[Translation]
Apparently, from now on, Canadian artists and creators will be able to obtain financial assistance from the Department of Foreign Affairs for tours abroad only if they promote Canadian unity. The federal government has decided to impose its political views on the creative process. This is absolutely incredible.
My question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. How can the minister, who is responsible for culture on behalf of the Canadian government, allow this government to set political criteria for the creative of work of Canadian and Quebec artists?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to answer the hon. member's question. He said in his question that funding would be given only if one particular criterion was met. That is entirely inaccurate.
There is a series of objectives, as my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, mentioned yesterday. There is no need to meet all objectives, and I expect the hon. member opposite is well aware of this. There is only a list of objectives, and one of them is to present Canada as a bilingual country consisting of various cultures. Is the hon. member against our artists presenting Canadian diversity abroad? I hardly think so.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is the limit. The minister tells us there is in fact a rule that if you do not defend Canadian unity, you may not get your grant. Maybe you will, but it is not a sure thing. It is up to the government.
How can the minister responsible for Francophonie, who is attached to Foreign Affairs, and I am not sure in what capacity he is answering my question, how can he be so matter of fact about a program that is trying to control all Canadian artists and Quebec artists as well who are more specifically on the receiving end?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the exact opposite of what I just told the hon. member. I made it quite clear that these were not criteria. As for the objectives I mentioned, and there are six, there is no obligation to meet all these objectives.
One of them, as the hon. member said, mentions national unity. Another one refers to diversity. Is he against diversity? And another objective for instance, is to present our culture abroad. Another objective is to talk about cultural and other exports abroad.
So there is a whole range of objectives, and I am sure that everyone can find within that range ways to convey the message of Canadian diversity abroad.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if this were a page from Astérix, the comment would be: ``Those Romans are crazy''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Do not worry, Mr. Speaker, I will not violate the Standing Orders. You know my respect for the Standing Orders of this House.
The minister was explaining that they include this criterion but it does not have to be met. They put it in by accident, this thing about Canadian unity, but it does not really matter if we do not promote Canadian unity. What he just told us does not make sense.
I will ask him another question: Does the minister agree that the government has two objectives in mind by including this criterion, a new criterion artists will have to meet? First, they want political control over the creative arts in Canada, and second, they want to reduce substantially assistance to Quebec creators who, according to this government, are not interested enough in promoting national unity.
(1420)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition doth protest too much, but I want to thank him for his short course in pop culture in the form of a quote from Astérix.
The hon. member opposite must know, and I told him so earlier, that this is not about criteria that must be applied regardless. In fact this is not about criteria at all. There are no prerequisites. We respect the freedom of the artists, that is quite clear.
What we have here are simply objectives. One of those objectives is diversity. The hon. member opposite mentioned another one. Is he against cultural diversity and cultural excellence?
I believe that Mr. Léveillée, that Edith Butler and many others are excellent examples of this cultural diversity in Canada. And I hope my hon. friend will agree that these people excel in their field.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, this government, which has made major cuts to culture, always seems able to find money to fund propaganda campaigns. The latest idea the Minister of Canadian Heritage came up with is a propaganda kit on Canada for distribution in schools.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The federal government had promised to withdraw from provincial jurisdictions. Why is the minister jumping in with both feet and squandering public funds to distribute her propaganda kit in schools when her colleague, the Minister of Finance, is cutting transfer payments for education?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the cultural affairs ministers' meeting in Saskatchewan last year, one of the questions raised by the provincial ministers concerned the lack of availability of Canadian material for use in schools.
Last year, I had a kit prepared-
Mrs. Tremblay: You are not allowed to show it around.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: -which was such a hit with school principals that, within two weeks, we had received 3,000 telephone requests for kits from school principals, including 300 from Quebec.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.
After the flag operation, after the Canada information office, after the TV quiz, now the heritage minister wants to indoctrinate children starting in junior kindergarten.
Where will it stop? What is next? ``Flushabye Flags''?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have taken on the challenge of the cultural affairs ministers, who asked the Government of Canada to provide information to school principals.
Later, I sent a letter to school principals to tell them about this kit, and the response was incredible. I would like to quote for the record the president of the Fédération des directeurs d'école du Québec, who stated today: ``It is up to school principals to exercise judgment in deciding whether or not to order the multimedia educational package''.
I always give school principals the choice. All we do is provide information. It is such a hit that, after two weeks, we had to have 5,000 new packages prepared.
government; $690 more taken off Canadian paycheques. That sounds like a tax, smells like a tax and looks like a tax, but not so according to the Minister of Finance.
(1425)
In the House yesterday he said: ``This is not a tax grab. It is not a tax''. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is really the position of the Government of Canada that Canada pension plan payments are not a payroll tax.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance mentioned that it is a contribution by every citizen and employers to make sure there is a Canada pension plan available for generations to come.
The leader says that there was neglect in the previous government and I agree with him. That is why we are obliged to fix it at the request of the provincial governments. This program is a joint federal-provincial program.
They are pretty close apparently to the Conservative Government of Ontario. In the paper over the weekend the minister of finance of Ontario was claiming a victory.
It was to be proceeded with to make sure that this element of public finances of the provincial and the federal governments will be in order.
The people have to understand that these contributions are used by the provincial governments to finance their operations. That is why they wanted it fixed. We did that jointly with the provincial governments.
The premier of Alberta was very happy that this problem was resolved. He, like us, like Ontario and like most of the people, wanted the finances of the nation to be in good order. This is not the time to try not to tell the truth to the Canadian people.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, therefore according to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, the CPP premiums are contributions and not a tax.
I have on my desk a paper entitled ``Growth in CPP/QPP Contributions''. In it the author clearly describes contributions to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec plan as compulsory payroll taxes. He demonstrates that increases in the payroll taxes from 1986 to 1993 reduced employment by 26,000 jobs. The author of this paper, Joe Italiano, is with the economic analysis and forecasting division of the Department of Finance.
Who is right, the finance minister who says that CPP premiums are not a payroll tax and that raising them has no impact on jobs, or the analysis of his own department that says exactly the opposite?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to start at the beginning and go very slowly for the hon. members opposite.
These are not revenues of the Government of Canada. He misleads Canadians when he says that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I encourage you to stay away from words like ``mislead'' in questions and answers. I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to give his response.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, their statements to the effect that these are taxes rather than describing them as what they are have left an unfortunate impression among Canadians. These are contributions to a public pension plan available to pay benefits under this plan. They are not revenues of the Government of Canada.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said he would kill the GST. He broke that promise. The Prime Minister claims there have been no tax increases under his administration. Now we have a 70 per cent hike in a particular payroll tax alone.
Soon the Prime Minister will be sending candidates across the country to seek re-election. As they go from meeting to meeting, they will be followed like some hound from hell by the Prime Minister's record of broken promises on jobs, broken promises on taxes and broken promises on integrity.
How does the Prime Minister hope to improve his reputation for honesty and integrity when he refuses to admit that CPP contributions are a payroll tax and a 70 per cent hike in premiums is a tax grab?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary explained the contributions very well.
As I explained earlier, this is a joint plan between the federal and provincial governments. We cannot change the plan alone. We need the collaboration of the provinces. Because the provinces needed the money to finance their operations, they were urging us to make the contributions equal to the payments for the future.
At this time there is a deficit. The hon. leader of the third party is always talking about deficits but when we try to do something to put the finances of the nation together, he does not support us. He is the one who has completely changed his position. Because he is now desperate, he is trying to buy the votes of Canadians with their own money.
[Translation]
Yesterday, when asked about spying activities targeting a Quebec diplomat in Washington and involving military officers at the Canadian embassy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said there was no policy, no direction whatsoever that anybody in any embassy should spy on any Quebec official.
Given that the two officers involved may, of their own initiative, have engaged in illegal activities under American laws, can the defence minister tell us whether these officers were suspended and whether he ordered an investigation into the activities of his military personnel at the Canadian embassy in Washington?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained very clearly that no one had engaged in spying activities in that case and that nothing wrong was done. We have no reason to believe that any illegal action under American laws took place.
We know that the allegations resulted from a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion between an American government employee and his superiors.
As for us, as the minister said yesterday, there is no government policy to spy on any official of the Quebec government or of any other provincial government.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am once again asking the Minister of National Defence whether or not an investigation was conducted and, if no investigation did or will take place, who are we supposed to believe? The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told us yesterday that the allegations were unfounded, or the Minister of National Defence himself, who the day before said the issue had to be looked into?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this information was the result of reports following representations made by an American government employee against his superior.
The employee claimed that representations had been made to find out whether someone had been present at a breakfast.
Let us be serious when we talk about spying activities. As for myself, at this point, based on the facts that are known, I have no reason to believe that spying activities were conducted against the person in question.
(1435)
[English]
Canadians are now paying twice as much of their salary for a paltry $9,000 a year in CPP. Thanks to the government, parliamentary porkers like the member for Sherbrooke and the Deputy Prime Minister are going to pocket five to six times that amount. That is scandalous.
How can the Prime Minister justify asking Canadians to pay 70 per cent more of their meagre pensions when he and his Liberal colleagues are just going to lap up the lavish MP pension plan?
An hon. member: There is more than a slab of bacon talking there.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing up two things; one has nothing to do with the other.
In making the Canada pension plan fund able to meet its future obligations, the government with the provinces is making sure that the plan is sustainable. In terms of the members of Parliament pension plan, we reduced it by 20 per cent and reduced the cost. We have introduced 55 as the age when it can be collected. Therefore, once again, we have made the plan much more in conformity with the requirements.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it may be that I am a porker but I opted out of that pension plan and the taxpayer does not owe me one single penny for that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Grey: A pension porker I am not. I opt out; Sheila copped out.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I know we would all prefer to stay away from personal remarks. I would ask you, my colleague, without further preamble to please put your question.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. To be consistent, to be fair to all Canadians in this Chamber and outside, will the Prime Minister today announce an immediate 70 per cent increase in the premium for the potlicker MP pension plan?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have already mentioned that benefits for MPs in respect of service after July 12, 1995 have been reduced by 20 per cent.
(1440 )
During the debate on Bill C-85, which was retirement allowances for MPs, there was an MP for the Reform Party, whom I will not name, who said: ``We should get fair compensation, fair remuneration. It is a senior executive level. Pay us $150,000 a year''. That is the example Reform gives us.
I am simply asking the Minister of National Defence a very simple question for the third time: Did his department conduct an investigation to check out these allegations? It seems like a rather simple question to me.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, following statements reported in the newspapers, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I looked into the matter, because obviously we have to know what is going on, and in my mind there is no doubt, based on the information we have, that no spying took place, no activity that could be described as spying, in the situation to which the American government employee is referring.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Well, Mr. Speaker, we have just obtained a quicker answer from this minister than from the former minister. It took the last one a good two months before we could get at the first thing about the Somalia affair.
So, if there was an investigation, surely there was a written report for the minister. The minister must have taken his decision on the basis of written reports.
Could the minister, in the interests of transparency, make this report public, so that the allegations that have been made and that appear to be serious, since there are affidavits, so that we can know clearly that it is not true that Canada is acting in this manner and can put an end to this story? Is the minister prepared to make this report public, yes or no?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said three times, when we learned, through the newspapers, that an employee of the American government, in a dispute with his boss, alleged that discussions had taken place concerning a representative of a government of a Canadian province, obviously we asked what exactly had taken place.
According to the information I have received, which is very limited, I am told that it was a question of finding out whether the gentleman in question was attending a breakfast.
This is not something I consider to be spying, even from the perspective of separatists.
Will the government guarantee there will be no further premium increases or benefit decreases to the Canada pension plan?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have done in responding to the wishes of Canadians is to provide a plan that is sustainable in the long term. By moving to the new contribution rates we are ensuring that they will not have to rise to the rates they would have had to rise if we had not taken action, something no earlier government has done. The provinces by and far agree with this. Canadians will benefit from sustainability of the plan, a plan they know will be there for every working Canadian.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is like the federal government saying: ``We are not guilty because all we are doing is driving the getaway car''.
The most vulnerable Canadians in the workforce, younger Canadians, the last hired and the first fired, will pay the price for maintaining the Canada pension plan. The minister's own officials have admitted that younger contributors to the Canada pension plan will not receive a fair pension from the plan.
(1445)
Is it right to force young Canadians to pay almost 10 per cent of their income into a retirement plan that will return substantially less than the same amount invested in an RRSP?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained, and maybe I have to go slower, that it has been fundamental in western societies indeed since the turn of the century to have programs like a public pension plan, social insurance type programs. Working Canadians
of all ages want that. They want to know it will be there for them. It will be there for them.
By contrast, the member opposite and his colleagues have proposed a combination of things which may or may not be there for them at some unknown cost to Canadians. When are they going to come clean and tell us what their costs would be?
The minister has decided to resume expulsions of refugee claimants to Zaire, while the authoritarian regime and the civil war in that country continue. The minister is showing a flagrant lack of compassion and humanity toward these persecuted people.
Can the minister explain to this House just how the political situation in Zaire has improved to such a point that she can now resume expulsions of refugees?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee on country conditions for removals has examined the situation in Zaire most particularly. A number of people in Canada and elsewhere have provided it with input.
We looked a bit at what was being done internationally, and found that a number of countries continue to return people to Zaire. It is very clear that we will not return people to certain regions of Zaire, the east in particular. This is not the case for other regions of the country, where it is totally possible.
I will conclude, if I may, by stating that no one has been returned to Zaire without a risk assessment being done to ensure that he or she is returning to one of the regions of Zaire in complete safety.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of taking refuge behind a phantom committee, the minister ought to face up to her own responsibilities.
Is the minister aware that she is committing a flagrant injustice toward the Zairian refugees, whose country is experiencing serious instability, while maintaining the suspension of deportations to Rwanda, Burundi and Afghanistan?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat: there is no question whatsoever of returning a person whose life would be at risk if he or she were returned to certain parts of Zaire.
However, yes, people can return in complete safety to certain regions of Zaire, and this is why we do an individual assessment. This is exactly the same policy as in some other countries, and I can assure you that we are keeping close tabs on the situation. If ever we have to suspend deportations, we shall do so. We will never put anyone's life in danger.
It is recognized that research, technology, information and knowledge are now the driving forces of economic growth. What is the government doing to ensure that Canada is leading this parade as Canadians march together toward the 21st century?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has a vision for the 21st century. We are investing in science, technology and building the information society.
(1450 )
We announced last week numerous programs for science for young people. We have renewed the Canada space plan. We put major funding into Technology Partnerships Canada. We are putting Canada on the fast lane to develop the information highway with programs like CANARIE, SchoolNet, the community access program, and digital collections. We have invested in the health services research fund, have started the medical discovery fund and numerous other initiatives. The auditor general has said we have the best ever strategy for science and technology.
Will the minister acknowledge that the tax and spend youth jobs strategy is merely another welfare program for the unemployed rather than a serious attempt to get Albertans and Canadians back to work?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government was extremely
pleased last week to be able to give some hope to children and young unemployed people who really want to do something with their lives. That is what the youth of this country want and that is what we are giving them.
There is the amount of $2 billion that we are already spending for young people in this country. We have announced two major new programs to gain work experience and 110,000 young Canadians will have access to some work experience in order to get them out of the no experience, no job and no job, no experience cycle. Our government is doing a lot. We need to do more and that is what we will do.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question the government needs to do more. It has to give tax relief, not more tax and spend programs. These tax and spend programs of this government are merely creating dependency on welfare. We know and the government knows that the entrepreneurial sector is the sector which creates jobs. It is not welfare dependency.
That is why I ask the minister to explain the policy of this government dependency on welfare. Why is the government insisting on that way of resolving the problem rather than creating the entrepreneurs we need in this country and giving them the breaks? Jobs will be created this way rather than the government's way. Does the minister acknowledge that job creation can be better done this way?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will have to look at the jobs strategy before commenting on it. This is precisely what we are doing. We are doing precisely that in partnership with the private sector and non-governmental organizations in creating jobs. These work experiences will not be in the government. They will be in the private sector and non-governmental organizations.
[Translation]
That is why this strategy for young people who want to find jobs and gain work experience is greatly appreciated across Canada. In partnership with the private sector and non-governmental organizations, we will provide 110,000 young Canadians with work experience to get them out of the no experience, no job and no job, no experience cycle.
On November 26, 1996, in response to a question from the official opposition, the minister recognized having received from the Quebec Minister of Justice a letter requesting an amendment to the Criminal Code to permit the opening of casinos on international cruises in Canadian waters. The minister even promised at the time to keep me abreast of his consultations with the cruise industry and the provincial governments.
Does the fact that we have not yet heard from the minister about the latest developments on casinos on international cruises mean that he has simply given up the idea?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. As I told this House a few months ago, we have received a proposal from the Province of Quebec concerning floating casinos.
(1455)
As the hon. member knows, this requires an amendment to the Criminal Code. The justice department has initiated consultations with the provinces, the territories, the aboriginal peoples, the industry and all other interested parties.
We are now discussing every aspect of this issue with those concerned. In the months to come, I am confident that we will be able to state our position.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that what is at stake are the jobs, jobs, jobs promised in the Liberals' red book during the last election campaign.
Am I to understand from the minister's answer that he is prepared to support the bill I tabled in this House last week?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is very important that we see this consultation process through. As I told this House, the interests involved are many and varied. I would rather wait and see what comes out of this consultation before stating a position.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Could the minister imagine what it is like to be a tourist operator in my riding in May getting ready for a busy summer, then suddenly being deluged with surveys from half a dozen or so government departments? I know the information is important to collect but would the minister tell this House what he is doing to ensure this paper burden is not interfering with doing business?
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, we have heard from small business people from across Canada that they are concerned about the extent and number of surveys they have been receiving.
We have asked Statistics Canada and it has agreed to work with small business people to choose the best time of year for them to complete survey information. Small business owners know how important it is, not just to the federal government but to provincial and local governments as well, that Statistics Canada has adequate information so it can provide a basis upon which policy decisions can be made.
StatsCan has moved in the last two years to reduce the burden it imposes on small business by over 15 per cent.
The present Prime Minister said in this House on April 1, 1993 that Canada should not side with the multinational drug companies by passing Bill C-91 at the expense of poor and sick Canadians who need drugs. The Prime Minister was joined by the present ministers of health and industry in criticizing and voting against Bill C-91.
Last night Canadians were told by the Minister of Industry that reducing the length of time for drug patents which could save Canadians billions of dollars on prescription drug costs will not happen under a Liberal government. Why have the Liberals now flip-flopped and sided with the multinationals at the expense of Canadians who need affordable prescription drugs?
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 hope the hon. member listens closely because he evidently has been misled by somebody.
He will know that since the time he has referred to, Canada has entered into, among others, the World Trade Organization agreement which resulted from the Uruguay round negotiations. One commitment of that agreement is article 33 of the TRIPS agreement which was signed subsequent to that: ``The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of 20 years counted from the filing date''.
I understand why Bill C-91 was very controversial. I was here during those debates. I also understand how important it is for Canada to participate in international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization, particularly when so much of our economy benefits from export access to many countries.
(1500 )
I urge the hon. member to make significant and important contributions to the work of the industry committee that is reviewing Bill C-91, but to understand the context in which that review is being conducted.
The Speaker: I have received written notification that the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing wishes to raise a point of privilege. I will hear that and then I will hear the points of order.
It is not a question of interpretation of fact which would not make it a point of privilege. It is a clear point in which the minister said something that was not the case.
I would like to read what the minister said in yesterday's Hansard. It relates to services relating to Airbus. He said that ``all services that were rendered were entirely within those contemplated properly by the contract''.
I have a copy of the contract and it plainly is not the case that those services were rendered within it. I can read it or not, as the case may be.
The Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member could identify for me the specific privilege which is being impinged upon.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is contrary to the privileges of the members for anyone in the House to mislead the House and it is particularly important for the minister not to do that.
The Speaker: With all respect, we seem to be going down the road of debate in this particular case. The hon. member mentioned that a statement was made. I take it he disagrees with whatever that statement was. Usually in the give and take of question period where a question is asked, the minister or a parliamentary secretary gives a response and that is all part of question period. It is surely
not for your Speaker to decide that which is or which is not, and I quote your word, ``misleading''.
Perhaps the answer was not the one that the hon. member wanted or was expecting, but I would be hard pressed to judge when a statement is or is not misleading.
At this point, the hon. member should identify further what was his particular privilege. We have a question and answer and we have to take for granted that all of you are honourable members, therefore, that the answer will be given in good faith. I would let the matter rest there.
I am going to hear the point of order.
The Minister of National Defence was clearly heard to say- I will not repeat the phrase because it is beneath the dignity of the House. But he should withdraw those words and he should be ashamed of his conduct in the House today.
The Speaker: Once again, with all due respect to you, I did not hear unparliamentary words.
Mr. Williams: We all heard it.
The Speaker: I will review the blues and see if unparliamentary language was used and to whom were they directed. If it is necessary, I will come back to the House. I will review the blues and the tapes and see if, indeed, any unparliamentary language was used so that I can ascertain who said it and to whom it was said. We will try to work it that way. If necessary, I will get back to him.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Speaker: Is this on a different point of order?
Mr. Strahl: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Could you explain to the House if there is a difference between parliamentary or unparliamentary language and personally cruel remarks? Is there a difference?
The Speaker: I have undertaken to see if unparliamentary language was used. That would be my purview.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you said you would review the blues, but can you make sure to see them before any changes are made?
The Speaker: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with regard to the ruling to my hon. colleague for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. I would like you to review why that decision was made-
The Speaker: Again, with great respect to you and to all members of the House, in my view where this was leading was use of unparliamentary language-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1510 )
Mr. Benoit: It was going to hurt the government, that is what it was going to do.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That didn't occur.
The Speaker: -and, with respect, a decision was taken and the decision stands.
Mr. Hart: A point of order.
The Speaker: Is this on the same point of order?
Mr. Hart: Yes.
The Speaker: I have ruled on that. On another point of order, the hon. member for St. Albert.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Zed: How dare you.
Mr. Hart: How come we can hear so good on this side of the House but it is not so good on that side? Can you hear this?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Every one of us in here heard what Doug said.
Mr. Strahl: We got phone calls in the lobby about it already. Everybody heard it.
The Speaker: My colleague from St. Albert, as you know, a decision of the Chair is a decision I take with the full authority of all members of this House.
I know that probably in the heat of all this we all get excited sometimes, but if your remarks were directed to the Chair, that I as your Speaker have a double standard in this House-and this is what I understood-I would like the hon. member to stand in his place and withdraw that statement forthwith, please.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will withdraw the statement that I made, if you believe that I-
The Speaker: I thank you. I accept the withdrawal.
Now I put the question to you, my colleague. Do you have a point of order which is different from one that I have ruled on today?
Mr. Williams: My original point was, as I said, there was a perception in the Reform Party. In no way, shape or form did I accuse the Chair of having a double standard. I said there was a perception by this party which is different.
Mr. McKinnon: Get the blues out.
The Speaker: Again, with respect to you, my colleague, I suggest that we just let the matter drop for now.
I am going to go to another point of order, the hon. member for Revelstoke-West Kootenay.
When the Chair examines the blues for a possible breach of conduct or unparliamentary language, the normal procedure, should the Chair find that something did in fact occur, is to ask the member to withdraw that particular statement.
(1515 )
Given that the statement in question that we allege took place regarding the hon. member for Beaver River was on an open microphone and given that the person who we believe made that statement-
The Speaker: My colleague, I have already undertaken in the House to review the blues and to review the tapes. I will do that. I will come back to the House if it is necessary. I have said that.
Do you have a point of order other than that which I have just described?
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to bring that particular point up again. The only thing I ask, on a point of procedure, is that if a member, whether it be this incident or a different one, speaks on an open microphone, and if it is viciously directed at another member, no matter on which side of the House, I contend that it is not sufficient for the hon. member to withdraw that remark. When it is made openly against another member it should be in the form of an apology.
The Speaker: There again, my colleague, a withdrawal in this House embodies an admission that what was said was unparliamentary. In my view that would constitute perhaps the apology for which the member is looking.