Jean Chrétien

[The Somalia Inquiry, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell this gentleman that it is exactly because we are very preoccupied with the morale in the armed forces following the incident in Somalia that this government did the very unusual thing of setting up an inquiry into the matter. It is exactly because I want the commission to finish its work that I will not prejudge the conclusions of the commissioners.

I have respect for all the people serving today in the armed forces. All of them are not responsible for what happened in Somalia. When the results are known, we will act. In the meantime we have to respect the commission and let it finish its work. After that we will make our decision based on its recommendations.

[The Somalia Inquiry, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the commission of inquiry is currently conducting its proceedings. We hope it will release its findings at the earliest opportunity. The sooner the better for everyone.

In the meantime, we have to respect the rights of each individual to be heard and we must wait for the commission to render its judgment, before taking action.

[The Somalia Inquiry, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence just provided the government's view on the issue: We asked a commission of inquiry to look into all the issues relating to the incidents in Somalia and to report to us, so that we could take appropriate action. As the minister said, all kinds of allegations are made before a commission of inquiry. Some people say certain things, while others have a slightly different view. There are lawyers who make representations on behalf of each of the parties involved.

The commissioners are now hearing arguments. Later, they will report to the government and, at that time, we will act on their recommendations.

[Reference To The Supreme Court, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I speak in the House of Commons every day. Through the House of Commons, I am heard across Canada, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country.

When the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that this was just a resolution, here again he is demonstrating his failure to understand the facts. We passed a bill on the right of veto. It is a bill, not a resolution. It is a bill and the member voted against a bill giving Quebec the right of veto with regard to any changes to the Constitution.

Speaking about promises, we are in our twelfth day of question period and the Leader of the Opposition said in Le Devoir not very long ago: ``When we go back, the priority will be on the problems our people are experiencing, particularly in Montreal and in Quebec. We will be talking about jobs, about the economy. We have suggestions to make''.

Because he is unable to attack us on our economic policies, all the Leader of the Opposition can talk about is the Constitution.

[Reference To The Supreme Court, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition voted against the distinct society resolution. In addition, the bill was passed by the Parliament of Canada and challenged by no one. A reference is not possible.

Furthermore, in the throne speech, we proposed a series of adjustments to the federation, including our withdrawal frommany areas. We offered the provinces a new manpower agreement,

which the minister is in the process of negotiating with the provinces.

We said that we were not going to use our spending authority without the consent of five provinces. We spoke about a series of things to change the federation. Since February, once again, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to keep the status quo, while we are in favour of change in Canada.

[Reference To The Supreme Court, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say that, in December, the House of Commons voted in favour of a distinct society, and I hope that the National Assembly will follow suit as rapidly as possible.

Here, the government has assumed its responsibilities and voted in favour of a distinct society. We also promised that we were not going to amend the Constitution without the consent of Quebec. Parliament assumed its responsibilities in the month of December, and we passed a bill giving a regional veto in Canada, which means Quebec has a veto. But the Constitution cannot be amended without the approval of the government of Quebec.

So, if the Leader of the Opposition wants changes, let him tell head office to pass a resolution on distinct society, and accept the veto which they are being offered and which the government of Quebec is turning down.

[Churchill Falls Hydro Project, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I said last week and I repeat that it is a contract between private parties.

I know there is a problem. I said that it is for the two governments to sit down and find a solution. Quebec and Labrador have a lot of potential. They have to work together. I am sure that if they sit down they will find a solution. But they signed a contract and under the rule of law in any country a contract between parties has to be respected. That is exactly the position of this government.

I know the premier of Newfoundland and the premier of Quebec can sit down and find a solution. If the member had listened he would have understood that 10 days ago the spokesman for Hydro Quebec said that they are willing to sit down and they understand that some changes could be made. And if the atmosphere is proper they will find a solution.

[Churchill Falls Hydro Project, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question last week.

[Government Contracts, September 26th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker. We are satisfied that the guidelines were followed, that the person is competent to do the job which the minister asked him to do and that it is within the budget approved by the House for the operation of the office of the minister. I just gave an example of people who have been rewarded. I think they must be competent. I hope they are competent because this party needs a bit of competence around. We are not complaining, because they are doing their jobs. But they were rewarded. They were not known until they ran for the Reform Party.

I think that in this case the minister really has the option to do that. It is all within the guidelines, the rules for ministers and members of Parliament. Everything is above board.

[Government Contracts, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say as I said yesterday that these are within the guidelines which apply to the spending of public money by a minister.

For example, I know of a certain Stephen Green who has worked for two years for the Reform Party. He is paid with public money. He is a friend of the leader of the party. There is a very nice lady,

Line Maheux, who ran and got clobbered in the election but she was rewarded by the Reform Party with a job which she still holds today.