Debates of March 19th, 1996

Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, the chief commissioner performs a helpful role in identifying areas where reform is needed. Perhaps he is not best placed to decide what the priorities of government should be.

The government has acted in a number of fronts in relation to human rights since its election in 1993. It will continue to do so. It will respect its commitments and that is very clear.

Immigration

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the parliamentary secretary admitted that the minister of immigration destroyed all 30,000 copies of a booklet that her predecessor had published with taxpayers' funds.

Can the minister please advise the House what she found so offensive in these booklets that she had $20,000 of taxpayers' money put through the shredder?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said last Friday, when I came to this department, I reviewed all existing documents, all current policies. I revised the calendar and the agendas. The document in question was deemed inappropriate for distribution.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister finds that it was inappropriate. Will she admit that the real reason she had these booklets destroyed was because she recognized something that the current Minister of the Environment did not, that the use of

taxpayers' money to publish blatantly partisan material is a violation of government regulations.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, when taking over a new department, it is perfectly normal for a new minister to examine all documents, policies, draft policies and relevant agendas, and readjust and adapt the development schedule consequently. That is what was done. Again, I considered this document was inappropriate for distribution.

Chatham, New Brunswick

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.

The base at Chatham was closed in the budget of 1994. For the last two years local groups: Sky Park, the city, the premier of New Brunswick and the province have been working to determine optional uses for the base.

Would the minister please inform the House what has been the results of the negotiations?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, no other member of the House has dealt with the very devastating blow of the closure of a military base in such a professional manner as the hon. member for Miramichi. It has been difficult for the region and for the province.

I know the premier and my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development as regional minister for New Brunswick, have worked exceptionally hard with the local member to see if we can apply those moneys that were announced to mitigate the closure of the base in 1994 in a way that will help job creation in that area.

The province has come up with a very novel way to apply the money which is by taking over the base as it closes this spring. In that way, the full responsibility for continued operations and hopefully the attraction of jobs and economic prosperity to that region will result.

My colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, and the premier will be making a more formal announcement later this day with the details of this agreement.

Cuba

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.

Yesterday, the Minister of International Trade and the vice-president of the European Commission discussed ways to convince the United States to restrict the scope of the new Helms-Burton act.

Could the minister tell us about the content of his discussions with the vice-president of the European Commission and the extent of the changes to the Helms-Burton act they demand?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of the European Commission is quite supportive of the position that Canada has taken. It has been well enunciated by the Prime Minister, my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and myself in indicating our objections to this bill and the extraterritorial measure of the United States as it applies to our country and people who trade with Cuba.

We believe it is fundamentally wrong. We are taking action with respect to NAFTA. We have issued a letter to our partner, the United States, to commence with consultations under NAFTA.

The European Union shares our concerns. In fact, we have had very wide support from many countries right around the world. We will be raising this matter, together with the European Union, in various international forums such as the World Trade Organization and the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development to get the kind of support needed so that the United States will exercise the necessary discretion not to implement this bill.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of the European Commission and the Canadian government examined potential solutions, including-according to Mr. Brittan as reported by the Canadian Press-trying to persuade the United States to restrict the scope of the act in such a way that it would be less harmful.

Are we to understand that the government is about to negotiate with the U.S. minor amendments to make it slightly less harsh instead of going directly to the international courts in order to have this act purely and simply annulled?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, there is some latitude for the President of the United States in terms of the implementation. That is what I think Leon Brittan, the vice-president of the commission, is talking about. We have attempted to urge the administration in the United

States to use the limited discretion it has to reduce the impact of this legislation.

We will continue to pursue that in our consultations with the United States. However, we are also quite prepared to go into other forums for further discussion to try to bring about a more satisfactory resolution than presently exists with this legislation.

Justice

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of Mr. John Desotti to the bench by the justice minister stopped the hearing of an unresolved complaint that was registered against him with the Law Society of Upper Canada by the Roberts family of North Bay. This denied the Roberts family rights granted it under Ontario law to a fair and just hearing.

My question is for the justice minister. Why did the justice minister not wait until the law society had reached its final decision before he appointed Mr. Desotti to the bench?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two factual errors in the question as put.

The first is that there was an interruption of a hearing for the purposes of the appointment. That is not so. The second is that the appointment was made before there was a decision on the complaint. That is not so.

As I mentioned to the member when he put this same matter to me 10 days ago, there was a complaint by a former client to the law society in relation to John Desotti from the days when he was in practice. The law society investigated the complaint and determined that there was no foundation to it and that the law society would not proceed against Mr. Desotti. There was no hearing under way and no complaint that was authorized by the law society.

After that happened his name came forward for consideration for appointment and I brought his name to cabinet because he is going to be a very good judge.

The procedure of the law society enables the client to seek a review of the initial decision before a single bencher of the law society. It was while that review was pending that his name came forward. I took into account the nature of the complaint and the facts.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Order. Order.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I am responding to the question. I brought the man's name forward because under the circumstances it was the appropriate thing to do in my judgment.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the judgment rendered by the Law Society of Upper Canada was under appeal. A date had been set for that appeal hearing before the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Roberts family were prepared to attend that appeal hearing and submit further information for consideration by the law society.

The justice minister's intervention by appointing Mr. Desotti to the bench stopped the process that had been granted under the legislation of Ontario.

What is the justice minister prepared to do to ensure that the Roberts family has a fair and just hearing to the complaint it registered against Mr. Desotti before the Law Society of Upper Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not what I am prepared to do for the Roberts family. The issue is what the Roberts family wishes to do for itself.

The complaint which was made to the Law Society of Upper Canada was fully investigated and a determination was made by the discipline officers not to proceed.

There is nothing in the appointment of Mr. Desotti to the bench of the general division in Ontario which deprives the Roberts family of its civil remedies in law. I am sure the family has legal advice to provide a full description of the rights and remedies available and of which it is still able to take full advantage.

Trade

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It concerns the negotiations between Canada and Chile toward a new trade agreement.

Both the Canadian labour movement and the Chilean labour movement feel that the negotiations are an excellent opportunity to dramatically improve the NAFTA side agreements on labour and the environment.

Why is the minister not seizing this opportunity by insisting on incorporating within the proposed bilateral agreement provisions requiring both parties to respect and observe a core set of labour rights and standards?

Will the minister show the same courage on labour rights in defence of Canadian workers that he is showing on Cuba in defence of Canadian investors and not be intimidated by American congressional reluctance to see such labour and environmental standards? Or is it Canadian reluctance? Why the refusal to make progress on these issues within the context of these bilateral negotiations?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, until recently the parallel agreements which exist in NAFTA with respect to the environment and labour

standards were not part of the Chilean discussion because it was a blocking point for the United States. That is why the U.S. could not get it through congress. The majority in congress did not want to deal with those two issues.

In our bilateral arrangements with Chile we had put them on the table because the questions of the environment and labour standards are important and we are negotiating with them.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that he will be insisting as a condition of arriving at a conclusion to these negotiations that there be a core set of labour rights incorporated in the agreement pursuant to international conventions like those established by the ILO? Is that the position of the Canadian government? That is not what is understood to be the position of the Canadian government by the Canadian Labour Congress, for instance. Would he please say whether the position of the government has changed.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I have met with Mr. White of the Canadian Labour Congress and his officials. I indicated that what we were doing in the case of Chile was not only a bilateral free trade agreement but was also an effort to bring about its accession into NAFTA.

The NAFTA agreements and the parallel agreements with respect to the environment and labour standards would be our guide in dealing with these negotiations with Chile.

Food Inspection

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.

Since 1993 the Canadian government has been right sizing, harmonizing and generally saving Canadians money. Could the minister explain what the single food inspection agency is and how it will benefit and save Canadians money?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question about what is really a very good news story for Canadians.

We will be consolidating and strengthening all food safety standards setting functions within the Department of Health and we will consolidate and strengthen all inspection and quarantine functions within a new food inspection agency at the federal level that will draw together activities presently spread among three different departments.

This will maintain absolutely the Canadian reputation for food safety. It will improve efficiency and effectiveness, saving something in the order of $44 million annually, and it will set the stage for a truly national Canadian food inspection system with collaboration among all levels of government, a good example of how Canadians work well together.

[The Speaker]

This brings to a close the question period.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing or special order, no later than the time when Government Orders is reached following Oral Questions on Thursday, March 21, 1996, the motion for second reading of Bill C-10, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1996, shall be deemed to have been adopted on division and the said bill shall be referred to a committee of the whole; and

That, no later than fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time allotted for Government Orders on that day, the Speaker or the chair of the committee of the whole, as the case may be, shall put every question necessary for the completion of all remaining stages of the said bill without further debate or amendment, provided that the motion for third reading shall be subject to a recorded division that day.