Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that when a government stops a deal like this the question is how can it do so without alienating very powerful people within Canada who are involved in the deal. It is obvious how the government has arranged to do that and that is through section 10. Section 10 is clear evidence that an agreement has been made. Not only that, in order to satisfy everyone that agreement has to be consummated in very short order.
Subsection (3) of section 10 states:
No agreement may be entered into under this section after one month after the coming into force of this Act.
All the payouts are going to occur one month after this act is passed.
The agreement that has been made, and it is obvious to me and everyone who has looked at this situation, is that the compensation package has been put forward by those people to the
government. It has been agreed upon and we are simply going through the motions. Because we are in a majority government situation, this is going to be passed. This is a fait accompli.
I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who spoke so eloquently about this situation. The Bloc is recommending a royal commission of inquiry. Does the member not feel it is time that the standing committees of the House were empowered to deal with these kinds of issues? Should they not have the power of subpoena and the power to bring witnesses before the standing committees to examine them? Should not the elected representatives be playing the role that the royal commissions of inquiry have in the past at enormous costs? Ought we not to be doing that job? I am asking the hon. member if she would agree with that. If she does, would she make that recommendation to her caucus?