Bill C-35 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice to that of my colleague and thank all those who were elected in 1988 for their sacrifice to the country. It is not a joke. It is honestly said.

Bill C-35 is a very important bill because it has wide ranging implications and ramifications for a number of issues, including foreign policy, diplomatic immunity, immigration, international organizations and such. In regard to the debate that has gone on so far, I want to say that the Vienna convention is necessary not only to protect our diplomats in doing their jobs but to protect those who do the job internationally. However, it does not protect against individuals who hide behind diplomatic immunity and commit indictable offences.

The Vienna convention, in spirit if not in word, does not protect us against individuals who are willing to commit, as my colleague mentioned, murder, rape, theft and the destruction of private property, to knowingly do that and hide behind the Vienna convention and the diplomatic immunity that it affords. That is why we have concerns with the bill and the extension of that immunity.

What we would like to see is the government working with opposition parties to proffer an international solution. We would like to see that for those individuals who are criminals hiding under a diplomatic cloak there is an avenue through which they can be brought to justice, so that they are not immune from justice and above the law, so that indeed, under the common principles that we share as part of the international community, these individuals who do commit crimes, be it in Canada or in another country, be it our own diplomats or those from another nation, will be met with the common law that we share.

There are opportunities, as my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party mentioned. One of the things that can be done is to have the crimes of those who acquire diplomatic immunity made public and transparent. Another option, perhaps under the Hague, is to have a group of two or three judges sent to a country where there are allegations of a diplomat committing an indictable offence. They would preside over a hearing and a court under common international law and the norms of international laws that the international community supports.

Why would we do that? It would ensure that individual diplomats would not be used as scapegoats or unfairly treated by the country in which they are working. It would ensure that their work would not be compromised by virtue of being used or set up by the leaders of the country they are working in. Yet it would provide the civilians of that country with protection against the small number of individuals like the Russian diplomat who killed a Canadian woman here in Ottawa while he was drunk. Now there is no protection from those individuals.

That is something the Minister of Foreign Affairs can take up. It is something he can bring up at the United Nations. I suggest to the government that there would be widespread support in the international community for ensuring that in regard to those people who are criminals hiding behind diplomatic immunity there is a fair and transparent avenue through which they can be brought to justice. That is what we are talking about. Indeed, if the minister would do that I am sure that he would find a great deal of support across party lines.

On the issue of immigration, we brought up the fact that a very small number of individuals coming into the country are criminals. Some of them do come to this country feigning refugee status. Our current system is not able to ensure that we have a steel sieve, as I call it, that enables true immigrants, law abiding immigrants and true refugees to enter Canada but keeps out those individuals who are criminals. We do not have that and my party has been asking for it for a very long time. Can it be done? Absolutely, but it requires a commitment on the part of the minister and the government.

We need appropriate checks and balances at the exit point from which they are coming. We need to differentiate between true and false refugees. We need proper background checks on individuals who are coming in through the usual immigration process.

Individuals who come to this country by plane claiming to be refugees and who do not have identification should be sent back home unless they have a very good excuse for why they do not have identification upon landing at places such as Pearson international airport.

Surely those individuals from other countries had identification when they boarded the plane. They could not have entered the plane without identification. Why do we accept individuals who claim refugee status and do not have any kind of identification? That should not be allowed, with very few exceptions.

I am sure the public would be flabbergasted to know that 40% of individuals claiming refugee status come from the United States. Why are we accepting individuals claiming refugee status who have been living in the United States? I raise this issue not because we are against individuals who claim refugee status but because we are trying to streamline the process so that people who are true refugees can get access into Canada.

The failure of the government to have an adequate refugee assessment policy hurts those individuals who are true refugees trying to get into Canada because either their lives are at stake or they are being persecuted. Above all else, we do a grave injustice to those individuals when we do not fix and get our house in order.

In my office, and I am sure in the offices of many of our colleagues, we are continually confronted by numerous individuals who would be superb immigrants to Canada and would make enormous contributions but numerous obstacles are put in their way. In fact many are sent home.

I am an immigrant and I am beyond being extraordinarily grateful for what Canada has given me. It breaks my heart to see individuals who can make effective contributions, who are working and can work but cannot stay in Canada after they have been here a while.

It is unbelievable that we have a system which does not allow these individuals to stay. Our country needs a larger immigrant population but needs to ensure that the population represents people who can make an effective contribution and integrate into Canadian society and that we truly allow real refugees into Canada.

Heaven knows there are enough of them in the world who need our embrace and protection. We must not allow individuals in who are criminals, false refugees or economic refugees masquerading as refugees.

We are a party to a number of international organizations and we have been signatory to many international treaties. While the treaties are superb on paper they have not prevented numerous tragic, gross violations of the basic rights those treaties purport to support. I am talking about Sierra Leone, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe, East Timor, Burma, and the list goes on. It is a serious problem that the treaties do not have any teeth as they are unable to back up what is on paper with effective action.

Our country needs to take a number of actions with the international community. It needs to assess and determine with our counterparts how to put teeth into these treaties. How can we ensure that treaties will be backed up by action, punitive if necessary, when they are not upheld? What is a piece of paper if there is no consequence to not adhering to it? That is a serious problem and that is the failure of many treaties that we have today.

Another thing we need to look at is how and why we are members of so many organizations. If our participation in an organization is effective then we should participate. We should at least ask whether or not our participation in an organization is worthy, whether that organization is effective, and whether the actions and responsibilities of that organization can be merged with another, thereby saving money, limited resources and indeed our effect.

Umpteen organizations work on the same types of issues all over the world all of the time. The problem is that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and we do not get commitments from all the countries. We tend to have hodgepodge fractured activities, be it the environment or foreign policy.

If September 11 demonstrated anything it shone a bright light on our strengths but more so on our flaws. What it has shown is that we have been living in a bit of a Pollyannaish world over the last nine to ten years. We have been thinking that we were making enormous strides internationally, living up to our defence policy commitments internationally and doing very well economically.

The reality is that Canada has been punching far below its weight for a long time. No one, particularly the government, is looking at a critical analysis of defence, foreign policy, immigration and economic competitiveness which needs to be looked at if Canada is to be competitive internationally and do its part. The hard questions of Canada's role in the world are not being asked. Nor are they being answered other than with the usual rhetorical flourish.

We have to ask those tough questions. We have to find the answers and we have to act on them. Can we? Absolutely. We have an extraordinary wealth of talent within the House as well as across Canada. We have an extraordinary number of individuals that can make effective contributions to answering those questions.

One of the first things we need to do is to conduct a review of our defence and foreign affairs policies. The review of defence and foreign affairs policies must go hand in hand because defence is merely the arm of our foreign policy. If we do not know where we are going from a foreign policy perspective, we do not know where we are going from a defence perspective and we cannot arm and outfit our soldiers to meet our needs effectively.

Where is Canada's niche in the world? What can we do? Is it as a player as it was during and after World War II when it had the fourth largest military in the world? Or, is it to take the other extreme and completely back away from its international obligations and set up a wall around the country? I hope the latter is not the case. Somewhere in between is the balance that we have to strike. Somewhere in between are the effective questions that must be answered.

What is our role in the world? We need to ask ourselves what organizations we will participate in. What are our obligations under NATO? Will we live up to them? We must live up to our NATO obligations, but we also have an incredible role to play internationally in being a peacemaker in a new world order or a new foreign policy that makes the 21st century safer. We can strike while the iron is hot.

The reason I say that is that we have built a coalition. We are a member of a coalition to defeat terrorism. In the construction of this coalition we are partners with groups such as Pakistan, members of the Arab world and others that we had never imagined before. There is an opportunity to work with these groups to ameliorate some of the large challenges that exist today in the world such as Kashmir, Palestine, Israel and the divide between the west and the Arab world. All those issues must be addressed.

If we walk away from this coalition after the so-called war in Afghanistan is won, which is not the end of the issue of terrorism at all, we will have missed an unbelievable opportunity to make the world a safer place. Our country can play an extraordinary role in that for many reasons.

We do not have a history of colonialism. We are respected internationally as a fair player. We do not move the goalposts around in the middle of a game. We sit as a divide between the Far East and Europe, between the north and the south, between the United States and the rest of the world. That is a role and opportunity that no other country in the world has. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, our government and the House can work together to address those challenges in a pragmatic way.

One of the things we need to do on the Kashmir situation is to set up a dialogue between President Musharraf and the prime minister of India. That can be done now in conjunction with the developments in Afghanistan.

We need to work with the Americans and put pressure on the Israeli government to recognize a Palestinian state. Israel must stop building new settlements in Palestinian territory. It must remove those settlements from Palestinian territory forthwith in an effective plan, much as it did in the Sinai when it was setting up a peace agreement with Egypt. Large settlements were removed. So it can be done.

Along with the international community we must say to the Palestinian authority that it must apprehend, arrest and ensure that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups stop the killing of innocent Israeli civilians. The Palestinian authority must clean up its act. The corruption must be routed out. If it is not the economic taps should be turned off. We can enter into a dialogue and bring moderate Israelis and moderate Palestinians together to engage in economic and social co-operation.

We need to look at our economic situation. We have seen a significant slide in our dollar. The slide in our dollar represents many things, but one thing it represents is a tolerance to allow our competitiveness to be held artificially high by allowing our dollar to decline rather than dealing with the roots of competitiveness: education, a lower tax structure, the removal of rules and regulations, and others.

If those questions are addressed we will have an opportunity to ensure that Canada will become economically competitive once again. We owe this to Canadians. If we do not do this we will be left behind.

Unfortunately the government has chosen to paper over cracks and holes in the problems of our country rather than fill them in. It has not sought out the best minds and the best practices in our country and abroad to deal with our problems. If it did that then we would have a country to be proud of. We would have a country that was competitive economically and internationally. We would have a nation that could be at the table as a fair and equal player in the challenges facing us today and tomorrow.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a longstanding member of the House as you yourself are. November 21 was the 13th anniversary of my first election to the House. It is also the anniversary for a number of other members in the House of Commons. I also had the opportunity of sitting as a member of the opposition for five years, and have now been in government since 1993.

Opposition members oppose everything. They are there to cause trouble and to exaggerate. I have been there and I know what is done in opposition. The difference is though that suddenly the opposition becomes the government and members have to be responsible and put forward legislation that is necessary at the time. That is what we have been trying to do since 1993, and I believe we have been doing it fairly successfully.

With regard to Bill C-35, we all know that Canada will be hosting the G-8 meeting next year. We do have a responsibility to clarify our authorities in statute to ensure that this event can be properly handled. There is no problem in looking at how things can be done better but that does not mean that we are granting new immunities.

I have sat here and listened to two previous speakers and I can say that there was gross exaggeration. We are not extending immunities. All these people would have come here either through a minister's permit or whatever.

What we are doing is ensuring that it is all done under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Bill C-35 does not affect the immunity of diplomats or consuls who are already accredited to embassies and consulates in Canada nor does it affect their families. Its primary focus is on international organizations and in that regard it does not expand the level of immunities which the law provides for representatives of foreign states to international organizations or to conferences of such organizations in Canada.

What the bill does ensure is that Canada can treat international organizations or conferences that are not created by treaty, such as the G-8 summit or the summit of the Americas, in the same way that we treat a conference by a body created by treaty. Here I will refer members to the UN and to la francophonie.

However that does not mean that there will be no screening of individuals. I will use la francophonie as an example. Canada asks each individual representative to give a list of their representatives who will be coming into the country. Those people are screened in the usual fashion, by going through CSIS and Immigration Canada. We do not automatically allow everybody into the country. With the falsehoods being stated here it is very important for us to set the record straight.

People will come into the country but only after they have been screened. This has always been the case, whether they come under ministerial permit or otherwise. These screening procedures are in place and there are regular consultations between the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, CSIS and the RCMP. None of that will be bypassed, nor should it be, nor do we want it to be. We are the government. We are responsible people. We do not want people in Canada who average Canadians would not want. This is not a blanket okay to let anybody in. I would be the first to say absolutely not if it were the case. Let us not exaggerate. It is just a better way of being able to handle certain conferences, such as the G-8 which is not a treaty organization.

We talk about diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity is not a licence to commit crimes. The Vienna convention expressly obligates states and their diplomats to obey local laws. The vast majority of diplomats in Canada respect our laws. Everyone listening here today should realize there are hundreds of good people living in Ottawa who follow the laws and with whom we work closely.

Let us not pretend there is a massive problem. There is not. There have been problems. We know of the tragic event involving Ms. Catherine MacLean and Ms. Catherine Doré. That was a terrible event. The person who committed the crime has been charged and we are awaiting his indictment.

That being said, the incident pointed to shortcomings. No one is perfect. It is important to note that we have taken steps to address the shortcomings that were in place before the incident. We all regret the incident and wish we could have done this before. Unfortunately we did not. Hindsight is always 20:20.

However at least I can say our Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken steps. I am told he has demanded quarterly reports with lists of foreign diplomats in Canada who are involved in criminal misconduct. It is important to state that. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said he wants to know every four months what has been happening so this kind of incident will not be repeated. He has also indicated that quarterly reports will be made available subject to appropriate privacy considerations following an access request. As with anything else we cannot just publish the names of individuals.

What is important is that the foreign affairs department will be on top of these situations. It is committed to ensuring accountability and proper examination and control of unacceptable behaviour by foreign representatives. As far as I know all embassies have been notified of this. Procedures are in place to take care of it. We will be as vigilant as members of the opposition. I thank them for that. It is important that we all work together in these cases. Not one of us, whether on this side of the House or that side, wants a repeat of what happened in the past.

I spoke about responsibility in terms of putting legislation forward. My colleague in the NDP spoke about a motion that was passed having to do with clause 5 and police powers in Bill C-35. Yes, there are concerns. We the Liberals on the committee who are the majority passed the motion. We want the solicitor general to come back and report to the House on our concerns regarding police powers within the next 150 days.

We did not do that lightly. We did it because we thought it was important. We want police to have the powers they need to deal with these international events. We are all concerned about the increased violence we have seen around these events. No one wants to see it continue. These events are good. There is dialogue. It is important that Canada participate, especially now in this century, because Canada is probably the first country that can show a face of multiculturalism.

We are the country that is most advanced in terms of dealing with different peoples from different parts of the world. We are populated by immigrants from everywhere. Some of us came a long time ago, some of us have grandparents who came, and some of us are more recent.

While we cannot purport to be perfect we have a way of dealing with new arrivals and making them feel comfortable. We have a way of accepting who they are and where they are from, celebrating our differences and working together.

As many members know, when we travel internationally people ask how Canada has done this. They are impressed by it. We need to continue to lead the world and show others how to live together and build a great country. This is something we have done and on which we need to continue to work. It is something in which we need to play a key role in a century where the migration of peoples means diverse populations must live together. They must all learn to live together as equals because it is the only way this globe will move forward. It is therefore important for Canada to be involved in these conferences.

Bill C-35 by and large is about housekeeping. There are a number of points. It would modernize the legislation to comply with Canada's existing commitments under international treaties and respond to important new developments in international law. It is necessary to correct deficiencies in the existing definition of international organization. That is what Bill C-35 would do. It would not create any new powers. It would simply enable us to deal with them in a similar fashion.

The bill contains amendments designed to provide clear statutory authority to support the security measures necessary for our police to fulfill Canada's international obligations. This is extremely important. Our police forces are very good. They must continue to work together. We have added an amendment to make sure they do. This is important because we need to rely on them more and more.

Does that mean we would give them carte blanche? No, it does not. They are not asking for that. They need to be allowed to do their job. They do their job well and must be allowed to continue to do so. By and large I have confidence that the different levels of policing will continue to behave in a way consistent with the makeup of our country and the kinds of meetings that go on in it.

We talk about people who march for different causes. There many of them. They have legitimate concerns and I want them to be heard. Unfortunately there are hooligans who use legitimate protest marches to do damage. Frankly they detract from the message being brought forward.

I would hope and beg that as much as possible we allow legitimate protestors to protest. However legitimate protestors must be careful they do not condone the kind of wilful damage that sometimes goes on at these conferences. I do not think any Canadian wants that.

As an MP I have had many protests in front of my office in Sudbury. I have no objection to that whatsoever. However over a number of years the protests have become somewhat more violent. The last few times some of the protesters came into the office with drums and loudspeakers. The office is staffed by two people who are by themselves most of the time. They were absolutely terrified. They still are to this day. Whenever there is a new protest we are less likely to ask them to come in because they are afraid.

I often tell them people have the right to protest. They agree but wonder what good it is if protesters can come into the office and frighten people. They wonder why we would want to listen to them. My message to protesters is that they should beware. If they get carried away their message may be lost.

Bill C-35 is a necessary piece of legislation. As I said, we had concerns. We have brought forward amendments that would address those concerns. We have asked for a report. It is important for everyone to realize we want to be responsible. We want to have the proper legislation and tools to deal with these people.

However at no time do we want to let people into Canada who we feel will cause trouble. We will continue to insist on the screening that has always gone on. We will deny access to people on the lists whom we do not want in our country. It happens all the time. Maybe we do not hear about it but I have been there and it happens. Lists must be submitted and every person on the list is screened.

We should support this piece of legislation. Opposition members should support the legislation. However if they do not want to support it they should not exaggerate the things that are in it. What I have heard this morning is a total gross exaggeration. Frankly it is not responsible. We on the other hand must pass legislation that is responsible and that will work for us in Canada. That is what is important.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite suggested that Bill C-35 is going to extend immunities in a sweeping fashion to all kinds of classes of individuals coming to international conventions in Canada.

In my reading of the bill unless I am terribly mistaken the decision of extending the immunity rests with the governor in council. Therefore it is not something that is a sweeping power that is granted in the bill at all. The government will still have discretion to not extend this immunity except in those situations where it thinks it is appropriate.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of debate which I intend to ignore completely because it is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is we are talking about a bill that deals with police powers. It is very much relevant to look at the broader context in which these police powers are going to be exercised.

We have already seen the extent to which the police are abusing their existing powers and perhaps testing out the powers that they do not even have yet under Bill C-36. We have seen that in the context of Quebec City and the abuse of police power there. We saw it just last weekend in Ottawa where the police waded into a crowd of peaceful, non-violent protesters and singled people out for preventive detention. They sicced unleashed German shepherd dogs on innocent, non-violent, peaceful protesters. It was a disgrace. And this same government wants to give them more powers? I do not think so.

As I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. member, it is ironic that this week as well the House of Commons joined in celebrating the extension of honorary citizenship to Nelson Mandela. Under the provisions of that same anti-terrorism legislation, Nelson Mandela would have been very likely branded as a terrorist and those Canadians who supported his struggle against apartheid would have been branded as terrorists as well.

As Michel C. Auger wrote recently in the Journal de Montréal ,

The definition remains so broad that it still includes many unpopular or marginal political activities. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Twenty years ago, the present Vice-President of the United States, Dick Cheney, voted in Congress in favour of Nelson Mandela's being considered a terrorist. Today, Mandela is an honorary citizen of Canada. Today, we also have a Canadian Alliance member who described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

What is certain is that anyone who is a citizen of Palestinian origin, for example, who comes from a troubled area, will now have much more difficulty even discussing the situation in his country.

That is the context within which we have to look at these sweeping new powers that are being requested by the RCMP in this bill. We heard eloquent evidence from a number of witnesses, including Bill Sloan, the president of the American Association of Jurists, and Professor Wesley Pue from the University of British Columbia law school on this issue.

Professor Pue raised deep concerns about the scope of clause 5, proposed section 10.1. He pointed out that there are two major problems with clause 2 around the issue of security perimeters. First of all he noted that the police are given the power to create security perimeters only at international conferences and second, there is absolutely no guidance given to police officers in determining what is appropriate and in which circumstances. When the RCMP erect a security perimeter, this affects a whole range of the rights of Canadians, such as the right of free movement within Canada, the right of assembly and the right of free expression.

On the subject of freedom of speech, I wish to denounce in the strongest terms possible the shameful treatment inflicted by Radio-Canada on journalist Normand Lester. I call upon the government to ask Radio-Canada to cancel his suspension. That is unacceptable in a democracy.

There are other fundamental rights as well: the right to enjoyment of property, the right to work, the right to go lawfully about one's daily life without interruption or harassment by the police.

As Professor Pue notes, a security perimeter affects all of these rights among others. How long will it last? Whose property rights can be derogated from under this security perimeter? Are police required to give notice to affected parties? What is the extent of the perimeter? How big would the perimeter be?

Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has pointed out “to be minimally effective, a demonstration must be able to create an atmosphere of political and social tension for those whose decisions it is trying to influence. While it is appropriate to keep protesters far enough away so that they cannot physically intimidate, they must be sufficiently close in order to politically castigate”. This legislation, Bill C-35, leaves wide open the question of whether indeed that will be the case.

For all of these reasons, because of the sweeping extension and unwarranted extension of diplomatic immunity, because of the removal of the provisions for ministerial orders in the case of those who would attend these international conferences who have criminal records, and finally and most important, because of the very dangerous extension of powers to the RCMP under clause 5 of the bill, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party will be voting against this bill at third reading.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding, and certainly it is written in the House order for the day, that we should be discussing Bill C-35. I would ask that the hon. member constrain his remarks to that bill and perhaps look to another opportunity to discuss Bill C-36.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the final stage of debate at third reading of Bill C-35 to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus and once again to oppose strongly the passage of the legislation.

I regret that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Mercier at the report stage of this bill was rejected. That amendment was to delete clause 5 of the bill, a very dangerous provision.

However the House voted against the amendment of my colleague from Mercier and we are now at the point of reviewing the overall legislation.

I have to pick up on the comments of my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. He asked quite eloquently why we even needed the legislation.

There are three major elements to the legislation. The first element which I want to touch upon is the issue of extending diplomatic immunity in a very sweeping way. We were told in committee that the reason for this was reciprocity and that we had to amend our legislation to extend, in a very dramatic way, immunity to people coming into Canada for a conference so that Canadians would be protected in other countries in similar circumstances. It might just be an informal conference between Canada and another country, but anyone associated with the meeting would have full diplomatic immunity.

When I asked in committee for the proof or evidence that there was a problem for Canadians attending conferences in other countries, the government ministers were silent. They simply could not answer the question. I asked them to give us a single example of a circumstance in which we had a problem at an international conference as a result of the absence of the reciprocity they were trumpeting. It did not exist.

What is the underpinning for this extension of diplomatic immunity? The Liberals can argue that this will only be the case for a conference and that people will only be here for a few days. However I think Canadians are more and more concerned about the whole nature of the sweeping immunities given to those who are considered diplomats and others attending foreign conferences in Canada.

That is the first point I want to make. We categorically reject those provisions of the legislation that would extend even further the ambit of that diplomatic immunity. Rather what we should be doing is promoting far greater awareness, accountability and transparency in the area of the existing diplomatic immunities.

My colleague from Cumberland--Colchester has proposed an annual report of the extent upon which these immunities are being relied by diplomats in Canada. That is an important step but it is one which unfortunately the government has rejected.

The issue came to the fore a few months ago with the tragic death of an Ottawa woman who was out walking her dog with a friend. A drunken Russian diplomat ran into her and killed her. This was not the first time this diplomat had been involved in drunk driving. He had been warned before and sent back. Why did it take the death of an innocent woman who was out walking her dog before the government finally tightened up the provisions on drunk driving by diplomats in Ottawa?

It is shameful that the government did not tighten this up significantly before then. The first time diplomats are involved in that kind of disgraceful conduct of drunk driving or refusing to take a breathalyzer, they should be given the boot and kicked out of the country immediately under the provisions of the Canadian law. They should not be given more opportunities to break that law. That is our first concern. We do not accept the extension.

The second concern is with respect to the issue of the permits under the Immigration Act. This issue is a straightforward one. As it now stands, participants who wish to come to Canada to involve themselves in international conferences, and who have a criminal record which otherwise would render them inadmissible to Canada, are required to get a minister's permit to attend that conference.

What is the problem with that?. Why should that not continue to be the case? Any other person who wants to enter Canada, who has that kind of criminal record, is required to have a permit. The law has worked quite effectively so far. It has not barred anyone. The example the minister gave was Nelson Mandela. My recollection is that Nelson Mandela came to Canada with no difficulty whatsoever.

Why should there be one standard for those diplomats or international officials who come here to attend conferences and another standard for everybody else? I do not accept that and my colleagues in the New Democrat caucus do not accept that double standard.

A minister's permit is a minister's permit and it does not unduly inconvenience those who would participate in these conferences whatsoever. But surely, if an individual has been involved in serious criminal wrongdoing, we have a right to ask that the person apply, just as any other person would apply, for a permit to be able to participate in these international conferences. That is the second major element that we oppose in the bill.

The third and by far the most important and dangerous provision is clause 5. It is a new clause that extends unprecedented sweeping powers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to the issue of security for international meetings in Canada.

We are told that all this is doing is just codifying existing law. If that is the case, the obvious question would be why do we need this statute at all if it is not broadening the powers but simply codifying the existing powers? We do not need it at all.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on which I have the honour to sit, took what is not an unprecedented but what is an extraordinary step. After passing the bill on division, with all opposition parties opposing the bill, a couple of members on the Liberal side of the House actually abstained in the vote. That is almost unprecedented as well. After the bill was reported, the same committee that heard the evidence submitted a separate report to the House on the bill. It virtually never happens that a standing committee that deals with legislation feels the necessity to submit a strong report to the government asking it to hold on because the committee has grave concerns about the bill.

I will quote from the report. I think Canadians have a right to know just exactly how concerned all members, including government members, were about the provisions of the legislation. The report submitted to the House said that whereas the testimony of expert legal witnesses before the foreign affairs committee on Bill C-35 has dealt with the issue of article 5:

--and has raised serious concerns about the adequacy and interpretive clarity of the existing language in article 5, notably in regard to the provisions regarding the primary responsibility of the RCMP for taking measures, including the establishment of security perimeters that are appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances;

Whereas, notwithstanding the existing authority of peace officers under the common law, of the RCMP under the RCMP Act and under other statutory authority pertaining to the security of internationally protected persons, article 5 will for the first time in statute give the RCMP explicit powers to establish security perimeters for certain conferences of an international nature;

Whereas these codified RCMP powers may affect the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens in relation to such conferences;

Whereas the testimony heard by the committee strongly pointed towards the desirability of a broader review of the statutory authorities governing police powers in respect of future situations within Canada where security perimeters may be warranted;

The committee urges the government to take into account the legitimate concerns which have been expressed in regard to the drafting of article 5 of the bill.

That is a very strong signal from the foreign affairs committee that clause 5 in the bill, the heart of the bill in many respects, is not acceptable. When there is a unanimous report from the committee saying to look out, that there are some real reservations about the clause, instead of listening to that and voting to amend the bill by deleting that clause and sending the issue back to the government, what did the trained seals on the government side do? They stood up and voted against their own colleagues on the foreign affairs committee who said to watch out for that particular clause.

They said that rightly. We are looking at this bill in the context of other legislation, in particular in the context of Bill C-36, the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation. It is very dangerous and draconian legislation. This week the Minister of Justice introduced some amendments to that bill, but it still falls far short of what is acceptable.

She did not touch the sections for example on the Official Secrets Act. She did not touch the sections on investigative hearings. She did not even subject them to sunset clauses. The definition of terrorist activity is still far too broad. Her so-called five year sunset clause in reality is a 10 year sunset clause because it can be extended by a simple majority vote in the House. That is not a sunset clause at all.

The fact is that the sun should never have risen on a number of the key provisions of that anti-terrorism bill. It is ironic that in the same week in which Nelson Mandela--

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to talk about Bill C-35, which we spoke about last night. I appreciate your indulgence.

The fact of the matter is that I find it rather strange that we have this contradictory situation. The Minister of Transport has just introduced a bill increasing security and is spending a great deal of attention on focusing on enhancing security in the transport system, and as well we have Bill C-36 which increases police powers and creates new arrest powers for police, and here we are talking about Bill C-35 which expands immunity from our laws. It seems we are going one way with the two bills we are discussing today, and with Bill C-35 we are going in a completely different direction.

Bill C-35 is an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. Essentially it expands immunity far beyond anything we have ever done. Most Canadians think of diplomatic immunity as applying only to diplomats. The bill expands it much more broadly so that it is not just for diplomats. The bill expands it in a whole new definition of people who would quality for immunity under our new laws.

I will quote from one newspaper, in which Greg Weston states about the bill that:

Under it, anyone showing up at international...[conferences]...that's delegates, officials, staff, families, bag-carriers, mistresses--would have diplomatic immunity to rape, steal, drive drunk and otherwise break Canadian laws with impunity, compliments of our national government.

The bill includes delegates, officials, staff, family, bag carriers, everyone, along with the diplomats, so it is no longer diplomatic immunity; it is immunity that covers everyone who attends an international conference in Canada. We think it is unnecessary and goes far beyond anything that is required.

The newspaper article continues with respect to how immunity would be determined. One foreign affairs official quoted in the newspaper states:

If we give (diplomatic) privileges and immunities for a meeting, then all of the participants we let in for that meeting will get it.

This direction is completely different from the one we have taken before with respect to diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity was always provided in order to avoid harassment of diplomats and to ensure that the senior diplomats were protected from harassment by foreign governments, and in any case this does not happen in Canada, but now we have expanded it to a wide range of officials, assistants and staff so that they can come to Canada, break our civil and criminal laws and completely disregard the laws because they can claim immunity, even though it is far more than diplomatic immunity now.

It is so ironic that Bill C-36 is imposing new penalties on Canadians, giving police new powers and even creating new laws against Canadians at the very same time that we are debating Bill C-35 in the House, which is giving diplomatic immunity to a whole new range of people who attend meetings in Canada. It is completely contradictory and makes no sense.

Yesterday one of the government members suggested that we needed this very desperately so we could allow conferences like the upcoming G-8 conference in Alberta to be held. I disagree. We do not need this for that purpose. I do not think we have ever had a complaint. No one has ever said “I am not coming to Canada because I do not have diplomatic immunity. I am not coming to Canada because I cannot break civil laws and criminal laws and get away with it”. We do not need this expansion of diplomatic immunity and we should not be doing it.

There is absolutely no transparency in the bill. It removes the accountability to parliament about who claims diplomatic immunity. There is no obligation for the Department of Foreign Affairs to tell Canadians or parliament or the foreign affairs committee who claims diplomatic immunity. There should be a clause in the bill which states that every year or twice a year or four times a year the government must come to the foreign affairs committee or to parliament and present a report on who claimed diplomatic immunity and why.

Furthermore, it puts Canadians at further risk. Instead of tightening up security, the bill reduces security and increases the risk to Canadians. Not having an annual report creates an enhanced opportunity for repeat actions, such as the awful accident that took place on January 27 last year and to which we refer quite often.

In that case, a foreign diplomat had repeat offences but no one knew about it except the department. No one knew about it because there was no requirement for annual reporting. Had there been a requirement for annual reporting, this diplomat who had a series of offences would have been well known to the public, to the parliamentarians and to the foreign affairs committee. I am absolutely convinced that if this knowledge had been available he would not have had the opportunity to offend one more time. However, it was not available and he did offend one more time.

The bill does nothing to address that. The same thing could happen again without an amendment which requires an annual reporting. It just seems like such a common sense amendment and it is very disappointing that the government has refused this amendment. Many other amendments have been proposed and turned down. In fact, to the best of my knowledge all amendments were turned down even though many of them were sensible and were not intended to distort the bill or change the direction of it in any way, shape or form. They were common sense, thoughtful amendments but they were just turned down on principle.

The whole purpose of the bill is to avoid inappropriate harassment and we do not have any examples of that in Canada. We do not have any claims about inappropriate harassment against diplomats so I do not know why we are expanding this to cover more people. Even the people who are now covered have never complained, to the best of our knowledge. Staff members, assistants or officials have never said they would not come to Canada because Canada does not have immunity for them, and so what if they did say they were not coming to Canada if they did not have immunity? If they need immunity to avoid our laws and our criminal and civil actions we do not want them anyway. I do not know why we are expanding this immunity to cover all these new officials. Broadening the scope of coverage for diplomatic immunity really distorts it and creates more security risks for Canadians. It does not deal with it in an appropriate way.

Again, at the very least there should be an annual report about who claims diplomatic immunity in the country. There is not one, so in effect there could be diplomats who have a series of offences and claim diplomatic immunity time and time again. No one would ever know and the action that could be taken if parliament and public knew would not be. Again, let me say one more time that there should be an amendment for including annual reporting.

It is not all negative. We support some aspects of the bill. Certainly one is that the bill provides greater clarity for the role of the RCMP. In the international conferences I have been involved with there was a lot of confusion about who was in charge, about whether it was the local police, the provincial police, the RCMP or whatever. The bill makes it very clear that the RCMP is in charge of security at international conferences and that is a good thing. However, that was generated perhaps to some extent by the Hughes report on the APEC conference in Vancouver, which was such a fiasco. That report also suggested that there should be regulations to prevent politicians from interfering with the RCMP and there is no condition or clause in the bill that requires politicians to not interfere with the RCMP in the course of its duties. That was a recommendation by the Hughes report which was not addressed, so although the RCMP clearly is now in charge there is no restriction on politicians interfering with the RCMP while it is doing its job.

Another aspect of the bill our party does not like is that it further centralizes within the bureaucracy the power to allocate immunity from the law. For instance, special visitors now have to apply to the immigration minister's office to come to Canada if there is some concern about whether they qualify to come here. If there is some concern about whether or not they qualify for a visa they can apply to the minister of immigration. That will go with the enactment of this bill. They would apply through officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose job is probably to encourage the international meeting to take place in the first place. They may not be objective or they may be overwhelmed with applications from people who are coming to these conventions. As the newspaper article says, if we give immunity to one we have to give immunity to all, as a Department of Foreign Affairs official was quoted as saying.

Again, instead of having the department of immigration, which has expertise in this field, examine these visas and applications, it will be locked in with the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is most anxious to see these conventions occur and be well attended. Perhaps its officials will not analyze these applications. The foreign affairs official said that if we give immunity to one we must give it to all. It does not bode well. It does not give us any level of comfort that these immunity conditions will be granted with the proper authority and the proper consideration. We think they may be given too broadly. Even though the bill is broad, they may be expanded under the licence provided by the bill.

Again, the amendment our party proposed would have required annual reporting. Had that been in place there is a really good chance that the accident on January 27 of this year would never have happened. The diplomat had a track record of offences but no one knew about it. No one knew about it because he claimed diplomatic immunity, so there was no record. The public and parliament did not know that the man was a repeat offender. Had there been a public accounting annually, quarterly or even twice a year, parliament would have known. The embassy certainly would have been uncomfortable knowing that one of their diplomats was publicly named over and over again for offences. I believe that if the embassy involved would not have sent the diplomat home we would have insisted that he go home. However, we did not know about it because there was no requirement to report to parliament. This condition is still the same. The same thing could happen again. There could be a diplomat who is a repeat offender out there right now who we do not know about and never will know about. There is no requirement in the bill for an annual reporting on who applies for diplomatic immunity.

We hope that the minister will see the sense in this. It is interesting that Bill C-36 was amended by the attorney general to allow exactly what we are asking for in Bill C-35. The attorney general said that because of the opposition motions and the attention the opposition has put on this the government will have included in Bill C-36 a requirement for an annual report. This only happened two days ago, when she announced that the bill would be amended to include an annual report. Bill C-35 will still not have an annual report requirement, even though the same criteria and the same reasoning apply to Bill C-35. The government is going one way on one bill and another way on the other bill. There is no reason not to have annual reporting.

Another disconcerting part is the fact that the permission to come to Canada is transferred from the minister of immigration through special permits to the department. It is lumped in with many other aspects of the applications for the meetings.

These are our main concerns about the bill. Our party will not support the bill because of these very clear shortcomings. If the amendments were accepted we would probably support the bill, but instead of increasing security for Canadians it reduces it when everything else we are doing in the House is trying to increase security.

This morning the Minister of Transport tabled a bill to increase security regarding transport. The Minister of Finance said upcoming budget will focus totally on security. Bill C-36 is the anti-terrorism bill and is totally focused on security. Yet we have Bill C-35 in the middle, which expands immunity and allows people to avoid being held accountable under our civil and criminal laws. It is a complete contradiction to everything else the government is doing. Our party believes the bill should be sent back, as the amendment we are speaking to today refers to. The amendment asks that the bill be sent back to committee for reconsideration. Our party supports the amendment. If the bill goes back for reconsideration to the committee and is amended, then perhaps our party will change its position. If it does not, our party will not be supporting the bill.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have asked government members some questions when they spoke, but under the rules I cannot do so. I was quite surprised at some of the things that both parliamentary secretaries said. Had I had the opportunity to ask them questions I would have done so. Perhaps I will pose those questions now, not that I will get any answers because seldom do we get answers here.

One of the parliamentary secretaries raised the accident involving Catherine MacLean and the tragedy of her death. She said the government did all that it could. I take exception to that. The government did not do all that it could. In fact amendments proposed in committee would have done more to help and those amendments were refused.

The amendment I proposed was to have a public list every year of what foreigners had applied for immunity under these new expanded immunity laws. I believe the Russian diplomat involved in the accident with Ms. MacLean would not have been here had that rule been in place. He would have been on the record at least once or twice before and would not have even been here had there been an annual reporting of people who claimed immunity.

The government could have implemented an annual report where it would list which foreigners had applied for immunity. It cannot say that it did all that it could do.

Another comment indicated that the government would request a waiver of immunity if there were a criminal or civil act where a foreigner claimed immunity. That does not make sense. Why would the government ask for a waiver of immunity when it is bringing forth legislation to create the immunity?

Why not just forget the whole thing? Why not drop the bill or send it back to committee as has been proposed by the amendment we are debating now? Why not reassess the bill and find ways to avoid a situation where our government would apply for a waiver of immunity when it just gave immunity?

These are some of the questions that I would have asked. Why are we creating immunity if we are planning to apply for waivers of immunity? Why would the government not agree to provide parliament with an annual report of who applied for immunity under these new expanded rules as proposed in Bill C-35?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to speak to Bill C-35 and to respond to the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. As she knows, the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of the bill at second reading because, among other things, it agrees with bringing up to date the whole way we look at foreign missions and international organizations.

But what my honourable colleague does not say—I am not saying she is lying, she is an honourable colleague after all—is the fact that in the original bill, which amends a considerable act, a thick piece of legislation in the good meaning of the term, there are three sub-clauses under clause 5 which give increased powers to the RCMP without enough controls. This is why we will vote against the bill even though we supported it at second reading.

I will add that witnesses, including the one mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, said unanimously that this clause should be somewhere else than in this bill because it is either useless or quite incomplete. The witnesses agreed that this could not be amended lightly. On the contrary, to make sure that the powers of the RCMP do not go unchecked and for other considerations I will highlight later, these sub-clauses should have been included in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. These provisions being thusly taken out of their proper context, we cannot support the bill because of the implied consequences.

However, we want to say that we are very much in favour of the part of the bill aimed at modernizing in various ways the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, which is the main purpose of the bill. This bill recognizes international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, the G-8, the G-20 and other international organizations which are not treaty based and which, as a result, are not currently covered by the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

Also, in granting the required immunity to international inspectors who come to make sure that Canada is respecting its commitments in terms of land mine or nuclear test bans, we are simply adapting the circumstances of the legislation to the needs of the moment, as did the first act.

The bill recognizes permanent missions to international organizations in Canada, by granting them the privileges that come with their status. More than 40 missions are accredited with ICAO in Montreal without having access to the privileges they should have. Bill C-35 corrects this anomaly.

Bill C-35 also grants the status of international organization to international summits and meetings by amending the Immigration Act as well to facilitate the travel of delegates during international meetings.

Since we agree with most of the bill's contents, we denounce the oft-repeated comments made by our colleague from the Alliance, as though the diplomatic corps in Ottawa was a den of undesirables.

Speaking of which, I want to point out that I learned that there are 102 embassies in Ottawa with 3,000 diplomatic staff persons who benefit from immunity to some extent or another. Therefore, in my opinion, the 76 offences over five years, almost all of which were minor, does not seem to be an alarming crime rate.

I believe that, to the contrary, we must highlight the importance of the diplomatic corps here and the role they play, and also how important the international meetings that take place here are to us in helping improve the affairs of the international community.

The world has changed and it has changed quickly. Globalization, which some people believe must be humanized, means that various governments co-operate on many levels, and consequently, have to travel.

There has also been much criticism of the provision to discontinue the use of the Immigration Act to grant immunity to persons arriving to fill positions in embassies at various levels. We know that immunity does not mean the same thing when applied to an ambassador, a consul, or the embassy cleaning staff. Embassy staff play an important role, and we are happy to point this out.

From now on, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be responsible for ensuring immunity at international meetings. It should be pointed out that because of his role in the liberation of South Africa, Nelson Mandela was associated with activities which, when documented in his application to come to Canada, mean that he is refused a visa and has to apply to the minister for an exception to be made. This means that, in future, he will no longer be refused a visa.

However, after any investigation conducted in the same way, but without the objectionable aspects of this procedure, international figures whom the government thinks it would be appropriate to invite here, respecting its international obligations, as I realize, will not have to go through this long and sometimes difficult process.

However, I wish to spend most of my limited time explaining why the three paragraphs of clause 5 should not be included in this bill and in what will be the core of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

First, I wish to reply to the first member who spoke to this. In the testimony given before the committee, there was no mention of the fact that it was necessary to include these three paragraphs in order to ensure the security of international meetings and of international figures and all those who accompany them in the course of their duties as international representatives.

I myself called for this, and it was called for on a number of occasions. It is not necessary to have the three paragraphs that make up clause 5. It would be worthwhile looking at the content of these three paragraphs.

The first gives the following power to the RCMP, and I quote:

10.1 (1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference...

An added amendment states that this must be done in conjunction with other police forces. Had this paragraph, as amended, been the only one, we could have lived with it.

But there is a second paragraph, which reads:

(2) For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

This means the institutionalization of the famous perimeters. Until then, the RCMP, in collaboration with the municipal or provincial police forces, as it did in the last Quebec City Summit, had to negotiate, taking into account pressures from lobby groups, mayors and governments, as well as logistical considerations, what type of perimeter would be set up. They were forced to take living breathing reality into consideration.

According to section 7, which is not restricted in any way whatsoever, they may do so “to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances”. I will come back to this later. It gives them every latitude to decide whatever they want.

What is a source of concern is that there is no rush to get these three little paragraphs into the bill. There is no urgency. The only international meeting of any importance that is upcoming is the G-8 at Kananaskis. One of the witnesses who came before the committee said that the RCMP, or the government, did not need this clause to be able to ensure people's safety, as it was ensured, moreover, in Quebec City. Even if one could mention this or that aspect which could have been better handled in Quebec City, as far as the security aspect was concerned, the mission was accomplished.

There is no rush. All of the witnesses we heard say that these clauses, lacking any specification, ought not to be there, that they are undoing any balance that was in place, that they are conferring additional powers. I beg to differ but while the minister described this as merely a codification of the common law, all those who appeared before us, not those we invited—who were unfortunately unable to come—but those who came at the invitation of other MPs, said the same thing: this clause of the bill was extremely inappropriate, not to mention incomplete.

I will read part of the testimony made by the lawyer to whom the parliamentary secretary referred. He said, with regard to this issue:

It will be up to the courts to decide what is reasonable under the circumstances, should the behaviour of the police be challenged.

But already, the fact that people will have to go to court when there are no guidelines in the bill speaks volumes about the problems that individuals and groups will face. Think about the people in Quebec City who had a business or a home inside the perimeter. They did not know ahead of time. The bill is silent on issues such as what happens to their rights, when they can enter the perimeter, the damages that they may suffer, how long the perimeter may remain in place, other rules that may apply, or the distance of the perimeter.

Let us also think about the Hughes report, which says that protesters have a right to be heard by those to whom they want to talk.

Therefore, there is nothing to ensure, in a preventive fashion, that people's rights and freedoms will be protected. This means that they would have to go to court after the fact.

Let us see what this expert says:

Such a broad mandate could also be found to be unconstitutionally vague by a court or a royal commission, to the extent that it affects fundamental freedoms protected under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Therefore, it seems appropriate to define the mandate more clearly, in the interest of the peace officers responsible and of those who might be the targets of police operations. Otherwise, it might be much wiser to leave this potentially controversial issue in the common law arena, where it currently may be found.

So, this does not exist there or, as the expert later said in response to a question “Yes, it would be better if it were in the RCMP Act, since it includes a number of guidelines”.

So, this provision is not necessary. And if it is not necessary, why try to ram it through parliament? I have to say that the witnesses were unanimous and the committee members would also have been unanimous had they been left to use their own good judgment.

The best evidence of this is that the Liberal members of the committee have done excellent work, even if sometimes there harsh words were exchanged between some opposition MPs and others. The thrust of the work done was that those paragraphs should in fact be part of the RCMP Act, as witnesses had suggested.

Liberal members introduced a motion which was adopted by the committee and tabled in the House and which is based on the arguments used before us. Allow me to read the motion:

Whereas witnesses have expressed serious reservations about the appropriateness and interpretative clarity of the existing wording of clause 5, including the provisions which make it the RCMP's primary responsibility to take appropriate and reasonable measures in the circumstances, such as setting up security perimeters;

Whereas, despite the powers already granted to peace officers under the common law and to the RCMP under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other statutes pertaining to the security of internationally protected persons, clause 5 will have the effect of granting for the first time the RCMP the explicit power to set up security perimeters during some international conferences;

Whereas the codified powers of the RCMP could affect the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens during conferences;

Whereas the witnesses heard by the committee clearly supported a broader review of legislative texts—

And I have commented on that.

—governing the powers of the police in circumstances where it could be necessary to set up security perimeters in Canada.

The original version of this motion read as follows:

Be it resolved that the committee urge the government to consider the legitimate concerns expressed regarding the wording of clause 5 of the bill—

Again, this proposal was submitted by the Liberal members of the committee. They added:

—the committee also proposes that the broader issues raised in connection with the powers needed by the RCMP to set up security perimeters, as well as legislative or other basis of these powers, be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the House of Commons for further examination.

They finally introduced an amendment which was adopted and which said that the matter was being referred to the House and that, depending on the response of the government, other measures might be taken by the committee.

This motion, put forward by the Liberal members, basically confirms all that we know for certain—not suspect, but know—from the work done by the committee and from the testimony we heard.

I will follow my thought through. Since we have been here, we have become used to wondering about what lies behind a particular measure. We also know the various ministers and departments. Why are they determined to keep paragraph 2—the key item in the clause—which gives unlimited authority to establish perimeters? Is it because the government thinks it will have problems establishing the perimeter for Kananaskis? Is it possible that in Kananaskis the government will be unable to follow the recommendations of the Hughes report, which says, and I will repeat the provision:

Protesters have a right to be heard by those to whom they want to talk.

I think that a lot more could be said about this. But if this is the way things are, I would have appreciated being told. Once again, we asked the question in various ways.

Is this clause necessary to ensure the safety of those attending the event? The answer we were given was no, that they were using the opportunity to codify the common law.

I will elaborate. The expert witnesses who appeared before the committee all said the same thing about the common law in different ways. The third paragraph says that peace officers possess powers at common law. They therefore do not lose them. We are speaking here about all peace officers, including those in the provinces.

The interesting thing about the common law—which is not the tradition in Quebec, which operates under French civil law—is that all those living under the tradition of the common law know that, along with its advantages, it has the disadvantage of not being available to peace officers, who have neither the resources nor the time to find out exactly what their rights and obligations are because they have to stay on top of the entire range of case law and all the latest interpretations.

So, with respect to the common law, when the government says that perimeters are already covered in the common law, we are told that that is not what is in the common law. Saying that the RCMP is responsible and so on for establishing perimeters is adding to the powers of the RCMP.

The government tells us: “We are codifying.” However, witnesses have said: “The government is adding, enhancing”, which was the imperfect translation of Mr. Fairley's text that was alluded to earlier.

As for Mr. Pue, a law professor who holds a chair in British Columbia, he said several times that this provision would provide powers to the police, without them knowing their obligations.

This worries me. I have problems with the fact that, out of a context, the government would give increased powers to the RCMP without any restriction.

I will use the last minutes that I have left to deal with this issue. I will mainly quote Wesley Pue. I will read again a passage where he somewhat condemns the fact that the government is saying that this is only codification.

We should not believe that Bill C-35 is only reiterating the common law principles governing the police. If it were only that, this bill would not be necessary. Legislation is used to correct shortcomings, to change the law, to clarify the law or to freeze it to avoid ulterior legal interpretations. Obviously, no Canadian court that would be called to interpret this clause would start from the principle that the Parliament of Canada has agreed to it without any reason. This clause affirms the prominence of the RCMP.

I agree there was an amendment to this clause.

This would be the first legislation that would explicitly give to the RCMP the power to establish security perimeters. The clause would give the RCMP special responsibilities in an area, “international affairs”, where the federal executive enjoys a major discretionary power, which is often invisible and almost always beyond judiciary control.

But where I especially want to quote him is when he talks about the effects on citizens. He says:

Which rights might be violated by erecting a security perimeter? The right to freedom of movement in Canada, the right to organize, the right to freedom of expression, the right to own property—the erection of a security perimeter to limit a private area amounts to an expropriation, limited though it may be in time—the right to work, the right to conduct one's daily business legally without being interrupted or harassed by the police.

The erection of a security perimeter compromises all of these rights. Depending on the time and place, it can compromise the freedoms of thousands of people. The vague legislative wording does not tell the police what measures are appropriate. How, in this case, could the police decide on the following issues: how long prior to an event can a security perimeter be erected? One day, one week, one month, more? Violation of property rights. Whose property rights could be violated? Private Canadian businesses? Private businesses from other NAFTA countries? Property owners, municipalities, churches, religious organizations, the media, provincial governments, Indian bands?

What is the legal recourse for property owners to object? What would happen if another level of government or an Indian band were to object? If the government confiscated private property for such purposes, would there be compensation? If so, would payment be considered a favour or a right? Where would the money come from? Would the security measures taken depend on whether or not compensation would be paid to property owners whose rights were violated? If so, who would pay? And how is the RCMP to assess this? The clause says nothing about all of these aspects.

He continued on the subject of the area covered by security perimeters. This is still Wesley Pue speaking:

One can presume that the security of an event is better ensured with a larger perimeter.

That is the mandate that they have. The mandate is not to ensure that protesters' rights are recognized, or that the rights of citizens who live inside the perimeter are recognized. Mr. Pue continues:

Are there limits to the size of these security perimeters, which appears to be growing? How is the police to balance the area of the perimeter, security, and constitutional rights?

Jeopardized rights. Canada's constitution is clear: Canadians who respect the law have the right to organize, to express themselves and to protest. Allan Borovoy from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says that in order to be the least bit efficient, a demonstration must create a climate of political and social tension for those who make decisions in an attempt to influence them. It is acceptable to keep demonstrators at a sufficient distance to prohibit them from being physically intimidating, but they must be sufficiently close to have a political effect.

This bill does not remind the police that they must protect these rights. It is woefully mute on the principle of balancing security with freedoms.

He goes on talking about security passes, since the establishment of a perimeter, particularly if it is long, and we have no indication and no directive whatsoever in that regard, means that the police will have to issue passes and accredit the media to make sure that only certain people have access to protected areas.

This clause does not specify the criteria, nor the information that the police can rely on, or the responsibilities that it must assume regarding the justification of its decisions to people who had their request for a pass turned down or regarding the appeal procedure in case of abuse.

He gives a whole list and concludes by saying:

These are all important questions. It can of course be assumed that most RCMP agents will conduct themselves as responsible policemen. But their desire to act in a responsible way will not be enough to protect the public anymore than the imposition of an obligation that is brutal but sufficient in police terms. According to the rule of law, the law must specify as clearly as possible the conditions in which these violations of fundamental rights are foreseen.

Once again, I have read the extracts from testimony because they show that the Committee had, unanimously if I may say so, reached the conclusion that if the clause could not be eliminated from the bill, the Liberal members would table in the House this afternoon a motion adopted in committee.

This motion expresses, in diplomatic but clear terms, the reasons why all those involved in the committee work, including the witnesses, think that these provisions should have been incorporated in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, after a proper review by the committee to which these provisions are normally referred to, which is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Let me remind the House that, at second reading, the Bloc Quebecois supported the bill even if it wondered about certain clauses, particularly clause 5. In committee, we argued and voted against it. Amendments to remove clause 5 were not allowed at that stage.

At report stage, we moved an amendment to remove clause 5. Since it has not been deleted, I deeply regret that we have to vote against this bill at third reading, even if we totally agree with the provisions to modernize the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

We fully recognize the need to protect adequately foreign dignitaries and their officials who come to Canada for the important meetings made necessary because of repeated changes in the world and a growing globalization and interdependence.

But no one has proven to us that clause 5 is essential and urgent in Bill C-35 in order to protect the security of those we must protect.

We will vote against the bill in the hope that the government will listen to our arguments, which have been supported by witnesses and Liberal members of the committee.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

The development in the modernizing aspect is necessary because in modern diplomatic practice important governmental, international and multilateral matters are increasingly dealt with at international conferences by international organizations that are not created by treaty, which we have discussed. That represents a change from the past.

The traditional mode of diplomacy was frequently and usually conducted on a bilateral basis and that is indeed the work of our missions abroad. Our ambassadors in Washington are frequently dealing in a bilateral manner with their counterparts in Washington. Our diplomats in Paris and Beijing do the same.

More and more we see that the work of diplomacy, the coming together and creation of an international agreement, takes place within a multilateral setting and not as in the past in the traditional bilateral setting. Because of that we have felt compelled to extend in Canada, within a reciprocal nature, exactly what is given in other countries and to allow this newer method of diplomacy to be conducted and to be so protected by the extension of immunities.

The bill would ensure that we can do that. I would again emphasize that it is all done within very clear and precise rules and regulations as inscribed within the Vienna convention and has been accorded with those rules very much in mind. Again I caution the House against the misinterpretation we have been hearing that this is a very loose, unguarded methodology which is being introduced. It is anything but.

In addition not just to the rules of the Vienna convention and the further development within Bill C-35, all international organizations and their meetings are subject to careful and stringent screening procedures and consultations among the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, CSIS and the RCMP. Nothing changes. All of that stays very much in play.

It is important that with respect to instances where persons with immunity commit a serious crime in Canada, the Canadian government has developed one of the most stringent policies in the world. We are not in the middle of the scale. We are not even close to the top. We are at the very top.

After the tragic incident involving Catherine MacLean and Catherine Doré, of which much mention was made earlier by a member from across the floor, the department adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding criminal acts committed by persons with immunity. The policy has been implemented by law enforcement authorities across Canada with the full understanding and co-operation of the diplomatic community.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was absolutely appalled after the incident that was discussed, in reference frequently to Catherine MacLean and Catherine Doré, as were officials in the department. The instant response was to do all that was possible to ensure that first and foremost this never occurred again but wherever an incident of a similar nature did occur, that we had protocols in place that would mean an instant bringing to justice of any person implicated in such an act.

I am disappointed that earlier in a very cavalier way the member made mention of the fact and to quote him directly, he said “Come in and do whatever you want to do”. That kind of hyperbole, fearmongering, and deliberate misleading obfuscating as it is assigns his words no credibility. It is so obvious when one goes to that level of hyperbole and heads all over the Chamber drop almost in embarrassment for him, there is not much necessity for me to countermand his thoughts as the thoughts were few while the emotions were rampant.

As I said, while even the strictest policy cannot altogether prevent incidents from occurring, this policy makes it very clear to the diplomatic community that Canadian laws are to be respected and that if a crime is committed, Canada will seek first a waiver of that very immunity in order to prosecute the individual. Where the request for a waiver is refused, other sanctions, including expulsion from Canada, will be taken.

The same policy will be applied to the degree possible to all persons with immunity in Canada who commit crimes, whether here as diplomats or to attend at conferences.

A great deal of attention was given to the bill's proposal that serves as the legislative basis for the orderly holding of international government conferences in Canada.

We are concerned that this proposal might give police forces greater powers to restrain legitimate protests at international conferences.

Let me assure the House that this proposal does not affect the policing powers of the RCMP and other forces, such as provincial and municipal, under common law as well as federal and provincial legislation.

The amendment has been carefully drafted in light of the common law and the statutory duties conferred on the police to keep the peace, to protect persons, including internationally protected persons from harm and to protect persons engaged in lawful demonstrations from unlawful interference. Any security measures taken by the police will be subject to charter scrutiny and must be justified as reasonable in the circumstances. Those are the traditions of our jurisprudence. Those are the protections of the charter and checks and balances that already exist within the Canadian policing system. In other words, any police measures that limit a charter right, for example freedom of expression or freedom of assembly, must be justifiable in this free and democratic society.

The provision says that the RCMP has primary responsibility to ensure security for the proper functioning of an intergovernmental conference. A question was raised in committee as to the meaning of primary and the RCMP's co-ordination with its other two counterparts at the provincial and municipal levels. In response the government brought forward a motion to facilitate consultation and co-operation between the RCMP and provincial and municipal police forces.

When we spend the weeks we do in committee, an institution which I highly value and I know all of us do, as that is where the appropriate development of public policy and good laws begins and where it usually ends, the people who give of their time to come from across Canada and give us the benefit of their wisdom and experience are invaluable to the process. We come as legislators. We are not specialists. We depend greatly on the wisdom of specialists as we develop our laws.

One of the witnesses who came before the committee was actually a former national chair for both the international and constitutional law sections of the Canadian Bar Association. While he is a practising international business lawyer, he came in his personal capacity; I want to make that clear.

He spoke very favourably on some aspects of the bill. The reason I am choosing his testimony is that he directly dealt with a large portion of what was said by the hon. member earlier this afternoon. He dealt with retaliation and reciprocity which are key elements of the bill. He said:

Overall, my own view is that these provisions taken as a whole, are overdue, give the executive the necessary tools to respond quickly, as, and for as long as necessary, to inappropriate acts by foreign nations directed at Canadian missions abroad, and at the same time remain consistent with our international obligations under the Vienna conventions.

There has been no focus whatsoever by the hon. member on all of the strong aspects the bill has brought together. The witness continued:

The core principle in those instruments is that of immunity...once granted through the accreditation process.

He went on to say that core principle cannot be deviated from. If Canada is to continue to adhere to the Vienna conventions, then these things must be in place. He further said:

Nevertheless Canada can certainly tighten up the process of accreditation and be more rigorous in withdrawing accreditations in the face of improper conduct by foreign countries and by their agents in Canada and this Bill C-35 does well.

Finally he made mention and was very pointed in the criticism of the bill about moving the decision from the minister of immigration to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The witness with all of his considerable background said that it is a good amendment providing greater certainty than the prospect of a judicial determination, that it is consistent with our treaty obligations on point, but that, he thinks, is something government can only resolve on a case by case basis. That is exactly what we will be allowed to do with our order in council approach.

It is, then, in his view the right one for this purpose. We have received a lot of very strong views in support of the bill. It is unfortunate that the comments made in the House were very selective but perhaps that is the job.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address you and members of the House regarding Bill C-35. I have prepared some notes and I will deliver those notes, but obviously the temptation to respond to the member opposite who has now left the House is such that I will indeed enjoy addressing a response to the House upon the conclusion of my prepared speech.

I am pleased to address Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade conducted an indepth review of the bill and recommends that it be referred to the House for third reading.

I would like to take this opportunity to give an outline of the main proposals contained in this bill. These proposals were raised and discussed in committee. I also want to comment on the new amendment proposed by the government to the bill.

The proposals in the bill come at a time when it is imperative that we demonstrate leadership in the international arena on the issues that are of major importance both to Canada and to Canadians, such as the environment, international trade and human and national security.

Canadians are supportive of the role that we play as a member of international bodies that are tasked with the conduct of international relations, such as the G-8. Canadians also understand that hosting important intergovernmental summits in Canada and establishing the head offices of international organizations, such as the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal, bring enormous economic and political benefit to Canada.

I think it is necessary to clarify certain misleading information that has been in the press recently regarding this bill. It suggests that Bill C-35 surreptitiously expands diplomatic privileges and immunities to all kinds of people entering Canada without maintaining safeguards to protect Canadians from known or potential criminals. To go further, if what I heard earlier could be believed, it is to throw open the doors of the country, almost inviting and enticing every conceivable criminal we can reach to get in here and attend a meeting and wreak havoc on the people and institutions of Canada.

I would like to emphasize that the clear purpose of the bill is not to do that and I think most people found it difficult to keep from giggling at the very suggestion. Rather, it is to modernize the legislation with respect to international organizations.

This development is necessary because in modern diplomatic practice, important governmental, international and multilateral matters are increasingly dealt with at international conferences by international organizations that are not necessarily created by treaty, such as the G-8 or the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Both of these meetings and annual conferences, and in fact the OSCE meets far more regularly than the G-8, are not treaty based. To explain the difference, the United Nations is treaty based. What we have done here is create a safe environment for the functioning of the diplomatic process within meetings and organizations that are not treaty based. There is no reason not to be open about the fact that Canada is hosting the G-8 summit in Alberta next summer and we very much want to have this bill in place in order to provide just that kind of ambience and security.

At present, the legislative definition of international organization has been interpreted to permit orders to be made under the act only for international organizations that were created by treaty, such as the United Nations, but this bill would ensure that we can treat important meetings such as the G-8 in the same manner that we treat international organizations like the United Nations and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

I would emphasize that the immunity granted to the people attending these meetings, both under the present legislation and following the amendments, is not and would not be an absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

The point of departure for all of what has led to the discussions both within our committee and here in the House are the Geneva conventions. The Geneva conventions are international treaties signed by many countries which produce a set of rules and regulations allowing for diplomatic immunity at diplomatic and consular levels. The reason they do is historically based and it has been an evolving process.

In ancient times when a diplomat would be assigned to the court of perhaps Catherine the Great or perhaps earlier than that back in the time of early Egypt, the role of the diplomat then was, as it is in many ways today, to convey the views of the government and to participate in discussions for bilateral arrangements.

In some ancient times when the said diplomat did not please said monarch, the consequences were permanent and in many ways gruelling. Pieces of the diplomat were frequently sent back to the home court to convey the sense of displeasure of the resident monarch. Fortunately we have come a long way in creating a world in which women and men who are diplomats or consular officials can function safely in the many capitals of the world and accomplish the tasks they were sent to do.

At times when I listen to what is said across the floor of the House, as I did earlier, it seems we are back in those same times, as most of the stories referenced appear to be focused on gruelling crimes and the most excessive and unusual of circumstances, always the exception to the rule, attempting to convey to all of us and through us to the people who read and watch what we say that in fact we have criminals loose in the country wearing the T-shirts of diplomats. In actual fact there are very few instances of crime. When there is an instance, there is an instant response by the government using the rules that have been set up to allow it exactly that kind of response. However, those stories are consistent with what often takes place during question period where the crime of the week appears to set the tone, draw the focus and is rarely of interest in good public policy.

Continuing with my prepared notes, I would like to emphasize that the clear purpose of this bill is to modernize the legislation with respect to international organizations.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have followed closely the debate on Bill C-35. It is an important bill and certainly one the House should take time reviewing, which is precisely what we are doing today. Its proposed amendments to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act aim at modernizing the privileges and immunities regime contained in the existing legislation which was passed in 1991.

These amendments will enable Canada to comply with its commitments under international treaties and to respond to recent changes in international law. In addition, the bill amends the current act in order to correct several technical difficulties that over the course of time since 1991 have been identified. Certainly we want to enable us as a House to do it properly.

I listened to the member prior to me speak. There were a number of misconceptions, some misinformation and misconstrued ideas tossed about. It was a little disheartening to have to listen to him speak and in a cheap partisan way drag into play the name of Catherine MacLean. I thought dragging in Justice Hughes' report was inappropriate as well because it really had nothing to do with what we are talking about here today.

We need to correct the record when he talked about spies and terrorists coming here to, I think his words were, rape and murder and do all kinds of things. It is outrageous. It is pathetic really, extremism to the nth degree. It really is inappropriate in this House when we are really dealing with a very substantial piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is very serious and is one that commits the government to meet its international obligations in a manner consistent with the great ideals and the great values of our country.

Those misconceptions and half truths and everything else tossed aside, we can now proceed into a serious debate about what we are doing in Canada and what the bill really means and the impact not only on this great country of ours but also, as we play out on the international scene, the obligations our great country has in terms of foreign affairs.

I also want to correct the record. I was at the justice and human rights committee meeting until almost 3 o'clock this morning. It sat late last night and into early today. We dealt with Bill C-36. Bill C-36 and Bill C-35 in no way contradict each other. That too was mentioned and it is simply not true.

The member for Portage--Lisgar indicated that we are somehow putting Canadians at risk by what we are doing. That is absolute nonsense. On the contrary, more than ever, in light of not only events prior to September 11 but after, what we are doing is making sure that our towns, villages, neighbourhoods, cities and rural areas continue to be safe and secure in a manner consistent with the great values of Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours. That is always the objective in trying to pursue a legislative agenda that makes sense and is consistent with those values in a meaningful way. That is precisely what we are doing with Bill C-35.

Going back to the events of September 11, those events in New York and Washington reminded us that the threats to public safety are of global concern. That is an obvious statement now. The recent trend of increasing violence at international summits for example has shed light on the need for appropriate action to be taken at international meetings. We have seen that Canada is repeatedly called upon to do its share and in some cases more than its fair share, for example, the G-20 meeting this past weekend in Ottawa.

Why? Because Canada, first, has professional policing services in place and security personnel and peace officers who know what they are doing in a manner consistent with not only Canadian values but the values of the international community when it comes to hosting these international meetings.

Canada will be called upon next summer, as well, in Kananaskis, Alberta with the G-8.

We have a great history and a great tradition of being able to host these meetings in a way that enables security and safety for everyone, the participants, even the protestors, the news media and others who are there, in terms of what is taking place.

We can be justifiably proud, not only in the House but also in this great country, to know that Canada has the ability to do these kinds of measures and do them in a reasoned, proportional way that is consistent with the values of Canada but, more important, ensures the safety and security of all concerned.

As the host of the G-8 next year, as I indicated, Canada has an obligation, which we take very seriously, to take all the steps to protect our international visitors and to ensure that the meeting is done in a safe and secure manner.

I think it is fair to say that never before has the need to respond effectively to security challenges been more acute. The time is ripe to clarify and underscore our duty to fulfill our obligations to protect international visitors.

When we look at the proud tradition of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the provincial police services, the local police and the regional police across Canada, we can be justifiably grateful that these men and women are there doing the kind of professional job that they do to enable us to all sleep better at night and, further, to let Canada do the kind of things that are important on the international scene, which is to host meetings and be the host for people from around the world, to enable us to carry on the great commitment that Canada has in this area and, furthermore, to enable Canada to carry on the proud tradition started by many people in the past who have brought us to this point.

Bill C-35 allows us to do just that.

I would now like to address the security provisions in the bill, what they will do, how they will be developed and how they will ensure that the basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by our great charter of rights and freedoms are in fact preserved.

The amendments would provide clear statutory authority to ensure security for the proper functioning of an international event hosted in Canada thereby promoting public safety and the safety of foreign delegations attending these events.

The amendments, contrary to the speaker prior to me, were carefully drafted in light of the common law and the statutory duties that the police already have to keep the peace, to protect persons attending an international conference from harm and to protect persons engaged in lawful demonstrations from unlawful interference.

Those are sacrosanct principles that we need to ensure are in place in Canada for the benefit of all concerned. For example, I want to point out that the Security Offences Act already gives the RCMP primary responsibility to protect internationally protected persons from being the target of criminal activity.

I would also like to assure members that the primary responsibility of the RCMP does not suggest that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will now be solely responsible for security at international events.

The amendments also accurately reflect the practical arrangements between the RCMP and the local police, either provincial, local or regional, in sharing responsibilities for security measures. That is the way the partnership works in Canada, to ensure that peace, order and good government prevails and that security and measured response are the order of the day.

As in the past, the RCMP would continue to share responsibility with the police forces of local jurisdictions and would continue to consult and co-operate with each police force to determine who will be responsible for specific activities.

That pattern will be repeated next year with the G-8 in Kananaskis. We have seen it before. We saw it in Quebec City. I want to commend those police and peace officers who did such a tremendous job at those events. Those are the kinds of security measures that will be carried on and carried forward because they work and they afford all concerned the protection that is so valuable in this kind of forum.

I want to indicate that it might be decided that a provincial police force would be responsible for keeping the peace around a perimeter and controlling access to that perimeter while the RCMP might be responsible for the protection of internationally protected persons. I give that as an example of how that kind of co-operation can take place. Each police force would make the call in its respective area of responsibility based on the kind of dialogue and pre-planning that goes into this kind of important event, pre-planning, by the way, that is already well in hand when we talk about the G-8 in Kananaskis.

The RCMP, for example, would retain the lead in ensuring that whatever police action is being contemplated will be geared toward ensuring the overall protection of international visitors and the proper functioning of the event.

With respect to the erection of a security perimeter, a fence or whatever else that might entail, I think we are all aware of the Tremblay case where the Quebec superior court held that the security fence erected at the Quebec summit was reasonable and justified and did not breach the charter of rights and freedoms. That is important because it underscores that the kind of planning and foresight which went into the security perimeter in Quebec City was in fact appropriate. More to the point, it withstood the test of the charter of rights and freedoms. That underscores the kind of good common sense that went into the planning of that particular summit.

Several years ago, in a case called Knowlton, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the establishment of a security perimeter at a hotel entrance during the official visit of the premier of the then U.S.S.R. was necessary and reasonable in light of the duty of the police to keep the peace.

Although some members of the House have described these amendments as vague, let me assure them that the terms “appropriate measures” and “reasonable in the circumstances” are well understood by the courts of the land. These are held to be those measures that the police believe they should and must do in order to ensure that an international conference can be carried out properly and safety, again in keeping with the values of Canada.

I would also like to emphasize that the security measures that these amendments authorize do not in any way restrict or infringe the rights that citizens enjoy under the charter of rights and freedoms. Those rights are guaranteed, as well they should be in a great democracy like Canada. They will be carried forward in a manner consistent with the wishes of Canadians wherever they live.

The police are and will continue to be liable for any excess use of force in managing the security at an international event. Moreover, any police measure that limits a charter right, such as freedom of expression or assembly, must be justifiable in a free and democratic society.

I mention those things because it is important to get on the record and to understand that there are certain obligations, rights and responsibilities that exist. In all cases we temper them in a tripod or three pronged lens. On the one hand, human rights. On the other hand, civil liberties. On the third side we have the whole issue of national security. These are fundamental lenses through which we look to see that all things are covered. I think it is in keeping with what we expect in our country.

I want to point out that Bill C-35 has amendments that fall into five broad categories. I think it is important to underscore these five, to get them on the record and to make sure that all members in the House present today understand the importance of what is being created here. Again, it is substantial, good legislation that is in keeping with commitments, not only in Canada but also on the international scene.

I want to point out that the amendments are needed to modernize the legislation, in order to comply with Canada's existing commitments under international treaties as well as to respond to important new developments in international law.

The exercise is simple. Canada is catching up with the new developments that are happening around the world. We are always modernizing. We are always making sure that we are in synchronization with other countries around the world, for example, by extending privileges and immunities to international inspectors employed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who come to Canada on temporary duty to carry out inspections under the chemical weapons convention. That is an example of how this will be used, how we need to bring our legislation into focus to enable us to make sure that is carried out and carried out appropriately. These amendments would enable the inspectors to import specialized technical equipment without paying customs duties.

In a broad category are those necessary to correct deficiencies in existing definition of international organizations. The existing definition covers only international organizations of a formal, institutionalized nature based on treaty, such as the United Nations and not more unconstructed intergovernmental organizations such as the G-8 or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Another broad example of this are those designed to provide clear statutory authority to support security measures necessary for the Canadian police to fulfill Canada's international obligations regarding the protection of persons who attend high level meetings held in Canada for international organizations.

Those needed to clarify the provision granting immunity from immigration restriction and alien registration override the Immigration Act provision that prohibits the entry to Canada of inadmissible persons but does not override the Crimes Against Humanities and War Crimes Act. That is important because it underscores Canada's commitment in this very important area in a manner keeping with all other laws and regulations that we have in this great country.

I have already addressed the housekeeping measures to correct technical inadequacies that have been identified since 1991 so I do not intend to go into those now.

We have a very proud history of ensuring the safety and security of people who attend meetings, international conferences and other events. Bill C-35 is an act that would enable us to carry on that proud tradition.

In light of the things that have happened since September 11, it is even more important to ensure that is in place. I think it is fair to say that we now live in a different environment as a result of those events. We need to move in a manner consistent with what has taken place knowing that we need to commit to our international obligations consistent with what Canada has been able to do in the past and consistent with the repeated requests by countries and organizations around the world to ensure that we carry on that great and proud tradition, something for which all members of the House and all Canadians can be very proud.

As the host of the G-8 next year, it will be important for Canada to clarify its authorities and statutes to ensure the proper functioning of the international conference again in a manner that I believe will benefit us all and make us proud.

We on this side of the House will continue to work very hard to ensure that we meet our international obligations and make the right decisions when it comes to safety and security. We will do so consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for which all Canadians are proud. We will do so by meeting our obligations under human rights and civil liberties knowing that those carrying out the security measures, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the police services that exist around and across Canada, will follow due process and the rule of law.

Foreign Missions And International Organizations Act

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to further discuss Bill C-35 which would extend diplomatic immunity to a far broader number of people than is currently the case in our country and beyond the requirement of the Geneva convention on this subject.

It continues the government's tradition of extending far greater immunity to a member of the mission staff of another nation in Canada than is the case in most countries in the world with which we are allied. It puts far more people above the law when they come to Canada.

This bill deserves to be shredded. It is a bill that would restrict the rights of law abiding Canadians. It is one which the department wants to see in place for some unknown reason. It would extend immunity to potentially a vast crowd of foreigners who do not even work for embassies in our country.

As it quietly makes its way through the House it carries the mundane title of an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. It is anything but mundane in its effect.

Under the bill a delegate, official, staff member, family member or a bag carrier showing up for an international gathering would have diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity gives the person who comes here the right to rape, steal, drive drunk, and break Canadian laws without consequence and with impunity.

When a foreign affairs official was asked why this should be done, the comment was that we would not go through a list and say that this person can have immunity and that person cannot. The official further stated that if we give diplomatic privileges and immunities for a meeting then all participants we let in for that meeting will get in.

The same legislation gives the department the authority to issue special visas to conference delegates who might otherwise be barred from entering Canada. It puts interesting people such as known criminals not only in a position of being able to come into the country but of being able to break the laws without any consequence whatsoever.

The Canadian public is already sufficiently concerned by recent incidents involving law breaking diplomats that we do not need to add to the problem. I cannot understand how a government could possibly defend extending immunity to even more people when we have not even set up a mechanism to deal with the abuse of the current system.

There have been about 90 acts of suspected criminal misconduct by diplomats, their families and other personnel posted in Canada in the last five years. The worst case that comes to mind is that of the Russian diplomat accused of killing Ottawa lawyer Catherine MacLean last January while driving drunk.

These concerns were shared by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time who talked about getting tough on the issue. That has not been the case and the bill takes us in a direction quite contrary to the one that we should be going in.

The department has given a number of reasons as to why and some Liberals who participated in the debate, though very few, gave us some arguments which I would like to refute.

One member opposite stated that we must do this to keep up with our international allies. That is not the case. Research shows that our allies do not extend diplomatic immunity to the degree that we do in such a broad based way. They may extend immunity in part at times for some acts, for some responsibilities in the course of one's duties, but they do not give blanket immunity to people on mission staff, let alone people who visit their country for meetings.

The bill goes completely counter to the reality in the United Kingdom or the United States of America. To argue that we must do this to keep up with international trends is quite false.

Let us put that rumour to rest because there is no such international trend. It is quite the contrary. I would expect that since September 11 each of the countries in the western world would be taking a serious look at all aspects of security. This would be one of those aspects.

I would expect a tightening up of the security around international events when they are hosted, not an extension of blanket immunity to all who participate. The government's bill is completely out of touch with the reality of post-September 11. Frankly it is not really in touch with the reality of pre-September 11.

We are told we should support the bill because of the need for us to give reciprocity for Canadian diplomats abroad. It is suggested that we have to give blanket immunity to everyone who comes to Canada for a convention in order for our diplomats to be protected in other countries of the world. That is not true either.

There were only three incidents in the last several years where a Canadian member of a diplomatic mission was involved in any criminal activity whatsoever. Yet there were close to 40 times as many incidents where members of foreign delegations were involved in crime in Canada.

It is a specious argument to expect further immunity to be given and to create more problems when some problems have been clearly noted and not dealt with.

The argument that we need to have diplomatic immunity is a valid one. Diplomatic immunity is an old and well understood way of making sure that the diplomats who travel around the world are not beheaded when they give a message that the local ruler does not like. Rules governing diplomatic immunity are set out very clearly in the Vienna convention.

The Vienna convention was written back in 1961. Canada played a major role in the wording of the Vienna convention. We are not abiding by Canada's wording today. It says that complete diplomatic immunity is not given to any but the most senior diplomatic staff.

The government is not abiding by the Canadian compromise in the Vienna convention that was adopted in 1961. Our parameters are far more liberal as we go far beyond it.

Aristotle said, before Jesus Christ was born, that liberalism would grow until chaos reigns supreme. Some would argue such is the case today with regard to the policy of extending diplomatic immunity more broadly than is currently the case. We accept reciprocity for Canadian diplomats abroad to a degree. Such is the case today.

To accept that we must go further still and extend complete diplomatic immunity to people who come here for conventions and meetings of various kinds is of course illogical and not supported by the facts.

Another argument that is made by some is that the committee on scrutiny of regulations recommended that we adopt the bill. This is not the case. Those who are watching at home or who have been in the House much longer than I have know that the committee on scrutiny of regulations does not advocate for legislation to be adopted. It tells people when they are in violation of certain regulations and rules.

The committee on scrutiny of regulations has notified the Department of Foreign Affairs since 1991 that orders in council on the recommendation of the foreign affairs minister extending immunity to participants in international conferences were illegal. Each of the last four foreign ministers was notified of the problem.

The problem is not that we need legislation to legalize what is a questionable practice. The problem is that we have ministers who consistently adopt that questionable practice and need to stop. That is the problem.

Most Canadians, if they were privy to the facts as members of the House are, would question the adoption of legislation to legitimize this practice. The practice is totally illogical.

Passing the bill would legitimize the practice of extending diplomatic immunity to people who do not deserve it under the Vienna convention. It would give people the right to live above the law without consequence. That should not be done. It is totally wrong to do it. To suggest that the committee on scrutiny of regulations called for us to adopt it, as some have, is totally false and misleading. It is quite the contrary. What the committee pointed out was that the government was acting without regard to the law.

I question whether the bill should be adopted. It should not be adopted as a basis of fact because the scrutiny of regulations committee asked for it to be adopted. That is not true. The scrutiny of regulations committee does not advise the government on how to remedy problems which it identifies.

In this case the committee simply told the government that foreign delegates to international conventions were not to be among those included in the definition of who was eligible for immunity under current law.

The government has chosen to adapt the law to its practice when what it should do is adapt its practice to the law. What are the Liberals real reasons for doing this? I think they are two-fold. My colleagues in other parties have addressed some of them but I will certainly talk about just two very quickly.

I think the real reasons are tourism and a legacy. They want a legacy for the Prime Minister so he can be the senior statesman hosting a variety of meetings. That is nice. We are all proud of the fact that we can host meetings in this country.

However, the second is the tourism aspect. It is being suggested that we should pass this bill so we can attract more people to come to international conventions, and that is the other argument members opposite are making. The fact is we host many international meetings, more than our share, and Canadians pay the price for hosting them too.

The reality is that after September 11 the price for hosting international meetings has gone up because the security provisions that have to be taken are very costly. We have no trouble attracting international meetings. We just had the G-20 meetings here last weekend. We have the G-8 meetings coming to Kananaskis next year.

Over the last number of years, and increasingly so in recent months, we have had many other meetings where international diplomats, their families and entourages have come to Canada. Without telling them that they can come and be above the law, they come anyway. I would suggest they will continue to in the absence of this downright silly piece of legislation going forward because, as people at the American embassy told us in meetings we had with them, Canada has a reputation for being an excellent host to international events.

Today we do not need to tell people that they can come here and have no consequence under Canadian law for criminal acts in order to get them here. They come anyway. To suggest we need this as a tourism initiative is specious as well.

The arguments the Liberals make to advance this piece of legislation are specious arguments. They do not carry any significant weight.

Why are they putting this forward? Perhaps they are putting it forward so that a bigger category of people can be immune from criminal acts and therefore they can legitimize increasing the use of the RCMP at events. If that is the case, they should say so but no one has. Therefore, I cannot argue that that is their reason. I will not impugn their motives. However I do know that this seems to be the only legitimate motive that anyone can come up with when they read this legislation.

All of this would be just a fine little theoretical debate, if there were not consequences paid by Canadians for criminal acts by people who are given diplomatic immunity. The minister has said that it is an infrequent thing, that it rarely happens and so on. I will let Canadians be the judge of this, but in the last five years we have had close to 90 cases of crimes attributable to people given diplomatic immunity. That is more than one case per month where people have committed a criminal act and there has been no price or consequence to be paid. Each of those acts leaves at least one Canadian victim. We should be considering that.

In the past five years 13,000 foreign diplomats have been in Canada. If this bill is passed it would extend diplomatic immunity to visitors. I asked the department to estimate the number of people who would become eligible if this bill was adopted and it could not give me a number.

We can safely assume that the rate at which crimes are committed by people given diplomatic immunity will multiply the number of crimes because the number of people receiving it will have increased. Any basic student of psychology understands that when the consequences of an act are removed the likelihood of such an act is increased. When we remove the consequences of a criminal act from anyone, we must understand and accept the fact there will be an increased likelihood of conduct unbecoming. Such has been the case.

In Great Britain it took the event at a Libyan mission of people given diplomatic immunity before Britain woke up and said that it was ridiculous that it could not prosecute people when they murdered in its own country. During a protest in front of the mission, people were fired on and a British policeman was killed. Great Britain took a serious look at adopting measures, and did, restricting the bestowing of diplomatic immunity to people in its country.

Britain screened missions. It asked for lists in advance. It encouraged and successfully fought for the presence over the size of each mission to be relevant to the relations it had with that particular country. It exercised the controls it had to make sure that diplomatic immunity was not extended unnecessarily, without validity or without just reason or cause.

Exactly what they did in Great Britain, they are not doing here. In the United States the son of a Saudi diplomat raped a woman and then within an hour was released because he successfully claimed diplomatic immunity. He was followed to a bar where he bragged to his friends about his conduct. That is the reality of what happens when diplomatic immunity is given out like candy at Halloween. This government is proposing to do it again for people who visit Canada for meetings, and it is ridiculous.

Let us just chronicle these events because each of them has a Canadian victim. If the member opposite wants to speak to the families of those victims, I would encourage her to do that because I have. There have been five incidents involving Canadian diplomats in the same time period. She is fond of mentioning that we have to quid pro quo this and that if we limit in any way the extension of diplomatic immunity to people here that somehow our diplomats would be placed in great danger. There have been only five incidents where Canadian diplomatic people have violated the trust put in them by foreign countries in the last five years. There have been 90 incidents where people in Canada have violated that trust.

Let us talk about the victims for a second. Of these incidents: 19% involved impaired driving; 20% were assaults; 19% were sexual offences; and 5% involved shoplifting. There was an attempted bribery case. There was an attempted murder case. There was even a charge of keeping a common bawdy house. We cannot even prosecute people when we give diplomatic immunity to them.

There are 1,000 diplomatic households currently in Canada. Currently there are 8,000 people who qualify for diplomatic immunity. If we adopt this legislation, that number will escalate dramatically.

Next time an action is taken by someone who is given diplomatic immunity, there will be a consequence for a law-abiding Canadian person or family. When that happens, Canadians will ask what the government is doing about it, just as they did when Catherine MacLean was killed, and they should ask.

However, let us ask right now. Let us ask why we are extending this immunity more broadly than is currently the case, when the government has not taken a step to limit the harmful effects of diplomatic immunity, when people commit these acts.

During the five years before Mrs. MacLean's death, foreign diplomats in Canada have committed 76 criminal offences that we know of, including physical and sexual assaults and impaired driving. There were also instances of drug trafficking and smuggling of aliens. These are all serious crimes that constitute a danger for Canadians.

Diplomatic immunity was waived in just 3 cases out of 76, and Bill C-35 will make a bad situation even worse.

The reality seems to escape the members opposite.

I would like to move on and talk a little about the police power that we are expanding under the bill. This is something I know that concerns many people in the House. In fact a growing number of people on this side of the House, as they research the bill, have become more concerned about the powers of the police force and the implications that has for our country when increased powers are given to our police force without constraining the power of politicians to manipulate that same police force. That is the concern many people have.

The powers being granted to police forces in Bill C-35 run directly against the freedoms of all Canadians.

This bill tends to limit the right of Canadians to protest openly against initiatives they consider dangerous for them and those they want to protect.

It has allowed the RCMP to limit access to international events in order to protect participants. It is a flimsy argument to allow the RCMP to smother any protest to avoid offending foreign representatives.

This clause of the bill is contrary to the recommendation made in the Hughes report that protesters ought to have access to meeting sites.

I will read from recommendation 31.1.1 of the Hughes report, which states:

When the RCMP is called upon in future to police public order events the leadership of the Force should ensure, that: generous opportunity will be afforded for peaceful protesters to see and be seen in their protest activities by guests to the event...

Recommendation 31.3.1 states:

The RCMP should request statutory codification of the nature and extent of police independence from government with respect to:

1. existing common law principles regarding law enforcement; and

2. the provision of and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order events.

I will quote a small section of recommendation 31.3.2. which states:

--that (the RCMP) are to brook no intrusion or interference whatever from government officials as they meet the responsibilities of providing the agreed upon security services.

In short, what the Hughes' recommendations said was that the RCMP separation from politicians should be made clear. This act would do nothing about that. It ignores those recommendations and simply expands police involvement without limiting political intrusion, and this is wrong.

As well, the bill ignores the Hughes report recommendation that the RCMP be free of political influence by the Cabinet or the PMO.

The Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade defeated an amendment, which was supported by all members of the opposition, which would have made it an offence for there to be political interference into the affairs of the RCMP when international meetings were being held.

What is more, Bill C-35 makes it possible for the minister to unilaterally grant entry into Canada to delegates, regardless of their criminal background, and to put them above our laws, at the very moment Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, is threatening the rights of Canadians.

At the present time it seems both unjustified and unjustifiable to give foreign delegates rights that are being taken away from honest Canadian citizens.

Oversight is a concern as well. Parliamentary oversight would be lessened by the passage of the bill. Parliamentary oversight is an important principle we should support in Canada.

In the amendments proposed under the bill adjacent to this one, the anti-terrorist legislation Bill C-36, the minister has agreed to file annual reports when police forces expand their powers and use additional powers which may restrict the civil liberties of Canadians.

In other words the minister has agreed to give parliament a greater opportunity to debate and be aware of the concerns Canadians would justifiably have that the liberties they treasure are being infringed on unnecessarily. That is wise.

We proposed in the adjacent Bill C-35 that the minister file an annual report on the criminal conduct of people given diplomatic immunity in our country. He has promised to do this but has not. The Liberal majority on the committee defeated the amendment, which gives the lie to the minister's commitment and promise. That is too bad. It is a shame. I would hope if the minister were there he would have risen in his place and urged his colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Right now in terms of oversight we use the Immigration Act. In the current process the Immigration Act allows the minister to sign a certificate and let people come in who otherwise would not be admissible to Canada. The minister must report to parliament each year and say who was let in who would not have been let in, in any other way. That way parliament gets to know what is happening and to debate it.

Bill C-35 would transfer responsibility to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and remove the requirement to report to parliament. That is a shame because this is who will be let in when we sign the certificate.

We would not just be letting them in. Let us understand that. We would be giving them diplomatic immunity. That means we would let in these kinds of folks and tell them they could do whatever they want when they came here. We could not prosecute them. They could do anything they want. These are people whom we would not normally allow into Canada but the minister would be allowed to let them in.

I will quote from the act. It describes inadmissible persons as:

(e) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe

(i) will engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada,

(ii) will, while in Canada, engage in or instigate the subversion by force of any government,

(iii) will engage in terrorism, or

(iv) are members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe will

(A) engage in acts of espionage or subversion against democratic government, institutions or processes, as they are understood in Canada--

Normally such people are not admissible to Canada and I think Canadians would say hear, hear. Bill C-35 would allow the minister to let them in with a signature. More than that, it would let the minister give them permission to be above Canadian law.

The government does not want to make it a crime for people to belong to a terrorist organization. That we understand. However to suggest the minister should have the right to let in people who he knows are members is another thing.

The bill would go further. It would not only say we have the right to let in people we know are members of organizations like that. It would allow the minister to say they do not need to abide by our laws while they are here. I can see that even you, Mr. Speaker, are in total agreement with me on this point.

It could be justifiably argued that people who engage in these kinds of activities should not be allowed into our country. This is blanketed by the more popular and current Bill C-36. If Canadians were part of the debate they would ask why in heaven's name the government would let a bunch of people into Canada who would not abide by our laws when we already have a problem with the ones who do. They would say we should not let in these types of people.

I will again quote from the act. It describes as inadmissible:

(g) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada--

(j) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe have committed an offence referred to in any of the sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act--

(l) persons who are or were senior members of or are senior officials in the service of a government that is or was, in the opinion of the Minister, engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or any act or omission that would be an offence under any of sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act--

Bill C-35 would remove these provisions. It would essentially say the minister has the right to let any of these people into the country that he wants. That makes no sense. It is hard not to get a little fired up about my opposition to the bill. Many of the people I talk to say it is so illogical it is no wonder I am fired up about it.

Catherine MacLean and her friend Catherine Doré went out for a walk in their neighbourhood 10 months ago. They went out for a walk on a nice winter morning. Around the corner came a car driven by a drunk. The drunk killed Catherine MacLean and seriously injured Catherine Doré who is still trying to recuperate.

The consequences of that act are nothing to the government. It has brought forward a piece of legislation which does nothing to address the problem. It would simply make it bigger. That is thoughtlessness. It disregards and disrespects the memory of Catherine MacLean. I am disappointed that the government would proceed with this legislation.

When Catherine MacLean went for her walk she could not have anticipated the consequences, but we could have. We knew the Russian diplomat was a drunk driver. We knew it. We knew it twice before and we still did nothing. We knew it after the fact. It is to the credit of the foreign affairs critic at the time that he raised the issue intelligently and forcefully. I thank him for doing that.

It is not enough to say we now have new protocols. The department has said it has new protocols. People would get one chance for drunk driving and the second time they would be out. That is fine. We will deal with the consequences of drunk driving after the fact. Is that the best we can do? I do not think so.

We can do better. We can develop foresight. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are committed to repeat their mistakes. The reality is that we should know better.

We saw what happened when we did not inform the House of the consequences of these acts. Now we are going in the wrong direction. We will not inform the House of whom we let into the country. If we adopt the act we will not inform the House of violations that occur. We will not know about drunk driving because the government will not have to report it to us. That is wrong.

I feel badly for Catherine MacLean. I feel badly that I have to raise this issue. However the government is ignoring the consequences of actions like that with the legislation it has brought forward. We all know and should know that the best way the government could have acted was to deal with the problems around diplomatic immunity and not bring forward a piece of legislation that expands the problems.

A better thing would have been to do nothing. Nothing at all would have been better than bringing this piece of legislation to the House.

Do hon. members know what happened when Mr. Knyazev, the Russian diplomat that killed Catherine MacLean and seriously injured Catherine Doré? The Russian people demanded an apology. The Russian embassy demanded an apology from the Canadian government for trying to hold the man. They got it. They got an apology.

We asked the Russians to waive diplomatic immunity. They refused. I say good for the minister for asking, but would it not be better if we did not have to ask? Would it not be better if we made sure through foresight and preparedness that these kinds of things did not happen again? Would that not be a lot better? Would it not be better for Catherine MacLean's family if we showed respect for her and acted accordingly?

There were two young teenage girls whom a Ukrainian diplomat tried to accost into his car with an anesthetic soaked rag. We could not charge him either. Would it not be better for the victims of these people if we could do something about it? We can. We can throw this bill in the garbage where it belongs.

When Catherine MacLean died, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed sympathy and said that diplomatic immunity should not be used to shelter people who commit crimes that are not connected to the performance of their duties.

The minister said at the time that he had no sympathy for people who commit these acts outside the realm of their responsibilities. Yet immunity was given. The reality is that immunity is given by the government in a broad based way, not just to senior diplomats but to computer programmers and chauffeurs.

The minister promised several things. He promised he would look at the issue but there is no evidence he has. He promised he would put on the departmental website a complete list of all the violations. We have not seen it. He promised he would present quarterly updates of cases where diplomatic immunity was violated. That has not happened. There has been a litany of broken promises on this file. That disappoints me.

We all understand and respect that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has a tremendous burden to bear right now. However we cannot allow this piece of legislation to move forward and make him break his word to Catherine MacLean and her family just because his attention is elsewhere. That would be wrong.

We asked government members to consider a number of reasonable and thoughtful amendments. We asked that it be made an offence for government representatives to influence or instruct police on operational matters around protest sites at international meetings. They should not do this. The Hughes inquiry clearly spelled that out. It is against the best interests of the RCMP to impugn its motives and integrity. It should not be done.

We asked that the minister account to parliament for any foreign representatives he admits who would not be admissible under the Immigration Act. In other words, we asked that he tell us in a report whom he is letting into the country who would normally not be allowed in.

We asked that the minister be prohibited from granting immunity for criminal acts beyond what is required under the Vienna convention. To put it simply, we asked that he comply with the Vienna convention but go no further. All these amendments were rejected.

We asked that immunity be restricted for representatives at conferences. We asked that they not be given immunity except when it applied to the normal course of their duties. Giving them that degree of protection would comply with what the minister said he would like to see after Catherine MacLean's death. It would comply with what the Vienna convention says about the issue. It would comply with what our allies do, if they go that far at all. Many of our allies do not give immunity to people who come for international meetings.

My colleague from Cumberland--Colchester proposed a reasonable and well thought out amendment. I congratulate him on it. His amendment would have allowed the minister to keep his promise by publishing quarterly reports of crimes committed by those who are given immunity. It was a thoughtful amendment. We supported it as did every non-governmental member of the committee. The government of course used its majority to defeat the member's thoughtful and reasonable amendment.

There are some key reasons Bill C-35 must be defeated. First, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, contradicts Bill C-35. Bill C-35 would restrict the rights of Canadians and put foreign representatives above the law. At the same time Bill C-36 tells Canadians they should be willing to sacrifice their liberties and rights to be more secure.

Benjamin Franklin said some years ago that those who are willing to sacrifice security for liberty deserve neither and put both at risk. That is what we are doing here. Allowing the government to extend to people from other countries the right to come here and place themselves above the law would be a serious error in judgment.

Second, Bill C-35 would remove accountability. It would remove the reporting requirements from the government. It would remove the transparency from the bill that is there now which requires the immigration minister to report to the House when exceptions are made in giving people the right to come into the country. We need to have that kind of transparency. We need to know when those kinds of decisions are made by the government.

The government acts as arrogant majorities sometimes do. It acts as if it will always be arrogant and a majority. It may always be arrogant but it will not always be a majority. It needs to understand that the decisions it makes today are decisions which the country will have to continue to pay the price for.

The third key here is that we put Canadian security at risk. We know this when we let undesirable people into the country. We have done that. We already have an immigration department which is certainly under attack. Within the Liberal caucus I am sure there are some thoughtful members who have pointed out in closed door sessions the lack of integrity of the current system in terms of the loopholes, the way in which it encourages people to come into the country who should not be permitted in. It allows people to enter the country and escape detection thereafter. Those kinds of undesirable people should not be allowed into the country. Most important, they should not be put above our laws.

That is exactly what this bill does. It was out of step with global trends even before September 11 but it is especially now. Most of all, it is an insult to all the victims and their families of diplomats' crimes in the country. In particular it is an insult to the memory of Catherine MacLean.

I now propose an amendment to the bill. I move:

That Bill C-35, an Act to Amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, not now be read a third time, but be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for further consideration of clause 5, with due respect being given to recommendations 31.3.1 and 31.3.2 of the Interim Report of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, which call for greater independence of the RCMP from political influence; for further consideration of clause 3, with due respect being given to the view expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that diplomatic immunity ought to apply only to acts committed in the course of diplomatic duties; and for further consideration of clause 3, with due respect being given to the principle that any admission into Canada of foreign representatives who would normally be inadmissible under Section 19 of the Immigration Act due to having engaged in, or being likely to engage in acts of violence, subversion, terrorism, crimes against humanity, and offences under the Criminal Code of Canada ought to be reported to Parliament; and, for further consideration of clause 2, with due consideration being given to the need for increased national security measures in consequence of the events of September 11.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved: that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the third time and passed.

Committees of the House

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the subject matter of Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.