Brian Pallister

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the member might refer to the Senate committee on terrorism which referenced the fact that over 50 terrorist organizations operate within this country today. The member might reference numerous experts, far more expert than I, who are security knowledgeable people. The former director of strategic studies for CSIS himself, David Harris, noted that essentially Canada is operating an aircraft carrier for the jihad, that we have had far more people coming to tour country.

This is understandable. When one does a comparative study of the degree to which other nations welcome people from abroad, Canada has a proud history of welcoming people from around the world. Naturally there would be a tendency for some of those people to be terrorists. I think that to deny it is probably more dangerous than to admit the truth. The truth of the matter is, as we see investigations unfold--

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will not admit that because it would be untrue. The member is quite wrong. The bill is silent on the issue of increasing or in some way addressing the issue of criminal behaviour by people who have been extended diplomatic immunity. The bill is silent on that except to the extent that it expands the number of people who may be given immunity. It is silent on that aspect entirely.

The member makes the point that I cite examples from the past. I could speculate on examples in the future if the member would like. The fact of the matter is that these events have occurred and they have affected Canadians. They are not a joking matter. They are not irrelevant. They have affected Canadians and the bill is silent on the consequences of extending diplomatic immunity and broadening it, as the bill does. It is silent on that issue entirely. That shows me a disrespect for the past and a disrespect for the victims of the crimes of those people who have been given diplomatic immunity and who have taken advantage of it. I would say quite the contrary. I would say that we should learn from the past.

The bill does not learn from the past. Rather, it is a backward looking bill. The bill was drafted as a consequence of the APEC protest. The member knows that. The APEC protest happened several years ago. The nature of the APEC protest itself is that it was an historical protest. The protests that have happened since that time, in Quebec City, Seattle and the G-8 meeting in Genoa, have been much different. They have been bigger and broader in nature. The security requirements that will be necessary for such events in the future will likely be incredibly more demanding on our security services if we are to host such meetings, as we will next year with the G-8 meeting in Kananaskis, Alberta.

That being said, our obligation is to make sure that we give the same kind of respect to Canadian citizens obviously as we would to those diplomats who would come here from abroad. However that does not mean we have to treat the diplomats who come here from abroad as a separate class having rights over, above or beyond the rights of Canadians.

The member talked about the quid pro quo argument, and that is quite a legitimate point. He made a good argument. I appreciate the fact that we need to be concerned that our diplomatic corps abroad is also extended certain immunities and certain rights. Nowhere in my comments did I suggest we should withdraw all rights from all diplomats here. The resultant hairy scary theory he advances of what would happen if, has no legitimate relevance at all. What we are talking about here is a question of degrees, a question of should we be extending these rights more broadly to a larger number of people.

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois made the point that there should be a far broader definition of organizations that qualify for diplomatic immunity. I believe he would like to see, as is the position of the members of the Bloc, rights extended to organizations that are entirely provincial, originating in Quebec itself for example, and that diplomatic immunity should be extended to delegations that come here from abroad. That would mean that a delegation coming here from any number of different countries around the world and its participants would, under his proposal, if I understand it correctly, not be required to abide by Canadian law while here.

Diplomatic immunity is not a hot topic. It is not out there right now. People are not talking about it very much. However I believe many Canadians are interested in knowing what the merits are of extending a realm of lawlessness, essentially of giving people the right to not abide by Canadian law on a selected basis. I think many Canadians would be very interested in learning more about this topic. I think many Canadians would like to know and would like to understand why it is that we would propose, as the government is doing with the bill, to extend these kinds of rights on a broader basis to people from outside our country at a time in the world's history when concerns about violent acts of terrorism have perhaps never been greater. Many Canadians right now feel very insecure.

I would like to take this opportunity, if I might, to add my comments to the anti-terrorism bill that was presented earlier this week in the House. I did not have an opportunity to give them earlier.

I would like to add that my best wishes go out to our troops and to their families. The people in my constituency of Portage--Lisgar are thinking of them and are proud of the way they are standing up for Canadian values in a real way. As I see it, our primary task here is to do the same. It is to stand up for Canadian values as we see them and stand up in a real way, not just in rhetoric.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute my thoughts to the discussion on Bill C-35. I would like to pay special tribute to my colleague from Verchères--Les-Patriotes as well as to my colleague who spoke previously. Their comments were very insightful and added greatly to the debate.

It would be appropriate to go back a bit and talk about the aspect that is at the centre of the bill, the rules around diplomatic immunity. To do that we need to revisit why those rules exist in the first place.

Rules regulating the various aspects of diplomatic relations constitute one of the earliest expressions of international law. Whenever in history there has been a group of independent nations co-existing, special customs were developed on how ambassadors and other special representatives of those nations were to be treated, on special privileges and immunities related to diplomatic personnel of various kinds.They grew partly in consequence of sovereign immunity and the independence and equality of states and partly as an essential requirement of an international system.

States must negotiate and consult with one another and with international organizations. To do so, they need diplomatic staff. In most cases those diplomatic staff are comprised of citizens of their own countries who travel abroad to do that work, although in our own foreign affairs department a decreasing number of people working in our foreign embassies are Canadians. More and more we employ people who are nationals in the areas where our embassies are located. That is another topic for another day, but certainly a topic of concern to the members on this side of the House in the Canadian Alliance.

In short, the rules of diplomatic law lay down the receiving state's obligations regarding the facilities, the privileges, the immunities to be accorded to diplomatic missions, and on the other they foresee their possible abuse by members. They specify the means at the disposal of the receiving state to counter any such abuse. Our concern is that the balance between these two things has shifted perhaps too much against the whole state. In other words, there is not the opportunity for recourse that might be necessary in the event of a criminal act by a member of a foreign mission on Canadian soil.

It is disappointing to me, as it should be to any thoughtful member of the House, that the government has not seen fit to have the minister present the arguments as to the merits of the bill and that it has not seen fit to advance speakers to discuss the bill. That clearly is a distraction and evidence of a lack of enthusiasm for the bill. Perhaps not, but there is a presence of a desire to move the bill forward quickly in the absence of constructive debate. I invite the members on the other side of the House to contribute their thoughts and comments to the discussion as it is important.

American humorist Will Rogers defined diplomacy as the art of saying nice doggy while looking for a big stick. What we are concerned about is that the big sticks in diplomacy seem to be held by the people who come to Canada rather than by Canadians themselves.

We understand the traditional history of diplomatic immunity is of long-standing, I am told right back to the treaty of Westphalia, and that it has been enhanced and elaborated upon by the Vienna conventions and so on. We understand the need for diplomatic immunity in its basic sense. We know that in ancient times people who had the responsibility of being foreign ambassadors were sometimes treated badly by the other nations to whom they had to carry messages. Sometimes they were beheaded. I understand other elements of torture were applied to them. They were put in dungeons. They were punished for doing the work of trying to be intermediaries between two states.

Civilized states advanced and decided to move forward. They brought forward better ways of dealing with one another by giving immunity to those who had the courage to become members of the diplomatic corps. This of course was progress.

The essential secondary aspect of that immunity was that the receiving countries agreed they would not discriminate against the representatives from other countries regardless of their conduct in the past and that that was irrelevant.

What they may have done in a war a few years before was totally irrelevant. The lives they may have taken, even from the very country to which they were now an ambassador, were of no consequence whatsoever. The fact was they were free and clear. They were above the law. They were not just above the law in the sense that previous actions, whether criminal or not, were to be forgotten, but they were also above the law in the land to which they went. Of course that meant that they did not have to abide by the laws of the country to which they went.

Fortunately there have been relatively few instances, at least in modern times, where foreign diplomats or council staffs have betrayed the trust or dignity of their office by breaking the laws of the land in which they were stationed. Nonetheless, that reality, which is something I will address a little later in my comments, is unfortunately a reality we saw in Canada as recently as a few months ago: a reality that impacts on the lives of real people in a real way: a reality that human beings are not perfect; and a reality that when people are given positions that puts them above the law, for some reason or another they seem to think they are above the law and can behave in any way they might desire. That is not a good thing.

The history of immunity means trade-offs. We could say those trade-offs in our history were a good thing. They were progressive steps for medieval times when ambassadors were beheaded if the news was not good. That is a progressive step. Perhaps what we are debating now in the context of this bill is not whether diplomatic immunity itself is a good or necessary thing, but rather a question of degree. That is what we should be debating.

Is it right that we should expand upon the definitions of those people allowed to be above the law? Is that something that we should consider doing? Should we place a broader number of people in the country above Canadian law? Is that something we should do? I do not know. I do not think so.

I know that theoretical cases are sometimes used to illustrate points and I will provide one. Let us suppose that Afghanistan is defeated, the Taliban is deposed and a new administration comes in that is comprised of a coalition of a variety of forces representative of the people of Afghanistan. Let us suppose that we are able to bring democracy to Afghanistan and there is a freely held, open election where the most popular people would be elected to a new Afghanistan parliament.

Then let us suppose that Osama bin Laden runs and wins because he is a pretty popular man in some parts of Afghanistan. Let us suppose he goes into a house like this and serves there for years representing the people of Afghanistan. As is the case here of course, after a few years he would be appointed a diplomat, just as happens with Liberals on the opposite side. They advance to the diplomatic corps. Our diplomatic corps around the world is populated with former Liberal politicians.

Let us suppose that after a few years the government of Afghanistan decides that Osama bin Laden, on the right side of the power-brokers of the day, should be appointed a diplomat and is appointed to Canada. I hope everyone is getting my point.

The fact is when someone is put above the law there are consequences to doing that. The consequences for two women in Ottawa last year are real and permanent. There are consequences for not standing up for Canadian values. Canadians value the rule of law and people who abide by the laws that are made. We are proud of our system of laws.

In fact it stands in very stark contrast to the way in which we dealt with the issue of terrorism for too long. We have become known as a soft touch for terrorists around the world. We have become known as a safe haven. Every time a question is raised, the immigration minister does the same thing. She does this now and has done it for some months from what I understand.

For example, a question might be asked about why 50 people came here last weekend from Pakistan or Afghanistan without security clearance and then disappeared into the land, but the immigration department did not know where they were or what their security records were.

When someone asks a question, we immediately hear the response from the immigration minister that we are labelling everyone outside of Canada who is a refugee. We are asking questions about a process that Canadians are concerned about.

This country has a reputation among the peacekeeping law enforcement officials and investigative and intelligence personnel around the world as a soft touch for terrorists. It has a reputation in many countries as a place where one can go and immediately have charter rights and freedoms: the right to accommodation; the right to free medical care; the right to food; and welfare benefits. Immediately, we provide those benefits, and many of us in the House are proud of that. The reality is we do not want to provide those benefits to terrorists. That would be self-evident.

The question is: How do we deal with this system properly and carefully? On the one hand, the Liberals have said since September 11 that they want to deal with the problem. I accept that. September 11 changed our way of thinking. It changed many of us, perhaps forever, and some of that is not entirely bad. If it has brought about an awareness of the need for greater security and if it brings about a need for a greater understanding of the challenges we have to face to stand up for Canadian values in the world, then perhaps that is a benefit that has come from a tragedy.

However, the reality is that the Liberals, prior to that time, and perhaps again, have been torpid in their response the initiatives that we have advanced. Torpid means: slow moving, sluggish, inactive, inert, lethargic, lazy, listless, spiritless, indolent, languid, languorous, apathetic, lackadaisical, passive, slow-thinking, dull, half asleep, drowsy, somnolent and dormant. That is the response we have had from the Liberal government for several years in advancing security related suggestions, clear-headed forward thinking suggestions, which only now, in consequence of a crisis, it appears to be embracing. Better late than never.

This bill sends the wrong message. The bill sends the message that we will be tough on terrorists but we will be tough in terms of standing up for our values; we will be very permissive in extending the right to certain groups of people within our country, a growing number by this legislation, to be above the law. That sends the message that we have a flexible morality and we do not.

We have not got the military we used to have, but we are trying. I am proud, and we are all proud, of the Canadian people who are contributing to our military presence in this struggle against terrorism worldwide. However that should not deter us in doing everything we can on a diplomatic front.

The government says it is tough on terrorism. It has made that statement numerous times. However, when it had the opportunity to stand up and prove that, it failed. I speak now about the opportunity to oppose the selection of Syria to the United Nations security council.

The Prime Minister said in a press conference just last week “Together with our allies, we will defy and defeat the threat that terrorism poses to all civilized nations”.

In the House last week, the defence minister said “There is no doubt that those who perpetrate this terrorism need to be found out and brought to justice, as well as those who harbour them”.

Those are good words. Those are words I hope that all members could support. Unfortunately, when we had the opportunity to stand up and say no to Syria for the United Nations Security Council just last week, we did not.

Why should we have said no to Syria? Let us talk about that.

Syria, as a nation, has violated the United Nations Security Council economic sanctions against Iraq. It has pumped 100,000 barrels of Iraqi oil per day through its pipeline to the Mediterranean coast, which shows its contempt for the United Nations Security Council on which it now has a seat, thanks to Canadian representation.

Syria is an occupying power in Lebanon. It maintains 25,000 troops and intelligence agents in Lebanon. It uses Lebanese banks for its slush funds. It has turned the Biqa Valley into one of the world's greatest drug routes.

This contravenes UN resolution 425 which calls for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon.

The following terrorist organizations are known to be based in Syria according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, England and the United States state department: Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic jihad, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the list goes on and on.

Syria has been on the United States state department's list of states sponsoring terrorism since that list was first created in 1979. Hamas operates a political office in Damascus. It is openly operated.

The leader of the Islamic jihad which carries out suicide bombings in Israel lives in Damascus. The group has its headquarters there. Syria allows Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic jihad to operate freely from areas of Lebanon under Syrian control. Syria allows Iran to supply Hezbollah through the Damascus airport.

One would hope that if we were going to stand for Canadian values and do the things the minister of defence said we would do, which is to stand against those who harbour and support terrorism, we would at least have had the spine to say no to Syria for the United Nations Security Council. It was our opportunity and a glorious one to show that we would stand for Canadian values, not just in words but in actual deeds, and say no when it was right to say no.

I understand the need for us to have relations with various countries that we may not agree with some of the time or a lot of the time but I also understand that a good relationship is based on openness, truth and honesty. When has the government demonstrated to us that it has told the government of Syria that it is not acceptable to harbour terrorist organizations? It has not. That is not how a strong and good relationship is created. That is not how to stand for Canadian values in the world.

Yesterday, sadly, the tourism minister of Israel was assassinated by an organization named the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine which operates out of Syria. A week and a half ago we could have as a nation said no. We could have said that Canadians would not support this kind of thing but we did not. Yesterday another widow was the result of the action of a terrorist.

I am not blaming the members of the government for the actions of terrorists because that would be wrong and I will not do that. What I am saying is that we have to stand up for the values that we maintain we have. If we fail to do so then they are not truly our values. We have an opportunity and an obligation to do that.

In case the members opposite believe or disbelieve that there are no real consequences, they should consider the events of yesterday. A diminished Canadian voice has been the result of our failure to stand for our values. There are consequences to us domestically when we extend rights. I give the example of rights to diplomats, diplomatic immunity.

Last year Russian diplomat Andrei Knyasev, who had multiple previous drunk driving incidents, ran over and killed a woman and seriously injured her friend in Ottawa while under the influence of duty free alcohol to which he was entitled as a diplomat. He is beyond prosecution.

In 1997 a Kuwaiti embassy employee in Ottawa, Osama Al-Ayoub, was charged with two counts of reselling duty free liquor to which he was entitled as an embassy employee. He left the country without being prosecuted.

In 1996 Olexander Yushko, a Ukrainian consular employee in Toronto, claimed immunity after trying to lure two girls aged 12 and 14 into his car while holding an anaesthetic soaked handkerchief. He was also charged with two counts of drunk driving, possessing stolen licence plates and attempting to bribe a police officer. There was no prosecution there either.

In 1991 two unnamed Kenyan diplomats claimed immunity after being questioned in Ottawa for allegedly assaulting four teenage girls at knifepoint in two separate incidents in a vacant apartment they had broken into. They simply left the country without prosecution.

In the words of Catherine Doré, the woman injured in the unfortunate event of last year, the survivor of the Knyasev incident, she said:

Diplomatic immunity should not be an excuse for violating those rules which protect Canadian citizens. There are changes that need to be made—changes so that people like that don't get away without being punished.

The bill does nothing to address the weaknesses I have pointed out today. I encourage the government to make changes or withdraw the bill entirely.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I extend thanks to my colleague for his thoughtful comments and insights on the legislation.

I was particularly struck by his comments, and I believe he may have used the phrase expanded definition, on the need for a definition of organizations of various kinds that qualify for diplomatic immunity and treatment which has been afforded traditionally only to certain types of diplomats, certain treaty organizations, certain qualifying organizations and so on. I want to give him the opportunity to expand a little on that point because I am very interested in his thoughts.

The second point he made referenced the very unfortunate incident that occurred approximately a year ago when a Russian diplomat, who was driving while impaired, caused the death of a Canadian citizen and injured another. Of course, because of diplomatic immunity practices, we were not able to prosecute that individual here in Canada. I am also interested on his thoughts in that regard.

If we expand, which seems to be his wish, the rights of diplomatic personnel or broaden the definition so that many others qualify for certain rights under this act, how does he propose to deal with the resultant obvious increase in the number of people living in our country who would not be required to adhere to Canadian laws? How does he propose to balance those two things?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the sole question coming from the Liberal side of the House. I hope to see that interest continue on the bill.

There is a short time remaining and I know the member has given this some thought. A difficult balance has to be struck in terms of respecting individual rights and freedoms and at the same trying to stand strong against violence. We have seen in recent months and years an increasing tendency toward violence by protesters at international and domestic gatherings, with some of the protesters basically screwing the whole thing up for the rest. Because of this willingness of some to violate the laws of our country, they inhibit the ability of the others to freely express their views and concerns as they legitimately have the right to do.

I do not necessarily agree with all of the positions held by every protest group, however I would defend very strongly their right to express those views. Has the member given any thought to the impact of this legislation by giving the RCMP a broader ability in some respects to control the conduct of demonstrations against the government? Has it shifted the balance in some way that may detract or be deleterious to the conduct of a free and open lawful protest?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, given the catcalling from the other side, I am surprised there were no questions, but I will pose a question.

The member has found the bill riveting reading. Many of the contents of the bill, although the government has labelled them as housekeeping items, have certain consequences and certain resulting impacts.

The member alluded in his comments to the motivation of the bill perhaps being, in part at least, the government's concerns as a result of the APEC inquiry which cost the Canadian taxpayers in excess of $10 million. That resulted in a commissioner's resignation and tremendous delays. I think that aroused a lot of concerns among Canadians that perhaps there was a little too much political influence being exercised in terms of the RCMP's conduct, not specific to that event solely but in other respects as well. All of us recognize the vital importance of an independent police force and the RCMP of course with its worldwide reputation is one we are all proud of as Canadians.

Perhaps the member would like to put some comments on the record as far as his concerns or ideas around the RCMP. It might be of benefit to Canadians if we did a better job of separating the potential, at least, for political influence intermingling with the decisions our police forces should be making solely on the basis of facts and the investigative work they do.

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is soft on terrorism.

Our allies have frozen the assets of Al-Kadr's former front organization, Human Concern International, and the government still will not act.

The government knew the Tamil Tigers were a front for terrorists before the finance minister dined with them.

The government knew that Ahmed Ressam was a terrorist before he tried to bomb an airport.

The government knew Al-Kadr was a terrorist before the Prime Minister went to bat for him.

What good is expanding intelligence services in this country when the government will not act on the intelligence it already has?

[Terrorism, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, Canadian Ahmed Sa'id Al-Kadr was arrested in Pakistan for financing a terrorist bombing and the Prime Minister intervened on his behalf.

Foreign affairs officials and CIDA both knew in the 1980s that Al-Kadr was running Saudi money to terrorists in Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister says that he did not know of Mr. Al-Kadr's terrorist record. The Prime Minister was the last to know that the man he went to bat for was a terrorist.

What good is intelligence if it is not shared with the Prime Minister?

[Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

A speed-reading course, Mr. Speaker, is a soft touch for terrorism in this country. The government had intelligence indicating that the Tamil Tigers were a front for terrorists when the finance minister dined with the group. The government knew that Ahmed Ressam was an undesirable years before he tried to blow up the Los Angeles airport. It did nothing in case after case.

The government's lack of intelligence is surpassed only by its lack of will. Will the government break its trend of inaction and freeze the assets of the groups connected to Ahmed Sa'id Al-Kadr?

[Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Ahmed Al-Kadr was named by the United Nations as a terrorist. He is a close associate of Osama bin Laden. He is a suspect in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Mr. Al-Kadr is now in Afghanistan allegedly working for a Toronto based group called Health and Education Project International. Human Concern International, Mr. Al-Kadr's former front organization for terrorist fundraising, has had its assets frozen not by this government but by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom.

Why has this government not frozen the assets of either of these organizations?