What explanation does the Prime Minister have for the fact that he has still not kept his promise-despite its being down in black and white in the red book, that book he is waving in our faces in the House all the time-to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation among the prohibited grounds for discrimination?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that his researchers ought to have checked out the red book, because that is not in it. It is a commitment I made myself during the election campaign, in a letter, and one I intend to keep.
We have been in government for a scant two years and a half. This year we passed legislation protecting the rights of the individual with respect to sexual orientation in the Criminal Code. A bill was passed and another is in the makings. Its time will come. It is our intention to keep this promise, which was not in the red book. As the Prime Minister has promised it, it will be done.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here we are now with the theory of throwing out crumbs to the people. ``One crumb now, and perhaps another before the elections''.
How can the Prime Minister explain the hesitancy of his Minister of Justice, if not by saying that his own caucus is deeply divided on this question?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, many issues are raised in the House, and each bill is tabled in its own time. Priorities must be set and our legislative agenda must be organized.
As I have just said, one bill on the subject has been passed in the last twelve months. When the time is right, we will be introducing another in the House. However, in theory, we still have more than two years, seven months and four days before we have to call an election.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that seems a long time to the Prime Minister. He appears to be counting the days until it is over. We do not want to wait those two years and some months and some days for an answer. People are waiting. The human rights commissioner has asked the government to move quickly on this.
Given that the Prime Minister admits this was one of his promises, will he make a formal commitment to settle this matter, not only before the next general election but within a few months-which may be two ways of saying the same thing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say. I have indicated the government's position and a bill will be brought to this House before the next elections.
(1420)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its annual report, the Canadian Human Rights Commission issues a warning with respect to a Supreme Court ruling that, under certain circumstances, persons charged with sexual assault should have the right to consult the therapeutic records of victims.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given that the Criminal Code has already been amended to prevent accused from cross-examining victims on their sexual past, is it not appropriate to follow this up and bring in legislation making it illegal to consult the medical and therapeutic records of sexual assault victims?
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. This is an issue that has come before the courts in a number of court decisions.
The Minister of Justice in his capacity as attorney general has intervened on these issues. This is a matter now under consultation and review to see if legislative clarification is needed in light of Supreme Court decisions on these disclosures.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am talking about decisions already handed down, not those to come. Since the Minister of Justice always relies on the courts to make the law for him, does the Prime Minister not think that by holding up the passage of effective legislation, he is creating a category of victims that will be forced to choose between disclosing their
therapeutic records and accusing their attacker, or keeping their records confidential and dropping their complaint?
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the Minister of Justice continues consultations in this regard with different individuals and groups interested in this question.
He is reviewing this for possible legislative change. Certainly it is a very difficult issue. One must on one hand balance the rights of the accused to a full answer and defence while on the other hand ensure victims are properly protected in the trauma of trials they need to go through.
This is a matter under review. An answer will be forthcoming.
Mr. Bouchard is apparently committing himself to eliminating the provincial deficit by 1999 or earlier, after consultation with business leaders, labour leaders, federalists and separatists, all of whom have told him this is necessary for a Quebec economic recovery.
Will the Prime Minister be convening a get together, a summit meeting of Canadian economic leaders to establish a firm date and a plan for eliminating the federal deficit and strengthening the Canadian economy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a plan in the red book which was approved by the Canadian people in the last election. We are right on target.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have the spectacle of the federal government's being now the only senior government left in Canada not committed to deficit elimination.
This is not just embarrassing to the House, it is a national disgrace and it is also dangerous to the cause of national unity. Once again the federal government is letting Quebec separatists get out in front on an issue, this time fiscal responsibility, which effects the attractiveness of federalism and national unity.
When will the Prime Minister set a firm date for deficit elimination? Is he prepared to let this slide and play catch-up with the separatist Government of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party should read the newspapers. Since the budget the Minister of Finance produced the Reform Party has had virtually nothing to say against the budget.
(1425)
The market has reacted very well. Because we are following our target and not trying to talk about the year 2010 and so on, we have a goal of 3 per cent for this fiscal year. The interest rate went down by three points during the last year.
The Minister of Finance had set a target of 2 per cent for the year before and as usual he will do better than his target.
I think the question of managing the finances of the country is handled pretty well by this government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am really talking about the connection between the fiscal position of the Government of Canada and the unity issue. Once again the Prime Minister is not looking far ahead.
In order to win the next contest with the separatists the federal government must be, not appear to be, fiscally stronger and more fiscally responsible than the separatist Government of Quebec. It should be ahead on deficit elimination, it should be ahead on debt reduction and it must be ahead on tax relief if it is to win that contest.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that by dragging his feet on these three issues he is weakening the federalist position even before the next contest with the separatists begins?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were to rely on the leader of the third party to keep Canada united we would not be very secure.
I am amazed when I listen to the leader of the third party talk about presenting a budget and meeting our target. We heard some months ago that the third party was to present its own budget before ours but it chickened out.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
As confirmed in the Canadian Constitution, we intend to leave manpower training to the provincial government and to pay for those who will receive this training without imposing, as Mrs. Harel herself admitted yesterday, any conditions with respect to the training itself.Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment in this House to have the active manpower training measures and the relevant budgets transferred to Quebec within three months, as
requested by Mrs. Harel and all the stakeholders currently gathered in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said, and I said that the funds allocated to manpower training, earmarked for manpower training, will be transferred to any provincial government as soon as an agreement can be negotiated.
Regarding all the active measures developed by the federal government to create jobs across the country, using the UI fund or government funds, these are federal programs under the Canadian Constitution and they will remain under our control. But as far as manpower training is concerned, I am prepared to sign it over tomorrow morning. The problem is that, any time we give an inch, they want a mile.
Just yesterday, the president of the Conseil du patronat, which is part of the consensus, indicated that the consensus was about manpower training. We respect the consensus and we are prepared to transfer responsibility for manpower training to the provinces tomorrow morning, provided the funds really go to providing training to the unemployed.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be better informed. All morning, participants at the conference have been saying very clearly that what Quebec is asking for is control over all active measures. I therefore ask my question again.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment to recognize the Quebec consensus and negotiate the transfer of all active manpower training policies and relevant budgets accordingly?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they might as well ask for the transfer of the UI fund while they are at it. It is an active measure aimed at the unemployed. As I said, as far as manpower training is concerned-the bone of contention that has been used in this House for months now-we are prepared to transfer the related funds to the provinces, and we are waiting for them to come forward.
This booklet quotes from the red book on at least 43 separate occasions and is even entitled ``Creating Opportunity''. The only difference between this booklet and the red book is that the taxpayers had to pay for this copy.
Does the Prime Minister believe that having the taxpayers pay for the red book, part two, is an example of the honesty and integrity he promised to bring to government in the red book, part one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they use the red book in the House of Commons in every second question. I guess it is a good document.
I have nothing to add to what the minister of immigration said yesterday about this.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the former minister of immigration produced this booklet despite objections of the bureaucrats in his department. It was destroyed by the current minister of immigration because in her words it was inappropriate.
Will the Prime Minister live up to the promise of the red book, the original version, and restore a little honesty and integrity to government by instructing the Liberal Party of Canada to reimburse Canadian taxpayers for the cost of this Liberal propaganda exercise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister replied to this question yesterday. When she joined the department she decided she wanted to change some policies in the department, as happens when there is a change of ministers. New ministers approach problems in different fashions. She made a decision and the decision will stand.
Yesterday, the minister stated in this House that consultations were under way on the setting of marine service fees. But yesterday in Montreal, the commissioner of the coast guard was intransigent in refusing to make any changes to his new proposal.
Since the commissioner showed no intention of listening to the concerns of St. Lawrence stakeholders and simply defended his own fee setting plan, does the minister recognize that the commissioner of the coast guard is not holding a real consultation?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue has to be taken in its overall context.
I think everybody in the House would agree this is not a simple business of deciding on a maritime service fee for all of the country.
There are a number of options. One was to consider a port specific fee structure, but that would not work. Another was to consider a national system, but that would not work either.
The system we have now considered in this iteration of the consultation really looks at three regions: the Pacific, the Atlantic and the inland and Laurentian region.
If the hon. member says the commissioner of the coast guard was not responsive to suggestions, I have to remind him that no fewer than 300 people and parties were listened to. The marine advisory board has regular consultations with him. He is going on now to do more iterations and consultations. While he may not have given on major points yesterday, the purpose of the consultations is to have one more round before we go into effect.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister made a commitment to table impact studies in this House. At the same meeting in Montreal yesterday, the commissioner of the coast guard admitted that the studies mentioned by the minister would not be completed before September, while the new fee structure would take effect in July.
(1435)
How can the minister justify the coast guard's imminent decision on the basis of studies that will be carried out after the new fee structure comes into effect?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not doing anything to contribute to the ease of the particular system.
When we are dealing with something this controversial and complex across the country and we want to do it within a reasonable timeframe, of course there has to be feedback. The feedback takes place during the process of consultation, as the hon. member knows. He is smiling at me.
The imposition of the fees we were hoping would be done by April 1; however, it would appear we will not be able to do it until June. The $20 million collected on April 1 will now be later than that and every month that goes by we will have to collect more.
The hon. member is trying to impede the process. He is doing absolutely nothing to add to the simplicity of imposing these fees and coming up with an effective system across the country that is fair and reasonable.
Not all of these documents were shredded and I offer to table a copy.
What will the Prime Minister do about this blatant, partisan misuse of public funds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just said that when the minister looked at the document she said it was not to be distributed and she had her own reasons for doing so.
We are working on a sequel to the red book. It will be ready for the election and it will again defeat the Reform Party.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the question is who is paying for that red book?
The current minister now knows exactly why she shredded them. They were nothing more than partisan. Maybe we will at least give her credit for knowing that it was wrong and that something smelled about it.
The reasons are not good enough. I ask the minister that she stand up and answer to it. The former minister knew he was breaking the rules when he made the document. His departmental officials told him he was breaking the rules. His cabinet successor was so concerned about it that she tried to destroy the evidence.
As I said before, not all of the evidence was shredded and I have a copy which I am willing to table.
Canadians thought this kind of political sleaze belonged only to Brian Mulroney, but it has hung over to this Parliament.
Which red book should Canadians believe in, the red book that talks about integrity and honesty in government or the red book these people shredded to try to avoid a scandal?
The Speaker: Colleagues, some of the adjectives you are using are getting a little close. I appeal to you to think very clearly before using strong adjectives, which usually elicit a strong response from the other side.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the harsh words of the quasi-leader of the third party by saying that the government is very proud of its record of integrity. We have been in government for 27 months and there have been absolutely no serious accusations made by anyone.
I believe both ministers acted properly in this matter. We can stand the criticism of a party which has very little to show. It should put its own house in order first.
[Translation]
(1440)
How can the Prime Minister let his minister drag his feet concerning the illegal occupation of houses in Oka, particularly in light of the resulting problems for Hydro-Québec, which wants to collect the money owed to it?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The allocation of houses to Mohawks in Kanesatake is going very well. Ten houses are still occupied illegally. Necessary action was taken and formal notices were sent to squatters on December 21, 1995.
This is an internal issue which concerns the community itself. The community has a management housing board which must make its own decisions.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says it is an internal problem. In the meantime however, Hydro-Québec is suffering a loss.
I feel that the government purposely refuses to settle the issue. Since it is incapable of taking its responsibilities and settling the issue of illegal occupants in Kanesatake, could the government, as trustee responsible for aboriginal people and as owner of these homes, at least pay those hydro bills until the issue is settled? Hydro-Québec should not have to suffer the consequences of the federal government's carelessness.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said, this is an internal problem which concerns the band in Kanesatake. In fact, last year the department sent a letter to Hydro-Québec to advise it that it would stop paying these hydro bills, because this is an internal issue which must be settled by the Mohawks themselves.
The statement begs three questions of the Minister of Transport. First, will the $400 million the hopper cars are worth be realized? Second, who will be the prospective purchasers? Third, will the terms of sale protect the farmers in Canada, including those in Ontario, and will it protect the ports in Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and the down river ports of Quebec?
The Speaker: Usually members ask one question and sometimes slip in two or up to four. Take your pick, two out of the four.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that comprehensive question.
As the budget announced, the government is going to sell the 13,000 hopper cars which are owned by the department. Next week the department will be inviting proposals from potential financial advisers with knowledge and expertise in both rail financing and the grain industry who will assist in drafting the terms and conditions for the transfer and the terms of sale.
When considering proposals I can assure my hon. colleague that the interests of producers, shippers and the railways will be taken into account. The objective is to make the most efficient use of these cars and to achieve maximum benefit for the Canadian taxpayers.
How much will be achieved in the sale, I cannot at this time state.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very serious incident. Ministers of the government are not to use public money for party purposes. Doing so is a gross violation of public trust and an abuse of the public purse.
Who ordered the printing of the document entitled ``Creating Opportunity'' and how is the government to be held accountable?
(1445 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the government speaks about its programs they are of course related to its policies. The government has the programs.
When we say that we have implemented a program and have informed the people about it, a day does not go by without somebody getting up in the House and asking me: ``When are you
going you do this or that because it was in the red book?'' I always reply that it is in the red book.
When we say that we are on target for the deficit, it was in the red book. When we say that we will meet the 3 per cent target of the red book-
Mr. Harris: What about the GST?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, it is partisan when I say that. It is what I said as the leader of the Liberal Party. I have repeated it as Prime Minister of Canada and I have done it as Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the red book promised integrity. It promised to get rid of the GST too. The immigration minister asked for this document to be printed because he thought it was government policy.
A big question is why the present minister decided it was inappropriate. The answer is clearly because it is partisan and that is not acceptable.
Will the Prime Minister show some ethics and solve this problem by asking for an apology for the Canadian people? Perhaps the ethics commissioner should be involved here.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a program. The government is implementing that program, a program that was established by the Liberal Party.
The promises of the Liberal Party have become the promises of the Liberal government. As a promise of this government it will be kept. When the government says it has kept its promises it says at the same that the Liberal Party has kept its promises.
Does the minister realize, and I hope she does, that by withdrawing funding of $7.2 million from the Varennes tokamak, she will be depriving Quebec of the only major long term energy research project that might benefit the province?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that difficult choices have had to be made within all programs and all initiatives of the government. AECL is no exception. Its budget was reduced by one-third in the budget the Minister of Finance announced two weeks ago.
The priority for AECL in the coming years is to develop an export market for Candu reactors. Difficult choices have to be made. That is not to suggest this science is not good science. It is not to suggest that the people who have done it are not good scientists. It does suggest that in this difficult time choices have to be made, priorities have to be set and priorities have to be delivered on.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking of financial choices, I wonder about the minister's financial logic in this case when we know that shutting down activities at the tokamak facility in Varennes would mean the loss of 20 years of development in the field of fusion and $70 million in infrastructures, including $11 million in new equipment that will never be used, and above all, the loss of approximately one hundred jobs in the high tech field in Quebec.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I suggested a moment ago, choices have to be made, priorities have to be set. Fusion is not an energy priority for the government.
Mr. Bergeron: We've noticed that.
Ms. McLellan: I would like to remind the hon. member that my department has created a new research facility in Varennes that delivers on the government's priorities of renewable energy and energy efficiency.
First, Pierre toured Haiti, then he picked up a $24 million tab for Haitian peacekeeping and spent several million taxpayers' dollars on aid to Haiti. Now he has arranged for the president of Haiti to visit Montreal this weekend.
Is the government prepared to tolerate this blatant influence peddling just to win a single byelection?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very happy that for the first time democracy is working
in Haiti. The president decided to come to Canada. I will be delighted to receive him in Ottawa Saturday.
We are doing our best to restore good government there. The United Nations and the United States have asked Canada to take over the role that the United States had there some months ago. I am very proud that the people of Canada are willing to help the poorest people of the world who live in Haiti.
If the president decides to come this weekend, we are not going to tell him to go back home until after the election. There is no connection at all.
Mr. Hermanson: Your nose is getting longer.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): There was none.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): There was none. Of course, all the Reform Party members can ask that question. The people from Haiti who live in Montreal have the good sense not to vote for the Reform Party.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are sick and tired of old line political patronage. Pierre Pettigrew has done everything except hand out free tickets to Montreal Canadiens' games in an attempt to win the byelection.
Also very interesting was his decision not to invite the Prime Minister to visit, but instead concentrate on more locally popular politicians like the Haitian president.
When the red book talked about governing with integrity, did that include unelected government ministers having a blank cheque to influence elections?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Reform member that the President of Haiti is taking a trip outside his country. He has decided to visit the Dominican Republic, the U.S. government in Washington, and the Canadian government in Ottawa.
He was not likely to alter his itinerary to accommodate the problems of the Reformers. As I have already said, moreover, Montrealers of Haitian origin have sufficient judgment not to vote for the Reform Party, despite its trying every trick in the book to gain a few political points while dwindling away more each day from the Canadian political scene.
Some time ago now, the special commission on the restructuring of the reserves released its report.
[English]
Could the minister inform the House what steps, if any, have been taken to deal with the commission's report?
[Translation]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the regiments, squadrons and ships of the Reserve Force are very important. They are a mirror of Canada's history and Canada's values. It is very important that they be maintained.
[English]
The traditions of our reserve force must be kept. Later this summer, I shall be reflecting on this matter, on the commission, on the House report, on the Senate report. In doing so, I should be mindful that the disbandment of units must be kept to a minimum, that control of the local armouries must be given back to the militia units and that there should be more people in the reserve and not less.
[Translation]
On November 22, Mr. Beatty stated that any new cut to the CBC would lead to a change in its mandate. Well, the budget slashes the CBC's funding by $150 million.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given what Mr. Beatty said in November, is the minister in the process of altering the CBC's mandate through the budget, that is to say, through the back door and without public debate?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage says she is about to announce the creation of a cultural production fund. Does the minister intend to impose a CBC tax, thus shifting part of the deficit to the taxpayers and making them pay twice for the same service?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask members to please stay directly on the issues and go to the administrative responsibility of whatever minister is involved rather than going off on side issues. I would ask the hon. member to do that.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): This dramatic flip-flop occurred right after Power DirecTv decided that it wanted to throw in the towel.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. What happened to the Liberal government's policy of competition in the direct to home industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the member of the Reform Party has the gall to stand up and ask that question in the House when the government, in previously amending the Broadcasting Act, suffered such derision from the Reform Party. If the member wants to talk about flip-flops, the flip-flops are on that side of the House.
At the moment two companies are licensed to offer direct to home, Power Corporation being one of them. A third company is ready to come into the arena very soon.
In not turning back the decision of the CRTC, the government believed, as the CRTC believed, that the people who are currently receiving cable in their homes should not have to subsidize the cost of the high technology of the new direct to home instruments. Current television users should not be subsidizing technologies that may be coming in. It should be paid for by the people who want to bring in that technology.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that answer just is not good enough. Competition in this country is being thwarted and stopped by that government policy. It has to change.
Other people support that position such as the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. The British and Australian governments have made representations to the government saying that the current policy should change. The International Federation of Film Producers has threatened to take Canada to the World Trade Organization because of this type of attitude. Also some Canadians do not agree.
The government knows of these objections. Why is it continuing a policy that was brought about by the CRTC?
(1500 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part of our mandate as the Government of Canada is to defend Canadian consumers and not to defend American television producers and British and Australians who may be making representations.
In fact there are currently two companies that have an intention to proceed, including Expressvu and the Power Corporation. There is a third company that has just recently received a letter from the CRTC to hear its application.
The message of the CRTC is that Canadians who are currently watching television on cable lines they have paid for through their cable subscriptions should not have to cross-subsidize satellite television. If you want satellite technology, you pay for it.
Is it clearly the commitment of the Prime Minister that a bill will be introduced and passed in this Parliament before the next election? This would keep the promise the Prime Minister made in writing in July 1993 which I quote: ``The Liberal Party of Canada is firmly committed to banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation''. Is that clearly the commitment of this Prime Minister in this Parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been in the House at the beginning of question period, I replied to that question. I said a bill will be introduced. We passed legislation on that matter in relation to the Criminal Code a few months ago. The bill amending the human rights act will come eventually but not at this moment because we have other priorities. It is part of the program. We have passed one bill already and the other one will come in due course.
minister said that the existing restrictions on banks selling insurance would be retained.
Would the secretary of state for financial institutions explain to the House what steps the government is taking to maintain the existing restrictions on the sale of insurance by banks?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's position is quite clear. In the recent budget the finance minister said that the present restrictions on the banks networking insurance will be maintained.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or any other bank cannot sell insurance to the customers in their branches. That is what the restriction means. They can and do own insurance companies who can sell insurance in other ways, in other places.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have a point of order from the government whip. It is the first notification I have.
Citation 481(e) of Beauchesne indicates that a bad motive cannot be imputed to another member. Citation 487(1) indicates that threatening language is inappropriate. Citation 487(2) says that indirect accusations are just as inappropriate as if they were made directly.
This language must be withdrawn. It is not appropriate for such language to be used on the floor of the House against any member.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. party whip that the person I suggested was doing this is not a member of this House. As he is not a member of this House, I would assume then that the rules of this House do not apply.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, as I mentioned earlier in our debate, I would ask you to be very cognizant of the words that you use in this House. Both in the questions and in the answers some words tend to be more inflammatory.
I listened to the debates. It was my perception at least with the use of the words ``influence peddling'', if they were directed at a sitting member of Parliament, surely they would be unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. I go beyond that. I would ask that in the use of these words that they be not used in a very loose fashion.
I will take it upon myself to get the precise meaning by looking over the ``blues'' and the use of these two words ``influence peddling''. I will come back to the House and make a further decision or a further comment if it is needed.
I have another point of order from the hon. member for Beaver River.
Further to that I also said that I would like to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: We can consider that one for the Beave, right?
Mr. Speaker, I offered to table at least one copy of the document by the former minister that was not shredded. It is called ``Creating Opportunity: Fulfilling the Promise of Immigration and Citizenship''.
I would like to seek unanimous consent to table it so that one of the unshredded copies will be kept forever more.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, one or two weeks ago, did you not rule that we could table anything in this House without unanimous consent?
The Speaker: I hope I did not because I would have to eat crow right now.
A private member may have something tabled in the House with unanimous consent. With a minister it is a little bit different. I know that is the clarification the hon. member wanted.