Because it is totally incapable of any solution whatsoever, the Liberal government is quite simply denying persistently that a flagrant injustice was done to Quebec in 1982.
Does the Prime Minister agree with his Quebec lieutenant that everything is settled, that there is nothing serious about the fact that no Quebec government whatsoever, whether federalist or sovereignist, has agreed to sign the Canadian Constitution in the past 15 years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has taken steps concerning this matter. We held a vote in this House in which we voted for distinct society.
We passed legislation making it clear that there will be no constitutional change without Quebec's consent. We have made considerable progress in such areas as mining, forestry, tourism, spending powers and social housing. It would appear that we are on the verge of signing an agreement on manpower, an issue that has been around for a very long time. As we have said here in the House of Commons, changing the Constitution requires the consent of the Government of Quebec.
If the hon. member wishes to have constitutional changes, let him tell his head office to vote in favour of distinct society and of a veto for Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like the official opposition, the Government of Quebec does not consider that Quebec is a distinct society. We consider it to be a distinct nation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: A people.
Mr. Duceppe: The Minister of Immigration ought to realize that, if she sat in the National Assembly, perhaps that is because there is something called the Quebec nation. Otherwise we would have called it the ``Societal Assembly''.
While the President of Treasury Board states that everything is settled, his colleague in Intergovernmental Affairs admits that nothing has been done by the Liberals on the constitutional issue, and that he accepts Canada as it is. He therefore admits that the promises made at Verdun have been trampled into the ground, that they were nothing but smoke and mirrors.
(1420)
I ask the Prime Minister how he can reconcile these two statements. Has everything been done, or nothing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in October 1995 at Verdun, the Liberal Party and I made a promise, saying that we had been in favour of the distinct society in the past, and still are in the present, and we came to this House in December 1995 to vote in favour of distinct society, which the Bloc Quebecois voted against.
We said at Verdun that we were in favour of giving Quebec and the other regions of Canada a veto. A bill was passed by the House of Commons, as well as by the Senate, but the Bloc Quebecois voted against a veto for Quebec.
What happened, each time we tried to take to meet Quebec's traditional demands? We got blocked by the Bloc.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we blocked them, it was because this government, and this Prime Minister in particular, has always had a block where Quebec is concerned.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we are not the only ones saying this; the federalists in the Quebec National Assembly are not in agreement with the Canadian government either.
Yesterday, we saw this Prime Minister shaking hands with Guy Bertrand; a few months ago, it was Howard Galganov. We also
remember the accolade to Clyde Wells after the failure of the Meech Lake accord.
Every time anyone takes a stand against Quebec or the National Assembly, the Prime Minister allies with him.
By denying the importance of the constitutional question, is the Prime Minister not in the process of admitting that he has nothing to offer Quebecers, whether they be sovereignists or federalists?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a great deal to offer to Quebecers. What we have to offer is the best country in the world: Canada.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said yesterday that Canada would never have been able to patriate the Constitution without Ontario's agreement. This patriation, as we know, was carried out despite the opposition of all political parties in Quebec. And the 15th anniversary of this event next Thursday will be a dark day for Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister agree that, in the end, there is no difference between Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? That the Liberal Party has not altered its position on this issue one iota in 15 years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear that the official opposition would have liked us to remain a legal colony of Great Britain. We patriated the Canadian Constitution and, in so doing, gave all Canadians a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we included as part of the Constitution that Canada had two official languages, French and English.
But the people who live in the past would like us to remain forever a colony of Great Britain.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister, it was the 1982 Constitution that was the future. We can see that.
Does the Prime Minister realize that there is a consensus in the rest of Canada regarding Quebec's status within Confederation, that Quebec was put in its place in 1982, and that there is no question of this changing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons we voted in favour of distinct society. We gave a veto to all regions, including Quebec. We sorted out the problems of duplication with respect to the environment. We resolved the problems that existed concerning forestry, tourism, mining and social housing. One would have to be blind not to see the progress we have made.
(1425)
[English]
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, the average Canadian family has suffered a pay cut of $3,000, thanks to the government's high tax policies. We are getting letters from seniors on fixed incomes who are having to pay taxes for the first time in five years.
How can the government claim that it has not raised taxes when older Canadians on fixed incomes are having to cut a cheque to the tax man for the first time in years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every time the Reform Party stands up and cites numbers, what it has to do, unfortunately for it, is to go back to the Tory regime. In order to compensate for the good numbers that the government has brought in, it has to bring in the bad numbers that the Tories had. It will not work.
We are responsible for that which happened since we took office in 1993. Since that time, disposable income and family incomes have stabilized. For the three years prior to our taking office they had worsened. We have stabilized them. Virtually every economist in the country now projects that those numbers are going to get better.
It is particularly ironic that the hon. member stands up and talks about seniors pensions, given the fact that her party in their original budget recommended that seniors pensions be cut, that they have fought protecting of the Canada pension plan, that they have fought every measure this government has brought in to take care of our senior citizens. The Canadian people are entitled to a little consistency.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has said and always says that the Canadian pension plan as it is now is a farce. There is going to be nothing there for young people when they get to be seniors.
The one pension plan that we did want to cut was the MP pension, yet the people across the way would have no part of that.
High taxes mean high unemployment. The government is collecting more in taxes than any other government in the history of the country and it has the worst string of jobless numbers since the great depression. That is no coincidence and it is certainly nothing to brag about.
If the Liberals were serious about dealing with the 1.4 million Canadians unemployed they would be offering Canadians a balanced budget soon and tax relief through smaller government.
Since the Prime Minister has made it clear that he has absolutely no intention of giving Canadians tax relief, just where in the world are these real jobs going to come from?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand that when she stands up and cites numbers in her preamble, she must be prepared to defend them.
She talked about what the government has done in pensions. Let me quote: ``In the Reform Party's taxpayers budget it is projected that spending on seniors' benefits in 1997-1998 would be $17 billion''. They have come in at $22.3 billion. The Reform Party has recommended a $5 billion cut in seniors old age pensions.
Second, the hon. member has complained about the 9.9 per cent premium that has been arrived at by the federal government and the provinces, provinces representing every region of the country. The hon. member's numbers come out, by almost anybody's calculation, at 13 per cent. If those are not the right numbers, would she stand in the House now and tell us what her premiums will cost?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the number in the taxpayers' budget that the finance minister refers to were 1994 numbers and a lot of projections have changed since then.
The Prime Minister's idea of job creation is building canoe museums, hotels and now armouries in his riding. That might improve the Prime Minister's chance of re-election but it is not going to give real sustainable jobs to Canadians across the country.
(1430 )
Mr. Speaker, 1.4 million people are unemployed, two to three million people are underemployed, 800,000 people are moonlighting to try to make ends meet and one in four Canadians are worried about losing their jobs.
Members can cackle and crow all they like across the aisle, but that is such a poor record that the government ought to be ashamed of it. What it is trying to do is run away from that record in the next election.
Instead of doling out patronage appointments and money in Shawinigan, why will the Prime Minister not just give all Canadians tax relief and help create some real jobs across the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House that the hon. member was given an opportunity to say what her party's Canada pension plan premium or super RRSP premium would do. She did not take that opportunity. Do I now understand that she accepts the number that most economists have said? In fact, it is 13 per cent, 4 per cent higher than what we and the provincial governments have arrived at.
Let me go on. The hon. member wants to talk about tax cuts. She says that her party will bring in tax cuts. Let us take a look at the tax cuts that she would bring in.
The Reform Party will bring in, for a single parent with two children earning $30,000 a tax cut of $175 per year. If people want to know where their constituency lies, under the same program, under the same budget, a one-earner couple earning $250,000 with two children will get a tax cut of $6,700. That is what they are trying to protect.
We just heard that the Minister of Health will not extend the mandate of the Krever inquiry, contrary to a request by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
How does the minister explain his decision to ignore the request made by Chief Justice Lamer?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble of the hon. member's question is completely and unequivocally false.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the minister whether they will really extend the mandate of the Krever inquiry, as requested by Chief Justice Lamer.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has quite incorrectly interpreted the comments of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada made a comment and an observation in terms of providing sufficient time for Justice Krever to make his report.
It has been the position of the government, it has been the position of ministers of health across the country, that we would wait to hear the full report of Justice Krever before making final recommendations as they relate to a national blood authority.
I have asked through the appropriate channels, through PCO, that we go to Justice Krever to try to get an interim report with regard to the issues of governance of the blood system.
Justice Krever did that with regard to an interim report for the safety of the blood system. I asked Justice Krever, on behalf of Canadians, on behalf of consumers, on behalf of health ministers, that we have that kind of information in order that we may take the appropriate action on behalf of all Canadians.
Meanwhile, I just had a letter from a 74-year-old senior. She writes that for the first time she has to pay $1,100 in her year end income tax bill when her gross income was under $18,000. This is robbery of seniors and the poor.
Can the government explain why this senior is having her pocket picked to fuel the wasteful habits of the heritage minister and her big spending colleagues?
The Speaker: My colleagues, words like robbery and have their pockets picked are a little strong. I would ask hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words.
(1435)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member made certain claims about what he alleged to be a very exclusive reception.
The reason I answered about the reception in the House is because the reception I attended was the same kind of reception that we have held for Olympic athletes ever since we have been a country and entered the Olympics.
I have here a partial list of the over 600 Canadian athletes and their families who attended. From the province of New Brunswick selected by the provincial government, Lynsey Bartlett; from the province of Alberta, from Blairmore, Gail Bigcharles. We had 14-year-old wheelchair basketball athletes. We also had a team from the city of Montreal. They are so committed to the Olympic process that to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Olympics they cycled from Montreal to Atlanta. Yes, they too were invited to this very exclusive reception.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned about is careers, not caviar. We are concerned about jobs.
The government's spending problem has led to enormous tax rates that are killing jobs and destroying hope for unemployed young people. I have three children, all of them university trained. All of them had to leave the country because of the government's record.
Why is the government through its destructive tax policies giving our young people the choice between no hope for a job or reaching for their passports? Is that the Liberal solution for job unemployment for the young?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the course of the show of appreciation by the country for our Olympic and Paralympic athletes we have had three receptions: one for the Olympic and Paralympic athletes here on the Hill, another one in Atlanta, and there is going to be a third reception next week to honour the athletes from the Special Olympics.
I was thrilled that at the last event held on the floor of the House of Commons, all members from all sides of the House were thrilled to participate with Olympians. I happen to have a picture of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who was very happy not only to go to the reception but to have his picture taken with the athletes.
I would say to members of the Reform Party that please, you can't have it both ways.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would caution all hon. members about using props. We would not want question period to become a show and tell.
Last Friday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, in response to a question from the deputy leader of the official opposition, that he was misinformed and that the government intended to co-sponsor the Danish resolution on human rights in China.
(1440)
What explanation does the minister have for his about face yesterday, when he announced the government's refusal to co-sponsor the Danish resolution at the UN human rights commission?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision we announced yesterday is part of an assessment we made. It was a tough judgment to make but it really came down to what we thought would be the most effective way of trying to broaden and pursue an agenda of human rights.
We held discussions with Chinese authorities, enabling us to develop a new set of initiatives. We felt that because the resolution
of Geneva had already been substantially weakened by the withdrawal of support by a number of countries, the most effective way that we could advance the cause of human rights in China was to pursue this new agenda.
I would be very glad to brief the hon. member on the kind of measure because I am sure the hon. premier of Quebec when he goes to China would like to support us in that initiative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day indeed. The government has just abdicated its responsibility and betrayed the Pearson legacy which made human rights a priority at one of the world's most important political forums on human rights.
Would the minister agree that his government should be ashamed of letting China pressure and blackmail us into let money prevail over human rights?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reverse is true. The history of Canada's legacy in this respect has been to pursue the most effective ways to develop respect for human rights throughout the world.
In this case, we have developed a program of initiatives to promote rights in China, to guarantee the development of the civilian society and to engage the Chinese in a unique multilateral dialogue on human rights.
I believe that in the circumstances, this will offer the most effective opportunities for developing a reaction. If there is no favourable reaction in the next few years, we will re-examine Canada's position and support the resolution in Geneva.
Is the justice minister prepared to apologize to Canadians for disregarding the needs of victims in using them in a letter solicited by his office?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what a sorry spectacle it is, a party without ideas, a party without policies, a party with nothing to offer, driven in desperation to now a daily ritual of exploiting the pain of others in an effort to hang on to its few remaining points in the polls. It is a sad spectacle. It is difficult to watch and abide. It is hard to listen to.
I offer the same answer as I have offered on days in the past. The hon. member knows nothing of what he speaks. He asked for a victims bill of rights without knowing that most of the provinces have already taken steps to do exactly what he is asking for.
That party has been driven to a point where it is now exploiting crime to protect its impossible position.
(1445 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is really a disgusting spectacle from the justice minister. The justice minister is really the managing partner in the worst law firm in this country. That is what he is.
I think he should check with Derek Kent of his office. He should check how he wrongfully solicits victims. If he has no idea what is going on in his own office, is it any wonder why he is out of touch with this country, out of touch with victims?
Can the minister check with his office to determine if the bureaucrats will allow him to amend conditional sentencing to exclude violent offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not only feeling desperation but by now he must be feeling acute embarrassment. Here he has paraded himself on the national stage day after day, pretending to be the champion of victims, attacking this government for having done nothing, and yet to his acute embarrassment he must confront the letter from CAVEAT, a national organization of victims, signed by the president, Priscilla de Villiers.
This is important. The hon. member may wish to listen: ``Three years ago CAVEAT presented a petition to Allan Rock on behalf of 2.5 million Canadians. It called for far reaching measures to improve public safety and the treatment of victims. Since then significant steps have been taken to address some of these concerns. Although much still needs to be done, this government has shown a willingness to listen and to act''.
That is the truth.
This agreement provides for a relaxed application of this law in exchange for the suspension of the proceedings instituted by the European Union with the World Trade Organization and the establishment of global rules preventing investment by companies in properties expropriated by other governments.
My question is for the Minister of International Trade. As the Liberals' record says that Canada was the force behind international opposition to the Helms-Burton law, could the minister explain how it is that Canada is not a signatory to the agreement reached last week by the European Union and the United States?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been in ongoing consultations with the United States on this issue. The Americans know of our strong opposition to it and we will continue to have those consultations.
The idea with the European Union was to get it into a new forum, away from the World Trade Organization, in which the U.S. said it would not participate, to the OECD where it will participate. I think that is a useful move because Canada has hit the table in those discussions on the multilateral agreement on investment. In fact, Canada first raised the issue with respect to extraterritoriality and the Helms-Burton law. We will continue to pursue it.
In terms of the other measures with respect to Helms-Burton, nothing was really gained. The president had already indicated that he was deferring for six months at a time the title III provisions on lawsuits. On title IV we have been told that they are not looking at any other Canadians and that they would not make it retroactive with respect to those already on the list.
Canada continues to present its case and will continue in consultations. I am delighted to know we will have an opportunity to bring the United States to the table so we can talk about our grievances about Helms-Burton and the whole broader concept of extraterritoriality.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a year now, the minister has been waffling and for a year he has followed in the wake of the European countries.
Given that the minister is still refusing to fight the Helms-Burton law under NAFTA and given that there is no guarantee the OECD negotiations will lead to an agreement, could the minister tell us what is preventing him from filing a complaint under NAFTA?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I expect the OECD will reach an agreement. I do not think it is going to come in the short run. It will be sometime in 1998, but it is a matter that will get full discussion at that level.
In terms of the NAFTA, we have the possibility of doing that. If the talks stall, if the U.S. refuses to talk about Helms-Burton and these kinds of unilateral measures, then we will use it.
I am happy that we are making some progress in terms of these discussions. I think international multilateral forums are the best place for it.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member not so much for her question but for her interest in terms of the quality and condition of the Great Lakes.
Today marks the 25th anniversary of former Prime Minister Trudeau's signing with the United States a Great Lakes quality agreement. Not only has the agreement worked well, it has been held up as a model on how to manage not only shared waters between two countries but waters which represent one-fifth of the world's fresh water supply.
Last week when the Prime Minister visited Washington the two governments signed a new agreement to extend that success story to those toxins which are the most threatening and the most dangerous and to ensure that we have another success story for the next 25 years.
Can the minister inform the House what action is being taken against those suspected war criminals and when they will be removed from Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be made very clear that Canada did play a role in resettling refugees from the former Yugoslavia and that, true to Canada's tradition of generosity, we have indeed welcomed refugees who were being persecuted or living in difficult conditions due to conflicts in their country of origin.
Every one of these refugees we have welcomed has been accepted in a spirit of openness. To date, there has been no indication of what the hon. member from the Reform Party raised just today involving any of the more than 19,000 refugees we have welcomed in our country since 1993.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting because her department came up with 250 suspected modern day war criminals, and representatives of the Bosnian government have stated that Canadian officials did not consult their list of suspected war criminals before accepting refugee claimants from Bosnia.
Now that some of these individuals have been identified as being in Canada, it does not appear that they will be brought to justice soon because of the lack of an extradition treaty with Bosnia.
Will the minister assure the House that action will be taken immediately by the government, or is the government prepared to repeat the five decades of embarrassment Canada experienced with the handling of Nazi war criminals?
(1455)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Reform Party should at least have the honesty to say that the prime-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would ask the hon. minister to please withdraw the word ``honesty'' from her answer.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member from the Reform Party would have the courage to say-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, honesty or courage cannot be called into question. You can answer, but please choose your words carefully.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, we hope the members of this Parliament will recognize the actions taken by this government.
This country is a world leader in the fight against modern day war criminals. In many respects, even our court decisions set a precedent worldwide.
It is very clear that we have a plan of action-
An hon. member: Oh, really?
Mrs. Robillard: We do, and it is to take action against those individuals who may be living in Canada.
Regarding the former Yugoslavia, Canada even helps international courts prosecute anyone who may have committed crimes against humanity.
How can the hon. member from the Reform Party stand in this House and say otherwise?
In spite of a NAFTA ruling supporting Canada's position regarding the tariffs on our eggs, dairy and poultry products, the U.S. trade representative, Charlene Barsketsky, indicated a few weeks ago that this issue was a priority for her country and that she would fight to the end to eliminate these tariffs.
Can the minister assure us that he will be firm and will not start negotiating with his American counterpart to eliminate our tariffs, contrary to what has already been done by the Liberal government in the case of wheat and softwood lumber? The Bloc Quebecois would never accept such a move.
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said in 1993 that we would fight very hard to defend the interests of Canadian farmers in the final round of the GATT negotiations, and we did that.
We said following 1993 that if the United States should challenge us under the NAFTA we would defend our supply management system, and we did that.
Farmers in Canada may rest assured that this government stands firmly behind them in every set of trade negotiations.
We want to find out who is in charge on this issue. Is it the Red Cross lawyers, is it the supreme court lawyers or is it our weak health minister lawyer?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the supreme court.
Apparently the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation is proposing a multilateral investment agreement which, if signed, would not allow Canada to set job creation targets or set conditions on future foreign investments.
Can the minister confirm that Canada will not sign the proposed agreement unless such restrictions are removed?
(1500 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment at the OECD are at a very early stage. As I indicated in answer to a previous question, they are not likely to be concluded this year but probably next year.
There is no agreement. Proposals are on the table but no agreement has been reached on the issue. Canada's sovereignty will not be undermined. As in the case of NAFTA, we will look for exemptions for our cultural industries and the right to review sensitive foreign investments.
Furthermore, Canada will not sign an agreement that inhibits its ability to link the granting of investment incentives to job creation. What we do see though as an advantage when eventually we do find the right terms is the greater access of investment for Canadians in foreign markets and a more appealing access into our market for foreign firms.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary to that issue. When the minister says that Canada's sovereignty will not be undermined that is exactly what the proponents of NAFTA told Canadians.
Considering the implications of this proposal that are now being carried on in high level secret negotiations, is it not time that Canadians know what is being negotiated? Should they not know what some of the issues are before the election or at least promise to raise it during the election so Canadians can evaluate this and make a judgment call themselves?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is on the table in the MAI is substantially what is already in the NAFTA agreement and that is very public information.
It is at a very early stage in the discussions. Canada has not agreed to anything and Canada will not agree to anything that is not in its interest. If we can get further access to markets, fine. However, we want to make sure that we can continue to create jobs in this country. That is what Canadians want and we are not going to give that away.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have two points of order which I will entertain.
I was asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West whether I had solicited a letter from CAVEAT that has been referred to in the record. I said I had not, nor had I instructed anybody to do so on my behalf.
I did undertake to check the facts. The hon. member or other members might have concluded from my response that the letter had not been solicited. Last night in discussion with my staff I learned that a member of my staff, in speaking with the president of CAVEAT last Thursday, had asked that the thoughts she had expressed be put in writing and that she communicate by letter. That was done. That is the letter that I read from, freely sent by CAVEAT.
I answered yesterday to the best of my ability and I put on the record today the facts I have discovered in the interim.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, during question period you asked the minister of immigration to withdraw certain words. I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to the point that these words were withdrawn conditionally.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne requires that anyone who is asked to withdraw unparliamentary language do so without any conditions whatsoever. I would like to draw to your attention that the minister did attach conditions. I ask that the record be corrected by requesting her to make an unconditional withdrawal now since she is still in the Chamber.
The Speaker: I will undertake to review the blues and Hansard but my recollection is that there was a straight withdrawal with no conditions attached. Should that not be the case I will return to the House if it is necessary.