Debates of Dec. 5th, 1996

An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 8 I asked the government when it would amend Canadian legislation to facilitate the establishment of an international criminal court which is under active consideration at the United Nations. Such an international criminal court would try individuals who commit serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, including genocide and ethnic cleansing.

I acknowledge that the Canadian government is a strong supporter of the international criminal court, but as I said, the establishment of such a court requires amendments to our domestic law to permit the referral of accused Canadians who might be indicted by the new court.

Ever since the Nuremberg trials following World War II, which tried and judged Nazi war criminals, there has been a movement to establish a permanent international criminal court. Such a court should not be confused with the International Court of Justice at the Hague, known as the World Court, which judges disputes between nations.

The international criminal court would deal with individuals charged with massive violations of human rights, such as the accused at the Nuremberg trials and now those accused before the special tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. A permanent international criminal court would give credibility and provide deterrence to the process.

The Nuremberg court and the special tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda were set up post facto. In the case of the Nazi war criminals, the court was set up by the victors of the conflict. It would be much better to have such courts and their rules set up permanently in advance as is now proposed at the United Nations.

I await the government's answer. I know it supports the international criminal court but I would like to know when it will bring

forward legislation which would give impetus and give some movement to the whole issue at the United Nations.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has asked whether the government intends to amend Canadian law to permit the referral of an accused person to the new proposed international criminal court which is currently being debated by the general assembly in New York.

Canada has been a leading advocate in support of the establishment of a permanent international criminal court that would try major international crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and which would obviate the need to establish ad hoc tribunals as has been done for the situations in the former Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda.

In order to answer the question posed I believe that it is first necessary to review the history of this issue before talking about the need or timetable to enact legislation in Canada.

In December 1994 the general assembly established the ad hoc committee on the establishment of an international criminal court to review the major substantive administrative issues arising out of the International Law Commission's draft statute for an international criminal court. The report of the committee was considered by the 50th session of the general assembly in 1995 which decided that a preparatory committee should be struck with a view to preparing a widely acceptable consolidated text of a convention for an international criminal court. This would be the next step toward holding a diplomatic conference of plenipotentiaries to finalize the convention.

The preparatory committee on the establishment of an international criminal court found many major issues that remain to be resolved. The general assembly is currently considering the interim report of the preparatory committee. It is likely that the general assembly will reaffirm the mandate of the committee to continue its work in 1997 and 1998 with a view to having a diplomatic conference in 1998 to conclude the final negotiation.

Canada has been a leading advocate of a permanent international criminal court but it is only after a final text of a convention is concluded, when we will know what is legally required of us, that Canada can enact legislation designed to implement the convention that will establish the court. At present the UN does not even have the complete comprehensive draft convention.

When the time comes to enact legislation in order to implement the future international convention that would establish the court, let me assure this House that Canada intends to enact the necessary legislation quickly. However, at this time it is premature to be enacting legislation. We are still at least two years away from the final negotiations that would conclude the international convention on the creation of the court.

There are many complicated questions to be resolved by the UN, not the least of which are defining what surrender process will be used and defining the role of national laws in relation to obligations to assist the court.

On the domestic level Department of Justice officials are already considering what amendments would be necessary in future to provide the requisite assistance to the proposed international criminal court. Internationally we are playing an important role on the UN preparatory committee.

At the preparatory committee Canada is attempting to ensure that the scheme that is eventually adopted will be flexible enough to accommodate and promote co-operation to the court from all legal systems.

In summary, this government is working toward the creation of an international criminal court domestically and at the United Nations. I would like to thank the hon. member for his question on this important issue at this time.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I questioned the Minister for International Trade about the Liberal government's plans regarding the filing of an official complaint with the World Trade Organization.

For months and months, this government has been boasting about everything being under control. It certainly looks like this attitude is taking away any hope the industry may have had to see France reconsider its decision to ban asbestos on its territory.

This will have an tremendous impact on my riding, not only on the asbestos industry, but also on the development of the community as a whole. The government does not seem to realize how worried people are in my riding; all it does is send us ministers on a purely election-oriented mission. Could the minister tell us if cabinet issued some secret directions not to go to the WTO? We all know about this government's inclination to turn to the courts when in a tight spot.

Beyond the rhetoric and lip service we have heard from the minister and the Prime Minister, does the government have any real plan of action?

I would like to know the profound convictions of cabinet on this unique mineral, not only because of its extraordinary properties, but also because it constitutes one of the jewels in the crown of the Canadian mining industry.

It is high time the federal government made amends to the citizens of Thetford, Black Lake and the whole asbestos mining region. It made a commitment to intervene on the international level to rehabilitate asbestos, particularly chrysotile asbestos.

Perhaps the time is ripe for it to start promoting it on its own territory, even here on the Hill.

How can it be assumed that the asbestos that is sealed inside the walls in the buildings on Parliament Hill is dangerous? Yet that is what is suggested in the numerous internal memos we receive in our offices concerning the major renovations that are scheduled, including decontamination of the buildings.

Despite all the respect I have for this House and for cabinet, this whole scenario suggests to me that the Liberal government's famous action plan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The government, and its Minister for International Trade, are improvising daily in this matter, inventing things as they go along.

In this connection, I could produce before this House numerous documents setting out the position of the current government and the previous one concerning the government's true psychosis about the harmful effects of asbestos. My predecessor, the hon. Marcel Masse, was one of the most vocal supporters of chrysotile fibre during his entire political carrier in Ottawa. His statements in favour of asbestos were decisive for our industry.

Personally, I strongly condemn the lack of leadership shown by the Minister of Natural Resources, who proved unable to convince one French MP, Christian Daniel, of the safety of asbestos when used properly. Imagine, if she is unable to convince one lone MP, how could she hope to influence the position of a whole government?

In conclusion, I would ask the minister to apprise us of the government's intentions regarding the promotion of chrysotile fibre, especially with regard to the use of asbestos ore in Canada. The minister should take note of my question, I intend to follow through with it. People in the asbestos producing area are tired of ministers coming to Thetford with empty promises. As far as I know the election campaign has not started yet. The government was elected to govern, and so it should.

I hoped the international trade minister himself would answer my question. Does he not consider this issue important enough to be present in the House and respond to my comments?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the member and I have to say that the comments are simply not factual.

The member knows full well that the Canadian government, the Minister of International Trade, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources have taken the lead in trying to convince the French government, with respect to crystallite asbestos, that the ban it is seeking to impose is not one that is based on any internationally accepted view of the health risks associated with the asbestos.

The member should know, because it is of concern to his constituents, that the Minister of International Trade actually visited Thetford Mines to meet with municipal officials and hear firsthand from individuals who are working in the industry and from all the stakeholders what would be the best concerted approach that the Canadian government could take, working with the Government of Quebec, the industry and the communities to come up with a concerted game plan in order to convince the French that this particular ban should be reversed.

The member also knows full well that the Canadian government is looking at its options under the World Trade Organization. We believe that the French ban may violate commitments of WTO members that ensure that technical regulations are no more trade restrictive than necessary in order to fulfil a legitimate objective.

While France may have legitimate health and safety concerns about asbestos products, a ban on such products may be more restrictive than necessary, particularly if other-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there was a major conference in Ottawa last week. It brought together people from all across Canada who are interested in finding ways to relieve child poverty. They left knowing that the problem was well documented, but frustrated because there is little being done to deal with it.

However, there was one bright note and that was the award presented to the province of Saskatchewan and accepted at the conference by Premier Roy Romanow. The award acknowledged Saskatchewan's commitment to investing in children as a key priority and its co-ordinated approach to policy development and delivery.

Premier Romanow was also a featured speaker at that conference. He reminded us that it is the responsibility of all of us to value, protect and support Canada's children, to guide them in becoming healthy, functioning adults because it is the health and the strength of our children that will determine the future health and strength of our country.

He also reminded us of the most recent report of the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops which said: "To think that almost one Canadian child in five lives in poverty in one of the richest

societies in world history is nothing less than a damning indictment of the present socioeconomic order".

In Saskatchewan, the province's action plan for children was designated in 1993 to provide a model for the development of programs and services for children and families. It not only brings together community groups, agencies, individuals and governments to collaborate and deliver services, but also links activities between Saskatchewan's human service departments. This interlinking of departmental initiatives enables the province to better target limited resources and to develop programs that more effectively meet the overall needs of children and families.

It was this action plan that captured the attention of the child poverty community and was the impetus for the award presented to the premier last week.

But more needs to be done and Premier Romanow and most of Canada knows that the federal government must play an important role in this regard.

First, on the premier's national agenda to help reduce child poverty is a commitment to strong social programs. He emphasizes programs which address child and family poverty, but at the same time he stresses the necessity to preserve medicare and accessible quality education.

I might add that a major problem today is the federal Liberal government's insistence that $7 billion be cut from its transfers to the provinces for health and education programs. To me this $7 billion must be reinstated immediately.

The premier also believes that Canada must undertake a comprehensive review of the taxation system which is seen as being unfair, ineffective and not representative of current Canadian priorities. Obviously this fits well with the federal NDP's call for a fair taxation system which would see the banks and large corporations paying their fair share of taxes.

It goes without saying that our nation's children represent our nation's future. We have to take their needs into account as we plan for today's activities.

In 1989 a resolution brought forward by the then NDP federal leader Ed Broadbent to eliminate poverty by the year 2000 was passed unanimously by the members of the House. Since then 46 per cent more children are living below the poverty line. Obviously, the status quo is not working. Some aggressive action is required.

My question for the federal Liberal government is simple: When the premier of Saskatchewan and all those who care about children call for a different approach to dealing with poverty, is the minister, on behalf of the government prepared to heed that call?

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development and the hon. Minister of Health have indicated on many occasions, the Government of Canada is extremely concerned about the challenges facing low income families with children.

Poverty exacts an unacceptable toll on children. It often means that their physical needs for food, shelter and clothing are not met. It can result in their cognitive development being delayed compared with children in families with adequate incomes and it has long term costs for our country.

Poor children have poor health outcomes. They reach lower educational levels. They live in riskier environments and engage in riskier behaviours.

The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is calling for immediate action for children, but this action is already under way. The Prime Minister, along with other first ministers, has agreed that child poverty is a priority. The government is working with the provinces, including Saskatchewan, to identify ways to prevent and reduce child poverty.

To this end, a federal-provincial ministerial council on social policy renewal, co-chaired by the Minister of Human Resources Development, recently met and agreed to closely examine options for a national child benefit. A federal-provincial working group is meeting on an ongoing basis.

In addition, many provinces have demonstrated a commitment to fulfilling their responsibilities for children. British Columbia has just restructured its children's benefits and Quebec has announced its intention to refine its system. New Brunswick raised the issue in its recently delivered speech from the throne and Saskatchewan has announced its intention to introduce a provincial child benefit.

The Government of Canada is already providing important help to low income families and it is working toward finding solutions to the complex problems poverty presents. For example, the government now spends over $5 billion on child tax benefits that are paid to over three million Canadian families and has also doubled the working income supplement provided to low income families.

In addition, the government announced in its 1996 budget a child support strategy that will protect the interests of children and ensure parents live up to their responsibilities for child support in a manner that is fair and consistent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.)