On April 16, he said, and I quote: ``This question casts aspersions on the Armed Forces and on the men and women who serve each day with distinction both at home and abroad. Everyone's reputation is being tarnished by incidents that occurred three years ago''.
How could the Minister of National Defence talk in the House about events that happened three years ago, when he knew as he was making this statement here, following an investigation by military police, that documents were being illegally destroyed and falsified up to last September?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is extending the type of questioning we heard last week. He deals with the question of the public affairs branch and the question of documentation.
As the hon. member knows, the Somalia commission will be commencing hearings on Wednesday on this problem. All of the answers the hon. member wants will be forthcoming at the commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has responsibilities. He must exercise these responsibilities in this House when questions are put to him on behalf of Canadians who want to know what is happening. He cannot hide behind a committee, when he already knows the answers.
On April 15, the Prime Minister said that the events under investigation took place under another government. Clearly, the Prime Minister had not been informed by the Minister of National Defence that an investigation had been conducted within the army and that despicable events were known to have gone on until September.
Why did the Minister of National Defence not inform his Prime Minister that an investigation by the military police had already revealed orders had been given, under his command, to destroy and falsify documents, up to last September? Why did he hide this from his Prime Minister?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly I carried out my responsibilities by setting up the commission of inquiry on Somalia. I would ask the hon. member to await the commission's deliberations. Once these deliberations are over, he will have all the answers he and the people of Canada want.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a commission of inquiry is usually called upon to investigate events of the past that continue to take place in the Canadian army. Events have occurred under the responsibility of the minister that warrant his action. The minister cannot hide behind a commission letting it assume his responsibilities for him. Things are happening right now.
How has the minister been able to hide behind the commission since the start of this affair saying that all issues would be examined, when he knew the identity of the military personnel who gave the orders to falsify and hide documents, officers who remain in positions of responsibility and whom he has not yet sanctioned as his responsibilities would require him to do?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that the hon. member read the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry on Somalia.
In the terms of reference, which I quoted from last week, there were the terms ``cover-up'', ``missing documents'' and ``tampering of documents''. This terminology was used in the original terms of reference.
In specific reply to the hon. member's question, the commission has determined that even though the mandate of the commission was to November 28, 1994, when it comes to documentation and the allegations of tampering, destruction or cover-up, the commission feels it can go beyond that timeframe.
If the hon. member has some concerns about other events that did not take place in the watch of the other government, all this will be under the eye of the commission. It will get to the answers the people of Canada expect and which they will receive.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it appears that the commission members are aware that some documents have been destroyed. It also appears that the military police are aware that some documents have been destroyed. It seems that the public relations office, presumably reporting to the minister-there is perhaps a minister in that department somewhere-is also aware that some documents have been destroyed. It would appear the minister is the only one not aware. There was no video this time, so he knows nothing.
Can the minister tell us whether or not he has seen the military police report stating that documents were destroyed? Has he or has he not seen it? A very simple question.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been selective readings from what I suppose is the military police document which will be part of the evidence presented this Wednesday at the inquiry.
The inquiry should be allowed to table that report, have it made public, let everyone read it and come to their own conclusions, rather than my selectively responding to quotes from a report, whether from that report or another document, in the House of Commons.
The whole point of creating the inquiry was to allow a thoughtful, orderly process with due regard to the legal rights of individuals, all to be conducted in an impartial setting away from the partisanship of the House of Commons. It was the right thing to do. It was what this party called for in opposition. We have delivered on that commitment.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the military police are investigating the events of June, July, August and September 1995. The minister refuses to deal with it, washes his hands of it, passes the buck to commission members. So much for his version.
I have a very simple question. Is the minister telling us that, in the Canadian armed forces, you can do anything you want without the minister dealing with it, that it will just be handed over to commission after commission after commission? Is that what his attitude is?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question really makes sense. The hon. member will get all the answers to the questions he posed today and the questions in the House in the last couple of weeks.
If they are patient while the commission does its work, there will be a subset of hearings on the documentation issue beginning Wednesday. Other things will be revealed and other testimony will be given over the coming months with respect to the general incidents that occurred in Somalia.
Everything, I assure members, will be answered. That is why the terms of reference were crafted in that way. No one outside of selected members of the opposition have criticized the terms of reference. Most people realize they are broad, that they are all-encompassing and that they will get at the truth.
The government wants to get at the truth. Canadians want to get at the truth.
In the last election the Liberals campaigned on a promise to kill, scrap and abolish the GST. They know it. The voters of York-South Weston, the voters of Broadview-Greenwood and in fact all Canadians know it.
(1425 )
How many billions of dollars is the Prime Minister willing to give to the Atlantic Liberal provinces and how may of his own MPs is he willing to sacrifice to come across on his broken GST promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, page 22 of the red book is very clear:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to the consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is trying to do at this time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have seen on parallel here that instead of replacing the GST he will harmonize it. He is now replacing MPs. It is as simple as that. He has gone back on a promise and those people who campaigned in the last election know full when what they campaigned on.
By his heavy handed actions today, the Prime Minister has shown complete disregard for the democratic process and that his precious red book means absolutely precious little. The Prime Minister has placed party and politics ahead of principles and people. The message is clear. If you want to keep your election promises, you cannot do it in the Liberal caucus.
Is it really worth it? Is saving face on the broken GST promise worth the billions the government plans to spend on harmonization? It is worth punishing MPs whose only crime is standing up for their constituents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every Liberal MP campaigned on the red book. It is very clear this phrase is part of the red book and everybody knew it. It is exactly what we are doing at this time.
I remember the days when the member was in the House advocating and supporting the concept of the GST and flip-flopped a couple of times. We said it. We put it in writing and it is very clear.
Some members of Parliament voted against the government on some bills. We have acted accordingly. When a member of Parliament clearly votes non-confidence in the government it is because he does not want to support the government. He wants to be independent and he will sit as an independent member of Parliament. I wish him good luck getting elected as an independent candidate.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, with all respect and in supporting the member for York South-Weston, he did not want to support the government. ``You got that right'' is what he would say to the government and to the Canadian people. He knew what he had campaigned on in 1993.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who campaigned to resign if the GST were not scrapped, is still here. The Liberal member for York South-Weston, who was merely living up to the campaign promises in the red book, got the boot.
The government can hide the GST. It can spend billions trying to harmonize the GST. It can ditch all the anti-GST Liberals it wants. However, Canadians will not be fooled. They know these people campaigned on scrapping, abolishing and killing the GST.
Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit he has no intention of keeping his election promise? Why does he not simply tell Canadians not to believe a word they read in the red book?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to read the promises. She should listen:
A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to the consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization.That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing at this time. We are keeping our promises. That is why the member is so frustrated.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister confirm that the agreement his government is preparing to announce with the Atlantic provinces does not constitute the removal of the GST as he had promised, but an expensive camouflage of a new 15 per cent GST in the price of goods and services?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just read the Liberal Party's promise in the red book twice. I do not need to repeat it. We said that we wanted to harmonize with the provincial governments so that there would be a single tax, so that businesses had only one sales tax report to do, and so that we would have a system that was the same for all Canadians, simplifying everyone's operations. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance is in the process of doing.
When the agreements are concluded, the Minister of Finance will have no trouble expressing himself, and indeed is rarely hard put to do so in this House.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh the Prime Minister's memory ever so slightly. He said, during the 1995 election campaign, that he would abolish the GST. He made a solemn promise to abolish the GST and, as with the numerous defence department scandals, we have it on tape.
Not only is the Prime Minister telling us that he will not abolish the GST, but he is confirming that by hiding the new GST in the price of goods, the federal government will more easily be able to increase it, unbeknownst to the public. Is that correct?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, they are trying to scare people. It is not a question of increasing the GST. It is a question of changing the GST, of putting in place a national tax that will apply to everyone. There will be more work to do outside Quebec, because the tax is already harmonized in Quebec.
Right now, the Minister of Finance wants the same taxation level for all Canadians who pay a federal and provincial tax, and that is what he is working out with the provincial governments, who will, over the years, have to forgo a certain amount of revenue. As always, as we have done in other cases, we will help the provincial governments, especially those having the most trouble, the poorest provinces, to adapt to the new national system.
It is a question of being fair to all Canadians and that is what we are aiming for: a clear, simple and fair system for everyone.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely unbelievable. By sacrificing a caucus member because he had the nerve to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his own promise to kill the GST, the Prime Minister has made a mockery of parliamentary democracy and a mockery of this place.
The Prime Minister has betrayed the member for York South-Weston, who was only attempting to hold him accountable and give him a chance to fulfil his promises and the principles he ran on and won the election on. That is a fact.
Why has the Prime Minister abandoned the promise to bring about parliamentary reform?
The Speaker: A little while ago I asked all hon. members to please direct their questions to the administrative responsibilities of the minister or ministers involved.
In my view the way this question is framed, we are dealing with party matters as opposed to government matters.
I will permit the hon. member to rephrase the question, not the preamble, and put his question to whomever he likes.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, why has the Prime Minister flagrantly broken his promise to bring about parliamentary reform?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the first time when private members' bills come before the House we are allowing ministers and members of our party to vote the way they want. That has never happened before in the history of Parliament. It is working. It is a reform that has been appreciated but not noted.
Unlike the member, I have been here for a few years and it is a big departure from what existed before. Members of Parliament voted on private members' bills according to the party line. We have given that freedom. It is a step in the right direction.
(1435)
However, we live in a system in which we have a responsible government. When the government is defeated on a question of confidence it has no choice but to call an election. When it is a matter of voting non-confidence in the government, it is a question that one does not belong to the party that forms the government. That is all.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would not know parliamentary democracy if he grabbed it by the throat. That is a fact.
A few years ago former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney kicked an MP out of caucus for voting according to their constituents' wishes. At that time the current Prime Minister welcomed that principled member into his own caucus. What a great irony. The Prime Minister said they would be a lot better than the hated Tories. What a farce that turned out to be.
Why oh why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise on the GST and parliamentary reform and why is it not the Deputy Prime Minister being forced to resign instead of the member for York South-Weston?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my oh my, this member of Parliament cannot read four lines of the red book. I repeat for him: ``A Liberal government-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): He does not want me to repeat it. He has heard it enough. Fine. Read the red book. This is the commitment of this party and we are delivering on it.
[Translation]
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. When will the minister stop denying the problem of the assimilation of francophones in Canada, which leads to the disappearance of their most vital institutions, such as the last primary school in Lower Town?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out our interest at the hon. member's concern over education. This goes against the policy of his party, which says that education is a provincial matter.
I would first like to point out there are 60 schools under the school board for Ottawa-Carleton, including the one my daughter attends, along with école Gaston-Vincent, école Baribeau, école Cadieux, école des Pins, école des Villageois, école des Voyageurs, that are French language schools, and not immersion. Four of them are currently threatened with closure because of budget cuts.
Unfortunately, the Government of Ontario followed the example of the Government of Quebec, which announced cuts of $300 million in education on March 27. These cuts by the premier of Quebec are unfortunate. We also find most unfortunate the cuts made by the Government of Ontario, but we respect its jurisdiction over education, which is, as the Bloc Quebecois policy provides, a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has interfered in provincial matters frequently and on a number of issues, but the minister is denying the assimilation of francophones in Canada in her response, and no one dare deny this assimilation when it is occurring at the rate of 30 per cent in the Canada's capital.
We must have francophone schools, but Sainte-Anne is closing. It is a fact that English predominates in the federal public service. Francophones must use English in the public service.
(1440)
Will the minister acknowledge that her government is therefore practicing a policy of assimilation leading to the disappearance of the francophone community in the heart of the nation's capital?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to his question, I told the member that there are currently 60 French language schools in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Thirty years ago, there was no francophone school board in Ottawa-Carleton.
His questions are almost as logical as his comments today-the member is weeping crocodile tears. Assimilation is about as logical as the comment: ``One of the reasons I became a sovereignist was because of the threat of assimilation''.
Does he really think that a policy of separating francophones in Quebec from those in the rest of Canada will keep the country bilingual? The exact opposite is true. This is why we have 23 francophone members and senators from outside Quebec here. This is why Canada is on its way to becoming a country for everyone.
In government the Liberals are proposing to spend $1 billion to hide this bad tax, to reward with federal kickbacks those Liberal governments that help to hide it, to charge off the billion dollar cost to the seven provinces that do not want it, and finally to punish those MPs that stand in the way of hiding it by dismissal from caucus because they remind the government of its election promise.
Is the Prime Minister now satisfied that by his disciplinary actions he has muzzled other Liberal backbenchers to keep silent on his government's GST promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this party had a program and probably all the candidates read it before they ran. If they had stopped on page 22 they would have seen that we were talking about simplification and harmonization. That is what is written.
Four provincial governments have opted for harmonization. The first government was Quebec. Now there are three more and the others are looking into it.
I can read to the hon. member what the Regina Leader Post is recommending to the Saskatchewan government. It states: ``-would be well advised to rethink its opposition to a harmonized tax. Its concerns are not insurmountable, nor do they outweigh the potential benefits of harmonization, such as reduction in the cost of doing business and operating government in Saskatchewan, thus
improving the business climate and, in the long run, likely generate new jobs and revenue sources''.
That is the opinion of a very important newspaper in Saskatchewan. That makes a lot of sense. A lot of people will find that our approach is a very good one.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, quote: ``I want the tax dead''. That was the Liberal leader in opposition, the right hon. Prime Minister. That appeared in the Montreal Gazette of September 27, 1990.
Now that the Prime Minister has made an example out of the member for York South-Weston in order to keep the rest of his caucus in line, let me remind him of another promise which he and his party made in opposition.
Liberal MPs opposed taxing reading material when the GST was imposed by the Tories. They promised to remove the tax on books. Now they are proposing double digit taxation on reading with their piecemeal, half-hearted effort with three Atlantic provinces on harmonization.
When will the Liberal government meet this promise? Where is the Prime Minister on this promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would repeat to the hon. member that at the time we opposed the GST and we still oppose it. We argued in this House that it would be two systems of taxes with two different types of reports. It is very complicated for the consumers and for the the business people who had to report. There would be two sets of books, two sets of inspectors and so on.
(1445)
We argued against this complication in the tax system. We always talked about harmonization. At the time of the election we put it in writing on page 22 of the red book. It is very easy to verify and we stand by what is written in the red book.
In a recent study, the official languages commissioner concluded that anglophone members of the armed forces based in Bagotville had access to impeccable services in their own language, whereas French speaking soldiers based in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, were deprived of essential services in French such as health care and education.
Will the Minister of National Defence follow up on the commissioner's recommendation and establish a detailed plan to meet the needs of francophone members of the armed forces in Moose Jaw before May 31, 1996?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are giving serious consideration to the commissioner's recommendations. We hope to be able to establish the same standards across the country.
[English]
I have visited Bagotville and I would certainly concur with what the hon. member said in terms of the availability of standards affecting both linguistic groups and services.
I have also visited the Moose Jaw base in western Canada and I have not been directly informed of some of the things of which the commissioner apparently has been made aware.
We try to make sure that no matter what language is spoken by members of the forces that obviously they are entitled to all of the services, priorities and prerequisites that all Canadians have no matter what language they speak. If improvements have to be made we will certainly put them in place.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that, every time something goes wrong, this minister is always the last to know about it. There have been six complaints in Moose Jaw. I find it strange that when he went to Bagotville, he was told that everything was fine for anglophones but when he went to Moose Jaw, he was not told about the difficult situation faced by francophones there. I will not repeat the speech made by my colleague about assimilation, but that is how it happens, especially when a minister does not even care about the situation of the minority in Saskatchewan.
I do not want a vague answer to my question, I want a straight answer. Does the minister intend to ensure that francophone members of the armed forces in Moose Jaw have access to a French school as soon as possible?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the member has not heard my answer. I am very concerned about the problems of access to services in both official languages across the country.
[English]
With respect to education services, as the hon. member knows, under agreements that have been coming into effect that were signed by the previous government, the Department of National Defence is now handing over education to the various provinces. When we do this we try to ensure that linguistic minorities are dealt with fairly.
As I said in the earlier response, we are looking for improvements. I assure the hon. member we will make those improvements so she will be satisfied.
My constituents informed me of their frustrations with the services they are getting from the signal providers for their dish antenna systems.
Could the Minister assure my constituents that the problem with satellite dishes will be solved without them having to pay a lot more money?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that the technology used to have provide broadcasting services changes very rapidly at the present time. Most service providers are now switching to digital technology, which does not work with existing satellite dishes.
(1450)
There might be a potential problem for consumers. The sale of satellite dishes, used to receive television signals, is not regulated by the federal government. With any high technology equipment, consumers must examine their options very carefully before they buy. This is very important.
The current Prime Minister will not allow a free vote on another similar measure, and he kicks people out of the caucus.
Many Canadians, especially one from York South-Weston, would like to know the answer to this question: Since the Liberals deplored this kind of iron-fisted discipline while in opposition, what happened to them when they formed the government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have dozens of free votes in the House of Commons that did not exist before.
Mr. Abbott: No, you do not; not one free vote.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have dozens of free votes in the House of Commons.
When a bill is by a private member, it is a bill presented to the Parliament of Canada. These bills will change the laws of Canada. We have accepted a lot of free votes, even with ministers splitting on some votes. We have never seen that before.
I am satisfied with the experiment. I think it was good and did not cause too many problems. We might have them on other occasions. We had free votes before on capital punishment and abortion. We had free votes on problems of morality or moral decisions.
When it is a question of confidence in the government, government members have to support the government which has helped them to get elected.
The Speaker: May I encourage you both when a question is being asked and when an answer is being given because it is a bit difficult for me to hear all the words. I know you will co-operate by letting me hear both the question and the answer.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the current Deputy Speaker was kicked out of the Tory caucus for voting against the party line, he said that the Conservative Party was so undemocratic that it would make General Noriega blush.
This Liberal government promised Canadians that if it was elected it would be different, that Canadians would finally get MPs who were free to represent the wishes of the constituents that elected them. Why did the Liberals lie to Canadians?
The Speaker: I would like the hon. member to withdraw the word lie.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, why did the government misinform the Canadian people?
The Speaker: Very simply I would like you to please withdraw the word lie.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word. Is it true that the government's idea of a free vote is that it is free as long as the dictatorial Liberal Party says it is free?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it is a confidence vote in the government, it is a confidence vote in the government. It was discussed in caucus last Wednesday and the views of the member were clear.
The member for York South-Weston had a bill in the House on which we permitted a free vote. However, a question of confidence
in the government is something else. He could have waited and on a specific bill he could have voted against the government.
(1455 )
When it is a lack of confidence in the whole program of the government, it is because you do not belong to that government any more.
The RCMP external review committee is responsible for hearing appeals for certain types of grievances filed by regular or civilian members of the RCMP against the senior management this police force. The committee, chaired since 1990 by Jennifer Lynch, is the only legal recourse offered to members of the RCMP for an independent hearing.
Can the Prime Minister explain why the RCMP granted Mrs Lynch a one year contract worth $176,000, to review the present grievance system? Does the Prime Minister not agree that Mrs. Lynch is in fact in conflict of interest since, on the one hand, she hears grievances against the senior management of the RCMP and, on the other, she has a contract with the senior management?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Solicitor General is in hospital this week. I will take note of the hon. member's question and I will provide him with an answer at a later date.
If MPs cannot speak out on important issues without being punished, Canada is in serious trouble. Remember, if the GST is not scrapped, the Deputy Prime Minister will resign. My question, therefore, is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister sit there in all good conscience after having gone back on her word while a long-time colleague of hers is made a scapegoat and hung out to dry while standing up for his principles?
The Speaker: I am trying to tie that into the administrative responsibilities of members. If the Prime Minister would like to answer, I will permit him to do so.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every member has a chance to express his or her views on everything. However, when it comes to non-confidence in the government, it is a very clear statement that they do not support the government.
Coming from rural Quebec, I have to explain to the hon. member who was born in Nova Scotia that I am here defending the British parliamentary system which has existed for a long time. A vote of confidence in the government is not the same thing as other votes.
Mr. Abbott: They have free votes.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): That government has free votes.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We have had more free votes here. We do not need a lesson on that score from the Reform Party.
Miss Grey: You sound like Mulroney.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): You are an embarrassment.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The problem with members of the Reform Party is that they do not want to know what is a government because they will never be a government. Having the responsibility of a government, people can ask my members. They have had more free votes than ever before in this Parliament.
When somebody wants to exclude himself from the party, he votes against the government in a motion of confidence. This is a well known practice, which existed since Parliament was founded many centuries ago in Britain.
In 1995, Parliament passed important amendments to the Employment Equity Act, but these changes will only come into effect one year after the law's proclamation.
At a committee meeting last Thursday, the human rights commissioner urged the government to proclaim this law as soon as possible. When will this employment equity law be proclaimed?
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present time, the Department of Human Resources is drafting the regulations.
(1500)
Next month, the employees of the department will consult with the parties, the employers' associations, the unions and all other interested parties about the application of this important legislation on employment equity. We hope that we will be able to fulfil our
commitment and that, by mid-fall, the draft regulations will be in force.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): He gets time instead of us.
Mr. Hermanson: Let us be fair in here.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Mr. Charest: My question has to do with the new allegations relative to the Somalia inquiry, the allegations about papers being shredded in September 1995. These are very serious allegations which go right to the heart of an issue of confidence within the government.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether he does not think at this point, given this serious allegation concerning his department, that the time has come to ask his minister of defence to stand aside.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before replying to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, I would like to remind the member for Fraser Valley West who did not want the member to get up, about political democracy and freedom of speech when they want to deny a member of Parliament the right to speak.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I will say to the hon. member for Sherbrooke that for the first time in a very long time, maybe since I have been around, never has a government had an inquiry into the operation of the armed forces. It was done on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence.
The commission is looking at all aspects of the operation. If something wrong has been done, the commission will report it. The reason we have this commission is that this good Minister of National Defence had the wisdom to recommend the inquiry to the Government of Canada.
[English]
They are young men and women who have distinguished themselves in many fields, some for their musical, athletic or artistic talent and others for their bravery, entrepreneurial skills, scientific innovation or commitment to public service or humanitarian causes. They are young and they have already made a difference. These young Canadians represent excellence and are symbols of achievement for Canada.
Please join me in welcoming and congratulating the winners of the YTV Achievement Awards.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it has been a spirited debate today on both sides. The hon. member of course does not have a point of order. I would hope that tomorrow we will be able to take up the battle again.