[Translation]
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree with his Minister of Justice that the next referendum in Quebec would be merely consultative in nature and not recognized by Ottawa?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything to add to what the Minister of Justice has said. A referendum is always a consultation of the people. When there is a referendum, the laws of the country in question must be respected, first and foremost. There have been two referendums. If there is another, we shall see, but for the moment other things are in the works, and I do not know when there will be one. When there is, we shall see.
For the moment, however, the premier of Quebec says he wants an election first and a referendum later, and he is not prepared to say much more about it. Nor am I. In due course, however, as I have always said, things will have to be made very clear to avoid confusion.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are many who agree with that, but at least three government ministers made statements and comments yesterday on the situation. The Prime Minister should turn to his cabinet colleagues and tell them ``Ladies and Gentlemen, move on to some other topic''. That is what he should do.
Meanwhile, since the Minister of Justice, someone who is far from being a junior member of this government, has made statements of such importance to the future of this issue, how can the Prime Minister-I wish to ask the Prime Minister-how can he now state that the next referendum will be merely a consultation, merely consultative, when he himself, in speaking to the people of Quebec right before the last referendum, told them their decision would be irreversible? How can he reconcile the two?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem was not raised by the ministers. The problem was raised by the premier of Quebec this past Sunday, when he wanted to change the subject from Bill 101. He raised this completely hypothetical question and the minister responded.
As for my statement, I have nothing to take back. I have always said here, I took a two-week break and then the Bloc leader quit, but I always said and I repeat, we will not break up the country with a very tight majority vote after a judicial recount.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will gladly call it quits on that, but I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would speak to his ministers, in order to avoid any ambiguity, and would let us know if he dares deny that, after obtaining a mandate from the people of Quebec in a referendum, the Government of Quebec can then effect sovereignty. Let him say it frankly, and then it will be clear. His ministers will stop talking about it and everybody will be happy.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I prefer to talk about something that is fact. Quebecers have twice decided to remain in Canada. That is what we ought to talk about.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, up to now, the Prime Minister's approach in constitutional matters has been to complicate rather than to simplify. A number of influential federalist business people are criticizing his lack of vision and his government's lack of planning in this matter. His ministers' contradictory statements in this regard bear eloquent witness.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Whom are we to believe in this government between the Minister of Justice, who accords no more than a consultative value to referendums, and the immigration minister, who claims that, if the rules were clear, the referendum would have a real value?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we have a referendum, we will ensure the rules are clear.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister is still at it. Instead of playing cat and mouse with such a weighty matter as constitutional issues, could the Prime Minister say clearly, once and for all, whether he accords Quebecers the right to decide their future democratically themselves? It is simple: yes or no, Mr. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not the one talking about these problems, it is Mr. Bouchard. If precisions are needed, it is the people of Quebec who need them at this point, because everyone wants a moratorium in order to create jobs and revitalize the economy, Montreal's in particular.
This is what Mr. Bouchard himself has called for. He called for an end to discussions on the Constitution and referendums and instead the creation of a climate favourable to investment in
Quebec. The important thing is for those opposite to state their position on Bill 101 within their own party.
Susan Kalbfleisch writes: ``How can we teach our children that honour, integrity and personal responsibility are important when one of our leaders sets such a poor example?''
Ivy Brittain from Hamilton writes: ``I don't think any of her constituents in Hamilton think too much of her right now. She was the one who said she would resign if the promise to abolish the GST wasn't kept''.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why will she not put personal responsibility and integrity ahead of her political career and resign her seat now in the House of Commons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the acting leader of the third party should concentrate her attentions at this moment on the awful statement made by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan. It was just about the worst statement we could hear in Canadian society.
I am the leader of a political party. In that party are members of different colour. There are the members for Nunatsiaq, for Malton, for Bruce-Grey, for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. The member for Richmond and other members of other minorities are here and I will never ask them to go to the back. I am proud of them. They will always be in the front row of the Liberal Party.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would ask that the questions should be directed to the administrative responsibility of a minister or the government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just say again that I am committed to the equality of all people in the country, and all politicians as well. When one politician breaks a promise after that promise has been made with real commitment, then it puts all of us to shame.
The Toronto Star in its editorial column states that the Deputy Prime Minister ``should quit now to help restore public faith in the system and face her voters in an immediate byelection''. The editorial went on to say: ``Her departure would also help staunch the tidal wave of public cynicism that has greeted Liberal pronouncements''.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, not her little answer man, if she will restore public faith in the political system, live up to her commitments and face the voters of Hamilton East in an immediate byelection? Will she do that today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, she can throw books and show good behaviour like that in the House of Commons, but I would like to know if she will ask the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan to resign because he made a most outrageous statement. We have members of Parliament-one in the Bloc and one in the NDP party-who have admitted they are homosexual. They have the right to be in this House like anybody else.
(1425)
To see these people trying to teach me a lesson today on ethics when they have colleagues who discriminate against people because of colour, language, sexual orientation and sex is unacceptable. I will not be put in the corner by the bully from Alberta.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, again we are talking about commitment and a promise that was made before the last election. That promise was made several times after the election.
The editorialist at the Globe and Mail today said that the Liberal's shameful performance in the GST affair feeds the very disillusionment with politics and politicians that brought these people to power in 1993.
The article went on to say that if the government truly wants to restore honesty and integrity to public life and teach Canadians to trust their leaders again, the Deputy Prime Minister must ``do the honourable thing and resign''.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, will she in the words of the Globe and Mail continue to bring ``dishonour on herself, her government and-
The Speaker: With respect, I remind members that we cannot say something using someone else's words what we would not say here in the House of Commons. With regard to the word she used, dishonour, I would like the hon. member for Beaver River to withdraw that word.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it and will let the Globe and Mail know that.
Will she do the right-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question has been put. If the question is to be answered, we will hear it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this moment if I were a member of the Reform Party I would be very embarrassed to see the acting leader get up in this House and ask three questions after she has agreed with the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.
One of the things that has made this a great country is that we have welcomed people from all parts of the world, people with different religions, different colours and so on. We have made one great family. I do not feel very comfortable to have a party with views like that in front of me in the House of Commons.
Yesterday the government lawyer objected to the Somalia inquiry being able to do its work properly. Today, the government must backtrack before the general outcry in reaction to this new attempt at a cover-up.
Are we to understand that the minister of defence shares fully the opinion of the head of the commission that the commission's mandate with respect to allegations of cover-up and destruction of evidence extends beyond the period initially foreseen and that it therefore includes allegations that a cover-up took place and is perhaps still taking place under the present government?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can make clear to the hon. member and to the House that the government does not question for a moment the right and the jurisdiction of the inquiry to look into the whole question of cover-up. That is well within the mandate of the commission.
The issue that was addressed yesterday was evidentiary in nature. Counsel for the government took a position with respect to the production of certain tapes and transcripts. That material has now been handed over and made available to the commission which has made a ruling in respect of it.
Last August the commission had occasion to consider the ambit of its mandate and in a written ruling released August 3 of last year, it expressly found it had the jurisdiction under its mandate to look into allegations of cover-up with respect to the incidents in Somalia. That is a position with which this government is in full agreement. From day to day at the hearing, we co-operate fully in assisting the commission to do that job.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice has just said, if the commission's mandate consists in getting to the bottom of the allegations of cover-up, as well as the disappearance and alteration of documents produced under the present government, can the defence minister or the justice minister reassure us today that when the inquiry is over, the commission will table a complete report on this affair, including the names of those responsible and the appropriate sanctions, if any?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commission has its own counsel and will do what it is advised in making a report.
On behalf of the Government of Canada and the commission, particularly in relation to legal representation, we fully agree that the commission's mandate includes the right to look at allegations of cover-up.
We are committed to co-operating with the commission in that work. We invite the commission, expressly and implicitly, to make whatever finding is appropriate on the facts as it finds them in relation to the allegations of cover-up.
Every elector there knows every month and every year the Deputy Prime Minister spends here adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers' liability for her MP and minister's pension.
Instead of using this bogus excuse, will she simply do the right thing, resign and allow a byelection?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said very clearly that the Minister of Finance and I are implementing page 22 of the red book. There is nothing to add.
We campaigned on page 22 of the red book where we said we were to replace this tax with a harmonized tax. The member should read the red book and realize that we campaigned on the promise that we are fulfilling at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
As the Prime Minister knows, the Deputy Prime Minister was booed at the Copps Coliseum in Hamilton because of her own performance and of the government's performance on the GST.
Here are some of the headlines that appeared in the Quebec newspapers: ``Everybody Misunderstood'', ``GST: the End of a
Charade'', ``Smoke and Mirrors'', in La Presse; ``Copps the Joker'', in Le Devoir. There is national unity on this issue.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister act honourably and resign, as she promised during the last election campaign?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two kinds of questions occur in the House.
Very rarely, a member of the opposition will stand up and ask for a point of information, genuinely seeking an answer. There are other types of questions in which members of the opposition engage in political rhetoric, normally with a long preamble. They are not seeking information but seeking to make a point.
We are used to the second kind of question. Normally when the member asks that kind of question, explicit or implicit in the preamble is the fact that the opposition wants to attack the government on a point of substance.
Does the Reform Party support what the government is doing in terms of harmonization or not? Does the Reform Party still believe as it said it did in the finance committee report: ``We commend the government in its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces''.
Does the Reform Party still believe that it is simply unacceptable that Canada remain the only country in the world with 10 different sales tax regimes? Where does it stand? Is Reform for harmonization or against it?
[Translation]
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the commissioner of official languages table such a rosy report, when for 18 months he has been releasing reports that totally contradict what he said today? What extraordinary event has happened since then to cause such an about-face on the part of the commissioner?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts are there. In Canadian schools today, 2,135,000 children are studying French as
a second language, while some 644,000 are taking English as a second language.
In addition, one in four Canadian students between the ages of 15 and 19 is bilingual. This is the highest rate in Canada's history.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what her word is worth these days-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Marchand: -but I will still ask her a supplementary question.
How can the government accept a report by the commissioner of official languages that denies the francophone reality, going so far as to avoid the word ``assimilation'', when Statistics Canada's figures show that, between 1971 and 1991, the assimilation rate for francophones-
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.
Mr. Marchand: My question is this: Why do Statistics Canada's figures show that, over the last 20 years, the assimilation rate for francophones outside Quebec has risen from 27 to 34 per cent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the worst is having to live with attacks- we politicians can survive them. Mr. Goldbloom, who was not appointed by this government but by the previous government, released a report and the hon. member across the way is now accusing him of distorting the facts. The facts are there.
The fact that one in four Canadians can speak both languages may hurt the Bloc Quebecois' separatist policy, but the facts are there. The hon. member's accusations against Mr. Goldbloom make no more sense than his own actions in the past.
This morning local radio station CFRA listeners have started pledging money to pay for the byelection, so it will not cost the taxpayers or the Deputy Prime Minister one red cent.
If enough money is raised and the Deputy Prime Minister's last excuse is eliminated, will she do the honourable thing, the respectable thing and resign?
The Speaker: That is a hypothetical question and it is out of order. I would ask the hon. member to proceed to the supplementary.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the finance minister, this party is against harmonization with compensation of $1 billion.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize it is not just her own honesty, integrity and respect that suffers when she breaks her word? It reflects on all her party and this whole place.
(1440 )
The Ottawa Sun sure sized things up when it said not to light a match near the Deputy Prime Minister lest the compressed nauseous gases of political hypocrisy prove combustible.
In August 1994, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, which was taking a look at 25 years under the Official Languages Act, said, and I quote: ``Time is running short, as statistics on assimilation indicate. At this rate, our communities will be nothing more than a shadow of their former selves''. In short, it sounded a cry of alarm with the government. The government, however, prefers to remain deaf to this sort of appeal and is happy with the twaddle from the commissioner.
Has the government asked the Commissioner of Official Languages to draft a complacent report that does not reflect the truth and contains only what the government wants to hear?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not true.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to reprimand the Commissioner of Official Languages? Could she ask him to stop hiding the figures of Statistics Canada and do his job rather than politicking?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Goldbloom is an official of the Parliament of Canada, not an official of the federal government. We do not follow the example of the Quebec culture minister who is obstructing the collective bargaining process. We do not interfere with an organization at arm's length.
[English]
Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that the judge advocate general instructed the federal government lawyer to challenge the mandate of the Somalia inquiry? Can the minister tell Canadians the reason behind this attempt?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that no one instructed the lawyer for the government to challenge the mandate of the inquiry.
Yesterday at the commission an evidentiary issue arose. The observation was made by counsel that the issue was collateral to the events in Somalia, and submissions were made about how far the commission should go in examining video tapes.
However, as I said earlier, apart from this detail the important point of principle is that the government is committed to assisting the commission in its work. We acknowledge expressly that the commission properly can look into allegations of cover-up, part of its job. It is within its mandate. We agree with the interpretation of the mandate by the commission itself.
Now we are getting on with the work of the commission. The lawyer in question has tendered the documents and the records. They have been made available to the commission. The commission is going about its work.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence tell Canadians why there is a contradiction between the messages the justice department is sending and the Department of National Defence is sending to the Canadian public?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence and I have exactly the same position. It is the position of commission counsel, the position of the counsel who appears for the government before the commission. The commission can quite properly and should look into any allegations of cover-up.
The most important thing of all is to have the Canadian people learn the facts and to have the commission's findings on those facts so that we can make an evaluation of what happened and what should happen, which is exactly the position we take before the commission and here today.
(1445)
About a year ago the House unanimously adopted a motion calling for the creation of an independent review mechanism for the Communications Security Establishment. We know that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence support this initiative.
Can the minister inform the House of the government's progress in responding to the proposal of the House to put in place an oversight mechanism for the CSE?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes the initiative taken by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and the members on the subcommittee on security intelligence of the justice committee.
We have been holding discussions with him and other members as to the appropriate oversight mechanism. We should be in a position within the next few weeks to make the government's views known. I hope that will satisfy the legitimate concerns of the members of that committee and the Canadian public in general.
This year, the Quebec bridge was designated a historic landmark by the federal Department of Canadian Heritage. Yet, the Minister of Transport still refuses to share in the costs of the repair work, with CN and the Government of Quebec.
Does the minister not find it ill advised, to say the least, to grant a consortium $41.9 million, indexed annually over a period of 35 years, for a total of over $2 billion, to fund the construction of a bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, which will be used by 132,000 people, while refusing to give anything to preserve the Quebec bridge, which is used by over 600,000 people?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the importance of the Quebec bridge, but it is the responsibility of CN, not the federal government, to maintain it.
In the case of Prince Edward Island, both the federal and provincial governments have constitutional responsibilities. There is a big difference, which explains why the federal government is involved in the funding of this venture, but not of the Quebec bridge, which is CN's responsibility.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify this double talk, since he refuses to fund repair work to the Quebec bridge on the grounds that it belongs to a private company, while granting $2 billion to a consortium, which is also a private company, to build a bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the case of the bridge to Prince Edward Island, the government has a constitutional responsibility. As for the Quebec bridge, it was transferred to CN three or four years ago, before this government took office. At the time, the federal government gave land located next to the bridge and worth some $30 million. We expected CN to continue to maintain the bridge, as it is doing.
This year, CN will spend $1.5 million on maintenance, and that level should remain the same for the next 10 or 20 years. Still, responsibility for the bridge rests with CN. If the province of Quebec, which, I believe, allocates $25,000 annually for the use of the bridge by automobiles, is interested in helping out with the maintenance costs, this will be good news.
Just to make a living fishermen will be forced to buy a second or a third licence. That will probably cost them $13,000 a year, $13,000 in additional costs.
At a time when fish prices are depressed, the Fraser River is to be shutdown for a year and when fishermen are going broke, how does the minister dare saddle B.C. fishermen with another $13,000 a year in additional costs?
(1450)
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the commercial fishery in British Columbia is in a very sad state. The stocks are low. The fishermen are losing money. They are expected to lose more money this year. Something has to be done.
A plan was put together which would address the environmental sustainability of the industry and its economic viability. Essentially
it is a plan that would allow the fish to survive. It is a tough plan. It is a plan which has consequences for the people involved.
However, these tough measures are necessary. They have to be taken if the fish are to survive and if the fishermen are to survive. We will move forward with something which has been needed for the last 15 years.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, something has to be done, but increasing costs in a time of hardship is not the thing to do.
The minister knows his policy will do nothing to help small fishermen. It will force them out of business. On top of that, the policy will force fishermen to increase their catch to pay the extra costs.
The minister's plan forces fishermen out of the industry, takes away their livelihoods and on top of that puts increased pressure on salmon stocks. How can he possibly justify punishing British Columbians with such a poorly conceived plan?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the plan will not punish British Columbians. The plan is tough. The plan has some consequences which will create difficulties.
Everybody agrees there is an overcapacity in the industry. Everybody agrees this has to be reduced. Everybody agrees the objectives of sustainability have to be met.
We have put forward a plan which will address this tough situation. Again, it is a tough plan to address the health of the industry.
If the hon. member has problems with the plan, I have yet to see any plan he may have devised.
Would the Minister of Justice please explain about human rights legislation in Canada that would protect individuals like me from discrimination in employment?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in a country in which no one has to work in the back of the shop and in which no one has to ride in the back of the bus.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rock: Canada is a country in which people need not be moved out of sight or hidden away because of their race, because of a physical disability or because of some other characteristic that has nothing to do with their worth as human beings.
Canadians believe in a country in which employers cannot fire a member of a minority group to accommodate the bigotry of their customers, but in a country in which employers speak out against such bigotry on behalf of minorities.
The very purpose of human rights legislation is to protect such principles, including the amendment we put before the House in Bill C-33. That is the importance of human rights legislation in this country.
Last Friday, the minister announced a new manpower training program called Experience Canada, with $21 million in funding. Far from withdrawing from the training field, as it has committed itself to do on many occasions, it is creating new programs in this sector.
(1455)
How can the Minister of Human Resources claim, on the one hand, to withdraw from trade training, while on the other hand creating Experience Canada, which falls directly in an area in which Quebec has jurisdiction: trade training?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday the young people of Canada were delighted to learn that the private sector throughout the country is prepared to contribute more than $12 million in a partnership with the Government of Canada to assist young Canadians everywhere in the country. Thus, not only will they be learning to work in a sector that is familiar and appropriate to them, but they will also have an opportunity to get to know Canada better.
Young people in all of the provinces and territories will be able to take part in this program, because the private sector has seen fit to take part along with the Government of Canada, contributing $12.7 million of the $21 million to which the hon. member refers.
In my opinion, this is once again a very fine example of how Canadians, the Government of Canada, and the private sector can all work together for the common good.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify the fact that this new program aimed at our young people can be administered by a partisan organization like the Council for Canadian Unity?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it was not in the least our intention to ask a group to administer any program known as Experience Canada, and we certainly would not have entrusted it to the Bloc Quebecois.
The Speaker: In the preambles I give as much room as I can. I ask the hon. member to please get to his question.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, since the government could not wait to have taxpayers pay for six byelections for other Liberals, is the real reason the Deputy Prime Minister is refusing to resign today that her fat patronage job is not quite ready yet?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the other day in an answer to a question from this member, because of the unfortunate time restrictions placed on some of my answers, I was unable to complete my answer.
The member claims to belong to a populist party. The Consumers Association of Canada supports what the government has done. Does the Reform Party? The Federation of Canadian Municipalities supports what the government has done. Does the Reform Party?
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada supports what the government has done. The Canadian Health Care Association, the Canadian School Boards Association, national voluntary associations and the Canadian people support the government. Why can the Reform Party not get with it?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest the finance minister go out and meet the people some time and he would find out what they really think. Ask the people at the Copps Coliseum what they thought when the Deputy Prime Minister was there the other day? They did not think too highly of it.
A quote from the Halifax Chronicle Herald: ``Canada's trial attorneys can thank the Deputy Prime Minister for another made in Canada addition to their quiver, the `I was a victim' defence''.
To the noble drunkenness defence we can now add ``I was only running for Parliament''. What a great defence.
Since her government's lack of integrity and contempt for Canadians is now exposed, since she has compromised herself and all parliamentarians with her loose lipped actions, why will the Deputy Prime Minister not restore trust in her government by keeping her word for once and resign?
(1500 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member likes to cite quotations. May I just cite Mike Harris on June 14, 1994: ``If I want something that works, and I will tell you this, if we had one value added tax, one base, one bureaucracy to collect it, the manufacturers and the businesses in Ontario would save over $1 billion by being able to deduct these costs that you cannot deduct today on the sales tax''. Mike Harris said: ``It has been one of the areas of major competitive disadvantage that Ontario manufacturers have and Ontario businesses have''.
I will close by simply saying this is what Mike Harris said. He said to stop the rhetoric. He said to stop the politics. He said to stop the finger pointing and get on with harmonization. Mike Harris was right then and the government is right now.
As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries for meeting today with the B.C. delegation and admitting that perhaps the government had acted in haste by proposing the Mifflin plan.
When the minister goes to British Columbia tomorrow, will he consider the plan put forward by the B.C. Minister of Fisheries in terms of a new consultative process? Will he immediately stop the stacking of the licences and will he take action on rehabilitating the salmon in other fish bearing streams of British Columbia?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not asking a question, he is posturing.
I did not agree that the plan was not a good plan. I did not agree that anything was going to be done with the plan. I did listen to the sustainability group. Therefore I do not appreciate the hon. member putting words in my mouth.
In answer to his question, I listened to the sustainability group which I think had some worthy points. The group put forward about seven or eight points that are reasonable for consideration. I will be looking at them. I want the best plan possible. We have a plan now. I have to make sure that any improvements will be beneficial to the
fishermen because the fish come first and the fishermen, and the politics come last.
Having made that admission, I would like to know now from the Prime Minister whether he would not also admit that the Liberals were in contempt toward Canadians in regard to the helicopter deal, Pearson airport, trade agreements and also jobs, and that the only red thing left from the red book are the red faces on the government side.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member of the fifth party will read the red book on page 22 in English and page 20 in French where we said that the answer was harmonization and simplification and we ran on that.
We have no regret in scrapping the helicopter program. In terms of job creation, if the member was aware of what has been going on since the election, 600,000 new jobs have been created in Canada, more than have been created in the same period in Germany, France and Italy together.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.