[Translation]
This weekend, at the meeting of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister made an about-face. He changed the commitments he made in Verdun only a few days before the referendum. His
promise to recognize Quebec as a distinct society was trampled underfoot, tossed out with a wave of the hand after a night of work and the undebated passing of a resolution on the floor of the meeting.
How can the Prime Minister justify not keeping his word to the people of Quebec and once again reneging on the commitments he made in Verdun?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to have the distinct society recognized in this House and we met it in December. All the members on this side of the House voted in favour, and the members of the Bloc voted against. This is the fourth time they have voted against a distinct society.
We support the distinct society. We support having all Canadians recognize that the French fact, French culture and French civil law have special significance for Quebec. And we will continue to fight for this. It would be very helpful to have the support of the Bloc in having this fact recognized. However, today, as always, those who voted against the Meech Lake accord are weeping crocodile tears. And yet, when you yourself were a member in Quebec City, you voted against the distinct society in the Charlottetown accord and you voted against the distinct society as late as last December.
If the Leader of the Opposition is serious, I issue him the following challenge: let him propose a vote in this House on the distinct society, and we will support him.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a simple resolution at a meeting of the Liberal Party is enough to overturn the resolution passed in this House, of which the Prime Minister was allegedly so proud, and since a simple resolution of the meeting of the Liberal Party is enough to void the commitments made in the throne speech, are we to understand that the government and the Liberal Party consider the commitments not worth the paper they are written on?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to help us enshrine the distinct society in the Canadian Constitution, I am sure we can do it. But, how can we insist on or hold a federal-provincial conference on the distinct society when the leader of the Parti Quebecois, the premier of Quebec, asks us not to put it on the order paper before the Canadian premiers?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not going to alter the debate. It was he, at his meeting, who reneged on the commitments he made as Prime Minister. He cannot shift people's attention today.
I will say simply that, once again, our fine Prime Minister has managed to turn all of Quebec against him.
(1430)
How can he reconcile his new constitutional position with the remarks made this very morning by his referendum ally, Daniel Johnson, who said on behalf of Quebec federalists that he is totally opposed to the position the Prime Minister is now taking?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to read clause 1.4 of the resolution passed this weekend by party officials in Quebec and the members of the Liberal Party in Quebec who want the fact incorporated in the Constitution. Here is the text that was passed and that the Leader of the Opposition has obviously not read: ``The Liberal Party of Canada supports the enshrinement in the Constitution of the principles recognized in the Parliamentary resolution passed in December 1995 defining the distinct society''.
There is the answer for the hon. member, who, if he were a little more honest with himself and with the people of Quebec-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Indeed, he would tell the people of Quebec that he has always voted against recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, whereas we Liberals have always worked to achieve this end.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
At the general membership meeting of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, the minister stated in connection with the place Quebec holds within Canadian federation that the words themselves were of no importance, what counts is the reality.
Well then, can the minister tell us whether, in his reality, Quebecers constitute a people?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the first question asked of me as a member of Parliament, and I must thank the hon. member for it.
Anyone wishing to properly describe public opinion in Quebec is obliged to admit it is not a society in unanimity, but a society where various opinions are voiced. The best way to illustrate this is with a poll that came out a week before the referendum. Quebecers were asked how they defined themselves. Twenty-five per cent said they defined themselves as Quebecers only, and all the rest defined themselves as Canadians, many of them as Quebecers first, because they felt more at home in Quebec, but Canadians also.
These people are Canadians. The hon. member would like them to stop being Canadians, and that is where the problem lies. The answer is this: in Quebec we have differing opinions, but the large
majority of Quebecers want to remain in Canada. We are going to work to ensure that everyone in Canada may be reconciled.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): It would have been far wiser, Mr. Speaker, for the Liberals to find out what the minister's answer was before applauding.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not demonstrating through his reply that, just like the Prime Minister, he has absolutely no grasp of the Quebec reality?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not much versed in how things are done here, but if I understand the hon. member correctly, he wishes me to repeat what I said, because he did not understand it fully.
An hon. member: That is right.
Mr. Dion: I thought I had been very clear. We have a pluralistic society in Quebec, one in which a number of different points of view are expressed, one in which people need to be left to define themselves as they wish. Some wish to define themselves as primarily Quebecers, others as primarily Canadians, and what is so wonderful in Canadian federation is that no one forces anything on anyone else.
[English]
Documents from Two Commando Unit have miraculously reappeared in a Petawawa filing cabinet. Vital operational logs from One Commando were apparently the victim of a Mogadishu mud puddle or Somalia sea water, and the RCMP is now examining DND's tampered with hard drive for electronic fingerprints.
Given all of this, how could the Prime Minister still have full confidence in the chief of the defence staff and his own Minister of National Defence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is because I have known the Minister of National Defence for a long time. He is a very good man and a very competent minister.
When he became minister he was confronted with a file that was created before the coming of this administration. He has worked with this problem and he has decided to do something unprecedented: to have an inquiry into the operation of national defence. Not only that, but he recommended that we disband the regiment that was involved in that.
He took some extremely courageous actions and he has decided this inquiry will go to the bottom of the file, a file that was started perhaps by an incompetent administration before we arrived.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this trouble may have started before but what we need is for this minister to truly get to the bottom of it and clear it up once and for all.
The lawyers for the Somalia inquiry were quite clear in who they think is responsible for this whole mess: the Somalia inquiry liaison team, the public affairs division of DND and this Liberal government.
The lawyers did not say that General Jean Boyle is the common link between all three of these problem areas. He had a hand in SILT and he headed up public affairs at DND before he was hand picked for this current position by this minister.
Will the defence minister ask his friend, General Jean Boyle, to step aside until the Somalia inquiry gets to the bottom of his role in this attempted cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not ask the chief of the defence staff to step aside.
It seems the members of the Reform Party are intent on making accusations, not allowing individuals to state their cases before the commission and drawing their own conclusions. This is foreign to Canadian justice which has served us well for over a century as a nation.
I think the inquiry process is working. The chairman of the commission has noted a problem with documentation and has set aside a couple of weeks to look at this specific issue and hopefully will draw some conclusions.
If it is apparent, as the chairman said, that outside help, whether the military police or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, should be involved, that is the job of the commission to identify.
I cannot reply every day to accusations that come forward at the commission. That is why we set up the commission, to take it out of the political arena and put it where it belongs, in front of three independent people to evaluate the facts.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who do want to state their cases. Instead they have been stifled, which is the unfortunate part of this whole thing.
I guess it is easier to blame subordinates than it is to fire a hand picked appointee. If this minister had done his job the military brass would not be leading him around by the nose. If this minister had done his job, General Boyle would not even have been named
chief of defence staff. If this minister had truly done his job the Somalia inquiry would not be scrambling around looking for operational logs and missing documents.
Since the minister is obviously incapable of doing his job and has lost the confidence of absolutely everybody but the military brass, will he resign?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has dealt with that on a number of occasions.
This has been a particularly troublesome file for all of us in government. The Department of National Defence is under instructions to make all documents available to the commission. There have been some problems. I welcome the commission's deciding to set aside these two weeks to look at the documentation problem.
Obviously by what has transpired this morning the commission still requires further answers. Departmental officials will give those answers. However, it is very important that individuals, whether the chief of defence staff or others who have been named publicly by the Reform Party or others in the media, have an opportunity to go to the commission, state their own case and be judged in the eyes of all Canadians fairly and justly because that is what Canadian justice is all about.
[Translation]
Contrary to what the minister just said, the commission adjourned this morning because it was dissatisfied with the level of co-operation from the Department of National Defence and the minister himself. This is unacceptable.
Does the Prime Minister feel his defence minister is still trustworthy despite his lack of co-operation in the Somalia inquiry and the fact that the minister himself had General Boyle appointed to the position of Chief of the Defence Staff, supposedly to restore public trust?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister asked the department to co-operate with the commission. Furthermore, he himself created the commission and recommended that an independent commission be established to review this whole matter.
This is obviously a complex matter that was-
Some hon. members: Ah, ah.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, it is complex. It happened before we formed the government, and the party in power had trouble dealing with this matter. After disbanding the regiment involved in these operations, the minister decided to request that a fully independent commission be established to review this whole matter.
All requested documents will be made available to the commission, and all those concerned are doing their utmost to honour the commission's requests, especially the minister, in whom I have full confidence.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Prime Minister just said, the existence of the files was known when the Conservative Party was in power. General John Anderson said so.
They keep saying that they still trust the minister and General Boyle, when everyone has lost confidence in the Canadian Forces. It could be said that, as recently as last weekend, the whole world was making fun of Canada because of the search for documents ordered by the minister.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the search for documents was a very important exercise for the Canadian Forces. I think it shows that the members of the Canadian Forces are willing to co-operate with the commission.
The hon. member across the way has accused the Chief of the Defence Staff of committing offenses, even though the CDS has not had the opportunity to share his views with the commission. This is not how the Canadian justice system works.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In October 1995 the military police reported that its inquiry on the divergence of information provided to the Somali inquiry could not conclude due to a missing hard drive computer disk. The minister deemed it unnecessary to go further to find the missing hard drive disk.
How is it that the Minister of National Defence did not recognize the significance of what the military police explained to him regarding the missing disk?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember that about a year or so ago in the House I said that when the commission was set up all relevant documents would be made available to the commission. The department has tried to meet the expectations that were made of it to provide those documents.
It is quite apparent that there have been some problems with the documents that appear to be missing. The department has given certain explanations. In fact, the chief of defence staff initiated a
search last week which turned up further documents that are now being analysed by the commission.
When the hon. member implies that we did not take the search for documents seriously, that is not true. Even as late as last week, to assist the commission this week in its exercise to look at the documents, it was the department that asked the RCMP computer experts to come in and assist it with respect to those deficiencies relating to the computers.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister's actions speak much louder than his words.
The minister did not provide the Somali inquiry with the military police report, such an important document, until four months after the minister had accepted it.
(1445 )
It would seem that General Boyle had to be appointed to the position of chief of defence staff because anyone else would have deemed it necessary to go further and get to the bottom of why the hard disk and certain records were missing.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister not see that this one event alone is so serious that clearly the Minister of National Defence and the chief of defence staff, General Boyle, must resign?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has shown once again how selective he is with the facts.
I would rather listen to the commission counsel who this morning raised some further concerns and asked the department to provide answers by this Thursday. I would prefer to wait until next Monday when a certain hearing can be started on the public affairs aspect of the problem so that the chief of defence staff and others can state their case.
It does not serve us well every day in the House to rehash the accusations, the comments that come from the commission. That is why the commission was established, to remove it from Parliament to let an independent group take the appropriate action and review this in the clear light of day.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the situation continues to deteriorate. Even before really getting down to business, the Somalia inquiry commission is exposing a most serious situation. Not only is what took place in Somalia unacceptable, the whole situation within the Canadian forces high command and the Department of National Defence is intolerable.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the government must order a much more wide-ranging inquiry to consider all the blunders made by the Canadian Armed Forces and the whole cover-up?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the commission allows its members to examine all issues relating to these incidents and they definitely intend to do so.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the commission should also look at what happened in Petawawa, at the hazing rituals, at what happened in Gagetown, at what happened with the pseudo-terrorist attack at the Quebec City Citadel, following which the commander of the Citadel was appointed chief of the armed forces in Haiti. This is quite something. Talk about being irresponsible.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his government is tarnishing the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces and that this will continue as long as the current defence minister is in charge?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite affronted that the hon. member would accuse the government of tarnishing the image of the armed forces. If anything is tarnishing the image of the armed forces, other than the problems we have to deal with on an ongoing basis, it is the attitude of the members opposite who are making political points on the backs of the men and women who serve with distinction in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Canadians familiar with Quebec's oppressive language laws fear a distinct society clause would be used to further the exclusionary policies of separatists.
For the benefit of Canadians, will the minister clarify his intentions about including a distinct society clause in the Constitution?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we must state the facts.
Since the beginning, since 1988, the intent to put in the Constitution the recognition of Quebec has never been a device to change the distribution of powers in the Constitution of Canada.
(1450 )
Never. Some politicians who do not want to reconcile Quebecers and Canadians may say that but it is not the truth. I will give you what was written in 1987, the first draft the first ministers accepted in order to keep Quebec as a distinct society, or any other term you want to use within Canada.
``Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada or the legislatures of the governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language''. This is why it would be a lie to say that it may change the distribution of powers. It is an interpretative clause. It is necessary but it does not change the basic Constitution.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much Canadians will be cheered by that 1987 response.
The intergovernmental affairs minister has also said that Quebec's racist bill 101, the language law in Quebec, and I quote him: ``A great Canadian law and is liberal in many ways.''
In many ways inclusion of distinct society has the legal potential to allow for policies which will take away from the rights of Canadians. I ask the minister if the inclusion of a distinct society clause is necessary, what measures will the government take to ensure that the clause will not undermine the equality of all Canadians?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, bilingual or trilingual democracies have measures to ensure that their language communities will live together in harmony. It is what we have in Canada. We are very proud of it.
Since cheese made from raw milk is already strictly regulated in Canada and nobody is complaining, why do the minister and his officials want to annoy us by prohibiting the sale of this cheese here?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very important question relating to raw milk cheese. Evidence has come from my department which suggests that there may be an increased risk of illness or disease.
As a result a regulation has been gazetted and for 75 days there will be a period of consultation. After that consultation period we will be in a position to evaluate the evidence which has been put forward to see whether the evidence of the department is accurate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Health have nothing better to do than to regulate in an area where his officials are most unwelcome? Who is in charge, the minister or his officials?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that the question is full of holes. However, I want to remind the hon. member who has demonstrated time and time again on the floor of the House of the Commons that she is a reasonable individual that my responsibilities as the Minister of Health are to protect the health of Canadians. When evidence comes forward which suggests an increase in risk of the health of Canadians, I must take the appropriate action.
(1455 )
Therefore, we have put in motion a process which is very normal, a 75-day consultation period. Thereafter, the appropriate decisions will be taken.
Can the minister of fisheries assure the House that the powers of section 35(2) will not be delegated to the provincial governments?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for a very important question. I also want to compliment him on the good work he continues to do in environmental areas and for the tremendous reputation he has for concerns in this area.
I would like to assure the hon. member that, as he quite rightly points out, section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act is a very important trigger for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
I am pleased to report that while we may be looking at some changes downstream which are necessary and important for fresh-
water fish habitat, we will continue to ensure that the Fisheries Act will be an important trigger for fish management.
The Minister of Finance said in his budget speech that the CPP must be put on a sound financial footing that will make it sustainable, affordable and fair.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the government assure us that sustainable, affordable and fair will not mean less money in the pockets of seniors?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
We have just begun a process of consultations with respect to the Canada pension plan. We await with great interest the observations, ideas and suggestions of Canadians on how to ensure the sustainability of the plan.
The goal of the exercise is a sustainable program that will be there for Canadians, not taking something out of the pockets of Canadians.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the government is going to wait for the outcome of these consultations. That is not leadership.
Today the Montreal Gazette quotes the member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is the government's point man for the CPP road show. In the article the member says that the government is committed to protecting the fundamental part of Canada's overall pension system. What does protection mean? Pay more and get less or some other painful remedy?
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. What guarantee does the government give seniors that it will maintain the standard of living for seniors?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on one hand the member decries the consultations, suggesting that it is not leadership. That is precisely the kind of leadership Canadians want. They want to be heard. They want a government that listens to their suggestions. That is what we will do in the context of the CPP consultations.
[Translation]
Over a week ago, the management of the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse announced its plans to shut down operations at the truck manufacturing facility. Since then, all stakeholders have been actively seeking to prevent this plant from closing and to save the 850 jobs at stake.
Could the Prime Minister tell this House what steps he intends to take to save these 850 jobs?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will understand that the government is extremely concerned about the announcement made by PACCAR. A substantial number of jobs are at stake, and my hon. friend across the way should know that the Canadian government has been involved in this matter from the very beginning, after PACCAR made its decision known. The Government of Quebec got involved and we immediately got on board; we were represented by my colleague, the Minister of Labour, who met with the president of the FTQ and also with his provincial counterpart.
We have been in contact; members of my staff got in touch with the minister responsible for the province of Quebec.
(1500)
Last Saturday, my colleague, the Minister of Labour, and myself sat down with representatives of the union at the Sainte-Thérèse plant. I must say that, as matters stand, we will consult with each other. We will examine the matter on its merit and come back to the House with the Canadian government's position on this matter.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Here is my supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Last Friday, the Government of Quebec made a proposal to PACCAR, Kenworth's parent company, in an attempt to prevent the closure of the Kenworth plant.
Since the Minister of Labour has announced that the federal government will get involved in this matter, could the Prime Minister undertake to support the proposal the Quebec government made to PACCAR to save the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said already, the Canadian government is currently working on it. In fact, the minister responsible for Quebec has sent a letter to PACCAR. We are waiting for the company's response. Once we have all the facts, we will let this House know what the Canadian government's position is.
[English]
This year's budget punishes seniors by reducing the RRSP age limit for contributions from 71 to 69. Why impose this hardship on seniors when they are now living longer and healthier lives and will need their savings over a longer life span?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of the budget brought in by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, was to deal with problems such as the demographic change taking place in this country and elsewhere in the most fair and equitable way.
I would have thought the hon. member would have made reference to the fact that the proposals made by the Minister of Finance allow for those people who wish to take advantage of RRSPs to go back as far as they can to pick up those years where, because of child rearing or for other reasons, they were unable to make maximum contributions.
The proof is in the pudding. As one looks at the reactions across the country to the proposals made by the Minister of Finance with regard to RRSPs and other elements of the budget, they have all been very well accepted by people who understand them.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is still refusing to deal with the age difference. By lowering it, he is really harming seniors. By reducing the age of mandatory rollover from seniors' RRSPs, the government will raise close to $100 million by the year 2000.
This is just another Liberal tax grab. Why does the minister not have the courage to be frank with our seniors about what he is doing and admit this is another tax grab at the expense of seniors?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the challenge is always with comprehension. There is no doubt about that.
What we are dealing with here is undoubtedly an effort to be equitable. There is no question the hon. member has stated the record in terms of the reduction to age 69.
Whatever the alleged tax grab may have been as a result of that change, if the hon. member would look at the cost to taxpayers, the benefits made available to people who want to avail themselves of the RRSP, going back over the years where they missed making maximum contributions, the hon. member would understand this.
If she takes the time and the care to look carefully, what has been retained by the government in terms of the change at the upper end will be more than compensated for by being more generous to people who were not able to make maximum contributions to the program through their working life.
The Humane Society has indicated that in Canada the illegal profits of wildlife poaching rank third after drug and tobacco and liquor smuggling. Especially prominent is the smuggling of bear gall-bladders.
What measures has the government taken to curb this illicit smuggling of animals and animal parts?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Humane Society's report did confirm the hon. member's question.
I reassure the hon. member the RCMP is working at the national level with Environment Canada, at the provincial and territorial levels with natural resource and enforcement agencies, and even at the international level with INTERPOL to ensure that we not only develop but implement a comprehensive enforcement program which takes into account the illegal smuggling of wildlife and endangered species. I reassure the hon. member that the illegal trade of bear parts forms a key element of that enforcement program.
[Translation]
Can the minister tell us what is the Canadian government's position on the situation now prevailing in that region?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I issued a statement urging the parties to the dispute to use all restraint and to seek out the most effective ways of dealing with the situation, not through the use of force but
through the use of negotiation which is the very heart and soul of the whole peace process.
We will have an opportunity to address those questions directly next Monday when there will be a meeting of the group that came out of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting on the peace process where the Israeli and Arab countries will all be there and I will make similar representation.
In 1993 the Liberals promised that under them the GST would become a temporary measure. Canadians are waiting for them to fulfil their promise.
Now the Liberals have turned around and instead of getting rid of the GST they want to integrate it. They want to make it something that Canadians are stuck with forever.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has made all kinds of pronouncements on this issue, is why are they breaking their promise? Why are they not getting rid of the GST as they said they would?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is not very complicated. The hon. member has only to read page 22 of the red book. We were talking about the harmonization of taxes, the sales tax in Canada. It will be done.
We are not worried about them because they will not be there for a long time.
Why did the minister ignore the recommendations of the Cruickshank commission? Will the minister now agree to reconsider this policy, in particular the stackable area licensing, the totally inadequate amount of buyback and the absence of habitat protection and enhancement? Will the minister recognize that his policy will have a particularly devastating impact on small owner operators and on coastal communities in British Columbia?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member and reassure the House that the Pacific salmon revitalization plan stems from the Fraser report which led to the a consideration by 70 stakeholders in this industry and a report that made 27 recommendations. We took these recommendations and came up with a plan.
This industry has gone from $400 million to $200 million to $80 million to a possible loss of $10 million this year. The capacity has quadrupled. We are looking at areas where 40 per cent of fishermen lost money a couple of years ago. This year it is 60 per cent plus. This is a sick industry and this is a plan that is meant to revive it. It is tough medicine but like all tough medicine it is made to improve the health of the industry.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services has been working hard to make direct deposit its standard method of making various payments to Canadians.
Can the minister tell the House if this initiative has actually saved money and if so, how much?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year alone we saved approximately $28 million as a result of direct deposit. These are savings on postage, paper and on banking charges. In the last six months alone 1.7 million Canadians have agreed to join the direct deposit system.
(1510 )
While at this time 40 per cent of all payments by the federal government are made by direct deposit, it is our intention to increase that in the short term to at least 60 per cent for an annual savings of $44 million.
I encourage Canadians as much as possible to join others to help us save money and at the same time have a very reliable way of receiving payments.