Rwanda's foreign affairs minister said that he did not feel the mission was necessary other than to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches refugees who have returned home. It would appear that even this statement is not up to date, because the Rwandan government has apparently said in the last few hours, minutes even, that in their view the entire mission is no longer necessary.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Given that all observers apparently feel that American involvement is essential to the success of the mission, and given that the United States has announced that they will not take part, that they will not send ground troops and participate fully, what alternative is planned to ensure the safety of troops and to guarantee the multinational character of the intervention?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the situation is evolving very rapidly. According to reports, 500,000 refugees have returned to Rwanda. At this time, General Baril and observers from the United Nations, the United States and elsewhere are assessing the current situation in eastern Zaire, at the border with Rwanda, particularly in the southern part of that region.
When we have the information, we will know exactly how many Rwandan refugees are in Zaire. Will they return to Rwanda? When they go back to Rwanda, they are home and there is no longer any need for military intervention because they are in their own country. It is strictly a question of providing them with humanitarian aid.
The situation is evolving. General Baril, who was appointed to lead the mission, is now in Kigali. There will be a meeting of military commanders in Stuttgart, Germany, on Thursday or Friday chaired by General Baril, for the purpose of evaluating military requirements.
Tomorrow, there will be a meeting of political representatives at the United Nations. That will be held in New York. Saturday, in Geneva, all representatives of countries contributing humanitarian aid will meet to evaluate needs and see what can be done.
As we speak, the mission is still on. The statement to the effect that the United States has announced officially that it will not be present does not match my information. I spoke with Mr. Lake myself yesterday evening. He told me that he and the others were assessing the situation and that he would be in Stuttgart on Thursday, and that a decision would be made at that time. The United States has assured us that it has not changed its basic position.
The situation is changing rapidly and we should be pleased that the refugees have been able to return home without military assistance. I think this is a great achievement that should make everyone happy.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his information, but there is one point on which I still have a question.
When the Prime Minister tells us that there is no need for any military intervention in the case of the refugees who have gone back to Rwanda, I would like to ask him if the Canadian government has obtained assurances from the Rwandan government that the safety of these people will truly be assured. In our opinion, it is not obvious that these people are necessarily completely safe once they return to Rwanda.
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are Rwandan citizens returning to their own country. Local authorities assure us that measures have been taken to help them return to normal life in their country. This is within their own country.
At this time, the Rwandan government does not want military intervention with respect to its own citizens within its own borders. This is entirely normal under international law.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the mission that we supported and that the government set up was for the very purpose of saving lives, of ensuring that food, medicine and water reached all these people, many of whom are in terrible straits. I know that the Prime Minister is concerned about these people.
We have soldiers over there who are being prevented from doing their work. I would like to know what steps the Canadian government has taken, or can take, to ensure that they are in a position to take action. It is far from obvious, just because a certain number of refugees have returned home to Rwanda, first, that they are safe, and, second, that humanitarian aid-the purpose of the mission-water, food and medicine can reach those who have not yet made it
back and those still travelling and dying daily. Is the Prime Minister in a position to ensure that the troops already there can take action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that the Rwandan government welcomes those wishing to provide humanitarian aid. There is no doubt on this score. They will facilitate the movement of people who must travel there to distribute food, clothing, and necessary medication. In this regard, we have the assurance of the Rwandan government that everything will proceed normally. This aid will not necessarily be distributed by the armed forces, but by organizations that can dispense these services.
As for eastern Zaire, a reconnaissance mission is assessing the situation. It is now at the site, accompanied by Rwandan authorities. Flights are also being made over the area to assess population movement. It will be with accurate information about what is taking place that the Stuttgart meeting will be held and a decision taken on the nature of the military intervention, if the need still exists.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In light of rapid developments in the situation in Zaire, does the Government of Canada approve of the restricted mandate which the U.S. government and Rwanda seem to want to impose on it, in other words, a mandate that excludes opening and maintaining humanitarian corridors outside Rwanda?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister pointed out, it is important to examine the situation in Zaire very carefully. It is very important to share information with other countries that are members of the multinational force. Tomorrow, during the meeting at the UN and later at the meeting in Stuttgart, we will be asked to examine and evaluate what the next step should be in achieving the goals set by the UN last week.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker, considering that the numbers that were to be involved in the multinational force are now, according to current information, being reduced, what is the level of resources, human and otherwise, that the Government of Canada would judge to be essential if this multinational force is to fulfil its mandate effectively?
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said to earlier questions and as I just stated, we are looking for better information and intelligences in the southern province of Kivu in Zaire. At this time we know there are a number of refugees there but we do not know how many. We are also not sure whether they will be moving across the border in the next 24 or 48 hours.
As soon as we can evaluate that very carefully we will determine whether the continuing aid for the multinational force to provide a secure environment for humanitarian aid is required or whether the emphasis will be fully shifted to supply that humanitarian aid to Rwanda.
We will certainly keep the House informed. I offered yesterday to maintain an ongoing consultation through the committee system. We will make sure that as each development takes place Parliament is made fully aware of each development.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government's aid mission in Zaire seems to be all over the map. The immediate crisis is over. We know that and are glad for that, but humanitarian aid is still required, as was just mentioned.
The disaster assistance relief team is stuck in Uganda and our soldiers have not even been allowed past the airport in Rwanda.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House just what our mission to Central Africa is and what efforts he is making to ensure the safety of our Canadian troops?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the mandate is very clear. The mandate has been given to an international force to go into Central Africa to help provide food, medication, shelter and other needs to the refugees. At this time we are all on the side of Zaire.
I am happy to see that the representative of the third party realizes that probably half of the refugees are back in their country of Rwanda and others are moving. At this moment a survey is being made by a team in eastern Zaire to evaluate the situation to find out what is happening to the refugees who are still there. We are told by the Government of Rwanda that it will open the southern part to let the refugees into Rwanda in the days to come.
By the end of the operation we will know if there are still some Rwandan refugees in Zaire. If there are none, the problem will become strictly humanitarian. As I said earlier, the Government of Rwanda is willing and eager to receive help from all the countries that want to contribute to this settlement of the people coming back home after two or three years.
It may be that in the next three or four days we will be in a position where the armed forces will not be required any more. At this moment the Canadian soldiers who are in Kigali are completely safe and in no danger. They are awaiting the evaluation that will be made by General Baril and the other military officials involved. They will be meeting in Stuttgart, Germany on Thursday or Friday and the decision will be made at that time about what kind of forces and who outside Canada will be contributing.
The British are contributing and the Americans say they will be there and many others. I was on the phone with President Mandela a few minutes ago discussing the matter. He wants to be there and he wants to have a strong African participation in the effort.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, certainly the safety of our troops should be one of the government's top priorities.
We were invited into Bosnia and Haiti. Yet Canadians still suffered over 120 casualties in Bosnia, including 12 deaths.
Rwanda, as the Prime Minister said, is still refusing military troops and the armed forces. Eritrea is opposing our involvement and South Africa is no longer willing to commit troops, as we understand it. It is not clear how welcome the Canadian troops are.
Will the Prime Minister ensure to Canadians that he will not commit Canadian troops beyond the immediate relief team there already until African countries agree to and support our involvement there?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the resolution at the security council last week was unanimous. When the meeting was called by Canadians before the resolution, we expected to have 25 countries show up, and 75 came and everybody was very eager to have a resolution adopted and everybody wanted to find out what kind of contribution they could make.
(1430)
As I said earlier, the actual commitment of troops will be discussed in Germany on Thursday or Friday. Depending on the evaluation of the situation, a decision will be made by the military officers who are in charge. As of this moment, the meeting has been called by General Baril, a Canadian, who received a mandate from the security council to prepare troops if military intervention is needed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we hope that when that decision is made it is a practical decision, not a political one.
There is a human cost that is paid every time we send our troops into theatres of action. They are the best in the world and we support our military without reservation. The government, however, must not over extend our military reach. Many military analysts are saying that Canadians and Canadian troops should not be supporting another military engagement.
The Prime Minister knows that Canadians need to make an informed decision regarding committing Canadian troops to Zaire. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he plans to scale back our commitments in Bosnia and Haiti?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three years ago we had more than 4,300 Canadian troops committed abroad. They were stationed in the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and so on. At this very moment we have about 2,000 troops in Bosnia, Haiti and Africa. This is less than half the amount of people who were committed three years ago.
I have been informed by the Minister of National Defence that to commit more troops to Africa at this time is not outside the capacity of the military. In all the discussions we have had, the Canadian military is very well respected around the world. I was very confident in asking it to take the lead and go to Zaire.
By participating in the Tokamak project, Canada is making a 1 per cent contribution to the international nuclear fusion research effort. The Prime Minister is no doubt aware that this 1 per cent contribution gives Canada access to 100 per cent of all developments in this area of research and that his unfortunate decision to cut Tokamak's funding by $7.2 million will exclude us completely from this very promising area of research.
I call on the Prime Minister's common sense. Given the fundamental importance of this project and the extremely positive impact it will have on Quebec's economy, would the Prime Minister not consider personally interceding to find the $7.2 million necessary to carry on such an important research project?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have told the hon. member a number of times in this House, very difficult decisions have had to be made during the exercise of program review and returning fiscal order to the books of the nation. AECL has not been immune from these very difficult exercises.
As I have explained to the hon. member on a number of occasions, fusion research is not a priority for this government. Therefore when we have to make tough fiscal decisions, we have to decide what our priorities are and we have decided. I think the hon. member understands the reasons why we made the decision we made.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as it is a matter of finding the meagre $7.2 million required to maintain Tokamak in operation and ensure we do not lose the substantial
economic benefits of this project, the Bloc Quebecois will take the liberty today of making a suggestion to the government.
Since the Minister of Natural Resources claims-she just said so herself-she can no longer afford to fund this project out of her department's budget, why does the government not draw on the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec and the National Research Council of Canada, as it did for the TRIUMF project in British Columbia?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me reiterate that fusion research is not a priority for this government.
(1435)
Let me on a more positive note remind the hon. member that for every CANDU reactor that is sold we create over 4,000 person years of employment in the province of Quebec, primarily in the area of Montreal.
Let me remind the hon. member that for every CANDU reactor we sell we spend over $150 million in the Montreal area, in its economy.
In fact, by repriorizing the activities of AECL in terms of selling CANDU reactors in the export market we are directly contributing to the economy of Montreal and Quebec.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the government hiding the fact that it had warnings and draft legislation prepared that would have protected the blood supply and saved thousands of Canadian lives in 1984?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member ignores the fact that the government has co-operated completely with the investigation being conducted currently by the Krever commission.
The government has put all of its cards on the table in a very serious way to resolve a problem which has been ongoing and which preceded this particular administration.
The member will also recognize that in the interim report the recommendations that related to the federal jurisdiction were immediately addressed. The Government of Canada is doing its very best to co-ordinate all factors that come into play in ensuring that such a tragedy will not happen again.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, some co-operation. We have a legal challenge, we have an end run with transfusion Canada and now a gag. That is co-operation?
Justice Krever thinks this information is vital for his inquiry. The blood supply killed thousands of Canadians, yet this government refuses to give him the information. Cabinet secrecy, it says. Nonsense. The only secret is this government's trying to keep from the public that Liberals could have protected the blood supply in 1984. Instead they chose to do what was politically expedient. They chose to do nothing.
My question, again, is to the Prime Minister, who was deputy prime minister in 1984. Why will he not release these documents to Krever? What is the government trying to hide?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the documents referred to are documents related to the operation of the cabinets of previous governments, not this government, and under the law the Prime Minister cannot release cabinet information from previous administrations.
I have nothing to hide. It is the law of the land that I am respecting.
Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: ``I will confirm this: Starting January 1, 1997, an additional 500,000 Canadians will be covered by unemployment insurance, because they will now qualify for coverage under this system''. I must be dreaming. Did the minister spend time in his constituency office? Did he look at the bill? Did he read his department's documents? These documents are clear: 500,000 more people will pay premiums, but not one additional person will qualify.
Does the minister recognize that paying premiums does not equate being covered by the system?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I do recognize is that we have a modern employment insurance system which indeed covers an additional 500,000 people. I checked again, since it was the fourth time that this question was put to me.
(1440)
I checked yesterday afternoon to make sure that the data I had was accurate. In the course of this verification with my advisers, I found the same thing I do when I go, every Friday, to my constituency office, which is also in eastern Montreal. I can tell you
that, out of these 500,000 Canadians who now qualify under the new system, which is based on the number of hours, and who work part time, 270,000 are women. We are very proud of our reform.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, it does not apply now but only as of January.
Does the minister recognize that, to be covered under the system, one has to qualify, and that the new legislation which will come into effect in January triples the basic requirements for all those who are currently not in the workforce, particularly young people and women, including those of Saint-Michel, and others, and that it doubles these requirements for all the others, including pregnant women? This is the new economy.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest shown by the hon. member for Mercier regarding this reform. I am perfectly aware that the new requirements will come into effect on January 1, 1997, and I also realize that people are anxiously awaiting the implementation of this employment insurance reform.
Can the finance minister explain why a document produced by his own department shows he has raised taxes 30 times? Will he explain why he refuses to cut government waste and permanently lower taxes as Reform has proposed in its fresh start election platform?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between 1993 and 1997-98 the revenues will have increased by some $23 billion, $600 million of which is from excise tax increases. I would remind the hon. member there has been no increases in personal income taxes. Of that, $2.2 billion is from closing tax loopholes. Does the hon. member object to the closing of tax loopholes? Does he object to the fact that we have perhaps closed some of the loopholes used by his wealthy friends for the betterment of the average Canadian?
The vast majority of the increase, $17.1 billion of the increase, has arisen due to increased economic activity. The country is working and that is what it is all about.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he has not raised personal taxes, he has raised taxes on persons. According to the Fraser Institute there has been a $3,000 national pay cut since the government came to power.
Let me provide some areas where the government can cut its spending so that it can indeed introduce lower taxes. How about the $3,600 grant this government gave to the Mary Kay distributor in Midland, Ontario? I know the industry minister will say it was for research and development but frankly I do not buy it. There was $10,000 for the tattoo shop in Vancouver. I am sure that was very vital spending.
Why does the minister squander tax dollars on these boondoggles while families, seniors and low income Canadians desperately need tax relief? And could I have the answer without the waving of the arms and the aneurysm?
(1445)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Just wave your arms and all things will be revealed unto you.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about tax cuts. Let us talk about the reduction of $500 that somebody who is going to buy a $15,000 car will get this year compared to last year. Let us talk about the $3,000 reduction on a $100,000 mortgage for somebody who rolls their mortgage over today compared to a year ago. Let us talk about the reduction in the cost of refrigerators. Let us talk about the increase in disposable income that Canadians have as a result of this government's activities, this government's budget and this government's economic management.
Mr. Pettigrew: Arrogance?
Mr. Duceppe: Leaving aside the arrogance, because in order to say people are keen, one really has to be cut off from reality.
Leaving aside the fine talk, I have a very simple question. We will use the example of a person from Papineau-Saint-Michel,
who has been laid off after 50 weeks of work, who has worked eight hours a week for a total of 400 hours in the year. Working for 52 weeks at six dollars an hour, this person has earned $2,400. I am asking him this question to make sure I am right, if the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel understands properly.
Is it not true that this person will pay premiums for each of the 400 hours worked, whereas none were paid before? Is it not true that this person will receive no benefits after being laid off, for having worked only 400 hours instead of the requisite 910? Is it not true that the premiums paid will not be reimbursed?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, excellent written question. I can explain, and I think the official opposition will understand. As regards the people in my riding, when you talk about the new employment insurance system, they appreciate that the system focuses on active measures and that they may be covered from the first hour they work.
That is, people who were not working 15 hours a week because only 10 or 12 hours were available did not pay and were not covered. Now, from the time they pay and have worked even only eight hours in a week, it counts. These hours will of course be added to other hours they do in other weeks, where the average is better. So, from the moment the system is in place, coverage is expanded and flexibility is greater.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the question is not written, because I followed the debate, and I know how it went, and I was here when we debated the reform now under the minister's responsibility.
I repeat my question. With 400 hours worked in a year at the rate of eight hours a week, paid six dollars an hour for an annual salary of $2,400, the person will have to pay now where he did not before. This person is not eligible for benefits and will not be refunded his contributions, because he earned more than $2,000. Will the minister confirm that this person will now be a contributor but not a claimant? That is the question.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the show of support, it brings back fond memories.
I will repeat that the new employment insurance system promotes a return to work and encourages people to work as many hours as possible-it promotes employment, in other words. We see this system as a way to encourage people to return to work and do as many hours as possible to improve their coverage.
(1450)
[English]
Last month I was pleased to meet with the minister to discuss a number of transportation issues of importance to Labrador. most important of course is the completion of the trans-Labrador highway system. Does the minister recognize the important contribution the trans-Labrador highway system would make to the people of Labrador, to Newfoundland and to Canada as a whole?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and as we discussed, the trans-Labrador highway is not part of the national highway system and is essentially a provincial responsibility. However, under two of the current Canada Newfoundland and Labrador contribution agreements, $32 million has been approved for improvements to the trans-Labrador highway. Of that $32 million, $26 million is the federal contribution.
Professionals across the country say that the best way to prevent youth crime is to make sure children are being raised in caring stable homes by a primary caregiver or someone the child knows in the neighbourhood. Reform's fresh start for the family includes a child tax benefit so parents can better afford to raise their children in this way.
Because tomorrow is National Child Day and since this Liberal government claims to be concerned with preventing youth crime, will it take some real action and extend the child tax benefit to anyone with children under 12 regardless of how they are caring for their children?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, forgive me but this is my first question from this member. I am not quite sure how to handle it.
As was very clear in previous budgets the whole issue of parenting and children is of uppermost concern to the government. We have brought in a number of measures including the doubling of the working income supplement, broadening the eligibility for the child care expense deduction, and the extension of the age limit for children. We will continue in this vein.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Thompson: Canadians are saying that they want crime prevention measures that will work and will make them feel safe on the streets again, and they want control of family decisions returned to the family.
When will the Liberal government finally quit talking and start doing what is right for Canada and Canadians? When will it begin to implement crime prevention measures that will work, that will return the control of the family to parents and will end the Liberal government's attempt to remove parents from Canadian families?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for my part I am quite used to questions from this member and I know exactly how to deal with them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: It is by responding with the logic which I hope he is becoming used to day by day.
It was this government that two and a half years ago created the National Crime Prevention Council. It was this government that two and a half years ago began plotting a national crime prevention strategy. Through our policies and through our legislation we have done everything possible to strengthen families to make sure children are brought up in the stable environments that the hon. member refers to.
I want to talk about a measure that was passed by this House just yesterday. Bill C-41 strengthens the process by which child support payments are determined and enforced in this country. Those measures are going to assist in the support of children when parents divide.
As the Minister of Finance has told the House, the money we derive from the change in the tax system on child support is being devoted to a doubling of the working income supplement which over the next five years will put more than $1 billion of additional revenue into the hands of 700,000 Canadian families, fully one-third of which are single parent families, and that is going to help children.
(1455)
[Translation]
On November 7, referring to the request made by retired Singer employees, the Minister of Human Resources Development said the following:
I believe there is a problem due to the fact that the pension fund belonged to the Singer company that was transferred to the United States, which closed its doors here and has declared bankruptcy in the U.S.Is this supposed to imply to retired Singer employees that the federal government will not acknowledge its responsibility unless it is able to recover the cost of doing so from the Singer company?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Human Resources Development did in fact receive a letter from counsel for the retired Singer employees. We will release the government's response to counsel very shortly.
The Department of Human Resources Development and my predecessors have reviewed this case several times since 1993. However, I wanted to check personally some facts that go back to the period from 1947 to 1964.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister confirms that there was a case, but the problem here is that there is also a statute of limitation. As soon as that kicks in, the Singer employees will have to go to court, and their average age is 80. That is what we are trying to avoid. Time is of the essence.
Considering that between 1947 and 1962, the federal government was responsible for the pension plan, that there was a $700,000 surplus remaining in the plan at the end, and that the government allowed Singer to use that money, which was not allowed under the contract, I would like to ask the minister whether, aside from the trouble the government may have recovering these amounts, he will finally admit that the government must acknowledge its responsibility and act quickly on this case?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with counsel for the retired Singer employees, and our lawyers are reviewing with them the implications of these contracts. As I pointed out before, we will give an answer as soon as possible, once our lawyers and counsellors have decided what they can do about this difficult case.
[English]
My question is for the immigration minister. Since Walter Beltran is not a Canadian citizen, will the minister ensure that this violent criminal is deported without delay?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear-the legislation provides for it-that we will not allow individuals with a criminal record, who are not Canadian citizens, to remain in Canada.
Bill C-44, which was passed by this Parliament, was aimed at giving us the tools to do just that. To our total amazement, the Reform Party voted against it at the time.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am still not clear whether or not the minister is going to deport this person. We are talking about a safety issue here.
This is an urgent matter. Beltran is to appear before an immigration adjudicator tomorrow who will decide if he is to be deported or released back into the community. Beltran's juvenile criminal record is as follows: possession of an unrestricted weapon, possession of heroin, intimidating witnesses, assault, and obstructing justice.
The people of Calgary want this person removed. Will the minister use section 44 of the Young Offenders Act, obtain Beltran's violent juvenile criminal record, declare him dangerous and have him deported so the people of Calgary will be at ease?
(1500)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the case is presently being reviewed by the courts. Let us not change the system and let it deal with such cases, and do not ask the minister to interfere while it is still before the courts.
[English]
Will the minister tell me what role Canada will play and when will we get some details?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that Canada will be leading a high level, major donor meeting this Saturday in Geneva. I intend to chair the meeting on behalf of the Canadian government.
The purpose of this meeting is to co-ordinate humanitarian aid and to discuss the transitional nature of those Rwandans who are now leaving the refugee camps along the borders inside and outside Zaire in order to regain shelter within their own respective communes.
A number of donor countries have already announced their participation, including the United States, a number of European jurisdictions, Japan and Australia.
I am also pleased to inform the House that Rwanda will be represented by one of its cabinet ministers.
The NDP regrets that the government did not take the opportunity to build into that agreement a mutually shared enforceable code with respect to labour and environment.
Has the government made any studies of who will be affected by this agreement? Will there be any adjustment programs like the Liberals called for in previous free trade agreements when the Tories were in power? Will there be adjustment programs and are there any studies? If there are not, will there be any studies so that we will know who will be hurt and how the government plans to help them?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of trade who is in Toronto today with the Chilean delegation promoting major business investments in both countries, I can assure the hon. member that the agreement includes both a major side agreement on labour and one on environment that allows both countries to work out the basic standards that can be met.
A dispute settlement resolution system goes with it and there is a referral system. The agreement breaks new ground and establishes the fact that there can be a relationship between environment, trade and labour matters to encompass the whole notion of sustainable development.
We would be happy to send the hon.member a copy of those agreements.