Going back to Mr. Larsen and the Weyerhaeuser proposal, in talking about withdrawing from all actions at the WTO or at NAFTA or whatever, as an old labour negotiator, I see that makes a lot of sense, with one exception.

We do an assessment through the justice department, which is our normal litigation management process, and if it's viewed by the Government of Canada that we do have a legal obligation, that it was in fact a wrong and needs to be rectified, we obviously do an assessment on what the cost would be if we went to court and lost versus what we would pay to settle the claim.

(Return tabled) Question No. 4 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to international treaties and conventions dealing in whole or in part with human rights and with Canada’s international obligations in this regard: (a) does the government have any formal or informal procedures for regular review of those international human rights treaties that Canada has not yet signed, ratified, or otherwise accepted; (b) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking conflicts with the Constitution Act, 1867, and if so whe ...[+++]re can these guidelines be accessed; (c) do the guidelines referred to in (b) specify the standard according to which the government determines if any obligation contained in a treaty or other international undertaking violates any section of the Constitution Act, 1867; (d) has the government engaged in any review of its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD); (e) does the government have any formal or informal guidelines according to which it determines whether the specific obligations contained in a treaty or other international undertaking require implementing legislation in order for Canada to be able to ratify or otherwise accept it, and if so where can these guidelines be accessed; (f) does the government have a position as to whether international agreements that establish a complaints mechanism or communications procedure for enforcement of the rights and obligations contained therein are necessarily unconstitutional; (g) does the government have a policy as to whether Canada will accept such agreements referred to in (f); (h) does the government undergo review of proposed international human rights agreements that would establish such a mechanism or procedure referred to in (f) on a case by case basis, (i) who is involved in this review, (ii) are the provinces and other inte ...

It should be made abundantly clear in the Standing Orders, that govern the conduct of members of Parliament, that members are not in a conflict of interest just because they are engaged in a lawsuit or a lawsuit has been filed against them.

These data shall be erased or made anonymous as soon as possible and no later than six months after collection, unless they need to be kept for a longer period to establish, exercise or defend a right in a legal claim pending before a court.

When applying the first of its two cumulative criteria, the Commission correctly held in points 17 and 21 of the contested decision, without having previously considered the question whether the relevant Belgian provisions were compatible with Community law, that Belgacom could legitimately refer to those provisions, in the case of its first action, so long as they had not been invalidated ...[+++]and, in the case of its second action, so long as the absence of an implementing decree had not been held to be unlawful.