However, in a letter dated April 3, sent by his Quebec counterpart, we find the exact opposite is true. Quebec proposed three specific scenarios, which were discussed with federal officials, for neutralizing biker gangs and putting an end to this war that has already caused the deaths of several people. Two meetings on this basis between federal and Quebec officials have already taken place, and a third meeting is scheduled today.
Would the minister agree that Quebec is now doing everything in its power to find a solution and that in the final instance, it is the federal Minister of Justice who is engaging in obstruction while trying to make Minister Bégin responsible for his own failure to act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, and on behalf of the Canadian government, this is not a quarrel about jurisdiction but a matter that concerns the safety of Quebecers and Canadians.
Nearly three weeks ago, I went to Quebec City to meet my counterparts and mayors from the Quebec City area to discuss their concerns. They asked for changes in the Criminal Code. Since then I have been trying to respond to this request.
At the Department of the Justice I have set up a special task force to deal with this matter on an urgent basis. We have now reviewed and examined all the alternatives for making criminal legislation more effective and more powerful in order to help police forces in their fight against organized crime.
That is our objective, not these quarrels about jurisdiction between various levels of government. We genuinely want to deal with the core issue which is about making Canadian laws more effective so that we can help our police forces.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, who mentioned jurisdictional quarrels? We in the Bloc Quebecois asked the minister to intervene because the Criminal Code is enforced by Ottawa, as far as we know. We never mentioned jurisdictional quarrels.
What we are saying is that the minister has the full co-operation of Quebec on this matter and that the scenarios proposed by the Government of Quebec could help the minister to table amendments to the Criminal Code if he only had the political will. Is the minister waiting for Quebec to do the job for him? That is the question.
(1420)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Like all Canadians, I am waiting for each level of government to act responsibly and make our society a safer place to be.
As the federal Minister of Justice, I am responsible for the Criminal Code, but it is up to the province to administer justice, according to the Constitution of Canada. We each share part of this responsibility.
I am very pleased to be able to work together with my Quebec counterpart. As I said earlier, I met him three weeks ago. For years and during the past few weeks we have had meetings with officials on this important matter. Next week we intend to announce the measures we will table to achieve the objectives we share with the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so pleased to be working with his Quebec counterpart, he should inform his press secretary who does not say the same thing. The minister might also point out to his press secretary that the French legislation does not go back to 1936 but 1992. The numbers are the same in both official languages.
When the minister tells us that he will table amendments to the Criminal Code or C-17 or will bring forward new legislation next week, will he promise-and we promise to do our share-to ensure that this bill is passed before the next election is called?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the hon. member agrees there is some urgency involved here in the House of Commons.
However, as far as my dealings with Mr. Bégin, the Quebec Minister of Justice, are concerned, it is true that last week, I was disappointed by Mr. Bégin's response to my request. I merely asked him to clarify his position on an anti-gang bill. I asked some legal questions. I asked legal opinions, opinions of his Department's lawyers. I have yet to receive the details. So I am disappointed.
Forget about the politics of the issue, forget all that because the real issue is to have a more effective Criminal Code to help our police forces. That is the objective of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly, as we see again today, the minister has decided to do a bit of petty politicking with this and create a media diversion to hide his lack of political will.
Far from simply doing something to resolve the war of the biker gangs, he is deliberately twisting the practical and realistic proposals of the Government of Quebec.
Given that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code, has yet to be passed and is supposed to resolve part of the problem, will the minister accept the full co-operation of the official opposition in amending this bill at the stage it has reached in this House to include in it one of the three scenarios proposed by the Government of Quebec?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, as I said, I asked Mr. Bégin a number of days ago to clarify his position. The proposals put forward by my Quebec counterpart are vague and general. I have some legal questions.
I feel it is very important in all this to avoid passing legislation that will be struck down or nullified by the courts in six months.
(1425)
This sort of approach would only give Quebecers and Canadians false hope. We must pass effective legislation that is also valid and constitutional. So, as I said, we intend to announce next week the measures we will propose, and I am very happy to hear the member from the Bloc Quebecois say that he is prepared to work quickly with us.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have been calling for this legislation from the minister for two years now. He should perhaps pay attention and produce more realistic laws.
I would remind the minister that he is the guardian of the Criminal Code and of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that if, with his hundreds of lawyers and the millions of dollars he spends in his department, he is incapable of drafting legislation that passes the test of the charter, the problem lies not with the Bloc Quebecois or the Government of Quebec but with the Minister of Justice.
Since he has just mentioned it, and in the light of the discussions he has had with the Government of Quebec in the past two or three weeks, will he promise that the amendments he is about to table, that he claims to be about to table, will be in line with one of the three scenarios of the Government of Quebec and will incorporate as well the four criteria set by the Government of Quebec to put an end to the bikers' war? In particular, will he promise that this legislation will be approved, passed and in force before the upcoming federal election is called?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have spent a lot of time, since my meeting with Mr. Bégin, meeting with those involved in the matter, that is the mayors of the Montreal and Quebec City regions and the chiefs of police. I have also spoken to the mayors and chiefs of police of other places, because this issue concerns Canadians everywhere. Gangs and organized crime may be found in other cities as well.
I promise today to produce next week this government's proposals and measures, which will be effective as well as valid and constitutional.
It has taken a year and an upcoming federal election to get the justice minister to really discover victims' rights. For three and a half years the decisions of the Liberal government worked against victims and their families. Now the Liberals' pollsters are telling them that it is an important issue so the justice minister is all too eager to jump on the bandwagon.
My question is for the justice minister. Why has it taken a year since we first discussed victims' rights in the House and the threat of a federal election for the Liberal government to finally realize that Reform's victims' bill of rights is long overdue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that after so short a period of time in national politics that the hon. member would have become so cynical. It is also very sad that the hon. member is prepared to ignore the facts on such a wholesale basis.
The hon. member speaks about victims. In June of 1994 when we had Bill C-68 before the House and the victims of crime, children, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers who have been shot to death by firearms, came to this building and asked the Reform Party to join with the government in doing something for victims, to those victims this party turned a deaf ear.
When the government proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act and introduced for the first time victim impact statements in youth court, it was that party that voted against it.
Finally, when the government proposed in Bill C-41 on sentencing to provide true restitution for victims so they could get back what they have lost, it was that party that voted against it. It is the government that stands up for victims in this country.
(1430 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we should forgive him, for he knows not what he is saying.
Section 3 of our victims' bill of rights guarantees the opportunity for victim impact statements at any parole or judicial hearing. The justice minister, who pretends to care so much for victims, slipped the provision into Bill C-45 that takes away the automatic right to a victim impact statement until the year 2012.
How can the justice minister pretend to be a champion of victims' rights when his section 745 early release legislation gives more rights to murderers like Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo than to their victims? Explain that one.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to use rhetoric when talking about a victims' bill of rights. It is quite another thing to produce actual legislation that makes a difference in the lives of victims. That is exactly what the government has done.
There are a dozen examples of concrete ways in which the government has acted to help victims. I refer as an example to Bill C-46, the very intent of which is to assure confidentiality for the private records of victims in cases involving charges of sexual assault.
Let me treat the precise subject the hon. member has raised, which is the role of victims in hearings under section 745. The government believes, and I believe, that victims should have a role at the hearings under section 745. It is for that very reason that three years ago we proposed in Bill C-41 that the right be given.
The hon. member and his party voted against Bill C-41. Since Bill C-41 was tabled, the Supreme Court of Canada released a judgment which according to the common law, recognizes that judges have a discretion to allow victims to participate.
If the hon. member feels that any part of Bill C-45 interferes with the hearings of victims as such proceedings, I am happy to join with him in making such amendments as may be appropriate. In fact, last week-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is nice to get a word in edgewise. Based on that answer, I am convinced the justice minister does not understand this issue.
If the Liberals were serious about victims' rights, they would have acted on the documents we tabled and debated in the House last April 29, or three and a half years ago when they came into office in the first place.
Victims should come first unconditionally. They should come before criminals. They should come before privacy laws. They should come before the freedom of information act. And they should come before the political fortunes of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I would like to ask the justice minister point blank today: Will he put victims first? Will he put their rights ahead of the rights of convicted criminals unconditionally in legislation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only am I able to say that we are going to do it, I am able to say that we have done it. Time and again when we have brought forward legislation that does it, and the Reform Party for one reason or another votes against it.
As I was saying before the hon.member put further words in edgewise, I have already said to him and to his colleagues that I am happy to participate with them in making appropriate amendments to Bill C-45 if they believe that any such amendment will make it even more crystal clear that victims should have a role at hearings under section 745. Indeed, I wrote last week to the hon. member's colleague making that position clear.
Let us work together. If the hon. member feels that the matter can be made clearer, I am delighted to work with him and with the other parties in the House to achieve that objective.
Let it never be forgotten that time and again the party in the House that stood up for victims of crime, not with rhetoric, not with florid faces-
(1435 )
The Speaker: The questions and answers might tend to be a little long because you are getting back in shape.
The cat was let out of the bag, recently, and not just any cat. The President of the Treasury Board was forced to admit in front of a committee of the other House, with all of his habitual candour, that the government would meet fewer than half of the commitments contained in the 1995 budget when it came to reducing the expenditures of federal departments.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Does he finally acknowledge that, based on his own statement that the federal departments' expenditures would be reduced by 9 per cent over three years, instead of 19 per cent as promised, it is the provinces which have done most of the work and have absorbed more than half of his government's cuts through this nice little dumping exercise?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have never admitted such a thing.
I have reviewed the transcription of the Senate committee proceedings. What I said, and I repeat it here, is that, based on the period from 1993-94 to the end of the program review, slated for 1998-99, the reduction in government department expenditures is 14 per cent, while the reduction in transfers to the provinces is 9.9 per cent. Consequently, the federal government has imposed upon itself a burden that is 40 per cent greater than what it has imposed upon the provinces.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is not an interpretation of what he said, but an interpretation of what we read. In 1995, the Minister of Finance was talking about a 19 per cent reduction in expenditures, and in the last three years his department has reduced its expenditures by only 9 per cent for this fiscal year. That is what we can conclude.
Now we have a better idea of why the Minister of Finance bought those work boots in 1994. It had nothing to do with creating jobs, it was to be properly dressed to operate a steam shovel for dumping the debt onto the provinces. That is the reality.
I am also asking the President of the Treasury Board whether he acknowledges that his government has acted as a poor manager and whether the Quebec government deficit forecast for this fiscal year would be 60 per cent lower without the federal government's drastic cuts in transfer payments to the provinces?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the figures in the 1995 budget are totally valid. The reductions in departmental expenditures are exactly as indicated, that is to say close to 19 per cent, and this is the case quite simply because we have taken money away from the departments'
budgets. The cuts have, therefore, been implemented across the board.
When the Minister of Finance and myself issued a press release a few days ago, we indicated exactly how to reconcile the figures contained in the 1995 budget with the present ones. Without a doubt, once again, not only have we made the cuts announced in the 1995 budget, but departmental expenditures have also been cut, as indicated.
Reconciliation of the figures is done via programs approved in budgets brought down after 1994-95. This reconciliation is shown very clearly in the tables released by the Minister of Finance and myself. I hope the hon. finance critic for the opposition can at least check those figures.
I ask the justice minister this. Why has he added to the suffering of these victims? Why did he deny victims, particularly the families of Olson's victims, the automatic right to be heard at section 745 hearings?
(1440 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing I can certainly deny is that the hon. member speaks on behalf of victims in this country. He does not. When victims look at the record of this government they find in a dozen pieces of legislation grounds upon which to say that we have improved the law for the benefit of victims.
In terms of section 745, as I have already told my friend's colleague, in Bill C-41 we provided for the victims to have a role at the hearings. After that the Supreme Court of Canada came down with a judgment that made it clear under the common law that it could do so.
If my hon. friend thinks there is any part of Bill C-45 that should be changed to make that any clearer, and I have already told him in writing that I am happy to work with him to that effect, then let the hon. member, instead of standing in the House and carrying on with theatrics and rhetoric, work with us to make changes in the law to improve it for the objective of victims.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course we have to address the bungling of this justice minister. Under Bill C-41 he granted victims the right to make written impact statements and under Bill C-45 he took that right away from them. We are talking about the bungling of this justice minister.
The minister and his government have made the claim that making Bill C-45 retroactive could result in a charter challenge. Why would the minister worry about a court challenge? He should be used to them by now.
So far the justice minister's Bill C-68 has been challenged as being unconstitutional. The conditional sentencing provision of the justice minister's Bill C-41 is in court in B.C., Ontario and Alberta. The minister cost the taxpayers $1 million in the Airbus fiasco and now taxpayers may have to cough up millions more in the Pearson airport deal.
Why is he not willing to err on the side of victims, even if it does result in a court challenge? Whose rights are more important to him, those of mass child killer Clifford Olson or those of the families of his victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, along with everything else the hon. member must struggle with, his abject inability to make distinctions between different cases is also a terrible burden. It is evident in his questions in the House.
The challenge to Bill C-68, the gun control bill, is before the court. There has been no judgment yet because the argument has not taken place. I would venture to say that the hon. member can count on that bill being constitutional and valid. Those are the submissions we will be making before that hon. court.
In terms of victims, I would like the hon. member to consider the position I put to him last week. If he thinks that Bill C-45 can be improved in any way to assure the right of the victim to participate in section 745 hearings, let the hon. member come forward and work with us to achieve that result. Spare us the tendentious partisan rhetoric in the House of Commons and work with us to make it better.
On March 27, Federal Court Justice Sandra Simpson stated that the government's decision to impose a time limit on the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Somalia was unlawful, considering the extent of its terms of reference. In response to this judgment, the minister maintained his decision and went so far as to change the terms of reference of the commission to include only what happened before the Canadian troops arrived in Somalia.
By unlawfully cutting short the commission's proceedings and subsequently restricting its terms of reference, is the minister not only to trying protect the military establishment but also some Liberal friends who are close to the government, such as, for instance, Bob Fowler, former Deputy Minister of National Defence and currently Canada's ambassador to the UN?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his question the hon. member said that the federal court ruled that the procedure followed by the government was inappropriate. In this decision, the court indicated how we should proceed to ensure that the commission of inquiry reports only on the matters it has examined.
Obviously, we wanted to make the situation very clear to prevent any confusion, such as, the government asking the commissioners to report on and draw conclusions respecting situations they had not checked, examined and heard described in testimony. That is what we did.
(1445)
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the current Minister of National Defence has been subject to the same pressures from the military establishment as his predecessor who resigned.
Will the minister agree that his shocking decision to change the terms of reference of the commission will leave several fundamental questions unanswered, questions that were the very reason why the commission of inquiry was set up in the first place?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commission of inquiry has now spent more than two years examining elements of the incidents in Somalia which it considered to be a priority.
As I have pointed out many times, I never commented on the commission's work schedule or on the way it organized its hearings to hear witnesses and their testimony.
Two years, 125 witnesses and 100,000 pages of documents later, I am now, like all Canadians, looking forward to the report and conclusions of the commission of inquiry, which will probably make a number of suggestions that will be very useful and will do so soon enough that they can be used.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the court told the Somalia inquiry that it had every right to investigate the torture murder of Shidane Arone and the subsequent cover-up in Ottawa, the government changed the mandate to hide the truth from Canadians.
Since hiding the truth and changing the law to protect the friends of the Liberal Party is now the policy of this government, will it promise to print-
The Speaker: Colleagues, we should not impute motive either in our preamble or in our question. I would like the hon. member to immediately go to his question.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, will the Liberal government in its election red book, part two, put in the true facts of what Canadians have really heard from this Somalia inquiry so they really know what the beliefs of this government are?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend that the decision of the federal court indicated clearly that the government should spell out, in unmistakable language, what we thought we had done in the original request to bring the commission to a close by the end of June, and that is that we would not be asking the commissioners to report on matters which they had not looked into or which they did not feel were appropriate to report on.
What is going to be happening is, at the end of June, after two years of hearings, 125 witnesses and hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, the commission of inquiry on Somalia will report on those matters it has had an opportunity to evaluate and which the commissioners feel are important to report on.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago in the House the former minister stood and said we are going to get to the bottom of this; whatever it takes, we will get to the truth.
The promise was made to the Canadian people, it was made to our troops who are out there trying to do their job, that the inquiry will go right to the top and get to the truth. Now we hear that we will change the mandate.
With its terrible record of broken promises and utter disrespect for judicial hearings and quasi-judicial bodies, why should Canadians ever believe this government again?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party, I know, have a long record of unmitigated support for the justice and court system of Canada. We have heard many times in here over the last three years the great respect Reformers have for the justice system.
What I would suggest to the hon. member is that if he wants to find out how the Canadian forces feel about the decisions of the government, he might demonstrate his intestinal fortitude and go on to the bases in this country and-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Davenport.
(1450)
Using the powers under the new oceans act, will the minister move swiftly to designate this biologically rich and diverse region as Canada's first protected marine area?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the passage of the oceans act, which concentrated and focused on conservation and the environment, made possible the marine protected areas issue.
To that end and before the passage of the bill, I met with Heritage Canada officials and spent a day with them discussing this issue, along with consultation with many fishermen in eastern Canada.
As a result of that, about a month ago I made an announcement with the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage which allowed for a marine protected area on the east coast of Canada as a test case so that we can develop policy and have a look at the evaluation criteria to make sure this system will work.
I am sure the hon. member would also be interested that with respect to the specific issue of the gully I have been in conversation with the World Wildlife Fund in the last week. I am sure that once the policies are developed we will be looking at this as one of our priority issues.
When the Minister of National Defence tries to justify his decision to put an end to the Somalia inquiry, he always offers the same excuse of its going on too long and costing too much, despite the fact that Madam Justice Sandra Simpson considers that the commissioners have performed their duties with diligence.
Since the commission is now limited to explaining the events preceding the arrival of the Canadian troops in Somalia on January 10, 1993, how will the people of Canada and Quebec know exactly what happened on March 16, 1993, when a young Somali was tortured to death?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the decision of the justice of the Federal Court, it was clear that the government was given certain options to ensure that the commissioners were not asked to report on situations they had not examined.
Obviously, it made perfectly good sense not to ask people to report on matters they had no knowledge of. However, the hon. member is no doubt aware that the terms of reference given the commissioners by the government indicate clearly that they are to report on what occurred prior to the incidents in Somalia and on anything else they feel competent to comment on or reach conclusions about.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in limiting the commission's mandate, the minister is very much aware that he is in fact limiting the activities of the inquiry. They will not be in a position to shed any light on such important matters as the disappearance of 60 documents from the archives of the former deputy minister of national defence, Mr. Fowler. That is set aside.
How can the minister continue to defend his decision to limit the inquiry, when we will never know what documents, which were so compromising, the former deputy minister, now ambassador, caused to disappear?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously I have considerable respect for the hon. member, but she has just alleged that a deputy minister committed certain acts.
In my opinion, she should pause to reflect before repeating such allegations outside the Parliament of Canada, because it is a fairly serious allegation to suggest that such an act was committed by a public official who was working at the time under the tutelage of a minister of national defence who subsequently became the Prime Minister of Canada. If the hon. member has knowledge in this regard, I am certain she will want to pursue her allegations outside the House.
(1455)
This was no ordinary travel and entertainment. He spent $733 in Paris for dinner for two. The average family in Canada does not spend that much on groceries in a month.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. When did it become public policy for the taxpayer to foot extravagant travel and entertainment bills for a patronage appointee who is not even travelling on government business?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I read the story in the Ottawa Citizen. The auditor general has been asked to audit the expense account of Mr. Weatherill.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the auditor general looks at this expense account and the other expense accounts that we have raised over the years and finds them all at fault. This type of business cannot continue.
We have children going hungry in Canada while Mr. Weatherill and others like him spend. He spent $148,000 on meals over eight years; one person, $148,000. That is disgusting.
Why has the President of the Treasury Board let this abuse continue for the three and a half years that they have been in office? Will he get rid of these types of people who enjoy patronage appointments and abuse the trust they have been given?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to wait for the auditor general's report before making any conclusions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gagliano: If they would listen maybe they would learn something. The problem with Reform members is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. If they would have voted for instead of filibustering Bill C-66, the bill that creates a new labour relations board, we could have dealt with this problem immediately instead of waiting. They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
The American President and the Israeli Prime Minister are meeting today in Washington. They will be discussing ways of salvaging talks with the Palestinians on the last phase of the Oslo accords.
Since Israel is trying to acquire new land by going ahead with Jewish settlements in order to operate from a position of strength in the upcoming negotiations with the Palestinian authority, will the Acting Prime Minister agree that such a strategy will lead to an impasse inhibiting the peace process rather than renewing it?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is indeed in Washington, accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am sure that the member across the way will want to wait until the Washington visit is over in order to be able to evaluate all the issues raised by the Prime Minister.
In Washington, the Prime Minister intends to raise a number of issues with his American counterpart. I am proud he has undertaken this visit. He intends to raise issues having to do with refugees, the Middle East and a number of other matters with his American counterpart.
Next, the minister's lawyers testified in a court of law that had the contract proceeded, the contractors would have lost money.
My question is for the minister. Given that he and his new airport authority are spending over $3 billion in legal costs, settlements, rent relief, terminal 3 purchase and the grandiose spending scheme of the new airport authority, can the minister tell the taxpayers of Canada how it is in their interests to spend $3 billion on a project that his department testified in a court of law would have lost money with an expenditure of $800 million?
(1500 )
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party have consistently failed to understand the circumstances surrounding the Pearson situation.
When we entered government in 1993 we examined the Pearson agreement with the private consortium and determined that it was not in the public interest but it was, however, in the private interest.
We thereafter established a public not for profit corporation incorporating the various interests of the community and that is the authority to GTAA which is now engaged in developing Pearson airport.
Pearson airport will be developed by decisions made by the local authority on the ground in Toronto. It is not a question any more of the federal government second guessing or giving instructions to the GTAA.
If the member wishes to know how Mr. Turpen, the chief executive officer of GTAA, intends to develop Pearson airport he should address his questions to Mr. Turpen.
In recent days, the media have reported that approximately 120 Hutu refugees are dying daily in Eastern Zaire. Thousands of people are awaiting humanitarian aid. What does the government intend to do to help them?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all Canadians were as upset and disappointed as I was at seeing this recent scene of hundreds of Rwandan refugees suffering and dying in Eastern Zaire.
However, the Government of Canada is pleased with the decision by Zairian rebels to give access to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees so that refugees can be helped.
I am pleased to announce to the House and to my colleagues that Canada will be making a contribution of $3 million to UNHCR in order to help repatriate refugees of the Kisangani region of Rwanda.
Two separate ministers of the environment engaged in a very open and consultative process that developed and eventually drafted endangered species legislation. Over the last little while the environment committee has travelled extensively to discuss publicly the endangered species legislation.
I understand now that the government is internally discussing behind closed doors the future of the endangered species act. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment whether it is true the department of fisheries is trying to gut this new act.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to this question as government House leader.
I would expect that before too long the bill will be before the House and we can test the reproach of the NDP and the opposition parties by seeing whether they will enter into an agreement to deal very quickly and promptly with this very important piece of legislation.