Correct. The charge may not have been founded, but that does not mean the release was OK, justifiable. Nothing of the sort.
I for one did not like it and I think it should not have been sent out.
Earlier on, mention was made of the fact that the French and English versions of the communique were given different interpretations.
I did not write the communique in either language. The member for Charlesbourg or the people acting on his behalf are the ones responsible for drafting it. The two versions of the press release were not identical. The committee agreed that the two versions were not identical and that one version was worse than the other. The English version was the more pointed of the two.
The committee agreed that the English version contained a reference to "the day after", meaning the very next day, whereas the exact words used in the French version were "au lendemain", meaning at some time in the future. That is what the two versions say, not the versions translated by the Liberals or by Reformers, but those produced by the member himself.
The committee spent many hours reviewing this matter. I truly feel that members on all sides of the House did a reasonable job.
That being said, Reform members concluded that the Liberal members, the majority on the committee, who helped write the report were in cahoots with the Bloc Quebecois, while the Bloc members felt the Liberals were in league with the Reform Party.
That is ridiculous. As my colleague for Simcoe North said, what the two parties have hinted at is impossible. We cannot be in cahoots with both of them. Nothing of the kind happened. We gave our honest opinion and, Mr. Speaker, if you read our report you will see that we did our work conscientiously, and all Canadians can see this as well.
There is no point in the people exercising themselves on the Bloc side of the House, pretending that one if not all are kind of modern day Louis Riels, and the people over there pretending they are Perry Masons of the 1990s in their accusations. Both these propositions are wrong. That is not was occurred and our report is clear as to what happened.
There was not, in the opinion of the majority of the committee, a case of privilege. Neither was there a totally neutral and likeable press release. That is also wrong. I did not like it and I am one of the people, contrary to the Reform Party, who fought against the Bloc Quebecois and its option during the referendum campaign. I was there on October 27, my colleagues were there and the Reform Party was not.
Canada came calling, Canada knocked at the door of the Reform Party and it was not even there. The lessons to take from it on my side are rather remote.
And I say the same thing to Bloc Quebecois members. The matter is closed, the referendum is over. Let us turn the page and get on with other things. We have presented our findings. The majority responsible for the report chose to side neither with the Reform Party nor with the Bloc Quebecois. It chose to make a fair, honest finding and that is what it did.
Therefore, I consider the matter closed.
I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.