[Translation]
Given the unanimity of the National Assembly, which was elected by all Quebecers, will the Prime Minister agree to move on the amendment requested by Quebec, which concerns an area of provincial jurisdiction and complies fully with section 23 of the Canadian Constitution?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, we are waiting for a resolution from the Government of Quebec. When it comes, we will be very happy to examine it and to take appropriate action.
We were faced with a similar problem just a few months ago in the House. A resolution to amend the Constitution as it applies to Newfoundland and Labrador and their education system was introduced, and everything turned out fine.
I am very confident that things will go just as well when we receive the resolution from the Government of Quebec, but we must wait for people to express their views before we can proceed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows very well that Mr. Mulcair introduced a resolution that received the unanimous approval of all members of the National Assembly. He also knows that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said yesterday that the will of the National Assembly was not enough.
Just today, the Prime Minister was speaking about hypothetical opposition from church representatives, when the bishops have never, throughout this longstanding debate in Quebec, opposed the introduction of linguistic school boards.
Why refer to hypothetical opposition from church representatives when, in the case of Newfoundland, in fact, we know that church representatives were opposed, and the Prime Minister agreed to the request from the Newfoundland legislature, even though church representatives were opposed, but the elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland wanted to go ahead?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible said, a broad consensus is required. I am very happy to see that a consensus seems to be taking definite shape in the National Assembly. But I also know that people may wish to make representations to us, as they did in the case of Newfoundland. We listened to them, and then took action.
This is how the democratic system works. A resolution must be passed here, in the House of Commons, and in the Senate. It took several months before Newfoundland's problem was sorted out, because of holdups that occurred in fact in the other Chamber. In any case, we shall see. We shall have to wait to see the resolution. And if it is unanimous, so much the better.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if, given the resolution passed unanimously by all members of the National Assembly, he will agree to move quickly. The official opposition in this House will give him its full support. Will he agree, on behalf of his party, to ask the Liberal and Conservative senators to do likewise, so that this amendment may be passed before the upcoming election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will receive the resolution, we will examine it as required, and we will introduce it in the House of Commons. At that time, we will ask members to proceed as quickly as possible.
Sometimes, people object to unanimous situations in the House, and the Standing Orders of the House must be observed. As for the Senate, we shall see. First of all, the House of Commons must vote on it. When we have seen the resolution and it has been approved by cabinet, we will then introduce it in the House as soon as possible.
As for the date of the election, nobody knows what it is yet, so until then it is not possible to say whether or not the other objective can be met.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In acting as they are with the linguistic school board situation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are demonstrating exactly why all of the governments of Quebec, whether sovereignist or federalist, have denounced or rejected the Canadian Constitution which was imposed on Quebec 15 years ago.
(1420)
Will the Prime Minister admit that he is once again making use of the 1982 Constitution to intervene directly in a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the National Assembly, in order to dictate to Quebecers how they are to handle their own affairs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is but one Constitution in Canada and we respect it. There is an obligation for the House of Commons to receive resolutions from a provincial government, to study them and to vote on them.
As I have just said, it is all the better if there is a broad consensus in Quebec and a unanimous vote in the Quebec National Assembly. That will, I hope, facilitate the debate here. Everyone's point of view must be heard, however, for this is a democracy.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister deny the consensus expressed by the National Assembly's unanimous draft resolution, when he himself patriated the Constitution in 1982, against the virtually unanimous will of the National Assembly? Does he think a consensus in Quebec means the exact opposite of what the National Assembly wants?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the calling of the hon. members of the opposition, who are getting the feeling this is where they always will be, to do nothing but try to stir up controversy.
At the present time there is a debate going on in the Quebec National Assembly. The MNAs concerned are holding discussions, trying to reach compromises, and will be holding a vote, and there is no controversy. Only one party, whose objective is to block rather than to accomplish, is trying a blocking operation. We are
going to fulfil our responsibilities as we always have, in a very democratic way-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, and by respecting everyone's opinion. As I have already said, we will wait until the National Assembly decides, before making our own decision.
They would be the first to complain if we were to take a positive or a negative stance before their vote, without knowing what the National Assembly wants to do.
Killers like this get every benefit the justice system has to offer while their victims have to fight to get even the smallest of issues addressed.
I would like to ask a question of the justice minister. Why do criminals like Clifford Olson have more rights in the justice system than the rights of the victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago this month a man from Montreal came to see me explaining that his 15-year old daughter had been sexually assaulted and strangled. He asked me to help him. He asked the government to help him. He asked us to see if we could change the law to provide the police with investigative tools that might help in the prosecution of that offence.
As a result, the Solicitor General and I met with the caucus, discussed the policies of the government, worked very hard and brought forward legislation which added to the criminal law powers for the police to search and to take bodily substances after they get a warrant to test for DNA substances.
That legislation was put into effect in July 1995. The investigation was concluded. A sample was taken. Charges were laid and that case is now before the courts.
That is the way the government responds to the needs of victims.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was referring to criminals getting appeals left, right and centre, while victims wait time and time and time again for them.
Yesterday I indicated that Darren Ursel tortured and violated a young woman for an hour and a half. She was lucky to escape with her life. The judge said this sex offender was tender at times and somewhat sorry for what he did, so he gave Ursel a two-year conditional sentence with no time in prison.
(1425 )
Yesterday I asked the justice minister the following question but he evaded the issue. Again I will ask it so that all Canadians can listen carefully to the answer.
Does the justice minister think there is any time in Canada where a woman can be violated and degraded like this and the criminal not receive time in prison?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of us believe that anyone who commits a serious violent crime should be imprisoned as a penalty for that kind of crime.
The case to which the hon. member refers is before the appeal court and he knows that. Let the courts deal with that decision.
Last Monday, because of our concern about the way courts are interpreting some of the provisions of the bill, we asked the House to agree to amendments to the conditional sentence provision in Bill C-41. The hon. member and his party agreed, and those amendments will be adopted and enacted by this Parliament.
I said in answer to the hon. member's questions earlier this week, and I will say it again today, the government has acted to make significant improvements in the criminal law for the interests of victims. My hon. friend knows that. The legislation speaks for itself. We have acted.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister is talking about an appeal of a sentence resulting from a law that he legislated. Conditional sentencing should not have occurred in the first place.
Yesterday I was ashamed of the justice minister and the Liberal government. The justice minister would not accept responsibility for implementing laws that make the lives of victims worse.
I talked to this lady yesterday and she told me she was most discouraged by his comments. She felt the justice minister had no concern at all for her well-being.
How is it the Liberal government suggests it has concern for women in Canada and then legislates conditional sentences that allow women to be raped and degraded, with no prison time for the rapist?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say the government has acted. I do not ask the hon. member or the House simply to take my word for it. Why do we not ask someone who knows about being a victim and about what rights victims need?
In answer to the hon. member's question, let me read from a letter I received today:
Three years ago a petition was presented 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.
We look forward to continuing to work with the justice committee during its comprehensive review of victims issues in Canada.It was signed by Priscilla de Villiers, president of CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): You should be ashamed of yourself. A woman has been raped.
Mr. Rock: I told the hon. member that he does not have to take our word for it. He can take the word of the president of the most well respected and most credible organization of victims. That is the truth.
The Speaker: I caution hon. members about using papers to point.
However, the very same day, two Hell's Angels were released because of lack of evidence, a murder was committed in Donnacona, there was an attempted murder in Thetford Mines, a Molotov cocktail exploded in Quebec City, and sticks of dynamite were found in a garbage can in Longueuil. This is all connected with the biker gang war in Quebec. Otherwise, it was just an average, care-free day for the federal Minister of Justice.
(1430)
By using the Charter as an excuse for his lack of political will, is the minister not broadening the scope of the charter so that it protects biker gangs like the Rock Machine and the Hell's Angels more than it does law-abiding citizens?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to wait until next week when I intend to announce concrete, specific and practical measures to deal with a situation we find not only in Quebec but wherever such gangs and individuals are involved in organized crime.
It is true that Monday night I received a proposal drafted by Mr. Bégin, the attorney general for Quebec. I examined the proposal, and my officials are now preparing our replies. Personally, I was a little surprised and disappointed because, according to Mr. Bégin's proposal, membership alone in an organization would constitute a crime. I think this is against the Quebec and Canadian charters.
It is possible to find acceptable, permanent and effective ways to deal with this. I am now preparing proposals for next week.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that instead of acting like an armchair quarterback and waiting for a bill to appear out of thin air, preferably drafted by divine inspiration, the minister take a look at documents produced by the RCMP and Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, which state that, and I quote:
The Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine have a vast arsenal of weapons and munitions and are determined to go to the very limit. At stake in this war is control of the drug trade in the Montreal area and elsewhere in the province.These are federal documents.
Considering what he said yesterday about Quebec's bill, would the minister agree that his rather innocent interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights is undermining his own efforts to find effective ways to deal with the bikers' war?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully share the hon. member's concern. We disagree on how we should proceed to meet these challenges.
Both I personally and the Government of Canada prefer to use constitutional and valid measures. We believe it is possible to meet these challenges with constitutional measures.
Mr. Bégin, the Quebec minister, suggested another, unconstitutional approach. I would prefer to have laws with staying power, not laws that would be challenged in the courts in the months to come. So next week I intend to table proposals that are valid, constitutional and effective as well.
Rather than seeing rapists and violent offenders walk free, why will the justice minister not bring in an amendment that would restrict conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the provision in Bill C-41 to which he refers requires the court to assess the safety of the community before determining that a conditional sentence is appropriate. One would have thought it was
clear that someone who had committed a serious violent crime would not be granted a conditional sentence.
The cases in some of the appellate courts of the provinces have been unclear. It is for that reason that I proposed-and the hon. member was good enough to agree-that there ought to be an amendment to Bill C-41 to make clear that the courts must have regard to the traditional principles of sentencing, including deterrence, denunciation and protection of society when deciding on whether a conditional sentence should be given.
The case to which the hon. member refers, which is so shamelessly exploited by the hon. member for-
(1435 )
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Bullshit.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Of course I do not always hear everything that is said in the House. I can understand sometimes if we have outbursts, but I would like the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to simply withdraw the word so that we can get on with question period.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, that was a very serious accusation he made but I withdraw my comment.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the conditions of the amendment to which the justice minister refers will not stop courts from allowing rapists and violent offenders to walk free. It will not do that.
Inasmuch as the justice minister's answer indicates very clearly that he has no intention of limiting conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders, what does he have to say to the victims of violent crime, in particular women who have been assaulted and raped by men who are now walking free because of his bill and because of his refusal to restrict that law to non-violent offences?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the case is before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The argument before that appeal court is that such sentences should never be given in such cases. If the appeal court should see fit to make such a disposition of course it will be binding on lower courts.
The reality is that my friend speaks of victims. All week long the Reform Party has made much of the plight of victims. As I have already said this afternoon there is in Canada a no more credible, hardworking organization in favour of victims and their rights than CAVEAT. There are few more respected outspoken spokespersons for victims than Priscilla de Villiers.
As I have read to the House today, Priscilla de Villiers on behalf of CAVEAT has said that the government listens, has made meaningful change and has acted to change the law to make the plight of victims better. That is the record of the government.
It denies Quebec companies the opportunity to buy blocks of insurance from a competitor withdrawing from the market. The discrimination in the legislation goes so far as to permit a French, American, Brazilian or other company to do what a Quebec company cannot do in its own country.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he agree before this House to correct this discrimination against Quebec companies immediately? He can do it right now in the course of the present review of the legislation on financial institutions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, Bill C-82 is very important to the insurance industry. It contains many provisions on a variety of broad issues.
I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that any change to an industry like the insurance industry must be made with care. Third, the change proposed by the member was not a priority for the insurance industry.
That having been said, my officials are already considering and analyzing a possibility. I myself am very open to looking at it and giving it full attention.
(1440)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the minister says it was not a priority for the industry, I would remind him that a white paper was tabled last year that was almost unanimously approved by the industry in Canada, that contained support for this sort of change by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc., the Canadian Bankers Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Canada Trust, and so on.
As we are always ready to co-operate in the interest of our fellow citizens, contrary to what the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, we offer him our services to correct the unjustified discrimination against Quebec's provincially chartered insurance companies before the next election is called.
My question then is: Is he prepared today to initiate a process that will correct this situation with the full co-operation of the official opposition?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have just indicated, I am very open to considering a change. My officials are already looking into it, and I am prepared to meet the companies concerned within a fairly short period of time.
I think the hon. member will agree with me that what counts most is to have Bill C-82 passed as quickly as possible, because it contains provisions that are vital to the industry as a whole.
Judge Harry Boyle had evidence that Darren Ursel confined a young woman, stripped her, raped her, sodomized her with a racquet handle for an hour and a half until she escaped in terror. The judge found this man guilty but said he was somewhat remorseful, had been tender at times with his victim and then let him walk free.
Rather than hiding behind a courtesy letter of thanks from CAVEAT, a letter this group probably bitterly regrets sending him now, what does the Minister of Justice have to say to this young woman and her family about why nothing happened to her tormentor?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, that case is before the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and I am not going to comment on it. It is for the court of appeal to deal with the case and the issues it presents.
I also caution the hon. member about taking some facts from a case and not all the facts in presenting the issue to the House or publicly.
Finally, in relation to conditional sentencing, I and the government believe that anyone who commits serious violent crime should be imprisoned. I also believe that the amendment we made in common on Monday, to make clear that in the case of conditional sentences the courts must look at the factors, including societal protection, denunciation and deterrence, will improve the provisions and give the courts clear direction on the intention of Parliament.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the facts are in any doubt. A woman was stripped, violated and brutalized. She is a single mother. Now the justice minister brought in a hurried amendment which says that judges should consider the needs of society for protection before letting criminals walk free. Now he is saying he has done a great thing and this is really going to protect women.
Is it not amazing that laws have to be passed to tell judges that it is their job to think about our safety?
Why does this justice minister not pass one of his laws and tell judges that raping women in this country deserves time in prison?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Criminal Code contains over 800 sections. It is made very clear in the Criminal Code that the penalty for serious violent crime is imprisonment. The penalty for sexual assault is already crystal clear in the Criminal Code.
The case to which the hon. member refers is being argued in the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. It is not to be decided here in the House; it is to be decided in the courts.
The principles of sentencing are already set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. They are there to be interpreted and applied by the courts. That is the way the system of justice works in this country and this government has taken steps to ensure that system is all the stronger.
[Translation]
On March 25, the minister announced that financial support of $185 million would be provided to the Pearson airport authority, supposedly for necessary projects relating to safety and to the environment at the Toronto facility. However, when we take a look at the breakdown of the amount paid by the federal government, we note that $145 million, or 80 per cent of the total, will in fact be used to build a new runway.
Will the Minister of Transport admit that this gift of $185 million is compensation paid to the Toronto airport authority to allow it to buy terminal 3 at a high price and thus save face for the Liberal government, which is being sued to the tune of $662 million by Pearson Development Corporation?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me again explain to the hon. member and the House that the $185 million he talked about was for three projects. The rental deferral was conditional on three things, to complete the runway, to build two fire halls on the Pearson airport area, and to
put in a new de-icing facility which was a $40 million item. This was the agreement made.
It follows adjustments to the rental formulas of Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. It was in line with the general switch from the local airport authority approach of the previous government to the Canadian airport authority approach of this government. Subsequently there has been a sale of T-3, the terminal at Pearson. As I said yesterday, the chairman of the board of the local airport authority has made it perfectly clear that it was his decision to buy that facility and clearly in that case the price was determined by the willing buyer and the willing seller.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister agree that, if we add these $185 million to the $50 million to 75 $million that the federal is about to give to promoters to compensate them for the privatization of terminals 1 and 2, we arrive at a total of some $250 million, which taxpayers in Quebec and Canada will have to pay for Pearson airport as a result decisions made by this government?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the amount the hon. member appears to know about with respect to a settlement. I made it clear I believe the first day I became Minister of Transport that I think it is always better to have lawsuits settled out of court, and this has been the government's position. From time to time there have been discussions and that is well known to everyone. If in the future there are discussions which lead to a settlement which both sides think is in their mutual interest, so much the better.
Today in Ottawa journalists and parliamentarians alike had a chance to be informed on the crisis in Albania from visiting author and human rights activist Nicholas Gage.
Can the minister tell the House what this government is doing to help restore democracy and safeguard human rights in Albania?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we share very much the concern expressed by the member. We very much welcome the presence of such a distinguished author as Nicholas Gage in providing a briefing to Parliament.
In the past several weeks we have participated actively in the OSCE discussions leading to an international presence in Albania to try to reconcile the parties.
My colleague, the minister responsible for international development, has authorized $500,000 for relief efforts. I spoke this week to the Italian foreign minister to endorse the leadership that his country has taken in providing a multilateral force.
(1450)
We have also indicated that ultimately elections must be the means by which groups in Albania reconcile their differences. We would give very special consideration to helping in that process.
The people of Canada want to know in between all the smiles and the hand shakes whether he happened to discuss why Canada is stuck with about a $500 million clean-up of the American mess of old military bases in Canada.
Regarding the Irving Whale barge raising or the Sydney tar ponds clean-up, why is it always that someone else leaves their garbage and yet it is the taxpayer who pays for the clean-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are negotiations ongoing with the United States as a result of several installations, including the installations to the north for the radar warning systems that were there for many years, Argentia and other areas where American facilities were stationed for long periods of time.
This is nothing new. We have been discussing the potential for American participation in a clean-up activity. When those negotiations are concluded, particularly when the American Congress approves any final settlement, we will be happy to advise the hon. member of the outcome.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hear that the Minister of the Environment has also been to the U.S. to smile for the cameras.
The U.S. is refusing to pay the required $500 million in compensation for the clean-up but the deal it offers is for Canada to get a mere $100 million spread over 10 years if Canada agrees to purchase U.S. military hardware. Such a deal.
Is the Minister of the Environment also going to embarrass Canada just like the Prime Minister did? Will he defend his polluter
pay principle? Will the government respond to the report of the auditor general and clean up toxic dumps? Will he get the American polluters of these sites to pay their appropriate share?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously is very familiar with embarrassment.
I want to assure him that when the president of the United States came to Canada to discuss various kinds of arrangements we need to enter into with that country, he was very well received.
Even the hon. member would accept that when the Prime Minister of Canada visited Washington this week he was very well received compared to the visit of the member's leader to see Newt Gingrich. I guess it is all a question of who is operating the Kodak.
Child abduction is on the rise. All too often, children are abducted by a parent who illegally takes them out of the country. That is what happened to Suzie Robitaille's five children, who were abducted by her former husband two years ago and are still in Egypt. Mrs. Robitaille has been fighting ever since to get her children back; one of them is very sick.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what his department is doing right now in practical terms to bring Mrs. Robitaille's five children back home in Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's great concern. All the necessary steps have been taken to assist Mrs. Robitaille. For instance, I have met with Mrs. Robitaille, and my office is in contact with her on a regular basis.
More specifically, an agreement on consular matters is about to be signed with the Egyptian government. This agreement could facilitate the return of the children to Canada. I hope it will be signed soon. We certainly hope we can be of assistance to Mrs. Robitaille in these tragic circumstances.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like the minister, I too hope this agreement will be signed soon. As I said, one of the children is very sick.
For the past two years, Mrs. Robitaille has been sending the children, who are still Canadian citizens, money, clothing and medicine. That is how she has been keeping in touch with them. She was using the child tax benefit to do that.
(1455)
But last March, Mrs. Robitaille was not only informed that she would no longer be entitled to the benefit, she was also asked to pay back $7,000 in alleged overpayments.
My question to the minister is this: Could the minister state in this House that he will be pressing his colleague at National Revenue to maintain Mrs. Robitaille's entitlement to this tax benefit for the sake of her children and as a means of keeping in touch with them?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the information. I will certainly raise the matter with my colleague.
I would like to assure the hon. member that while the children are still in Egypt, members of the embassy there are in regular contact with the children to ensure their protection and to ensure that as much as possible under Egyptian law their rights are being protected.
We will take all measures possible to aid Mrs. Robitaille in this very serious matter.
The minister therefore expects to keep Mr. Weatherill in his position until the fall, and the chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board has violated every principle of his office by wining and dining executives of CN and CP while adjudicating a case for the railroads and he has violated the fundamental rules that apply to his tribunal.
If that is not sufficient cause to fire Mr. Weatherill, what is?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I fire Mr. Weatherill I have to have all the facts and not rely on media reports.
The first day we learned of his expenses we asked the auditor general to investigate. Today privy council officials have asked the commissioner of ethics to investigate Mr. Weatherill's alleged bias. As soon as we have all the facts we will act.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I said before that it seems this minister runs his department by reading the newspapers.
The Treasury Board has been paying these bills for years. This tribunal reports to his department. He knows this and should be aware of what is going on.
He is now sending a clear signal to people who violate the ethics of their office, who have abused the principles of expenditures of their office, that it is perfectly okay to sit where they are. He has not even suspended him without pay until this investigation is complete. This type of ethics from this government we have heard time and time again.
Can the minister explain this double standard of keeping this guy on the payroll when if it were in the private sector he would be before the courts today?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, we are acting as promptly as possible and we hope in the next few days to have this matter solved. In the meantime, I repeat, I cannot act until I have all the facts.
If the member was very concerned, on March 11, a month ago, instead of filibustering, and the Reform Party moved a motion to stop doing third reading and do it in six months, by now we would have Bill C-66 and we would have a new board with a new chairman.
Could the minister responsible for Canada Post please tell us something that might reassure these workers?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last October I made a statement to the effect that Canada Post should not be privatized as long as it continues to serve a public policy role. I asked Canada Post to look at how it could improve its services, especially in rural areas.
That was last October. We have not changed our position on that. I made that statement two days ago in New Brunswick.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Liu Zhongde, Minister of Culture of the People's Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I would also like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Néziha Zarrouk, the minister responsible to the Prime Minister of Tunisia for family and women's affairs.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with the budget bills, which will be followed by Bill C-82, the financial institutions legislation. Tomorrow we will take up the business from where we finish today and will proceed in the same way next week.
When we complete the finance bills we will resume debate on the justice bills, Bill C-17, Bill C-27 and Bill C-55. They will be followed by the ports legislation, Bill C-44.
I also understand that there are conversations under way concerning Bill C-5, the bankruptcy legislation, as well as with regard to the other bills outlined in the business statement I gave on March 20.
We will make further plans on the basis of these discussions.
The Speaker: Like yourself, I heard the hon. minister referring to a letter. However, I do not know if the letter was here. I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to get more information. Perhaps he could bring up the same point of order when the minister is here.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I stood and I was not noticed. However, I did send you notice that I had a point of order. The minister was here and he escaped us. I would like-
The Speaker: I do not know if I would use the word ``escaped''. I will make a commitment to try to get more information. The point of order has been made and we will get an answer for the hon. member. We will get back to the House.