development of Quebec. I would remind you, if I may, of the Borden line, which in the early 1960s literally killed the petrochemical industry in east Montreal, and the more recent decision to build Mirabel airport, which did considerable harm to Montreal's air traffic and is currently causing problems the federal government is washing its hands of. Now, once again, the federal government is getting ready to impose a unilateral decision with the potential of disastrous consequences for all of the ports along the St. Lawrence.
My question for the Prime Minister is as follows: Are the federal government's proposals to first of all divide Canada into two main maritime regions, east and west, and then to subdivide the east into three parts-the Atlantic ports, the St. Lawrence ports and the Great Lakes ports-not likely to isolate the St. Lawrence ports and to place them in a delicate situation with respect to the new fee structure the government wishes to implement?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as minister, I have not yet reached a decision concerning the organization of Canada's ports, whether in Quebec or in the other provinces.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
By isolating the St. Lawrence region, if the minister were to decide to do so, does he not acknowledge that the St. Lawrence ports are at risk of being extremely ill served by the new fee schedule he is planning to implement, particularly the charges for icebreaking and dredging?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have not yet reached a decision. If I do make such a decision, I can assure the hon. member that we have no intention whatsoever of isolating the ports in the province of Quebec, or the province itself, as they themselves wish to.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Minister of Transport is more reasonable than his fisheries colleague, who has been the one responding in this matter until now.
I will ask the Minister of Transport to give us some hope for the future by bringing his fisheries colleague around to see reason and ensuring that no decision is made on charges for navigational aids, icebreaking and dredging operations.
Can he commit to no decision being made by the government until the period of consultation is completely over and the report tabled, so that an informed decision can be made, rather than a half-informed one, as his colleague in fisheries wishes to do?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always ready to listen to representations by the hon. member, and I am always ready to consult my colleagues here.
But the hope for the future of Quebec's ports, for the province of Quebec and for Canada, lies in the results we obtained in the byelections, which indicate that we are now well placed to keep Quebec's ports properly integrated within the Canadian system.
(1420)
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some Wednesday afternoons things get a bit topsy turvey. I understood from the Minister of Transport's second response that he would not be making a hasty decision. I am sorry to say that he will not be making one, since the coast guard now comes under the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
My question is therefore to the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He can take note of what his cabinet colleague just said. Consultations are currently under way on the subject of the fees the coast guard will charge for marine services. I would remind the minister that these consultations are to conclude in the middle of the month of April. The deputy minister in question, the commissioner for the coast guard, announced last week that the minister would reach a decision within two weeks, even before the end of the consultations.
Here is my question, since those opposite seem to be in a hurry today. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is responsible for the coast guard, prepared to put off his decision to impose charges for navigational aid services until April 19 at the earliest, so the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans can complete its work?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well what is happening here. His question is one of total rhetoric. He serves on the committee, he sits on the committee, but for the benefit of the House here is what is happening.
The commissioner of the coast guard along with others has had many consultations, three months of consultations. We are now before the committee. The fisheries committee will hear witnesses and further consultation until I believe the second week in April. No decisions have been made and consultations will continue to take place.
If the hon. member is concerned about decision making, no decision has been made. It will not be made while the committee is doing the study and it will not be made until completion of the committee's work.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think we can assume the minister has said he has yet made a decision and will let the committee complete its work.
Since the minister is prepared to put off his decision until we have finished our work, is he, while we are on a roll, prepared to take into account the recommendations to be made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and especially requests coming from people in the industry, from the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, because, until now, the coast guard commissioner has had four bosses, none of whom has taken the time to listen to the industry? So I ask him to wait.
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that the commissioner of the coast guard has been more than patient in hearing the consultations and the intonations of all interested parties in all ports in Canada from one coast to the other.
In the navy we had a thing called obey the last order, but consultation does not mean that you obey the last order, that you listen to the last person. The consultation will take into consideration all the points that have been made from January until whenever the committee is finished its work.
In addition to the hearings of the committee there will be a staff of the commissioner of the coast guard attending these committee hearings. When the committee is finished its work we will not start from scratch all over again because we will take into consideration the ongoing consultations so that a decision can be made in time to collect these fees for the whole year.
If eight provinces can balance their budgets and even the separatist premier of Quebec can commit to deficit elimination, why can the federal government not do likewise?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, we have a plan that is working very well.
Interest rates are down by 3 points since last year. This morning I was reading in a newspaper that all the agencies evaluating the rating of Canada in terms of quality investments said it is now one of the best places in the world to invest. It is working very well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): The federal government has a plan, Mr. Speaker, but it happens to be the slowest plan in the country for reducing the federal deficit.
Why should the national government, the one that is supposed to provide leadership, be the last to commit itself to balancing its budget? It ought to be the first.
If the Prime Minister simply cannot put together a balanced budget plan, would he be willing to hold a Canadian economic summit, like the one in Quebec, and allow business, labour and provincial leaders to put together a balanced budget plan for him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have a plan that is working very well. When we look at the OECD nations and at the group of seven, it is Canada that has the best performance at this time because of our steady decline in the deficit in relation to GDP. When we became the government it was 6.2 per cent; it went down to 5 per cent; it went down to 4 per cent; it went down to 3 per cent; and it is going to 2 per cent.
As everybody knows, if we move too fast we could create all sorts of problems, including a recession. When that happens less revenue comes in and the deficit increases.
To be balanced, like the Liberal Party tends to be, not to the extreme right, not to the extreme left, that is the way Canadians do things, and it is working very well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister compares his government's financial performance to that of the OECD countries. He ought to compare it to the provinces in Canada. Eight provincial governments are on a faster track for deficit elimination and tax relief than the federal government.
On this countdown we are hearing, from a $40 billion deficit, to $30 billion, to $20 billion, to $10 billion, the other side that is never spoken of is the federal debt's going from $450 billion to $500 billion, from $550 billion to $600 billion.
I will ask one more time. What is wrong with the decision making and financial planning apparatus of the federal government that it cannot produce a budget balancing plan when eight other governments in Canada can?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we came to be the government only two years ago. If we had been the government before that we would not have the situation we have today.
I suggest the leader of the third party take 24 hours, sit down and read what I said to him in my first two answers and he will understand.
Yesterday the Minister of Industry attempted to play down Liberal patronage in Statistics Canada recruitment. Yet, patronage has reached such a point that Statistics Canada management found it necessary on March 25 to issue a memo, of which I have a copy, recommending that its commissioners act with intelligence and discretion in order to avoid, and I quote: ``-having people in high places halt the process again''.
I call upon the minister to inform this House. Who are the people in high places who halted the process? Are they from his department or his office, because quite obviously they are not from Statistics Canada?
(1430)
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we went through this fairly painfully and slowly yesterday. I will try not to take too much time today.
I would remind the hon. member that we did-
Mr. Young: Could you draw pictures, John, for him?
Mr. Manley: -in the past employ a political reference system in naming census commissioners in this case.
It has come to my attention that of the names that were referred from the province of Quebec the most successful patronage boss of them all, I am afraid to say, was the independent member for Beauce who had 19 per cent of his recommendations accepted. The Bloc had 18 per cent and my colleagues in the Liberal Party had 17 per cent.
He perhaps ought to ask his colleague, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, who somehow managed to get 61 per cent of his accepted.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a painful answer. Can the minister explain to us why the census commissioners had to have their priority lists referred through a member of his office, in this instance Franco Iacomo?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday, there are priority lists for the recruitment of census representatives. Priority is given to the names referred through my office. If hon. members wish to ensure their names are referred they need only call my office.
However, they cannot both rely on a system of political referrals and then suggest it should not occur. The hon. member making that suggestion reminds me of the veterinarian who set up shop with a taxidermist under the sign: ``Either Way You Get the Dog Back''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Can the minister explain why this individual was released only two months ago and not five years ago when the internal investigation was done?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member explain why in the House and outside the House she alleged that this individual was now an employee of CSIS? Perhaps the hon. member better withdraw her allegations and go back to the drawing board.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister stated that although a CSIS employee had committed numerous breaches of the service's security policy he was confident in how CSIS had handled the issue.
Yet in 1988 when Kwan Lihuen, a CSIS translator in Vancouver, was found to have had unreported contact with targets of the service he was immediately suspended and then fired when his security clearance was pulled. Even when SIRC and the federal court ruled that Kwan's clearance should be reinstated, CSIS refused to rehire him.
Can the minister explain why CSIS was so rigid in that case and so lax in this one?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question, but I
will be happy to seek further information about the case she mentioned even though I think the record is clear I was not the minister in 1988.
[Translation]
A memo from Statistics Canada dated December 5 said, with regard to priority lists, and I quote: ``A candidate who scored 60 per cent in the written exam and 56 per cent in the oral exam has priority of employment over a person from another source who scored, for example, 80 per cent and 75 per cent in the same exams''.
Does the minister not find unacceptable the fact that some people who get better scores in the exams are not hired only because their name is not on the priority list?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have had the same experience. These people were chosen to fill the positions of census commissioner. There was no priority list.
In fact, that is why a priority list was established for the positions of census representatives.
[English]
The choice was made on the basis of a written test followed by an oral examination. Many people in all parts of Canada and from all parties passed the written test but did not pass the oral examination. That gave rise to the numbers I quoted earlier which, if anything, indicate this test was very stringent.
By far the bulk of the people retained to perform the work on the census will have come from no political list at all. About two-thirds will come from sources other than political referrals.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister has misunderstood what I said. It is not those who have the highest scores who are hired, but those who have lower scores. That is what the memo says.
The memo says that those who score 60 per cent and 56 per cent in the exams will be hired, but those who score 80 per cent and 75 per cent will not necessarily be offered a job. The department does not want to hire them. The memo says that those who score 60 per cent and 56 per cent will be hired and that those who score 80 per cent and 75 per cent will not be hired. That is what the memo says.
Can the minister explain to us why his department writes these kinds of memos and will not hire the most competent candidates?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member seems very confused by the process.
If the hon. member were saying we were hiring people who did not pass the test because of their political affiliation, I would agree with her that we would then have a problem. However, the reality is that nobody is being hired unless they prove their qualifications.
There is no priority list, save for the census representatives. We have asked that priority be given to the names referred from my office provided they pass the required test.
I am advised that the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has sent us names, and those names will be on the priority list. If she wishes us to remove them from the priority list we will endeavour to do so.
A police staff sergeant told the Vancouver Sun he was unable to warn her of the imminent danger because of the freedom of information and privacy acts.
Will the solicitor general please tell the Canadian people and the House if he feels this outdated, ridiculous law is still an effective means of looking out for the interests of the public?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to get more information about this and get back to my hon. friend.
What I would like to know is whether the acts the hon. member is referring to are federal law or provincial law. He has raised some very serious matters which deserve to be treated seriously and the first thing for me to do is to be sure of exactly what the facts are.
(1440 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the answer does not surprise me. It is about victims' rights and we do not hear much about that from the other side.
Let me quote Chris Simmonds of CAVEAT, British Columbia: ``The problem really isn't with the RCMP, it rests with the politicians in Ottawa. There should be a law on the books so that when police feel someone is dangerous they have the right to warn them. An officer could have taken her aside and warned her. At least she would have known who she was dealing with''.
Does the solicitor general agree there is a need for such a law, yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very concerned about victims' rights. It is for that reason that this party brought in the gun control law that was opposed by the Reform Party.
I want to ask my hon. friend, is it not true that CAVEAT called for support of the gun control legislation while it was opposed by the Reform Party, yes or no?
Can the Minister of Industry assure the House that he intends to recommend to cabinet that foreign ownership of parent telecommunications corporations go from 33.33 per cent to 49 per cent?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that Canada, together with other parties to the Uruguay round, is now engaged in negotiations in Geneva on the issue of trade in telecommunication services.
We have an offer on the table at the present time in Geneva which would bind our current law that permits 20 per cent foreign ownership directly and 33-1/3 per cent indirectly. Combined this comes to about 46 per cent. We are not at the present time proposing a change in that bargaining position.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, can the minister tell the House that he will follow up on the recommendation made by the information highway advisory committee to ensure that these two industries, telecommunications and broadcasting, are subject to the same foreign ownership rules?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since we are not about to recommend changes at this point, I would remind the House that the same rules do apply for broadcasting and telecommunications.
Mr. Gauthier: No, no.
Mr. Manley: It is the same thing. We are not proposing changes.
Last December the minister participated in a sacred assembly where he was asked to establish a national aboriginal day that would formally recognize aboriginal people and their contributions to society. I would like to ask the minister why he is considering such a day and if he will act on it.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a national aboriginal recognition day was passed by the assembly in Quebec in 1990. It has been requested by the Assembly of First Nations and by spiritual leaders. It has been pushed by private members of the NDP, by our member from Red Sucker and two weeks ago by the executive committee of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.
These people are looking for a day of recognition, a day celebrating the aboriginal ties to the land. The challenge to the government is whether it is prepared to do it from sea to sea to sea. I am pleased to advise the House and members that the caucus, the cabinet and the government have reflected on this.
The Prime Minister will be proclaiming very shortly that there will be a national aboriginal day. It will be at the summer solstice, June 21 of each and every year. It will be a celebration of the spiritual ties of the aboriginal people, a recognition of them as our neighbours. Hopefully it will lead to a better future for all of us in Canada.
(1445 )
If the Nisga'a deal was in Quebec rather than in British Columbia, the Bloc would not support it because of the precedent established by the transfer of ownership of public roads to the Nisga'a. The memories of disputes over ownership of roads at Oka, the Mercier bridge and Akwesasne are too fresh.
Why is the minister promoting a deal in British Columbia that he would not dare promote in Quebec?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise is patently wrong but a comparison of what the Bloc and Reform do is interesting. The party to my far right, Reform, has opposed the Yukon legislation, the Nisga'a legislation, the Davis package, the Arctic exiles package, the B.C. treaty process.
The Reform Party has voted against every piece of aboriginal legislation brought to the House except the Norman Wells legislation that benefited an oil company. If Reform members want to compare themselves to Bloc members, if the Bloc supported one piece of legislation, Reformers would be at least tied with the Bloc. If the Bloc supported two pieces, it would be 100 per cent better than the Reform.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we do comprehensive analyses more than the minister. We supported the Split Lake agreement. We supported the Pictou landing agreement.
The Nisga'a deal sets a precedent for future land claims across Canada. It gives the Nisga'a constitutional protection for preferential tax treatment forever. This ends the possibility of an equal taxation system for all Canadians.
Why has the minister broken his promise to deal with native taxation on a national basis?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the Reform proves to all members that it does not know what it is talking about. If it does know what it is talking about, it is giving the wrong information to the House.
The Nisga'a deal proclaims that in the 12 years, after we help them, the Nisga'a will be paying taxes like every other Canadian. They are under the Criminal Code. They will be under the charter of rights.
This party purports to have some spiritualism. Let me read something:
The mainline churches support these negotiation processes in principle because we have been trying for over 30 years to face our own role in this sad history-We either get on with it as immigrant people, or face our First Nation neighbours in the streets and at the barricades-John Siebert, program officer, human rights and aboriginal justice, United Church of Canada.
Yesterday, the coalition to save the Quebec City bridge sent all members of the House of Commons pieces of the bridge as well as a photograph showing how dilapidated it is. According to a study done for CN, restoration work must be undertaken as soon as possible to prevent irreversible damage. The Quebec government and CN recently said they wanted to do their part in saving this heritage property, a world-famous masterpiece of civil engineering.
Does the minister admit that the federal government is the only stakeholder that still refuses, unlike CN and the Quebec government, to do its part in restoring the Quebec City bridge?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is fully aware of how important the Quebec City bridge is. The hon. member should know that the Quebec City bridge was transferred to CN in 1993, which means that the federal government no longer has any economic or financial interest in it.
CN wants to continue maintaining the bridge and will do so, but it also wants to come to an agreement with the Quebec government regarding the repairs to be done within a few years.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport will finally understand how important this issue is when the bridge starts crumbling into pieces tomorrow.
After recognizing the Quebec City bridge as a national historic site, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Transport admit that, unless the government makes an immediate commitment, this recognition remains an empty shell while the Quebec City bridge continues to deteriorate?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a $700,000 consultant study was done by the firm Modjesky and Masters which was one of the firms that was consulted when the original bridge was built many years ago. The
study confirmed that the bridge can be maintained and will be as long as maintenance is constant. CN plans to spend approximately $1.5 million to $2 million this summer in repairs to the bridge.
CN is prepared to enter into an agreement with the province of Quebec for a more complete restoration of the bridge in the years ahead. All it is waiting for is a decision by the Quebec department of transport which has the responsibility for this bridge.
May I repeat to the hon. member that this bridge was not built by Canadian National. It was built by the Intercolonial Railway Company. This was a company picked up by CN as it acquired certain bankrupt companies. The federal government had responsibility for it for many years, but as of 1993 its financial responsibility for this bridge ceased.
Does the minister now believe that the GST should become a permanent fixture in the Canadian taxation system?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no. There were a number of times in opposition and previous times in my life when I certainly criticized the GST. In fact, I would criticize the GST today. There are a number of major problems with it. In fact, that is why we want to bring in a replacement tax, precisely to deal with those problems.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister made a very trenchant observation when he was in opposition, that if the GST did become harmonized it could be there forever.
My question is for the finance minister. Does he believe that harmonizing the GST would make it virtually impossible to get rid of it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first we are talking about a replacement tax that would make it better for consumers and better for small business.
Second, as with any tax, a subsequent government or this government is capable of dealing with it. There is nothing in any single tax that would so bind a government, either federal or provincial, that it could not deal with it and not deal with its own revenues.
The government is going to do what it said in the red book. It is going to do what was promised on page 22. That is what was promised Canadians. The tax system will be dealt with in a way that will allow Canadian companies to create jobs, allow them to be competitive and allow consumers to have a lower rate. In fact, we are going to do a great deal to make this economy better and better and better.
Most often when we talk about the Atlantic fishery we hear only of the downturn of the cod fishery. However, the shell fishery in my riding and across the Atlantic provinces is doing extremely well and is a mainstay of the economy of the fishery at this time.
Will the minister tell the House of the growth and the success of this bright sector?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do thank that the hon. member for her question. The Atlantic shellfish fishery is a very vibrant part of the Atlantic fishery and of the Atlantic economy as a whole.
In recent years prices have increased substantially and the landings have been up. The indications are that prices were pretty stable last year. Early indications are that they will be stable over this season as well.
(1455 )
In addition, the landings are not expected to fluctuate over the period of time that we are looking at. For the Nova Scotia economy, the shellfish landings represent 40 per cent of the quantity of fish and 80 per cent of the total fisheries landing.
This resource is so important that efforts will be taken to make sure that strict conservation measures are applied and the quotas will be given in a fair and reasonable manner.
Why does the minister persist in calling UI premiums money that no longer goes back to the unemployed and which, in fact, constitutes a hidden tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we came to power, the UI fund was running a deficit in excess of $6 billion. By the end of 1995, this deficit had turned into a surplus of approximately $735 million. It certainly is not more than $1 billion today. We have made it very clear that we wanted to build a cushion to protect the workers in times of economic decline.
The hon. member talks about diverting funds and that sort of thing. Look, we do not even have a $1 billion surplus to spend on Canadian workers.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why is it then that, last week, senior officials at the Treasury Board and the assistant auditor general confirmed our fear, a fear we have had for the past six months, of seeing employer and employee contributions used to replenish the federal government's consolidated revenue fund like any other tax or revenue collected by the federal government. Someone somewhere is not telling the whole truth.
In this context, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance the following question: Could he confirm that his government's refusal to transfer any active employment measure to the Government of Quebec may have been motivated not only by his own centralizing designs and those of the Minister of Human Resources Development, but also by the fact that this would create a shortfall of a few hundred million dollars in the federal government's annual budgetary revenue, letting its real deficit show a bit more?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat once again that UI premiums have been used to absorb the deficit, which amounted to about $6 billion. Today, the surplus does not exceed $1 billion.
It is obvious that the funds were not used for any purpose other than to make up the deficit we had inherited.
Now, the deficit, I mean the hon. member-
Some hon. members: Ha!
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): There is no difference.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): No, no, I meant to say the hon. member. It was a slip of the tongue, Mr. Speaker; I take it back.
This is a matter of accounting. In 1986, the auditor general insisted that the UI fund was part of the federal government's consolidated account. It is purely a matter of accounting. We are only following the auditor general's instructions. If the auditor general is prepared to instruct us otherwise, we are prepared to sit down with him. But this is all a matter of accounting. This is unfamiliar ground for an economist.
[English]
He stressed that this deception was deliberate and the result of clear and direct orders. How can the House, the commissioners on the Somalia inquiry, or the Canadian public believe anything this minister or his department says when his officials are proven guilty of this kind of cover up?
(1500 )
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that it was the deputy minister of defence who drew this matter to the attention of the information commissioner immediately upon learning of the irregularities.
We welcome the report of the information commissioner. Indeed, his findings and the facts in his report are consistent with those that have been revealed in the military police investigations.
All of the matters addressed by Mr. Grace in his letter to the deputy minister have either been addressed or are being addressed.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the department was dragged kicking and screaming into the arena to declare this information.
The information commissioner advises in his report that he gave the Minister of National Defence the names of those ``who gave clear and direct orders to destroy all original versions'' and the names of those ``vigilant, courageous and honourable employees of national defence, both military and civilian, who delayed in obeying''.
What has the minister done to punish those who gave the orders? What has he done to ensure the protection of those who did the right thing?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the kicking and screaming, I would like to quote from a letter written by Mr. Grace to the deputy minister: ``There is a silver lining to the cloud which these cases represent for national defence. The wrongdoing which occurred was first brought to my attention by the deputy minister of defence''. In other words, it was brought to the attention of the commissioner by the department itself. There was no kicking, screaming or dragging.
Obviously this is a disconcerting series of events and all of those matters will be addressed.
What the hon. member has also failed to reveal in the House is that his party, together with members of the national media, maligned the present chief of defence staff. Mr. Grace in his letter has since said that the chief of defence staff, General Boyle, has had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the wrongdoings.
I expect apologies from the Reform Party and the national media with respect to the actions taken against the chief of defence staff.
Will the minister make public the report of the mediator that was rejected by Alaska and the United States? Will he push for binding arbitration of this dispute? Should this fail, will the minister stand up for Canada and take tough measures from rigorous customs inspections of U.S. vessels up to a transit fee as suggested by Premier Glen Clark? Will he stand up for Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question does represent the sensitivity of this issue with fishermen in British Columbia. I am very sensitive to that. I have been there twice and have spoken with them and I will be going out again soon.
The hon. member is aware that as we speak, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in the United States. He will be discussing both with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher, exactly the points the member is making.
I want to reassure the hon. member and those fishermen on the west coast of British Columbia who are so concerned that we will do whatever is considered necessary to ensure that the principle of equity, which is their concern with salmon, is achieved. The best arrangement possible will be made for this year through the Pacific Salmon Commission and in future years as a result of tough negotiations with our neighbours as necessary.