Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1996

Lumber Industry

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has responded to these questions several times in the House pointing out there are basic commercial rights that have to be honoured and respected.

It is important to point out that the allocation formula for the softwood lumber quota was arrived at, at full, open, transparent consultations with all the industry. There was nothing secret and nothing hidden. It was done in full co-operation with the industry.

The hon. member's suggestion now that there is some kind of conspiracy and plot by the government simply indicates that he is in fact accusing the industry itself of that kind of practice because the quota system was totally and completely done in full co-operation with the private sector.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the reverse. It is now the companies that are accusing this government of conspiracy.

The minister has stated in this House that he has no problems if individual companies publicly divulge their lumber allocation quotas. The problem is that only the minister knows which companies were allotted quotas.

In order to save jobs, individual mill owners must be able to negotiate allocations between themselves. However, they do not know the players because the minister refuses to release the names to the public.

In order to save sawmill jobs, will the minister table a full list of companies receiving lumber quotas?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to go to what is the basic cause of the hon. member's protestations in the House. The fact is that once the quotas were allocated, many companies used up their allocation in a very anxious way to take advantage of the market. That was a business decision that they made. Now that they have found that the allocation of the quota is no longer sufficient, they are attempting to find ways of increasing it.

The Minister for International Trade said there is a reserve system that can be given to companies that they in effect can bank their quota against next year's allocation. That would allow them to keep their plants running and keep the jobs going. It is an orderly system that was set up under the agreement.

To now start trying to bargain in the Chamber of the House of Commons about getting more individual allocations for individual companies is simply not the way to do good business.

International Tribunals

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The crimes of genocide committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, in particular, led to the creation of provisional international tribunals. Yet, we know full well that other crimes of that nature are also being committed elsewhere in the world.

Since, as Amnesty International was saying, "you do not create provisional tribunals to solve permanent problems", has the minister ever considered playing a leadership role in the international community to obtain the creation of a permanent international court of criminal justice?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in the speech I delivered to the General Assembly of the United Nations last September I explained clearly that Canada would support the establishment of a permanent international court of criminal justice.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Canada said that it would make the arrest of war criminals in Bosnia a priority. Yet, nearly 100,000 people are rotting in Rwandan jails without ever having been brought to trial.

While the international community tries to set up a permanent tribunal, with the support of Canada naturally, as the minister just said, does the minister not believe that priority should also be given to the orderly operation of the international tribunal in Rwanda, and especially to its operation according to the rule of law?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member about the real imperative and necessity of prosecuting war criminals.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada has been given the honour of having Judge Louise Arbour as the chief prosecutor for the international war crimes tribunal. In a meeting with Judge Arbour about a month ago, she expressed the same concern as the hon. member does about the need to prosecute more actively in Rwanda for war crimes issues.

We are prepared to offer all assistance to Judge Arbour in terms of enhancing her capacity for investigation and prosecution and to secure the services of Canadians in the judicial and legal fields to help in that regard. All we are really waiting for is a full complement of what Judge Arbour would need and we will certainly respond in the most active and effective way possible.

Justice

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on three occasions the Minister of Justice has granted leaves of absence under section 54(1) of the Judges Act to Madam Justice Louise Arbour. While that section may give him the authority to grant leaves of absence, he certainly does not have the authority to allow her to assume other duties, because section 55 of the Judges Act states: "No judge shall, either directly or indirectly, engage in any other occupational business other than judicial duties".

On what basis did the Minister of Justice approve the leave of absence for Madam Justice Arbour to work as a prosecutor for the UN while she is still a judge? We have just heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us that she is going to be an active and aggressive prosecutor. She is a member of the impartial bench in Canada. How can she be an impartial judge and a prosecutor at the same time?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging to have to respond to that question and it is distressing that the question was put.

A few feet away from the member's place an exchange just occurred involving the Minister of Foreign Affairs who described to the House the honour that was done this country when one of our best, a judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal, was asked to assume responsibility as the chief prosecutor for war crimes. By unanimous resolution of the United Nations Security Council she was singled out for that task. She left her judicial duties. She took a leave of absence. She has travelled halfway around the world to work in difficult circumstances engaged in that crucial responsibility.

During the months that we have tried to amend the statute to overcome the technical prohibition against her being paid by others for doing that work, we have encountered nothing but meanspirited, narrow-focused and inappropriate objections from sources who somehow fail to grasp both the importance of that work and the honour that she brings to this country.

I invite the hon. member to rise above the niggling legalisms upon which he now relies for partisan purposes and to join with this government in making sure that Madam Justice Louise Arbour is permitted to do that work on behalf of Canada and on behalf of all humanity.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed by the response from the Minister of Justice who is asking me to rise above niggling little legal details which prevent Madam Justice Louise Arbour from taking this position. The Minister of Justice is the highest position in this land to uphold the law of this land. To have those kinds of words coming from him in this House belittles the position which he holds.

Let me quote the minister's own words. Before the Senate committee on October 7 he said: "There is no provision in the Judges Act for a federally appointed judge such as Madam Justice Louise Arbour to be granted a leave of absence without pay to work for an international organization such as the United Nations".

I have a great deal of respect for Madam Justice Louise Arbour. I have a great deal of respect for the work that she has been asked to do in the United Nations, but I do not think that we should trample the laws of Canada to allow her to go over there to uphold the laws for the United Nations.

The Minister of Justice could have picked anyone else in Canada rather than someone from the bench. I am sure there are many people who are perfectly capable of doing the job. Therefore, I ask him again: Why is he allowing the laws of this land to be trampled in order for someone to uphold the laws somewhere else?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member combines an ignorance of the law with a meanness of spirit when he puts that question.

In the first place, I am not the one who suggested Madam Justice Arbour, it was the United Nations Security Council. Second,

Madam Justice Arbour is not in breach of any Canadian law in taking a leave of absence for other purposes.

The prohibition in the Judges Act is against her taking money from any other source. It is that which is addressed by Bill C-42, which was passed by this House, sent back with an amendment by the Senate for reasons best known to the Senate, and which is now before this House for adoption with the Senate's change.

I emphasize that there is nothing unlawful or inconsistent with the Judges Act or any other law of Canada which Madam Justice Arbour has done.

War Criminals

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the foreign affairs minister.

I would like to compliment the hon. member for Laval East for her questions on war criminals. My question really is supplementary to hers.

At a recent conference regarding war criminals in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Justice Richard Goldstone expressed concerns that many who have been indicted for crimes against humanity are not being arrested and brought to The Hague to face criminal charges.

I ask the minister: What specific instructions has Canada given to its IFOR peacekeepers to assist in bringing these indicted war criminals to justice?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad that we are now engaging in an exchange on one of the more crucial and vital contributions that Canada can make through the work of Justice Arbour in the international realm.

What we know now is that there are still many unindicted war criminals in Bosnia. Until they are apprehended, the opportunity for a peaceful solution in that country will be severely hindered. We will begin to discuss over the next three or four weeks in the NATO circles the extension of the IFOR engagement. We will be putting forward a number of proposals to substantially strengthen the capacity of the war crimes tribunal through the work of IFOR and other means of the allied groups that are in Bosnia to apprehend these criminals and to support the work of the tribunal. I will be going before the parliamentary committee on Tuesday to raise those very same questions so we can get parliamentary input.

This demonstrates that we have an opportunity in this country, through the office of Judge Arbour and the war crimes tribunal, to make a very significant and important contribution to bring peace and reconciliation to the wartorn land of Bosnia.

Telecommunications

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the industry minister.

Last week, the industry minister issued an information sheet aimed at consumers of direct-to-home satellite broadcasting services and stipulating that it might be a crime for consumers to have equipment used to pick up non-authorized American signals in Canada. The industry minister is relying on importers, suppliers and retailers of satellite broadcasting material to relay this information to consumers.

Does the minister expect that those who sold this equipment and who contributed to create the problem will be able to enforce his regulations?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we tried to give all consumers the information necessary for making judicious decisions.

This equipment is rather expensive. We are concerned with the fact that several consumers paid over $1,000 for equipment that might not be sufficient to receive satellite programming in the future. This equipment is rather specialized, and the changes in the services that will be available to Canadians will, in turn, require technological changes.

Military Justice

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and concerns the military justice system.

I operated under and with the military justice system for more than 36 years. I always considered that it was as or more fair than the civilian justice system.

However, events in Somalia and a rising number of grievances being submitted to the chief of defence staff indicate that there is some reluctance among the rank and file to trust the military justice system. The minister's predecessor indicated that there would be a study of the military justice system.

Would the minister consider in light of the red book promise submitting a review of the justice system to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs for its consideration and report?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The Department of National Defence is reviewing the justice system for the military. I share the hon. member's views that generally speaking it has worked well for a very long time but, as in any system, there is always ample room for improvement.

We will be bringing forward some changes to the military justice system and certainly, as has been the case with matters relating to the Department of National Defence and the military, I expect that it is very probable that they would be considered by the standing committee.

However, as the hon. member would know, I do not dictate what the committee will entertain in terms of its own agenda, but I would be pleased at the appropriate time to have the very valuable input that we always get from that committee.

Old Age Security

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

On November 8, a reporter from the TVA network explained that it was very easy to cheat on old age security benefits. The journalist even managed to get more than $5,000 from the federal government by using the birth certificate of a person deceased four years earlier, without any check being made by the department.

Last year, the department's investigators uncovered, to their dismay, fraud in excess of $4 million. Can the minister tell us about the scope of this year's fraudulent activities and why it is so easy to cheat?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Department of Human Resources Development have a duty to serve Canadians well. When people apply for benefits late, that is some time after they have become entitled to such benefits, we quickly issue a cheque to them and a verification is conducted during the weeks and the months following the issuance of that first cheque. This is a perfectly normal procedure.

However, it is illegal to deliberately submit an ineligible application to the department and to take advantage of our goodwill and our good faith. We want to reassure this House and all Canadians that we have audit systems in place to detect fraudulent activities, and that these systems are constantly updated and have been greatly improved in recent years, thanks to the new technology.

Canadians should know that losing $4 million out of a total budget of $57 billion is pretty good compared to what happens in many other countries, and that we are working very hard to improve the system even more, because Canadians deserve the best.

The bottom line is that those who are entitled to a cheque must receive it as quickly as possible. Providing good service must remain our priority.

Points Of Order

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question, the Minister of Transport pointed out that, because of his lack of experience, my young colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean did not seem to understand that any minister can answer any question from the opposition, according to the principle of cabinet responsibility.

The Minister of Transport, who has been a member of this House for a longer period of time, who has a lot of experience, should be aware that the Speaker has previously informed the official opposition that any question dealing with the administrative duties of an individual minister or with a statement made by an individual minister should be put to the minister in question.

I just wanted to remind my colleague, the Minister of Transport, that seniority and experience are not always synonymous with wisdom and good judgment.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be mixing up the questions put and the responses given.

The fact is that any member of the opposition can address any question to any member of the government. However, the Prime Minister may answer any question himself or some other minister might answer any question, depending on the decision of the government.

The actual response to a question from the other side of the House is from the government. The government speaks as one voice and, therefore, the principle of the solidarity of cabinet is preserved.

I will be happy to discuss this more fully with the hon. House leader of the opposition because really there is no issue of privilege whatsoever or a point of order.

If the member wishes to have lunch with me sometime and chat about this a bit more, we might even invite the Speaker to come along.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the invitation, I would certainly be pleased to do so one day.

However, I want to point out to the Minister of Transport that, pursuant to a previous ruling by the Speaker, my young colleague could not put his question to anyone else but the Minister of Industry, who preferred to dodge the question and evade the issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I want to thank my colleagues for their comments.

[English]

Government Response To Petitions

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 47th report later this day.