuvring in the Security Council, Canada is going to be stuck with the full cost of sending additional troops to Haiti for four months, $24 million.
Under those circumstances, will the minister consider withholding $24 million from our other UN assessments in order to compensate us for this unjust cost?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the attitude demonstrated by the hon. member.
The initiative taken at the United Nations a week ago to arrange for an agreement with the security council to continue and extend the UN presence is one of the most important contributions Canada has made to the UN for the rebuilding of that country. Haiti is desperately struggling to rebuild a democracy where there has been a dictatorship for the last several decades.
For the hon. member of the Reform Party to cast aspersions and say that we should find some way of denying the value of that contribution really demonstrates his misunderstanding of the value that Canada places in the UN, on the building of democracy in our hemisphere and in ensuring that we have a stable, orderly system in the world.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope you award prizes for irrelevant answers to serious questions because I sure heard one there.
(1455 )
Since the hon. minister wants to roll over and play dead on my first suggestion, in 1994-95 Canadian foreign aid to China was $162 million. Since it was China that blocked the security council's vote on the funding of the Haiti mission, would the minister at least consider withholding $24 million of aid from that country, which by the way has a vibrant economy and is in no way a legitimate target for our largesse?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to my reply. First, if the hon. member took the time he would recognize that China has become in the last several years one of the most important trading partners for Canada. We have several billions of dollars engaged with it. Much of that has been generated by the fact that the foreign aid development budget has been used to help Canadian business with startup funds which will lead to much broader contracts at a later date. It has been one of the best investments we have made.
Second, the other part of that aid has provided major assistance in the development of institutions to aid women, children and judicial institutions in China and to help in exchanges for education and training.
The attitude displayed by the hon. member is the worst kind of isolationism that I have heard in this House in an awfully long time.
The largest petition in the history of the Alberta Legislative Assembly was presented last week. Eighty thousand Albertans representing 458 towns, cities and villages demonstrated overwhelming support for the five basic principles of medicare. They rejected two-tier health care and called for the maintenance of national standards.
What will the minister do to protect Canada's publicly funded health care system and to ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are honoured by all provinces, even Alberta?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. The House should extend congratulations to those 80,000 Albertans who signed petitions in hockey arenas, shopping malls and homes across that province to give support to what we know as medicare.
The members of Parliament from that great province realize fully that 75 per cent of its population support the five basic principles of the Canada Health Act. They do not support the two-tier system which is being advocated by the Reform Party of Canada. They support unquestionably the principles of universality, access, affordability and free access to all Canadians. It is high time that the Reform Party got on side with the general population of the province of Alberta.
[Translation]
How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain the fact that an agency for which he is responsible is contravening the Official Languages Act, and does he intend to reverse that decision as soon as possible? If he does not, it is clear that francophones will once again be the ones affected by federal cuts.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that particular issue to my attention. I do not accept that an official publication issued by any agency of this government should not be distributed in both languages. I will look into it immediately and report back to the hon. member.
The ministry yesterday said that the internal trade document was going to settle the problem but that document is two years old. Last September it was supposed to have a draft agreement on the energy sector and that did not happen. Meanwhile $2 billion a day is going down the tubes and Labrador is being shafted.
(1500)
When will the minister be prepared to move to help Labrador get what it deserves, which is reliance on its own natural resources?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Let me assure him that as recently as March 5 the federal government, provincial governments and utilities involved have met to continue discussions in relation to this issue.
The federal government does not wish to usurp that which is the rightful authority of the provinces but it will continue to work with the provinces in a constructive fashion to reduce trade barriers wherever they exist.
The minister has said that forestry will be transferred to the Yukon government on April 1, 1996. I would like to ask the minister if this is still the department's intention and if so, what kind of negotiations have been finalized with the Council for Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we had a lot of difficulty with the forestry because the price was 20 or 30 cents per entity which would normally have cost $20 or $30 in B.C. or Alberta. Over a period of time we increased the stumpage rates and put some of it into what is called the Elijah Smith Sustainable Fund which was named for an elder in the Yukon, as she knows.
The problem is that the First Nations in the Yukon do not feel that they had been adequately consulted in the process of devolution, so I have slowed down the process. If I am going to err, I am going to err on the side of the First Nations in the Yukon.
Last year the federal government received $60 million in GST revenues as a result of the spending of sports anglers on the Great Lakes. At the same time the exploding population of sea lamprey in the lakes has the potential to eliminate sports fishing.
Can the minister advise the House whether his department is proceeding to decrease, maintain or increase Canada's contribution to the binational Great Lakes Fisheries Commission which controls sea lamprey programs?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that the government is very interested and concerned about the control of sea lampreys in the Great Lakes.
In this fiscal year we will be contributing $3.8 million which basically restores the level to that of earlier years. There was an increase last year but we are going back to earlier levels.
It is the view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that in all fisheries the use of public resources, particularly those managed by public expense, should really command a licence fee. To that end, we are dealing with the province of Ontario to look for ways to further assist in the control of predators like the sea lamprey, for
more effective control in sports fishing and other kinds of fishing that are affected by these predators.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close.