I would like to apologize, first of all, to the Members for a delay in question period. I felt very uncomfortable on whether or not we should proceed if we anticipate that there will be questions asked on pay equity. I wanted to be sure I am fair to the Members and also fair to the government who would be receiving the questions. There was a ruling made by Speaker Ballantyne in September, 1992, and I just want to say a few things on it as to what he said regarding civil cases.

The purpose of the sub judice convention is twofold: to protect the interested parties from prejudice and to maintain a separation and mutual respect between the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The rule as it applies to civil matters, particularly those pending before a quasi-judicial tribunal, in this case it is the Human Rights Commission, is less clear and hence the sub judice convention becomes more difficult to apply. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, citation 507(1), notes "that no settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not to others." Thus, the application of this ill-defined convention, as it is applied to civil matters, is left to the relevant Speaker.

We will allow questions to be asked in this case. I will also be relying on our law clerk, if we feel that the question is out of order, the Members will be told. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Picco.