Bill C-36 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism

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.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say what a pleasure it is to sit beside the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

The amendments that she proposed to Bill C-36 were not only very helpful in securing parliamentary passage of her legislation but also help us in our campaign against terrorism which we are trying to pursue with our allies and with our coalition partners around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry are sitting together so they can communicate well. I wonder if he could say the same thing for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the attorney general who also sit together.

Last night the attorney general amended Bill C-36 to include annual reports. Would she lean over and explain to the Minister of Foreign Affairs why annual reports are good and why he should apply the same amendment to Bill C-35?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the controversial Bill C-36 received some minor watered down changes including a five year re-enactment clause on police powers, yet the sun will not set on the ability of the minister to hide information from Canadians.

An injection of judicial review for ministerial certificates is eclipsed by the controversial costly process. The Government of Canada still can deny the information for broad and potentially political reasons.

Why is the minister prepared to sunset increased police powers yet stubbornly refuses to subject her own information hiding to the same standards?

Business of the House

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, the great member of parliament for Souris--Moose Mountain in Saskatchewan, for his kind words.

I only have five minutes but I want to comment briefly on each of the presentations that were made after mine. I will offer my comments in reverse order.

The member for Churchill River, the former NDP member who was elected on the principle of abolishing the Senate, now believes not only in sustaining the current institution but in creating a third institution. He thinks having it circular is somehow a good idea. I am trying to be a bridge builder. The hon. member should note that these two things can be accomplished. The United States senate sits in a semi-circular room and is elected on the triple E basis of equality for all states.

The member for Kings--Hants applauded the quality of work that has been done in the upper chamber by certain members of our Senate. There is no question that quality work gets done in the current Senate. I am thinking specifically of Bill C-36 and the amendments being made to it. The Senate has made a substantive contribution regarding the issue of drugs. It has done substantive work in debating how to go forward on the issue and whether to reform our current regime in the war on drugs.

Let us imagine that every member of the current Senate was elected and had the democratic legitimacy to talk about issues the House may not be talking about but on which it may want to slowly move the ball. Let us imagine Senators engaging in debates with vigour, putting forward legislation, aggressively amending legislation before the House and effectively working in the Senate chamber. It would have a remarkable impact for Canadians on the quality of legislation coming not just out of the House of Commons but out of parliament.

The NDP member for Regina--Qu'Appelle said the Senate should be abolished. He has held that view for quite some time. However it should be noted that his constituents in Saskatchewan would be left way behind.

The population of Saskatchewan is dropping by a point or two a year. There is talk about restructuring the seats in the House of Commons. Saskatchewan would not get more seats. It could not have fewer seats election by election but proportionately it would have a smaller and smaller voice in this place.

If we got rid of the Senate the views of Saskatchewan would have a weaker and smaller voice. Saskatchewan is dealing with health care reforms, a potential change of government coming down the pike where it is hoped Mr. Hermanson will become the next premier, and aboriginal issues as the proportion of its aboriginals rises dramatically relative to other provinces. Saskatchewan has substantive issues. For it to have a weaker and smaller voice in this place would do a total disservice to the home province of the hon. member.

The member mentioned the principle of a unicameral legislature. Unicameral legislatures work well in provinces but they do not work in large, vast countries like ours where we have diverse populations. Unicameral legislatures only work in unitary systems. Canada is a federal system with diverse needs and views which must be accommodated in a system that understands, respects and represents those views.

Last but not least, the almost right hon. member for Leeds--Grenville who was elected by a majority of 40 or 50 votes chooses his words carefully in this place. I will repeat my motion to remind Canadians what it says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take measures to provide that the Governor General summon only fit, qualified and democratically elected people to fill Senate vacancies for provinces that have legislation providing for the election of Senators.

The hon. member said the example of Alberta in 1998 where it has Senate election laws would be unconstitutional. That is not true at all. All the constitution says is that the Prime Minister must appoint senators. It says nothing at all about the mechanism the Prime Minister uses to select the person he or she appoints. The motion is totally constitutional. It would put the power back into the hands of the public.

The member said it is great that more than 50 per cent of our current senators are women. That is not a virtue in and of itself. A greater virtue is the principle of democracy. We should strive for excellence and hope for equality, not strive for equality and hope for excellence. There are greater principles here. There is the principle of representation, the principle of democracy, and the principle of putting this House and the upper chamber back into the hands of Canadians where they belong.

Given that the hon. member for Leeds--Grenville is the only member who can prevent this from happening, and given that he was elected with only a 50 seat majority, I seek unanimous consent from the House to make private member's Motion No. 361 votable so we can have a full debate about the nature of democracy in Canada.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice.

Based on today's testimony, the minister has clearly ignored most of the unanimous recommendations from the special Senate committee on Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill. Those include ignoring the recommendations which would sunset the ability of the minister to control information and sidestep parliamentary watchdogs.

Why has the minister chosen to exempt these hide and seek certificate processes from those which would be sunsetted in Bill C-36?

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who repeatedly said in the House that she would listen to the committee considering Bill C-36, that she would listen to the witnesses and respond to public opinion on this matter.

Could she tell the House why today, before the committee, she refused to listen to the many, many Canadians who came before the committee? They asked for a real sunset clause on more than just the two clauses that she has indicated will be subject not to a sunset clause but to some kind of twilight zone into which the minister wants to put these two amendments and which amounts really to a 10 year sunset clause.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is why that is true. Bill C-36 also fails to criminalize membership in proven terrorist organizations. Even though a court has in fact found that an organization's goal is to promote terrorism, there is no prohibition against joining that organization.

Could the minister explain why Canadians should tolerate membership in organizations whose only purpose is to destroy freedom and democracy in our country?

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 is a rehash of two predecessors, identified at the time as Bills C-8 and C-48. This raises the following question: why did the government not pass C-8? Why did the Liberals, in their third mandate, not pass C-48?

There are a number of reasons why. In the latter case, it is because the Prime Minister decided to call a hasty election in order to catch his adversaries by surprise, particularly the new leader of the Canadian Alliance. He put vote-getting ahead of a number of bills, and this one, along with 22 others fell by the wayside. I remember, because one of those was a private member's bill on shipbuilding.

Now we are only a few weeks away from the anniversary of that election call, at which time that bill on shipbuilding had gone through all the stages, second reading, clause by clause examination in committee and report stage. All that remained was third reading, but the Prime Minister preferred to call an election. I know that my bill was not the only reason; it was primarily to gain political advantage, one might say.

There is another question. If the government had not yet passed this bill on marine conservation areas, it is certainly not because it was a priority. If it was not a priority during the two previous mandates, is it really a priority now? I doubt it. I would tend to believe that the government does not have much to offer to the House in terms of a legislative agenda while the anti-terrorism legislation is still in the planning and consultation stages. In the meantime, it gives us this bill to discuss.

As I recall, when we were dealing with Bill C-8 and Bill C-48, on each occasion I took part in the debate and spoke against those bills for the very same reasons.

We in the Bloc Quebecois often bring up the fact that there is duplication between the federal and provincial governments. This is another case in point. Under the Constitution, natural resources and public lands come under provincial jurisdiction. It is a proven fact.

Nevertheless and in spite of warnings, in spite of the opposition, and in spite of the result of botched consultations, we have this bill before us. If an independent firm were asked to report on the kind of consultations that were carried out on the bill, it would not be very likely that the same company would be hired again. The data is not conclusive.

Moreover, this duplication is, I do not know how to say this, “intrafederal”. We are talking about creating marine conservation areas which would come under the Department of Canadian Heritage, but we already have marine protection areas under the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We also have marine wildlife areas under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

It bears repeating: marine conservation areas, marine protection areas, and marine wildlife areas.

This, as my father would say, is a lot of hogwash. It is incomprehensible. By trying too hard to protect natural resources, the government may actually harm them, and I wonder about their motives. Apparently conservation is what they have in mind, but conservation in terms of heritage. I suppose that fish could be admired for their beauty or like any other typically Canadian item.

But these things are related and, during the consultations, people said “Yes, but there is a very distinct possibility when there is a desire to protect natural species for heritage reasons in the same areas as fisheries and ocean's marine protection areas”. But fisheries and oceans officials want there to be more fish and fisheries products to feed us, as well as provide work for people in regions such as the Gaspé or the maritimes. The Department of the Environment is also concerned because all this is very closely related.

And precisely because it is closely related, should these three kinds of areas not come under the jurisdiction of one federal body? Imagine the situation for people in Quebec or in other provinces trying to manage projects or areas under the authority of one or the other of these three departments. The federal government is in the process of inventing a weapon by which it can attack provincial jurisdictions from three different angles. One would think we were in Afghanistan, so intense is the bombardment. This will not do. It is intrafederal duplication.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is laughing, but I know that he agrees with me. He too thinks it is ridiculous. But now, he can no longer say so because he is sitting with the Liberal majority. He is obviously forced to toe the party line. But when he was on this side of the House, he was in favour. Then, he was right to support the creation of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park.

Why was that a good project? Because there was an agreement between Quebec and the federal government intended not just to protect but to develop this beauty, which the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord could still develop.

I could give another example of co-operation that took place, but that is not moving as quickly as we would hope. I am referring to the St. Lawrence action plan, which concerns primarily the shores of the river. Many projects are waiting for funding and money. I saw the tremendous work done by priority intervention zones. The zone in my region is called the Zone d'interventions protégées de Chaudière-Appalaches. Several projects are waiting for money to develop and protect the environment, and to help the ecosystem.

But instead of that, what we have before us is a virtual bill, since it does not target a specific territory. This is an omnibus bill that would allow the government to get involved in jurisdictions that, again, belong to the provinces, this within a framework that does not include public lands alone, but also natural resources that belong to the provinces. This is being done after a rushed consultation process.

When we want a copy of the supposedly 300 pages on the outcome of these consultations, we are given 73. It is as if the protection of these areas were a military secret. It is almost forbidden to say where these areas will be located, as if this were a highly strategic piece of information. If this were a priority, the government would have included it the first time, in Bill C-8, and the second time, in Bill C-48. But it did not do so.

Now that things are quiet and that the government is not ready to go ahead with Bill C-36 because consultations are still going on, it is making us debate this issue in parliament.

I say that it is too bad for the Liberal government. Every time, we tell the government the same thing and say “You are getting involved in provincial jurisdictions. Instead of doing that, put money in your own jurisdictions, in national parks”.

Instead, a report from the auditor general talks about negligence and insufficient staff and funds, before adding that it is an ill-protected area. And the government wants to develop more areas. This just does not make sense.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

My friend from the Liberal Party, the parliamentary secretary, wants her turn to speak. I cannot quite tell whether or not she is agreeing with what I am saying. Perhaps she might want to listen, rather than voice comments quietly under her breath.

I am simply making this point. Is the intent of this clause in the bill to be able to sweep under the rug the whole idea of the issuance of a special permit which the minister of immigration previously would have had to give to individuals with criminal records coming to Canada? Is that the intent of this part of the bill?

It seems quite contrary in the climate that we have with Bill C-36 that the government is extending the issue of immunity in the bill. It would seem to me that the government would prioritise the legislation it brings to the House. Is this the issue that is gripping our nation today? I do not think so. There are many other issues having to do with what happened on September 11.

I have made this point several times in the House and I will make it again. We have outstanding issues of trade. We have the ongoing softwood lumber debate. That is impacting on all of Canada, but particularly on my area of British Columbia. There is an outstanding issue that has not yet been resolved. We have border security issues and integration of our trade with the United States. Where are the pieces of legislation that would solve those issues that are top of mind for Canadians?

We need to correct our existing system before we extend immunity and privileges to even more visitors who would come to Canada. It just seems to make sense that we would do that first.

My colleagues have mentioned some of the cases that have come up over the last several years where individuals have committed criminal activities in Canada and diplomats have participated in that. The most high profile one has been mentioned by my colleagues as well: the tragic death of Catherine MacLean in Ottawa who was struck and killed by a Russian diplomat. We know that he is now being charged with careless driving in Russia.

I want to focus on an amendment that was brought forward by my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. It is a very commonsense notion that was defeated by the government at committee. It is one that would effectively report to parliament the names of individuals to whom this immunity was extended.

Why not have that transparent clause in the bill so that we would know to whom this blanket immunity is being extended? In so doing the Minister of Foreign Affairs could keep his promise on this point. It should simply lay out to whom this extended amount of immunity is being given.

Unfortunately that was defeated in committee. I believe that would have gone a long way toward building confidence and trust among all parties that this immunity would not simply be a blanket immunity used by many who might break the law when they are in Canada.

The use of diplomatic immunity has become distorted. The concept of diplomatic immunity is intended to protect foreign representatives from arbitrary harassment in the legal conduct of their affairs and not to allow them to hide from criminality. The concept of immunity is not to give people a blank cheque when they enter our country to do whatever it is they might want to do. It is there to protect them in the commission of their jobs.

In the context of Bill C-36, when we are having more restrictions put on Canadian citizens and their rights and their freedoms here the government at the same time is extending through this wide ranging immunity the rights of foreigners who would come to our country and who may break the law. It is mind boggling how we could have both of those bills before the House at the same time. It is very contradictory.

I hope it is something the government will address. It has an opportunity to do so because the bill is still before us in this place. Why not report to parliament once or twice a year, as my colleague has suggested, who is covered by this broad, sweeping immunity? Why not put those accountability measures not only into this piece of legislation but into others that are before this place too? If the government would take this approach I think it would find in general more support for the initiatives it comes up with.

When the government is not willing to do so it sends a negative message, which is to the detriment of the government's own initiatives.

I will close by saying that the bill extends immunity when it should not. The government has refused not only in committee but now at this next stage of the bill in the House to be more accountable, to build in some mechanisms to report on who will be getting immunity. I think that is wrongheaded. It is a shame it is not taking this opportunity to build consensus with this legislation. It is certainly not the number one issue seizing the nation today.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the same concerns my colleagues have mentioned already on Bill C-35. As it made its way through parliament, as my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester mentioned, the bill seemed rather innocuous at first. However when we take a look at it we realize some of the outstanding contradictions in the bill as compared to Bill C-36. My friend from Surrey North mentioned that in his speech. Others have mentioned it as well, and I agree.

The government has quietly attempted to extend diplomatic immunity and privileges to a whole host of new foreign visitors that would come to Canada to attend international conferences. Special visitor visas would supercede the immigration minister's power to allow potential visitors with a criminal past to come to Canada. They could otherwise be refused entry because of a criminal record.

I have to ask this question. Is this intended to take the heat off the minister of immigration? It seems this clause supercedes the issuance of a special permit.

When I was on the immigration committee for two years we had all kinds of debates on issues about the whole idea of issuing a special permit to an individual who would come from abroad.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this legislation, although it is difficult to comprehend the logic of the government.

Bill C-35 is an insult to the victims of crimes perpetrated by foreign diplomats or their staff in Canada. In all fairness, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done good work on the terrorism file. I simply do not understand what he can be thinking by insisting that the legislation become law. Many of the proposed changes in Bill C-35 are best suited for the shredder.

While I understand that the Vienna convention requires that certain immunities are necessary in order to maintain diplomatic relations with other countries, the proposals in Bill C-35 go far beyond what is necessary. It opens up an even larger possibility for crimes committed in Canada by foreign nationals protected by diplomatic immunity to go unpunished. This is not acceptable to Canadians and I am sure the minister knows it.

The most recent example of diplomatic immunity gone awry was when a Russian diplomat who allegedly was driving drunk killed Catherine MacLean. At the time the minister rightly said that he felt immunity should not apply to the Russian as the offence had nothing to do with his duties as a diplomat. The minister promised to study ways to prevent such abuses of immunity in the future. Instead he is ensuring that the possible abuse of diplomatic immunity will be extended to anyone coming into Canada for an international conference, including support staff. These people currently are not covered by immunity and therefore are subject to Canadian laws.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade reported recently that there have been 76 crimes listed as having involved foreign diplomats. The charges include such serious offences as sexual assault, assault, impaired driving, impaired driving causing death, alien smuggling, and drug trafficking to list just a few. These are not petty crimes. These are crimes for which Canadians and especially their victims expect to see justice carried out. Only three of the 76 cases had their diplomatic immunity waived. This means that 73 of these crimes saw no justice whatsoever.

Bill C-35 puts even more foreign representatives above Canadian law, thereby increasing the potential for abuse of immunity in the future. This cannot possibly be what the minister intends, so why not allow for changes to the legislation in order to ensure that justice can be carried out? Perhaps the minister should put himself in the shoes of the victims for a few minutes just to experience justice denied.

I find it shocking that Bill C-35 will give the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade a blank cheque to allow foreign representatives into Canada without proper security screening. Department officials and the minister will have free rein to allow anyone they want into the country with absolutely no accountability to parliament or to the Canadian public. With the simple stroke of a pen, an official will be able to allow foreign nationals possessing criminal backgrounds, human rights abuses or terrorist ties into Canada.

In the current post-September 11 climate the government is moving to restrict the rights of Canadians with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation. It is mind-boggling that at that same time the same government is moving to allow potentially dangerous foreign nationals into Canada without any checks and balances. As it currently stands, when foreign diplomats seek entry into Canada for the purpose of a diplomatic function or an international conference, they are subject to our immigration laws. Individuals found to be inadmissible currently are required to ask the minister of immigration for a special permit. At the end of each year, parliament has the opportunity to scrutinize the number of permits issued, thereby establishing a degree of accountability, albeit a very small degree of accountability.

With Bill C-35 in place, Canadians will never know who is being allowed into the country. Even worse, if a visitor commits a crime, he or she virtually is guaranteed not to face Canadian justice. It is long past time for Canada simply to stop sitting at international trade tables with countries and leaders that perpetrate serious human rights abuses and condone acts of terrorism.Yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs is giving himself and his department carte blanche to invite whomever they please to come to Canada with little, if any, security considerations.

Furthermore the legislation will ensure that foreign despots will be spared from embarrassment by protesters. It is simply wrong for the government to extend diplomatic immunity beyond what international convention requires. It is wrong for the minister to be able to forgo our immigration laws to invite the likes of President Suharto and shield him from criticism. Is it so awful that someone like Suharto occasionally is reminded of his deeds?

I am discouraged to see that the government seemingly has learned nothing from the APEC experience in 1996. The legislation actually contradicts the Hughes report which recommended that “generous opportunity...for peaceful protesters to see and to be seen...by guests of the event”.

This legislation creates not only the authority but also the obligation for the government and the RCMP to repeat the 1996 APEC performance. Canada needs to lead by example by allowing Canadians not only to dissent peacefully but also to be seen by those they are demonstrating against.

Bill C-35 expressly states that our country should protect the dignity of foreign representatives. I suggest that if a foreign dictator comes to Canada, it is only his guilty conscience that would be troubled by peaceful protesters reminding him of his actions, not his dignity.

The advancement of Canadian values is supposedly the third pillar of Canada's foreign affairs policy according to the department. I fail to see how giving the minister a free hand to invite criminals into the country, how giving the police a blank cheque to restrict the movements of Canadians while at the same time failing to prevent government interference with police matters, advances Canadian values.

Diplomatic considerations such as the granting of immunity should never be allowed to override security considerations. Permission for individuals to enter Canada should remain entirely separate from the process of granting diplomatic immunity to foreign diplomats.

In conclusion, the government should not extend immunity from the criminal code beyond the requirements of international law and convention. The bill is deceitful. The Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act is not the appropriate place to legislate new statutory powers and responsibilities for the RCMP or to give the foreign minister new powers to override the Immigration Act.

The government is trying to slip these major changes through parliament by hiding them in an innocuous-looking act surrounded by mundane housekeeping provisions. No press release accompanied the tabling of the bill. No legislative summary or explanation was provided. The government is rushing the bill through the House to avoid scrutiny.

The Canadian Alliance has scrutinized Bill C-35 and as the official opposition we have highlighted the failures of this legislation. I hope the minister will heed our recommendations and do what is right by reconsidering some of the draconian powers being enacted by the bill.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. I am opposed to the bill not only because the premise is flawed but because its best before date expired 10 years ago.

Following September 11 trends regarding the granting of diplomatic immunity are headed toward restricting access rather than enlarging it. Bill C-35 would extend immunity far beyond what many other countries grant diplomats. Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 clearly contradict one another. Bill C-35 would render foreign diplomats above the law with a minister's permit. Bill C-36 would impose broad limits on the rights of law abiding Canadians.

Bill C-35 would allow the foreign affairs minister to overrule the immigration minister if he believed there was good reason for allowing foreign delegates into the country. This could mean foreign delegates guilty of criminal offences or terrorist attacks would be allowed into the country if the foreign minister thought it would further Canada's interest.

This shows that the government's priorities are confused and contradictory. Like many others I am left wondering where they are going.

Bill C-35 and Bill C-36 show that the government is headed madly off in all directions. Together they illustrate the inconsistency of the government which acts one way internationally and another way domestically. Internationally it promotes the image of Canada as an open society. At home it curtails the freedom of Canadians.

Returning to my first point, the staff of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations pointed out in 1991 that the external affairs minister's orders to extend immunity to delegates at intergovernmental conferences were illegal since these conferences were technically not international organizations. One proposed remedy was to redefine the meaning of international organization to include multilateral conferences.

During a 10 year letter writing campaign the minister in question indicated the willingness of the government to co-operate with the request of the committee in due course. The course was a long and tortured one but the government finally developed the will to act.

Bill C-35 is the result of 10 years' worth of pressure by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. Instead of being too little too late, the bill is too much too late. September 11 irreversibly altered the foundations of foreign policy debate. Viewed through this prism Bill C-35 is no longer appropriate to today's increased security needs.

The DFAIT report issued in May of this year stated that 90 crimes involving foreign diplomats in Canada were reported in the last five years. These included human smuggling, narcotics trafficking, impaired driving and sexual assaults. Bill C-35 would extend the same immunity abused by Knyazev, the Russian diplomat who killed Catherine MacLean while driving drunk, to an unknown number of people. It is still government practice to extend blanket immunity to support staff who are not entitled to it under the Vienna convention.

We are already losing our traditional role of diplomatic leadership in the international arena. For example, American officials have already said Bill C-35 would never fly in their country since it would extend diplomatic immunity further than they would be comfortable with.

We all remember the APEC conference in 1996 where protesters were pepper sprayed to save the Prime Minister from embarrassment. Nor has anyone forgotten how the government tried to make a scapegoat out of an RCMP sergeant for the whole incident. Rather than raise further embarrassment at meetings of the G-8, G-20, IMF, World Bank and so on, the Prime Minister is trying to ram the bill through as quickly as possible.

Bill C-35 would continue the government's habit of passing the buck to law enforcement. Not only has the government slashed its net financial commitment to the nation's police force. It is trying to enshrine in law additional responsibilities for officers who are already overworked and stretched to the limit.

Recently the Canadian Police Association said the government was playing a shell game with the security of Canadians. It said when it comes to security at our borders and airports Canadians should not be lulled into a false sense of security. It said the RCMP must steal from Peter to pay Paul. In countries like Australia and New Zealand the authority of police has been enshrined into the common law. Why not in Canada?

On a number of occasions I have pointed out shady dealings at our foreign missions. In dealing with foreign missions the bill has not addressed fraud and corruption. Our security begins at our foreign missions abroad because they screen people before they enter Canada. They are our first line of defence. However there is nothing in the bill that deals with the issue.

In light of this some RCMP officers and immigration officers who blew the whistle were crucified by the government and the investigation was covered up. Today at 12.30 p.m., about an hour from now, I will be hosting a presentation on whistleblowing in room 200 of the West Block. I invite all members as well as those who are watching to join us.

On another point, the roles of hundreds of international organizations and Canada's membership in them remain unaddressed in the bill. We the opposition members on the foreign affairs committee introduced excellent amendments that would have made it possible for me to support the bill. Some of the amendments sought to insulate the RCMP from political interference, limit the scope of the immunity of delegates and publicize cases where diplomatic immunity was invoked by foreign dignitaries.

The minister promised to post quarterly reports of crimes by diplomats on the DFAIT website but that has not been done. The Liberals voted against an amendment that would have entrenched the minister's promise into law.

The Liberals also ignored the recommendation of the Hughes report after the APEC inquiry that the independence of the RCMP and its role in providing security at international conferences be clarified in law. The government majority on the committee voted down those amendments.

The amendments would clearly have improved the legislation and could have helped smooth the passage of Bill C-35 through the House. Instead of fixing the hole in the fence or at least closing the gap the government seems determined to make it even bigger.

Bill C-35 would hide and neglect important and significant measures. I therefore register my vote to oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the name of my colleagues of the NDP to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier to delete clause 5 from Bill C-35.

I am very happy that the hon. member for Mercier has moved this amendment, in the name of the Bloc Quebecois, because clause 5 of the bill is very dangerous. I remember that during the second reading debate of this bill, I tried to underline the fundamental importance of this clause. I was against the bill. I said it was an attack against the democratic values of Canada, an attack against democracy itself.

My Bloc Quebecois colleagues had indicated that they would support the bill. I hope that now, after hearing the evidence in committee, they realize that the bill is dangerous. If the government refuses to delete clause 5, I hope that all the members will vote against Bill C-35.

I thank the member for Mercier, the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Bloc Quebecois, for bringing forward the motion that is now before the House. When we look at the provisions in the clause which is now before the House, we recognize how profoundly dangerous it is.

We heard compelling evidence in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in particular from two independent witnesses. We heard from William Sloan, the president of the American Association of Jurists from Quebec, and from Wesley Pue, a respected professor from the University of British Columbia. Both of them highlighted the dangers of clause 5.

Other provisions of the legislation also raised grave questions, one being the sweeping extension of diplomatic immunity to a whole range of people who are in Canada only for a very limited period of time. They come in for a conference, perhaps only involving two or three governments, and they are given the full range of diplomatic immunity. We certainly heard strong evidence against that in the committee.

When we look at the tragic impact of that sweeping diplomatic immunity and the failure to enforce criminal law in the area of drunk driving that led to the death of an Ottawa woman who was out walking her dog one morning, we recognize surely that we do not want to be expanding in any way those kinds of immunities. If anything, we want to make sure we tighten considerably the opportunity to avail one's self of those immunities.

My colleague from Joliette has read the provisions of clause 5 of the bill. We were assured by the officials that we did not have to worry about this clause because all it would do is codify the existing provisions governing police powers.

However, during the course of the committee hearings, it very quickly became clear that was not the case at all; it was a sweeping and dangerous extension of police powers. Why on earth would we want to extend those powers when we look at the serious abuses that have already taken place because of the existing powers of the police?

My colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona raised this issue yesterday in the context of the so-called anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36, which is seeking sweeping new powers for the police. He asked a question and he asked it eloquently. He wanted to know why we should be accepting the demands of the Minister of Justice for these sweeping new powers when we have seen such abuses of the existing powers.

We do not have to look back very far for evidence of those abuses. We saw it at APEC, in Windsor and in Quebec City: over 900 rubber bullets and over 5,000 tear gas canisters, many of them used against peaceful, non-violent protestors who were simply exercising their rights as Canadians under the charter of rights to speak out against the impact of corporate globalization.

Just this past weekend we saw it here in Ottawa. I was appalled at the scenes I witnessed on television of police officers, not all police officers but of a number of police officers who waded into a crowd of some 2,000 peaceful, non-violent protestors who were peacefully marching on Saturday morning from LeBreton Flats up to the Supreme Court of Canada. A number of police officers waded into the crowd, arrested people with some sort of preventive arrest based on what they looked like and, in some cases, sicced German Shepherd dogs on those people.

This abuse of police power was shameful and undemocratic. Why on earth would we want to codify in the sweeping form of clause 5 those kinds of powers in the context of international conferences?

Having heard the evidence, I was very pleased that at least two members of the Liberal Party who sit on the foreign affairs committee had the courage not to vote for the bill.

When it came time to vote on clause 5 and on the bill, those Liberal members were not prepared to support their own government's legislation. I certainly hope the government will accept the amendment to clause 5 and delete this very dangerous provision in the bill.

I mentioned Professor Wesley Pue. In Professor Pue's evidence before the committee he said that this was not only dangerous for Canadians who peacefully protest but that it was also dangerous for the RCMP. He said that under clause 5 the RCMP at all levels would understand this statute in its most natural meaning: that they could do anything they consider reasonable and appropriate but that what is reasonable and appropriate lies in the eyes of the beholder and that the touchstone there to be guided by is security alone.

He also pointed out that the legislation fails to provide guidance to the RCMP and that it leaves RCMP officers at all levels in a very vulnerable position, for example, if they get improper demands from foreign governments on security concerns.

He went on to point out that it was dangerously vague with respect to the issue of security perimeters. Just how far can the RCMP move in establishing those perimeters? Whose property rights can be derogated from in this way? What kind of compensation will be made available to those who are affected by these security perimeters? What about the fundamental rights of free movement within Canada, the right of assembly, the right of free expression and the right to enjoyment of property? The bill, and in particular clause 5, just tramples on all of them.

In closing, once again, I wish to thank the hon. member for Mercier for having moved this amendment. In the name of my colleagues of the NDP, I say that we will support this amendment. If the amendment is rejected by the House, we will vote against the bill, which is dangerous for democracy and the right of free speech in Canada.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Mercier for her amendment. This provides us with the opportunity not only for an important debate on Bill C-35, but also for one on the situation in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11.

It is my impression that Bill C-35, and Bill C-36 likely as well, are part of the tendency of a number of governments, including those of Canada and the U.S., to make use of the legitimate fears triggered by the events of September 11 among the population of many western countries, Canada and the U.S. among them, to concentrate more power on the executive, in order to ensure that they will have a whole series of means at their disposal to maintain what they consider to be the established order of things.

This bill, its clause 5 in particular, is imprecise, incomplete, dangerous and inappropriate. I must therefore thank the hon. member for Mercier for giving us the opportunity, those of us in the Bloc Quebecois, and members of all parties, the government in particular, to reflect a little on its scope before reaching a decision. Given the concerns voiced by certain Liberal MPs during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, there is some hope that the government will backtrack on its desire to get this bill, with clause 5, passed, and will remedy the situation.

I will quote clause 5 if I may, which amends a section of the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act as follows:

The first paragraph stipulates that:

10.1 (1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

This first clause goes way beyond current practice, as the RCMP has the responsibility to protect individuals and not events. This initial slip is of some concern, especially since a number of duties are shared among various police forces—the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec in Quebec and municipal police forces.

In the case of court action, and I use the example of the Quebec City summit—and this is public knowledge—the RCMP shot a lot more rubber bullets than all the other police forces. Had the Sûreté expressed its concerns over the excessive use of rubber bullets to the RCMP, could it have continued shooting rubber bullets at peaceful demonstrators citing this clause, which sets out its primary responsibility?

It seems to me this clause represents an exceedingly dangerous shift compared to practices set out in current legislation.

Subclause 10.1(2) provides that:

(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.

The government is now institutionalizing a practice that was to be exceptional, that is, the setting up of security perimeters, not to protect individuals or dignitaries anymore, but to ensure the proper functioning of events. This is obviously something that represents a very significant threat to individual rights, especially in connection with sections 2 and 3 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Is this in fact nothing more than the codification of existing practice as members of the government including the minister have said on a number of occasions? Is this the status quo or does this clause not in fact increase the powers of the RCMP? We think it increases them. It increases powers that are not limited and this is lamentable. What the government calls reasonable measures and terms in such circumstances can be interpreted in any number of ways.

During the summit in Quebec City, a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Tremblay, contested the security perimeter in Quebec City set up around the congress centre on the grounds that it infringed his rights.

The judge ruled that his fundamental rights had indeed been violated, but that the installation of this perimeter had been necessary to protect the dignitaries taking part in the event, the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. So, existing legislation permitted the installation of perimeters when justified.

Now, this bill is institutionalizing the RCMP's right to install perimeters not to ensure the safety of dignitaries and visitors to these important events, but to ensure that the events themselves can be held. This is a violation of individual freedom of expression because—and the RCMP commissioner pointed this out—these perimeters must allow demonstrators and protestors to be heard by dignitaries and those holding these intergovernmental meetings.

Given the current tendency for these perimeters to grow ever wider, this fundamental right to be heard would be violated by this second paragraph. Paragraph 3 of clause 10 says:

10.1 (3) The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

The question still remains: if existing legislation allows the RCMP to exercise its responsibilities, why include a clause such as clause 5 in Bill C-35? If it maintains the status quo, it is not necessary. If it does not, it must be clarified and further codified, which is what governments in other countries which have used similar legislation have done.

During the debate on this bill in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Australia and New Zealand were often held up as examples. A closer examination reveals that the legislation adopted by the province of Queensland in Australia was of temporary application and provided for the creation of a security perimeter for a specific event only, the APEC summit in 1999. This is a far cry from clause 5 of Bill C-35, which institutionalizes for all time the creation of such perimeters for whatever reason.

In the case of the New Zealand legislation, limits are set on the duration and size of the perimeter. There is also a requirement to show need.

Clause 5 of Bill C-35 contains no such provisions. The RCMP would be able to decide on the extent and duration of such perimeters with no legal obligation to show need of any sort.

As the member for Mercier said, this bill is being considered at the same time as debate on Bill C-36, in which the definitions of terrorist act and terrorism are extremely broad. The Bloc Quebecois will also be proposing a number of amendments to that bill. We would hope that the governing party will open its eyes and see fit to restrict the scope of the legislation.

However, as I mentioned at the outset, what we are dealing with here is an offensive by the Canadian executive, the cabinet, in an attempt to arm themselves with tools that have the potential to be extremely repressive and that could very well violate fundamental rights. This situation—which, as I mentioned, has also caused concern among some of the Liberal members—must be reversed. Some statements were made outside the House, but also among committee members. A certain number of members spoke of their concern about the scope of clause 5.

Incidentally, until quite recently, there had been a resolution, submitted by the parliamentary secretary. This resolution warned the government against using clause 5, and asked that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further study. If this recommendation had been adopted by the committee as proposed, we might have believed that the government was shifting its position. However, this morning, something quite different was proposed.

So what we are witnessing, is a form of sectarianism, that is the word for it, of dogmatism, practiced by the Liberal government. Many of them know it, clause 5 is extremely dangerous. It is a very dangerous shift in the balance between fundamental rights and security.

I hope that there will be enough members of the House, as a group, who are reasonable enough to vote for the amendment moved by the member for Mercier, an amendment that will ensure that Canada remains a land of rights and freedoms. If not, all I can say is that we are shifting towards an unexplainable form of totalitarianism.