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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to the bill today. Like so many bills, they sneak up on us and catch us by surprise. I thought this was fairly innocuous when I first heard about it. However, the more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is not innocuous. It is quite profound and should be reconsidered totally.

I moved amendments in committee and I tried to move amendments in the House, but even those amendments are short of what they should have been.

A paragraph from a precis on Bill C-35 states:

The current Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act fails to recognize those organizations which are not created out of an international treaty, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (AEPC), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), or the G-8. As such, these organizations are not entitled to the benefits given to organizations established by treaty.

In other words, they are not subject to immunity. Why would they be? Why do people who come to Canada for these meetings have to be subject to immunity? Why are we granting people immunity from our laws?

The amazing thing is that while we are considering Bill C-35, we are also considering Bill C-36, which restricts the rights of Canadians. We are restricting the rights of Canadians, reducing their civil liberties and increasing the policing powers on Canadians. At the very same time, we are granting immunity to a whole new group of people from foreign lands. It seems to be totally ironic, inconsistent and contradictory that we would nail Canadians but release foreigners from any obligations to obey Canadian laws.

The more I read this, the more I realize the impact of the bill. I have come to conclusion that we had better put the brakes on this and stop and think about this some more.

There are so many issues in the bill that go against Canadians and restrict them, yet at the same time free up people who come to Canada for meetings. While here, they are not required obey our laws. It makes no sense. Why are we holding Canadians responsible but saying people can come to Canada and there is no obligation for them to respect our laws?

It is disrespectful to Canadians, especially since we are considering at the same time Bill C-35 and Bill C-36; one that restricts Canadians and the other that allows more freedoms for foreigners.

I proposed a simple amendment in committee and in here. It was turned down in committee and for some reason it was turned down in the House as being an allowable amendment. The amendment would have required the minister to report to parliament once or twice a year on those foreigners who had claimed immunity from civil or criminal actions in Canada.

What a simple and sensible request. If people claim immunity to get out of obeying our laws, all we ask is that this be reported every year. I do not understand why it has been turned down. The minister effectively acknowledged that it was necessary when he said that he would personally commit to report regularly on his website.

The report would include who used immunity or the number of immunity claims made in a period of time. The minister acknowledged the need was there, but he did not allow it into the legislation. Why? The only thing I can think of is he and his department want the flexibility to back out of this commitment. Probably when we will really want it, the commitment will be taken away because it is not in legislation. It is a commitment by the minister, not by the government. It is not a commitment to parliament, it is just an agreement.

If he agrees that it is necessary enough for him to say that he will produce this report, why is it not necessary enough to put the amendment in the bill that would require the government to report every year, or twice a year, listing those who claimed immunity under these laws? It makes no sense that the minister would say on one hand that it was necessary but on the other hand not allow it to be put into legislation.

This minister will not be the minister forever. He will probably be in another position in two or three years' time. He may not be in government; he may be in the opposition. There will be another party over there with another foreign affairs minister who has no obligation to produce this list. This is an obligation by this minister and it ends when the minister ends his term as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is wrong.

It is disrespectful to say to Canadians that we will restrict their rights but we will give an unnamed, unidentified wide group of foreign visitors to Canada total immunity from our civil and criminal laws. If this amendment had been in place and there had been a report on diplomats who had claimed immunity, the Russian diplomat who was involved in the terrible crash that killed Catherine MacLean would have been in the public record for repeat offences. Chances are that Catherine MacLean would be alive today had this diplomat been publicly named as a repeat offender, which I understand he is.

That is why I am saying the amendment is so important. Although I respect the wisdom of the Chair, I am disappointed that the amendment was not allowed in the House. It was allowed in committee but it was defeated by the Liberals even though many of them supported the amendment in principle.

The amendment I proposed is only asking for transparency. It is asking for common sense. We must know the people who are claiming immunity from both our civil and criminal laws. That is not a lot to ask. The amendment should be considered. Even at this late date the government should reconsider it and put the restriction or the condition back in the bill.

It says that the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs would report to parliament once a year and list the people, not the diplomats, who are claiming diplomatic immunity from our civil and criminal laws. If some individuals came to Canada for one of these meetings, not some officials but some assistants, and they did damage to property, there would be no action or ability to take action against them for compensation or restitution or anything else. There would be no restitution or justice if they harmed a family because they could claim diplomatic immunity.

The bill has been expanded dramatically to cover people and organizations that are not even named. We do not know who they are or who they will be. That would be decided upon application and we would never know in the House who those people are.

Currently they are people and organizations under the Vienna convention but we even go beyond the Vienna convention. The bill goes into unchartered waters and we do not even know what organizations they will be. This is a very serious subject because it deals with potential criminals that now do not have to obey our laws. It is amazing that we are passing a law which says the laws do not have to be honoured. It does not make sense and it has expanded dramatically now to cover people we do not even know.

I do not know where we can go with this. We are opposition members that know it is wrong. The Liberals know a lot of this is wrong and they have even turned down simple amendments. However we will continue to speak against it. We will continue to try to get the government to make changes that are appropriate. Even at this late date we will continue to press the government and do everything we can to demand that it respect the rights of Canadians.

It is amazing that people in Canada say we are prepared to give up some of our civil liberties in the interest of the anti-terrorism effort. We are prepared to make allowances we have never had to make before. Canadians are prepared to do that. We are demanding a lot of Canadians and we are not asking anything of these foreign visitors. Do we not at least owe Canadians the right to know the names of other people who come to Canada who are allowed to circumvent and not obey our laws?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-35 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, clause 5 of Bill C-35 before us is inappropriate.

Let us talk so that people can understand us. Bill C-35 is aimed at modernizing the legislation on foreign missions in Canada and the organization of international meetings. The Bloc Quebecois voted for it at second reading.

In this bill that amends an act that is already substantial, the government is introducing three sub-clauses that, totally out of the blue, will give the RCMP with no constraint, specifics or other directions whatsoever, powers that have all been opposed by all the witnesses. In fact, witnesses all said this was not a simple matter of codifying the common law, as the department and the minister claimed, but of increasing the powers given to the RCMP.

We are convinced these sub-clauses have no place in the bill. It is not that we are against the establishment of safety perimeters, but to say, as the bill does, that the RCMP may establish them as it sees fit makes no sense.

What we see here is that the rights and freedoms of citizens are affected and there are no controls such as those that were set in other countries. Either this clause on perimeters should, for example, be a temporary provision, or else the government should include very strict controls regarding how these perimeters should be defined.

What about the rights of citizens? The situation was so uncomfortable in committee that even government members proposed a resolution, and it was adopted with an amendment with which we did not agree. But it is a resolution that says in a different manner—it is not yet before us, but it will be—what witnesses said and what we are saying.

I feel all the more comfortable defending our amendment to delete clause 5 of the bill since many, if not all government members on the committee would have agreed to have these provisions go elsewhere, for example in the RCMP act or, after a review, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where some limits could have been established.

Clause 5 of Bill C-35 must absolutely be deleted, because it institutionalizes security perimeters in the legislation, without setting any controls for the RCMP in that regard. It is so imprecise that it could lead to abuse and go against fundamental liberties.

What about the rights of people whose homes are located inside the perimeter? The bill is silent on this issue. What about the obligation to identify oneself when a perimeter is established? The bill is also silent on this. These are just two examples, but there are many other situations.

Such provisions generate concerns. These concerns are magnified by the existence of Bill C-36, since we do not know what it will look like in the end, but we do know that it gives increased powers to police forces, for a time which, even though limited, is still significant. In other countries where the establishment of perimeters is provided in the legislation, controls or restrictions have been included, but there are no such controls in Bill C-35.

None of the witnesses who appeared before the committee supported this clause. It seems obvious to us that it should be deleted from Bill C-35. This does not mean that the RCMP will not be able to secure a perimeter, but it will have to do so using the powers it already has. It will have to take into consideration the fact that the Hughes Report into the APEC notes, for example, that protesters have the right to be heard by the people who are inside the perimeter and to whom they have come to deliver a message.

For all these reasons, we consider it fundamental and essential that these provisions be removed, particularly so because we do not feel that this reassures the international community at all; it only increases the concern for security matters during international meetings.

I should point out that the Bloc Quebecois supported this bill at second reading because we felt that the Foreign Missions Act should be modernized. However, clause 5 has nothing at all to do with the modernization process. Quite the opposite, it adds a certain inaccuracy to the bill and modifies an act that is essential to reassure Canadians and to make sure that Canada and Montreal play the role they should be playing on the international scene.

We agree that the existing legislation should be modernized, because it is outdated, but it is imperative that clause 5 be deleted. At one time, we thought it would be, because it is useless.

I asked the foreign affairs minister whether this clause was needed for public order and security purposes when we host the next G-8 meeting, and he answered no. So why the rush? Why are we amending three subsections that will become four, and why do we have four subsections on the RCMP in a 120 page legislation? It is absurd.

The upcoming resolution will confirm that members of the committee are uneasy about this, and I appreciate it, because they have been more or less coerced into passing this bill. I hope it will never be voted into law; although we had indications otherwise I hope the bill will be passed without clause 5.

Witnesses who appeared before us have emphasized not only the human rights issue, but also enforcement problems for the police.

In Quebec, we have the French civil law, but the common law prevailing in the rest of Canada is special in that it is defined by all the judicial precedents.

Witnesses have told us repeatedly that, to carry out their functions, police officers do not have the opportunity to know exactly the rights they have or do not have. Therefore, the bill makes their task more difficult instead of clarifying for them the way they should provide security.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is probably a hard concept for a minister of the government to understand but perhaps someday the Liberals will not be over there. Perhaps another party will be over there and it will have no obligation to follow this rule.

It is ironic that at a time when Canadians are being asked to surrender certain rights under Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-35 is expanding immunity to foreigners.

Will the minister put into legislation a requirement to report to the House on who claims civil immunity and criminal immunity under this new legislation?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that most reasonable people would say that the police appointed themselves and conducted themselves admirably on the weekend.

The hon. member and I have engaged in this discussion before. I believe the definition of terrorist activity in Bill C-36 is clear. However I have also indicated that I am open to considering further clarifications to the definition that will deal with the concerns of the hon. member and others.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who has argued in recent weeks, in defence of Bill C-36, that September 11 changed the world.

Unfortunately for Canadians, who are worried about Bill C-36, they might be less worried if they felt that the government's attitude toward peaceful protesters had changed. Yet that does not seem to have been the case this weekend in Ottawa.

Is the minister not concerned about the treatment of some peaceful protesters on the weekend? Will she be asking for a report from those in charge and making a statement in the House as to how this supports her position on Bill C-36?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can reassure the hon. member that I will consider suggestions for amendments from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Let me also indicate that the Prime Minister, last evening in Vancouver in his speech to a sold-out fundraiser for our party, did indicate that there will be amendments to Bill C-36.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the rush to draft anti-terrorism legislation, the government is terrorizing some Canadians.

The majority of witnesses before the justice committee, particularly those of Islamic faith, have stated that they fear repressive and legitimate loss of rights. The privacy and information commissioners have stated the same thing. The justice minister has stated that she is open to advice yet the Prime Minister has continually and arrogantly dismissed these concerns.

I want to give the justice minister the opportunity to provide her assurances that she will be open to honestly consider amendments from the opposition to improve Bill C-36.

Anti-terrorism Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it plain since we introduced Bill C-36. This is important legislation and that is why we want to hear what the Senate committee, which has reported, and the House committee, which continues its work, have to say.

However, on the specific point in relation to the privacy commissioner's concerns, we understand those concerns and my officials and his officials will continue to work to clarify the matter and hopefully reach a successful resolution.

National Defence

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Prime Minister has established a committee of the cabinet that looks at security issues.

In the post-September 11 world we know the security environment has changed fundamentally and we have set about making changes. We have put $280 million into upgrades of many our systems. We brought in Bill C-36. There is more work that is still being done to ensure that we are responding to the needs of Canadians to ensure their safety and security and to ensure that we contribute to the anti-terrorism campaign internationally.

Anti-Terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Honourable Prime Minister and concerns Bill C-36.

The Prime Minister is recorded in the press today as being flexible when it comes to Bill C-36. We were worried last week that the government might be changing its mind with respect to openness, with respect to sunset clauses.

I wonder, in light of the report from the Senate and the flexibility reported on the part of the Prime Minister, can the Prime Minister say today that he is open to the committee coming up with some kind of sunset clause for Bill C-36?

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, 10 months ago an Ottawa woman, Catherine McLean, was killed by a Russian diplomat who was driving drunk. At that time the Minister of Foreign Affairs deplored the fact that the drunken diplomat was able to claim immunity from Canadian law.

Now under Bill C-35 the same minister proposes to expand the number of foreign representatives who are above Canadian law. This contrasts to Bill C-36 which asks Canadians to surrender their civil liberties in the name of security.

It is not true that expanding diplomatic immunity is necessary to catch up to the international community. Most countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom are very careful about not extending diplomatic immunity too far, no further than is required under international law.

There is no excuse for putting anyone above the law while asking Canadians to surrender their civil liberties. Bill C-35 should be withdrawn.

Yukon Act

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give qualified support to the government on this bill. We have questions that will come forth in committee but we look forward to getting the bill into committee so we can have those discussions.

As the minister knows, it has been a long time coming. It has gone on for a few generations. Certainly since the gold rush in 1898 there have been updates and changes made to it but this particular form of the bill seems to have taken a while to work its way through the labyrinth of parliament. I certainly look forward to the discussion. It is probably a really happy day for people in Yukon.

We have heard various members of all parties here say that the Yukon government and aboriginal groups are in favour of the bill. I am sure a lot of third party private exploration concerns are also in favour of it. It makes me nervous to think that things are going so well here that maybe this will get through and everyone is in favour of it. That is probably a testament to the fact that the minister realizes how important consultation is, not just a kind of phony, trite consultation but to really get in there and talk about it because we need to get the thing right in the first place.

It is good that we can look at some of the specifics of the bill but also see that there is a good spirit and a good intent for whatever groups to work together and say let us get this thing right and make sure it stays that way.

This will take effect at the beginning of April 2003. Going back 10 years we thought that the year 2000 would never arrive. All of a sudden here we are ready to go into 2002. Even for people who think this is still a long time coming, that is just a year this coming spring and many things have to be put in place before then. It is probably wise to have the time limit on it and the starting date.

On the Yukon northern affairs program devolution transfer agreement, it is a smart thing to start devolving powers. Yukon certainly is not just some young kid looking forward to adulthood. It has gone on its own for many years in terms of functioning as a territory. That is one thing in particular that makes the amendment in Bill C-39: that the words “the Yukon territory” will be replaced with “Yukon”. Some people may think that is a very small thing but it is important to notice that now it will simply be called “Yukon” and we will be able to celebrate that.

The legislation gives Yukon the power to make laws regarding exploration, development, conservation and management of its own non-renewable natural resources. Although in theory I am sure there has been a great deal of that going on over the last few years, this transfers that power and says “Yes, you really are you and yes, you really will have the power and the authority to make your dealings and look after your own land management, et cetera”.

It also allows the Yukon legislature to make laws regarding oil and gas pipelines located entirely within Yukon and the export of the primary production of non-renewable natural resources and forestry to other parts of Canada. In other words it is assuming and finally legislating on those things that have been going on in theory and perhaps some practice over the years but on which it always had to go to Ottawa for permission, to see if it was okay with big brother. It is certainly wise that Yukon be given the authority to sign these deals and have its own self-sufficiency. Of course we have been dealing with that lately in the Alberta and Saskatchewan land claims agreements to make sure that third party interests are protected, and in the Manitoba Act as well. This is one more in the chain.

The Auditor General of Canada will conduct yearly audits of the Yukon government and will report his or her findings to the legislative assembly. It is good for all of us to be held accountable financially. We think this is very wise.

The federal government will retain some administration and control of property in Yukon if it is deemed necessary for defence and security, creating a national park, settlement of an aboriginal land claim, et cetera. The federal government should continue to maintain those responsibilities.

What happened on September 11 seems to work its way into almost every piece of legislation, or everything that happens in the House.

When we talk about defence and security it certainly has a more poignant meaning to it now. When we look at the enormous borders in northern Canada we can see that it is something we need to be very concerned about in terms of defence and security.

Those are some positive things we see in the bill. I will talk now about some concerns, not just pros and cons but things that we in the coalition want to ask questions about. We want to make sure that everything is right on before the legislation goes through.

We have concerns regarding the federal authority that could perhaps be seen as maintaining a heavy hand in the legislation. The commissioner of the Yukon would be appointed by order of the governor in council. That makes it political in its own right without a free and fair election. We always need to be careful that it is not just the loudest person who says “I am the best. Vote for me”. In fact politically over the years when our party was the Reform Party, we said that the first five people who came running to us saying “Pick me, pick me” probably should get eliminated from the list automatically.

We need to make sure that we find a lot of really qualified people, not just those who have lined pockets or who have been appointed because it has been a good election year. It must be based on merit and merit alone to make sure that the commissioner is the very best person we possibly can find, because of course that commissioner would be doing an incredible amount of work and I suspect would be seen as a puppet of the federal government if the appointment was nothing more than a political one.

Under the legislation the commissioner of Yukon must follow any written instructions given to the commissioner by the governor in council or the minister. Again we need to be careful about sending out missives, memos and dear knows what all to say “Thou shalt do this”. The commissioner, if chosen by merit and if from the Yukon, would probably know at the ground level what is more practical, reasonable and workable for them rather than a missive in a memo from the governor in council or the minister.

However I do notice in the legislation that 10 years hence this clause will be repealed. That sort of sounds like a sunset clause. I find it strange that there would be a sunset clause in this legislation but not in another piece of legislation that is working its way through here, so it is not necessarily a sunset but a sunset if necessary. We need to be really careful, because if it is good enough in this bill to phase out something 10 years later we need to hold every piece of legislation up to that bar and say that there must be a mechanism for review, whatever we want to call it, that sooner or later down the road in every piece of legislation there will be a sunset clause, that federal powers would phase out somewhat, to be able to re-examine the legislation, whether it is in this bill, Bill C-39, or in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation.

Another concern we have is that the governor in council could direct the commissioner to withhold his or her assent to any bill that has been introduced in the legislative assembly. The governor in council could disallow any bill from the legislative assembly within a year after it is passed. That is a bit of a hefty veto, for sure. If a law is legitimately passed in the Yukon legislature, an entire year later the minister would be able to slap a veto on it. That piece of legislation would have worked its way right down to the streets in the Yukon. To give the governor in council the power to disallow any bill from the legislative assembly within a year after it is passed would, I sense, cause some nervousness at the ground level. We would encourage the minister to make sure that would not happen for some political reason which may not have any practicality at all.

Bill C-39 would give the commissioner and the executive council the power to appoint an auditor general. It could be the Auditor General of Canada but does not necessarily have to be. We believe the entire legislative assembly should have the right to review qualified candidates for the position rather than the appointment being left to the commissioner and the executive council. Again the point is to get it right. If he or she is the best auditor general we can find then surely the ratification and the strength that would come from it, from the entire legislative assembly, would be nothing but healthy. Therefore it is a great idea to make sure that everyone ratifies this position. It is not that huge a task to make sure that someone is the best person for the job and that the appointment is based on merit and merit alone. Surely it should go past the legislative assembly, not just the executive council. It opens it up and frees it up. It makes the process more transparent and therefore more saleable down the road.

There are a number of questions regarding certain clauses in the bill. I look forward to having a chance to discuss those in committee. Bill C-39 in clause 18 gives Yukon the power to define what constitutes an intoxicant for the purposes of making laws on importation of those intoxicants into Yukon. I think we should define what they are ahead of time. Under the Northwest Territories Act and the current Yukon Act intoxicants are defined, but in Bill C-39 they are not. I would like to know, the coalition would like to know and I am sure the whole committee would like to know, including the Liberal members, why this definition has changed or why it has been omitted in Bill C-39. Intoxicants used to be defined. Now they are not. For people who will be using those intoxicants or for some who may try to traffic in those intoxicants, I think it is only fair and might be a really good idea to have that definition right up front so people would know the penalty involved.

Clause 190 amends the Judges Act to double the cost of living compensation for supreme court judges in the north from $6,000 to $12,000, maximum representational allowances for senior judges from $5,000 to $10,000 and for chief justices as well from $5,000 to $10,000. I will not necessarily squawk about the numbers or amending the Judges Act, however it would seem to me to be a really smart thing to amend the Judges Act and not necessarily the Yukon Act. We will be asking those questions in committee to make sure that everything lines up, that it is parallel and that it fits together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

Subclause 48(1) gives the commissioner of the Yukon “the administration and control of all rights in respect of waters in Yukon” and then of course with the consent of executive council the power to exercise those rights “or sell and...dispose of them” while retaining the proceeds of the disposition. Starting to talk about water immediately sends out an emotional signal, so I think we need to be really careful in the bill in terms of what we mean by “the administration and control of all rights in respect of waters”. We have just been through something like that with the provincial government in Newfoundland talking about provincial rights to export water.

We want to be very careful here. I know of the environmental concerns of Yukon people. I know how important water is to them. We had better spell it out very clearly ahead of time rather than having some commissioner down the road who realizes he has absolute control of all rights in respect of waters. We do not want to get a bad egg in that position. We do not want someone who thinks he may be able to make a quick buck by transferring water and selling it. It seems to me we would be very wise to define exactly those “rights in respect of waters in Yukon”, because down the road somewhere in a financial crunch that renewable resource might look pretty profitable. I think we need to be very careful to have that spelled out ahead of time because, as we know, it is a lot more difficult to try to spell it out after the horse is out of the barn. We need to make those definitions, laws, legislation and regulations very clear up front.

There is a wonderful leader in Yukon now, Pat Duncan, and there may be an excellent commissioner coming after this one, but who knows what will happen and who will be there several years down the road? We would be a lot smarter to cut that off at the pass ahead of time.

Of course there are questions. Would this include the right to export Yukon's water? How does this affect the rights of aboriginals under the Yukon Indian land claims agreement? All those things need to be spelled out ahead of time so they are clear. Then we would not get into an emotional fracas down the road with people saying we did not tell them, that they did not know, and that they thought they had the exclusive right. Again, it is just human nature to try to push the parameters. We need to be very particular and put those safeguards in place ahead of time.

I look forward to dealing with this in committee. I thank the minister for bringing this forward and for the debate we have had on Bill C-39 today.

Independence of the RCMP

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the Bloc member for the motion. As the previous speaker indicated the motion is very timely in light of the fact that we are presently considering Bill C-36. Bill C-36 gives tremendous power, power that in a free and democratic society under normal circumstances we would never, ever consider. It is a bill that is draconian in nature and one that is of deep concern, I am sure, to every member of the House. Therefore this motion is singularly timely.

Let us go back to the events of APEC in 1997. Flowing from those events, the activities of the police and the apparent interference of the Prime Minister and his office, there were two questions. The first question was about the actual conduct of the RCMP. As has been mentioned by the former ombudsman for the province of British Columbia, the member for Vancouver--Quadra, the point is that the public complaints commission established in 1986 indeed was the correct venue to be able to determine what happened, what the activities of the police were and indeed if they were appropriate, but there was an equally pressing second question that the government to this day has never answered. The question is, did the Prime Minister and his office interfere with the RCMP enforcement activities at APEC 1997?

I spent a fair amount of time at the hearings. In listening to the testimony of the people who came before the commission and in seeing the way in which the commission was actually started up, I saw that it was clear that there was the hand of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office, even through the public complaints commission, even through commissioner Heafy at the beginning of the public complaints commission process, to ensure that the people of Canada would never, ever receive an adequate or a true answer to the question, did the Prime Minister and his office interfere with the RCMP and its enforcement activities at APEC 1997?

We recall that at the beginning of the public complaints commission process there were three commissioners appointed, a chair and two commissioners, for a total of three people who were involved in that process at the beginning. What was very clear was that there had been interference. There was interference with the original chair of the public complaints commission. He said so himself. There is evidence that there was interference by the head of the public complaints commission, Shirley Heafy, into the process at that time. The question about that has never been answered: Why did she interfere with that process?

Let us fast forward to the end of this process, where commissioner Hughes has come forward with some innuendo, and that is all he can do, about the involvement of the Prime Minister in interfering with the RCMP. Why can he only do it by innuendo? Because that is the way the Liberal government set this up. It was to protect the Prime Minister. It was set up so that the public complaints commissioner himself, Hon. Justice Hughes, was incapable of getting to the bottom of the question of whether the Prime Minister and his office interfered with RCMP enforcement activities at APEC 1997.

Justice Hughes came forward with the portion of his report which has been noted by my Bloc colleague. Now the government says we must make sure that the commissioner and her reporting is unfettered by government interference. It is a little bit thick because in spite of the fact that she uses the words fair, impartial and independent, the fact of the matter is we know that at the beginning of the public complaints commission process she was not fair, impartial or independent because of the way in which the first three commissioners of this ended up crashing and burning.

We can fast forward to section 33.3.1 of Justice Hughes' report. Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP was not standing up for the RCMP. He was being an apologist for the government. He was ignoring the involvement of the Prime Minister and the political aspect of the decisions that were made at APEC.

Colleagues before me gave a very good explanation of why he was doing this and I agree with them. He has to recognize as a top government official, the equivalent to a deputy minister, which side his bread is buttered on.

That is a very harsh thing to say and I am well aware of that. However it is my judgment that the Prime Minister of Canada got away with the fact that he interfered with the RCMP and its enforcement activities at APEC in 1997.

As a matter of principle there must be an absolute barrier between politicians and police in a free democracy. I say that as a politician, but as I take a look at other politicians, particularly people like the Prime Minister and other ministers of the crown in positions of authority who can directly influence the police without a clear line of delineation between politicians and police, they can continue to do that.

It is scary that Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, gives so many powers to the police. It tips the balance away from our free and democratic society, the very freedoms we are trying to protect. We are having to set some of those freedoms aside so that we can protect the freedoms we must keep. It is a terrible situation for us as politicians to be in.

I commend the Bloc Quebecois member for her motion. I consider it a crying shame that it has not been permitted to come to a vote. This is an action that the Prime Minister and the government should be bringing to the House, if only for good faith reasons, as part of Bill C-36 so that we would understand that there could never be a breakdown of the barrier between politicians and police.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like it is for my colleagues on both sides of the House, it is a pleasure for me this morning to address Motion No. 391 put forward by my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert. As was noted the motion would set out in writing the independence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regarding its relationship to the government.

It has been four years since the riotous Asia-Pacific economic conference was held in Vancouver, an event that will forever be a black mark on the way our government interacts with our national police force. Despite the conclusion of a formal inquiry and various legal challenges, little has been done to change the intimate relationship between the RCMP and the government. In fact every effort seems to have been made to maintain the status quo.

It would be reasonable to expect that in a country such as ours there would be a very clear delineation between our politicians and our national police force. Therefore it would be unreasonable, one would assume, for a developed country to have its national police force influenced or controlled by elected politicians.

Likewise one would expect that in a developed country the rules regarding the control, interaction and scope of authority for the national police would be enshrined in legislation strong enough to prevent any future government from an abuse of power. Were this the case in Canada, we would not be having this debate.

The RCMP has earned a reputation as one of the finest policing agencies in the world. The men and women who wear the red serge do so with pride, and their professionalism and integrity serve as an example to all Canadians. This is a national institution that Canada should be striving to protect, not undermine.

As the national police force the RCMP will undertake duties within its scope and mandate. To enable it to do so effectively the mandate must be free from political interference. Regrettably the present accountability structure does not allow for this. The inherent difficulty in the accountability structure of the RCMP is that the commissioner reports to a single minister rather than to cabinet or to an oversight committee. It is here that we have a clashing of ideologies.

The commissioner of the RCMP is focused on law enforcement and national security, the core principles of any police agency. The minister, on the other hand, as an elected official is quite naturally concerned with re-election as well as the political impact the actions of agencies within his portfolio may have on the popularity of his party.

The introduction of politics is an intolerable situation. Any time the RCMP has to weigh the political impact of any decision it is called upon to make, its ability to do its job is undermined.

There are also reasonable concerns regarding the misdirection of the RCMP by the minister responsible. At present there are insufficient safeguards against the use of the RCMP for investigations which may find their basis more in political retribution than in fact, a potentially expensive undertaking, as Canadians discovered with the Airbus fiasco.

The RCMP is our single national police agency and as such cannot continue to be run as another branch of the civil service. It must be free from the influences of the government of the day. To be effective it needs to be independent. It is time for the government to examine its relationship with the RCMP and to draft rules regarding the nature of its relationship with the agency.

Previous speakers have talked about Commissioner Zaccardelli appearing before the justice committee. I was present the day he spoke to Bill C-36. He clearly identified one of the conflicts he has. On the one hand he is viewed as the deputy minister and on the other as the head of our national police force. To be quite honest I think it is an intolerable situation to place anyone in.

That is why I think the motion brought forward today is very appropriate, especially at a time when the country is debating Bill C-36 and where, by extension, there will be more powers given not only to the RCMP but to other police forces in the country, such as new powers to detain and to wiretap, and there is certainly at least the potential loss of privacy rights for Canadian citizens. Given all of that, I think it is appropriate that we are debating the motion today.

In conclusion, I am pleased to support the motion before the House as a means of increasing transparency and accountability. Again I congratulate my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this forward. It is extremely unfortunate that members will not have the opportunity to vote on it, which opens up a whole different can of worms in regard to how many times members take on issues and go through all the work of bringing forward motions and bills to the floor of the House of Commons only to see what we are seeing again this morning, a very worthwhile initiative that unfortunately will have one hour of debate and then in all likelihood that will be the end of it as far as the government is concerned. I say that is unfortunate.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's motion. I congratulate the member from the Bloc for her initiative in the matter. I associate myself with the remarks not only of the hon. Bloc member but of the previous speaker in fully supporting the motion.

I will use my few minutes today to focus on three aspects: first, the findings of Commissioner Ted Hughes; second, the response of RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli; and third, what the RCMP has or has not learned as a result of the Hughes inquiry.

I have read the final report of the Hughes inquiry. It is clear that Commissioner Hughes pointed some pretty blunt fingers not only at the RCMP but at government officials. For the record I will go through some of those.

Mr. Hughes acknowledged in his closing observations that many of the examples of substandard performance reflected failures in the planning process. I will not go into detail but he referred to briefings and late buses at the UBC campus on November 25, 1997.

Referring to the open space in front of Green College, Hughes said there was a:

—failure to realize that the grounds of Green College located outside the secure zone were an obvious gathering place for those residents of Green College who had previously indicated a desire to protest, with the result that no contingency plans were in place to address the presence of protesters at that location.

Regarding the march to the fence which we kept seeing over and over on television, Mr. Hughes said there was a:

—failure to have anyone in a command role at the well publicized noon rally who was aware of the protesters' planned civil disobedience and was in a position to realistically evaluate late-breaking information of dubious credibility about the expected actions of the protesters.

I find this particularly significant. Mr. Hughes said:

My inability to determine who made the all important decision to allow protesters to have unobstructed access to the security fence tells a great deal about the state of readiness of the police to meet the challenges of the day. I will always believe that, but for that decision, based on dubious information, the events on campus from noon until 4.30 that afternoon may well have been non-violent throughout, though boisterous, noisy and challenging for the police. It was the violence that broke out at the flagpole at noon that set the stage for many of the subsequent events that unfolded over the remainder of the afternoon.

There are also references to the blockage of exit routes, the involvement of local RCMP detachments and the arrest of Jaggi Singh. Here Mr. Hughes said:

Had the UBC Detachment been properly integrated into the security planning process, I believe that Mr. Singh would not have been arrested on November 24 or at any other time for the November 7 megaphone incident. Had the UBC Detachment been required to consult on its plan to eliminate Mr. Singh from campus on November 25 with wise and seasoned heads with full knowledge of the background of the leaders' meeting, I believe that the plan would never have been implemented.

Similarly regarding the arrest of Mark Brooks, another frontline protester, Commissioner Ted Hughes said:

This was a precipitous arrest made in an atmosphere of crisis, directly attributable to the chaos that resulted from inadequate police planning to ensure the orderly and safe exit of the world leaders.

There were also negative references to the strip searching of all female protesters at the Richmond cells. Mr. Hughes was very condemnatory of the RCMP or police action at that time.

Mr. Hughes identified two areas where he believed the federal government acted improperly. The first was the removal of tenters from the grounds of the Museum of Anthropology that has been alluded to earlier. Mr. Hughes wrote:

I am satisfied that it was because of the government's intervention that the tenters were removed that evening. Were it not for that involvement, the contrary view of Site Commander Thompsett would have prevailed. As it happened, his view did not carry the day because of the acquiescence of other RCMP personnel, principally Supt. May, who had succumbed to government influence and intrusion in an area where such influence and intrusion were inappropriate.

Mr. Hughes was critical of the improper and inappropriate level of federal government involvement in the RCMP's provision of security with respect to the size of the demonstration area adjacent to the law school. He noted that the government's efforts did not prevail due to the intervention of others such as Site Commander Thompsett on behalf of the protesters. Had those intervenors not prevailed Mr. Hughes noted that the security challenges the RCMP faced on November 25 may well have increased.

In his final comments Mr. Hughes said:

It is inescapable that in most instances where I have found police conduct to have been either inappropriate to the circumstances of inconsistent with charter rights, the primary responsibility rests with those who held key offices in security planning for the APEC conference. That may go to the highest level of RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. This seems to have been the source of approval, if not direction, that security services on November 25 would be delivered by officers who were, at best, on the periphery of the two year planning process, while those intimately involved in that process were out of command from the moment the APEC conference opened.

Regarding gate 6, Staff Sergeant Stewart and the incident involving pepper spray, Commissioner Hughes wrote:

I feel very much the same way about the involvement of Staff Sergeant Stewart and those on site with him at Gate 6. He never should have been placed in the position of having four minutes to clear the road. Given the pressure he was put under, he made some unfortunate decisions but far more culpable, in my view, are those in positions of responsibility who allowed the Gate 6 events to develop and unfold as they did.

We need to point that out in the context of the former solicitor general's remarks in an unguarded moment a few years ago. In reference to Staff Sergeant Stewart he said “Hughie may be the guy who takes the fall”. It is pretty clear from the report of the commissioner that this goes right to the top in Ottawa. Staff Sergeant Stewart should never have had to take the fall. Nor has he as a result of the Hughes report.

I think Commissioner Zaccardelli is supportive of the report although, as has been noted earlier, he does not agree with Ted Hughes that there is a need for statutory codification. That is perhaps shortsighted on the part of the commissioner of the RCMP.

Commissioner Zaccardelli said a co-operative relationship between the police and peaceful protestors is essential. I would challenge Commissioner Zaccardelli and the current solicitor general to take that comment in the context of what happened in Quebec City several years after the APEC inquiry. They should tell that to the mostly young people who were detained arbitrarily for several days before either being charged or sent on their way.

Three young people from my riding of Palliser were in Quebec City. They insist they were doing absolutely nothing wrong. They were sitting on the grounds outside the perimeter fence and security area when they were arrested by the police.

Our caucus in its entirety was in Quebec City. We saw tens of thousands of peaceful protestors. Yes, we acknowledge that some were bent on violence and disorder. However the overwhelming percentage of people were there to protest a cause they felt strongly about. I am concerned that the RCMP learned virtually nothing from its APEC actions.

They will not follow through with the security at APEC because of the flaws that have been identified by Hughes and others but they have stepped up security a lot more. We have seen that with whatever WTO protest is involved. This is all even before Bill C-36, the bill on anti-terrorism.