(1420)
Now we learn that the federal government is preparing to go it alone from here on and ask the Supreme Court to rule on what the government calls the legal issues surrounding Quebec's possible secession. In other words, the government is deciding to take up the crusade begun by Guy Bertrand.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, by taking the issue of Quebec's sovereignty to the Supreme court, the federal government is implicitly admitting that it has lost the political battle and is now trying to set up legal obstacles to prevent the people of Quebec from making their own decisions about their future? In a way, the government is trying to get the judges to do its work.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has not officially taken any such decision. When we are ready, we will so inform the House.
A ruling by the Quebec Superior Court raised some very important questions to do with Canadian constitutional law as well as with international law.
Even the Leader of the Opposition said in an interview that the international law aspect should one day be clarified, and obviously one day it will be.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's whole approach consists in asking the judges of the Supreme Court for a ruling on a Constitution.
So how can the Prime Minister invoke a Constitution that is silent on the rules for entering and leaving confederation, a Constitution that has no political legitimacy in Quebec, because it was imposed-he should know something about that, it was his doing-it was imposed and has never been agreed to or signed by any premier, either federalist or sovereigntist?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Canadian Constitution dates from 1867 and that it was a law of the British Parliament. So, even back then, parliamentarians were unable to vote.
It has only been since 1982 when we patriated the Constitution, so that Canadians would finally have a Canadian Constitution, that we could change Canada's Constitution to reflect the wishes of the people of Canada. I know that the members of the Bloc Quebecois would have preferred to see us remain a colony of Great Britain, legally speaking.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain in Quebec and that is that since 1982 nobody has wanted his Constitution, that is clear.
We know that the federal cabinet is divided on the question of whether or not to refer this matter to the Supreme Court and I can understand, because I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us and the members of his cabinet an explanation, and perhaps then he will be able to bring about unity.
How can the Prime Minister explain that Canada's justice minister has flatly contradicted himself twice in this matter, first in September 1995, when he declared that, in his view, this was not a legal question but a political one, and for the second time in May 1996 when he said that he was intervening in the Bertrand case only because the government of Quebec was doing so, and that otherwise he would not? By becoming involved now, the Minister of Justice will have contradicted himself twice since his initial statement.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time, the minister said that, if the government of Quebec did not intervene, we would perhaps not have to intervene. But the provincial government did intervene and the ruling was not favourable to the provincial government.
I imagine that if the ruling had been favourable to the government of Quebec, it would not have withdrawn from the case.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Does the government intend to go ahead before the Supreme Court to ask its judges for a ruling on the federal government's power over the wording of the referendum question, the percentage required in a referendum, and the use of the power of disallowance?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has already said, we have not yet decided, but will do so in the next few days. As I said last week, it is our intention to respect the commitment we made in the Throne Speech, which is that next time, should there be a third referendum on the same subject, the question needs to be clear, the consequences need to be well known, and all Canadians need to be involved.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice tell us whether the federal government will seek to obtain a favourable decision from the Supreme Court as to the possibility of holding its own Canada-wide referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will have the opportunity in the next few days to announce our intention, and I would just like to state that all of our options are still open. In the days to come, I will have the opportunity to clarify our position.
General Cox says he has a team of soldiers ready to stare people in the face, ask all the hard questions and expect honest answers.
Let me ask the Prime Minister one of those hard questions. Does he now acknowledge the morale crisis in the Canadian Armed Forces and that it has everything to do, not with reorganization or downsizing, but with the leadership vacuum at the top of that department?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stated yesterday that we have confidence in the leadership of the armed forces at this time. This period of reductions is a difficult time for the armed forces. The fact that there is a public inquiry which will analyse all the operations of national defence, something which has never happened before, is delicate and complicated for everybody.
I urge members of Parliament to let the commission look into all matters and report to the people of Canada. After that we will make the proper decisions. At this time General Boyle, the minister of defence, General Baril and all the others are working to make sure that the armed forces are ready for the tasks they have to do today, tomorrow, next week and next year.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, fortunately for the rank and file people in the Canadian Armed Forces, Generals Cox and Baril are not going to put politics before the morale.
According to General Cox our soldiers are worried about a lingering cloud that follows them around because of the actions of a few. They want the cloud to pass. The only person who can make that cloud go away, especially the cloud at the top, is the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister get rid of the cloud that is hanging over our soldiers by appointing a new chief of the defence staff and a new Minister of National Defence.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my answer is no. I am not about to cancel the inquiry either.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he digs himself in deeper and deeper.
Brigadier General Cox said: ``We may still have a couple of warts out there that are still hiding and I have to go out there and uncover them''. The two biggest blemishes on the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces are the defence minister and General Boyle.
(1430 )
These generals cannot do it alone. The plumbers and carpenters cannot be expected to rebuild the entire house. At some point, the chief architect of this whole mess has to be held accountable.
Will the Prime Minister hold General Boyle and the defence minister accountable for damaging the morale and reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces or will he pass the buck to General Cox and General Baril?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have replied to all these questions. I urge the leader of the third party, if he has any respect and he wants the army to have good morale, to try to find something else to talk about.
It is very easy for me to answer. I said that I have full confidence in the Minister of National Defence. Why? Because the previous administration had seven ministers in nine years. That was the cause of the drop in the morale of the armed forces.
I am committed to giving them stable leadership. That is why the Minister of National Defence will remain the Minister of National Defence.
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Does the minister apply this kind of arithmetic to Radio-Canada's radio stations in Vancouver, which will experience cuts totalling 45 per cent, in Regina and Edmonton, with 50 per cent, and finally in Windsor, Ontario, with 60 per cent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that these cuts will create problems in all regions in Canada.
Management at Radio-Canada in Montreal worked on this with the president and the board of directors and has decided how far these cuts should go. I know it will be difficult. I never denied that. Today we hope francophones in western Canada can have an around-the-clock service through RDI, which is in fact happening now.
It is also true that cuts hurt everyone. However, if we consider Radio-Canada's total budget, after these cuts it would still be $300 million, which is $100 million more than TVA, for instance.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is clear the minister remains insensitive to the needs of francophones outside Quebec and needs of Acadians.
By imposing new cuts at Radio-Canada, which will have the effect of restricting local broadcasting in French to a few hours a day, would the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree that this is very similar to what was done by the Government of Ontario in 1912, when it passed Regulation 17, which restricted French to one hour a day?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are the crocodile tears of an opposition that referred to francophones outside Quebec as paraplegics in wheelchairs and said that, after a referendum, they would disappear just like that.
I would like to draw your attention to what was said by someone who ought to know what he is talking about, and who said, in referring to francophones outside Quebec, and I quote: ``The Government of Quebec does not do enough, the Péquistes do not do enough. The federal government has certainly done more than Quebec, and I am prepared to acknowledge that''. These comments were made by Lucien Bouchard on April 13, 1994.
The defence minister has been demonstrating a lack of leadership and abusing his budget for months now. Yesterday we learned of a new contract issued to Mr. Stephanos Karabekos. Today we learn he rewarded his Liberal buddy, Joe Thornley, with an untendered contract for $50,000.
(1435)
Does the Prime Minister endorse the defence minister's sleazy, pork barrel politics as a way to restore morale in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all that is within the budget of the Minister of National Defence and within the guidelines of Treasury Board.
Every department uses people from outside to help sometimes. Members of Parliament have a budget to use people from outside and it is within the guidelines of the House of Commons and Treasury Board.
This hiring is exactly in that category, the right to hire people within the budget of the minister and the budget as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if those are the guidelines, Canadians are saying change the guidelines.
The defence minister has been too busy paying off Liberal friends to worry about morale in the forces. He has been using his budget as a slush fund to keep Liberal buddies rolling in dough. Not only that, the only reason he gave the untendered contract was because the defence minister's former press secretary told him to.
What kind of example does the Prime Minister think this sets for rank and file people in the military when their boss is filling the pockets of Liberal pals?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister had a requirement for some assistance in handling some communications issues and a contract was processed by the Department of National Defence in accordance with Treasury Board policies.
The company in question was determined to have the unique qualifications required to do the work.
Quebec cable companies are unanimous in condemning a bill passed by this House, whose main consequence would be to prevent, for all practical purposes, new French-language specialty channels from being introduced in Quebec and Canada.
What steps will the Minister of Canadian Heritage take so that this bill never receives Royal assent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill was to eliminate negative option billing, which is already banned in Quebec. We are following in the footsteps of the Quebec government, which has already banned this practice.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not know which bill the minister is talking about, but the bill that was passed Monday by this House is aimed at preventing a new service from being introduced as soon as a subscriber objects to it. It is not the same thing at all in Quebec.
The Liberal members who voted for this bill did so against the advice of the minister and her government, who are aware of its perverse effects. How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage protect francophone culture, when she could not even make backbenchers, especially those from Ontario, listen to reason on this matter?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House agrees with the principle that negative option billing should be banned, which was the main purpose of the bill. That is why we followed in the footsteps of the Quebec government in banning this practice. It is important that Parliament take a position on this.
Will the Prime Minister continue to abdicate his responsibility to ensure fair trade or will he take action to protect the people of Newfoundland?
(1440 )
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, what we are dealing with is a contract between two parties and two governments in the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec. The federal government is not a party to this contract.
I find it very strange that this party that comes into the House every day defending provincial rights would ask the federal government to interfere in a situation involving two provinces.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Prime Minister that the people of Alberta had a fair deal to sell oil a market prices in the 1970s and a Liberal government made it unfair by implementing the national energy program.
Now in the case of Churchill Falls there is an unfair deal and the government is refusing to take steps to make it fair even though it has a responsibility to do so.
Even though the Prime Minister refuses to take action on Churchill Falls, will he at least admit that this is not a fair deal?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I come back to the point that-
Some hon. members: Is it a fair deal?
Ms. McLellan: Do you want me to respond? The question of fairness is not for the federal government. The question of fairness is for the two parties that entered into the deal some 30 years ago.
I have taken heart today from the fact that my Quebec counterpart, the minister of natural resources, Mr. Chevrette, has indicated an openness and willingness to sit down with the province of Newfoundland and talk about the possibility of negotiation on future projects and the terms on which they might go ahead. The premier of Quebec has indicated his openness to discuss and
negotiate the issue of open access transmission of electricity through the province of Quebec.
I would suggest that the two parties should sit down and talk about their differences and attempt to renegotiate the deal if that is their wish.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
On September 10, 1996, Choices, a coalition for social justice, approached the Minister of Justice, requesting that he ask the courts to issue a declaratory judgement on the decision made by Revenue Canada on December 23, 1991.
Could the Minister of Justice tell this House whether he intends to ask the courts to settle the family trust scandal?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellehumeur: All this squawking is making it extremely difficult for me to speak, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: I ask members please to listen both to the question and to the answer, as they are very important to us here in this House and also to fellow citizens across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: I have not even asked the question, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Let us get back to the question.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to go to the courts to settle the family trust scandal and check if Revenue Canada did indeed misinterpret the Income Tax Act, as Choices and eight academic experts claim it did?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble was so erroneous that I was prepared to answer it. But I will go beyond that and answer the question. Some hon. members said ``for a change'', which I think is quite unfair.
It is important to remember that after the auditor general delivered the report in question, this government referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Finance which heard from a number of legal experts, the vast majority of whom agreed with the legal issue that was in question.
Second, it heard from justice officials that the course taken was consistent with justice advice given over the years from whichever government was in office. It also heard evidence from which it concluded that the officials from revenue acted in good faith.
Against that background the committee formed its conclusion. I believe that represents a thorough analysis of the issue and a conclusion with which we should be entirely comfortable.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by refusing to let the courts rule on the family trust scandal, is the Minister of Justice not admitting in fact that the decision made by Revenue Canada was rather questionable and that any judge called upon to rule on this issue would not hesitate to overturn such a twisted decision without giving it a second thought?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree.
The reality is that it is for the very reason that the ruling was challenged that the government referred the matter to the standing committee. That committee heard evidence, including expert evidence, on the very question.
After having examined the evidence, which I urge the hon. member to look at, if memory serves, six of the eight legal experts who testified supported the approach taken.
I do not agree that a court would take a different view. I think we have had a full airing of the issue. It was before the committee for public discussion and I believe the matter should rest there.
The minister has been accused of flip-flopping several times on the payment of GST on membership dues to non-profit organizations. There is still a lot of confusion out there. What is the situation? Do they have to pay or not?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has taken a considerable interest in this subject.
I am pleased to report that the changes issued last April have been altered and that memberships in certain non-profit organizations are no longer subject to the GST.
Yet when we have the poorest province in Canada being exploited by one of the largest, the Prime Minister will not even admit there is a problem, let alone seek a solution.
Then the Minister of Natural Resources has the gall to say in this House that the question of fairness is not a matter for the federal government.
Why should the people of Canada believe that the Liberal government is committed to fairness when it consistently ignores the injustice of the Churchill Falls project?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it seems to me the leader of the third party misses the point. Is he possibly suggesting that it is the role of the federal government to be the arbitrator and determine the fairness of every contract entered into by any two parties in this country? Surely not.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are not suggesting anything of the kind. We are talking about one particular project.
(1450)
The minister administers the National Energy Board Act. Surely she has read the words fair and reasonable, fair and reasonable, fair and reasonable, time and time again.
Quebec Hydro has made profits of over $500 million annually from Churchill Falls in recent years, while Newfoundland gets only a fraction of that amount.
If Newfoundland received a fair portion of those profits its dependence on federal-provincial transfers and equalization would be significantly reduced to the benefit of all Canadians.
Why will the federal government not simply ask the National Energy Board to ascertain-we are not asking it to give an order-what would be a fair and reasonable division of returns between the provinces involved under present economic conditions?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that since the leader of the third party seems to be intimately acquainted with the National Energy Board, he would know that the National Energy Board has no jurisdiction to interfere and modify the terms of an existing contract.
In February, the Minister for International Trade wrote to his colleague, the environment minister, to warn him that Bill C-29, which prohibits the importation of MMT, runs totally contrary to Canada's obligations under NAFTA and the WTO.
Considering that Ethyl Corp. is about to make a $275 million claim under NAFTA if Bill C-29 is passed, can the minister tell us how he will ensure that Canada will win its case before NAFTA?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is proceeding with Bill C-29 for many different reasons. We will defend our position with respect to NAFTA. Just because they put in a claim does not mean they will be successful.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that, if the federal government goes ahead with Bill C-29, in spite of his department's warnings, it could end up having to pay Ethyl Corp. $275 million coming from Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is convinced that for many reasons Bill C-29 is in the best interests of Canadians, both environmentally and healthwise.
Second, Ethyl Corp. is entitled to its opinion. Are you suggesting that a U.S. multi-
The Speaker: Colleagues, always address the Chair in your answers.
Mr. Marchi: Just when I was getting hot, Mr. Speaker. Is the member suggesting that a U.S. multinational corporation should dictate what the Government of Canada should do in the best interests of Canadians, both environmentally and healthwise? Our answer to that is a clear no.
Does she deny that there was this lobbying effort? We need a simple answer, yes or no.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention by a number of opponents of negative option billing that when this issue was raised by a number of members on the government side of the House almost a year ago, unfortunately the Reform Party did not even think it was an issue.
Luckily its members have caught on. They understand that negative option billing is not in the interests of any consumer. Hopefully with the work of all members of the House, we will have a package that will ban negative option billing forever.
(1455 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this member has become very familiar with the non-answer. She did not answer the question. Was there a lobby or was there not?
The fact is that Canada AM on Monday, September 23 quoted from a document dated September 17 from her heritage department, and again it was quoted in the Globe and Mail today. I simply ask her how in the world can she deny the existence of a lobby by either her department or her office?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, advice is given and people lobby on every occasion. The member opposite right now is lobbying in the House for his particular perspective.
The fact is that on Monday last there was a vote in the House which enshrined a principle to oppose negative option billing. This government opposed negative option billing last year. It opposed negative option billing this year. It will oppose negative option billing next year. As long as we are the Government of Canada there will be no negative option billing.
Some 4,000 public servants could be affected by the government's move to create a new federal food inspection agency. These employees are concerned about their future. As the transition to the new agency takes place, what assurance can the minister give these public servants that they will be treated fairly?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian food inspection agency is an exciting new innovation in government operations which is widely approved and supported throughout the agriculture and agri-food sector.
The new agency will involve some new innovations in its human resources regime to provide the necessary flexibility for the agency to function effectively. But of course the core values of the public service will be incorporated into the operations of the new agency. Fair treatment of employees will be paramount in the transition process that we, of necessity, have to go through.
I would add that also paramount is our absolute determination to ensure that Canadians will continue to benefit from the safest and highest quality food supply in the world.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that his current competition policy will have the effect of adversely affecting regions, and if so what does he intend to do about it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, this telecommunication service should be available to all Canadians, wherever they live in Canada.
As the hon. member knows, it is also necessary to have a very competitive telecommunications system, so that we can attract investments to create other opportunities for Canadians.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given what the minister just said, does he not realize that the rate increases proposed to the CRTC for businesses located in the regions could cost some $115 million to these businesses and their communities?
Since the minister is behaving in a manner reminiscent of Pontius Pilate in this issue, are we to understand that he cannot do anything to protect the economy of the regions?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is in the question, in that it is primarily an issue for the CRTC, which deals with services provided in Canada's rural areas and urban centres.
As I just said, it is necessary to have a very competitive system, because it is not easy for us to find investments, including in rural areas of Quebec, without a telecommunications system that can face the U.S. competition.
We must accept the fact that technology is changing, and so are the ways of delivering telephone services.
(1500)
The time has come for Canada to make changes, while keeping in mind the need to provide a universal service to all Canadians.
Will the government finally admit to Canadians that this was nothing but a desperate backroom deal to weasel out of its broken election promise on the GST? Will it save Canadian taxpayers a billion dollars by deep sixing it now before more damage is done to the Atlantic Canadian economy?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the Canadian people agree on is that the GST harmonization with the provincial retail sales taxes are good for business and good for the people of the country and not harmful. The Atlantic provinces agreement is just the first step in moving to a harmonized retail sales tax across the country.
We hope that the hon. member will support us in this, if he is interested in business, if he is interested in developing the economy, if he is interested in this country at all.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, even the Liberal premiers are now saying that a billion dollars is not enough to cover up the bad smell from this deal.
Nova Scotia Premier John Savage says: ``Ottawa can tax books as they do at the moment. We do not tax books and we will not''. That sounds like a deal breaker to me.
Since the premiers are now saying they will walk away from the deal, will the finance minister admit that his deal is starting to unravel because the government does not know how to keep its word?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the members of the Reform Party talk about this, especially when it was the Reform Party that said in a minority report on the GST that a harmonized tax would do it.
This deal is not falling apart but rather it is a deal which will go through.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who yesterday told us he had been at a Cairns group meeting where he took no farm representatives. There appears to have been no record of the proceedings of what went on.
Will he in future include wheat board advisory members as farm representatives and will he make available the record of such discussions so that all farmers may assess what is really going on, given that New Zealand and Australia, his two believed allies, tell a different story about 1999.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. gentleman has just said, in preparation for the Cairns group meetings there were discussions between representatives of farm organizations and myself, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others.
The reports of the Cairns group meetings were published at the conclusion of the meetings and broadly carried in the international press.
May I just re-emphasize for the benefit of the hon. member and others, any future decisions to be taken about our marketing institutions or anything else having to do with Canadian agriculture will be made in Canada by Canadians for our own good Canadian reasons and we will not be driven by foreign capital.
I want to make a constructive suggestion to the Prime Minister today. I think he will acknowledge that this inquiry has deeply affected the morale of Canadian troops and that there will be a very long delay between the report and the proceedings. We also know that there are two different sets of events here, the events in Somalia and what happened afterward.
(1505)
Given these circumstances, will the Prime Minister not do the sensible thing and ask for an interim report?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the inquiry has a mandate to look into what happened in Somalia when the Progressive Conservative Party was in government and it has to finish its job.
The question of an interim report or no interim report is not for me to ask. It is for the commission to decide. I hope that it will complete the work as quickly as possible. It will be in the interests of the armed forces and everybody that the file be completed, the report be handed in and the government act on the recommendations, if need be.
An interim report will not deviate from the reality that when the inquiry goes into the second phase there will be discomfort for some people because nobody likes to have an inquiry. It is the first time in the history of the armed forces that there has been a public inquiry. I understand that it is difficult. In the meantime the soldiers are doing their job very well, in Haiti and elsewhere. From inside it seems that those who are in-
Some hon. members: Order, order.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Let me finish. I do not abuse the time of the House.
All who are inside are doing their best to keep the armed forces in good shape and everybody hopes that the inquiry will be completed as soon as possible.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have three points of order which I am going to deal with today. I am going to begin with the hon. minister.
The Speaker: I am now going to proceed to the first point of order that I have from the hon. member for Kootenay East.
The Speaker: We use different words in the House many times in our debates. I would rule that is not a point of order. It is probably a point of debate.
(1510)
I will pass on to the next point of order, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.
Twice I have raised a point of order requesting this letter be tabled. Since returning from the summer recess, while checking with the Journals Branch on September 19, I was advised that nothing has been tabled concerning the Airbus affair.
Is the justice minister going to keep his promise or is this another example of the deceptive, sleight of hand government that the Liberals are so good at? I would ask the Minister of Justice-
The Speaker: My colleague, I know that you are very concerned about this particular matter, but the word ``deceptive'' is rather inflammatory. I wonder, my dear colleague, if you would withdraw the word ``deceptive''?
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the government's practice of not always doing what it says it will do.
The Speaker: I put it to the hon. member. I wonder if he would consider withdrawing the word ``deceptive''.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I will accede to your request, sir.
The Speaker: I do thank you for doing that. I think we are ready to proceed.
With regard to your specific point of order, a request that a letter be tabled, I checked and evidently such a request was made. I would ask the hon. member if he would appeal to the minister when the minister is back in the House and see if we can get some movement on that. That would be my suggestion at this point.
I go to another point of order, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Sit down.
The Speaker: My colleague, I would rule that is indeed a point of debate. Notwithstanding the fact that we do not always agree with the words that are used either in the questions or the answers, I would appeal to hon. members to recognize that these are points of debate that are arising.
No doubt the hon. member will want to use the particular words as he used today in a debate at some later time.