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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my valued friend and colleague. I will refrain from making any reference to this mantra of free speech or any reference at all to the ability to speak our minds because I think my friend, more than anyone in the House perhaps, has come to appreciate this a great deal.

He spoke about the possible interference within government agencies, particularly the RCMP. We see that time and time again, even on a bill as important as the new anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36, where at the outset of the bill going to committee, both here in the House and in that other place, the Prime Minister made comments from outside the country as to the outcome of the deliberations with respect in this instance to the sunset clause.

My friend also alluded to government becoming too large and interfering,particularly in property rights. I am reminded of an expression I heard that any government that is large enough to give us everything we want is certainly large enough to take everything we have. I think that expression ran through his speech as well.

Would the member expand further on this concept of parliamentary ability to do its work? The government and the Prime Minister, in particular, through his office and through his reach, which we have seen at APEC where Jean Carle was doing his bidding and through the Shawinigan affair where the BDC was called upon to make certain interventions, all of that is very indicative of a government that does not respect parliamentary democracy. I would encourage my friend to comment further.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate my friend, the member for Cumberland--Colchester, on his efforts in bringing together the Israelis and the Palestinians. As he probably knows, he has taken on a Herculean task. Nevertheless, every effort helps and at some point will be able to break the camel's back or one more straw will destroy the enmity between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-35. I want to continue down the same path that my friend from Crowfoot started down. Not long ago he gave an excellent speech in this place about some of the concerns that we have about the separation between the people who enforce the law, the RCMP, and the government.

When there is a real embarrassment facing the government, if it had the opportunity, the temptation would be to use the RCMP or any police force to try and cover up that embarrassment. I will not suggest that this government is prepared to do that, but there have been concerns in the past and we all know that. I am speaking of the APEC affair or the airbus affair of which my friend spoke. There was enough evidence in the APEC affair to warrant our concern about that possibility. In the airbus affair, we saw evidence that the government did what it could to pursue a former prime minister to the point where it cost Canadian taxpayers $3.4 million.

In Canada we have taken our freedoms for granted. For a long time we have lived in relative peace. We have never really been in a situation, not since Confederation, where our personal liberties have been seriously threatened. There have been times when there have been bumps along the road and at various points Canada has entered into great conflicts. Canadians have always valued their freedom, but unless they are threatened, after a period of time people tend to take their freedom for granted.

One of the greatest innovations of modern times is the idea of limited government. It is important to remember that for a long time in history the normal course of events was for the monarchy, or the government or the church to have all the power while individuals had none. Over the last 800 or 900 years we have seen that change. We have seen more and more rights accumulate to individuals. We should value those rights.

As somebody once said that government is not reasoned. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. I believe that is right. That is founded on what we know from history. Governments at various times have intervened in the ability of individuals to pursue their lives as they wished.

Any time a piece of legislation comes along that suggests that more power should accumulate to the government, in this case via the RCMP, we should be concerned. We should watch and make sure that we are not giving away freedoms frivolously or without going trough them to ensure that there is not some other way that we can deal with this. I submit that there is a different way that we can deal with this.

One of the things that legislators in general would be happy to see would be a government that recognized there was concern about its connection to the RCMP and security forces and that it would take some steps to ensure that there was, on the one hand, oversight, but on the other hand, eliminate some of the possible ways that, in this case, the Prime Minister's Office could interfere via security forces to try to cover up some kind of an embarrassment. There are ways to do that.

One way would be to involve this place, through our committees, to ensure that there would be some kind of an oversight capacity. Some people have suggested that we could set up our own committee to specifically deal with those types of things.

Perhaps it would be a subcommittee of the justice committee. It is a good idea to have some committee empowered to ensure that our security forces are not politically interfered with in some way. That is a critical point because at this point we almost leave it solely to the discretion of the ministers in charge as to whether or not they can get involved in some way. We really count on their good will.

I am not suggesting that every day it be challenged in some way, but there are times when governments could be tempted to intervene and in so doing start to limit the freedoms of individuals. At a time of crisis we need to be aware particularly of that possibility.

One possible option would be to set up a subcommittee or committee to have oversight to ensure that if some of these issues arise we have a way to look at them and deal with them.

I heard it said in this place by the justice minister today that there were concerns at this time about whether or not the government would interfere in the rights of individuals, or something like that. There have been many times when the government has interfered with the rights of individuals in Canada. I could point to Bill C-68 and suggest that the government absolutely and completely interfered with the rights of individuals when it brought in that legislation. It completely interferes with our right to private property.

Preceding Bill C-68, and I believe as a part of it, the government through order in council confiscated people's legally obtained firearms without compensation. That is completely contrary to the idea of property rights and the basic freedoms we have established over a long period of time.

Many people believe our basic freedoms were only defined in 1981 with the charter of rights. That is completely wrong. We had hundreds of years of common law tradition before then which really laid down the ground rules for our basic freedoms. Mr. Diefenbaker brought in a bill of rights which put those rights down on paper. I argue that the government violated those rights when it brought in Bill C-68 and started to confiscate firearms.

I argue that when it comes to endangered species legislation the government is on the cusp of interfering with our most basic property rights, again because it is not prepared to offer full compensation for land that is taken out of production in the hope it can somehow protect an endangered species. We have no problem with endangered species legislation, but we believe the government should ensure that the basic rights of people are protected.

There is no more fundamental right than property rights. Some people may question that, but I argue that every right is a property right. My friend from Hamilton nods his head, but every right is a property right. In fact there is only one right and it is the property right: the right to the security of ourselves, the right to control our actions, the right to acquire things. There is but one right and that is a property right in oneself.

When abolitionists were trying to get rid of slavery they used to call it man stealing because people were stealing someone else's person. I argue there is but one right and every other right flows from it: the right to property. The first right we have is the security of our own person. The right to freedom of speech flows from that. The right to freedom of association and the right to keep what we have produced with our hands and our minds all flow from the same source: the right to private property in ourselves.

When we set down laws at a time when we are concerned about having security of our person breached by forces outside our borders, we have to be careful that we do not at the same time breach them by empowering our government to do too much. That is my primary concern with Bill C-35 and actually with Bill C-36 as well, while we are talking about bills presently before the government.

There are other examples of how government has breached our rights even since I have been a member of parliament.

One thing that was most frustrating to me as an MP, as someone who comes from the west, was when the government lost a court case over the Canadian Wheat Board and moved very quickly to plug a loophole through order in council which effectively ensured that the government could stop farmers from the great crime of selling the wheat they had produced on their own land, selling it in that case to someone in the United States.

Even in Canada farmers are not allowed to sell their own wheat. It all has to pass through the Canadian Wheat Board, which is completely contrary to the--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. My distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, has covered much of the law enforcement aspects of the bill and the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands has addressed the international trade issues on behalf of the opposition coalition. I will, relatively briefly, bring up a few issues that are of concern to me.

First, some people refer to this as a housekeeping bill. I have a hard time accepting it as a housekeeping bill. This would affect a lot of different aspects of the way we do things, who does what, who is allowed to do what, the actions of the RCMP and so on. Although it would really correct or update our domestic laws to meet our international commitments, it does define a new or a more explicit role for the RCMP and in that way I find that it is a little more than just housekeeping.

Although I understand the philosophy and the purpose of the bill, I think it would create a double standard. It is a slippery slope that the government is getting on, it seems to me, where it would be establishing two sets of rules. It is saying that Canadians would be subject to the law of the land but foreigners often would not. It would expand that level of immunity and quite dramatically extend who would qualify for the immunity.

Under the bill, new organizations and new groups that are not clearly defined would qualify for immunity from certain aspects of our laws. In the other bill we have before us, the terrorism bill, Bill C-36, I notice a line which states that foreigners might not necessarily have to follow the rules of the firearms control act. I find this a little strange because Canadians obviously have to abide by these laws. It seems like the government is going from one bill to another and establishing a dangerous precedent, so we would have one set of rules for Canadians and another set for many foreigners. This would go far beyond what we have done before in allowing different groups and organizations to be recognized for these benefits.

Another concern is that the government had an opportunity here to address the issue of foreign diplomats who commit crimes or offences while under the influence. We are all very much aware of the awful tragedy that happened in Ottawa when a Russian diplomat ran over two pedestrians, killing one and severely injuring the other. Nothing has happened about that. There has been no accountability. This person had a long record of alcohol offences. Nothing was done to prevent the accident and nothing has been done to hold this person accountable. He was whisked away to Russia very quickly. When our government demanded an investigation and accountability, the Russians said if we wanted that we would have to pay them to send their investigators from Russia to Canada to investigate it. I did not see a lot of commitment on behalf of that foreign government to address this concern that outraged many Canadians.

It will be a long time before we have another opportunity to address these issues. The bill could have done that but it definitely does not. It does not address any of those issues that raised a lot of concerns. It just seems so unfair. People were outraged about the accident. Again, the bill, which reorganizes the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, could have dealt with that but did not.

Certainly Canada has to encourage organizations to come to Canada to have their meetings, like the G-8, APEC and so on, and perhaps some of the immunity aspects have to be extended to them. Previously these immunities have been extended only to organizations and nations with which we have treaties, not just organizations that are non-structured or mobile and move around. This makes me wonder what other organizations would qualify for this immunity from taxes and our laws and who could actually commit crimes and not be held accountable. It is just a little scary.

I agree that we have to be in a position to attract these organizations. We are a well respected country and an appealing country for these types of meetings, being relatively safe and secure. We have to be able to provide the amenities and competitive immunities.

However, it seems to me that the bill goes a little too far and is not defined enough on who could qualify for these issues. For instance, it is not clear about interparliamentary meetings and things like that. Under the bill would all these members be immune from criminal prosecution or taxation et cetera?

Another aspect of the bill would change the process for allowing someone with a criminal record to come to Canada. Currently the minister has to provide a minister's permit to allow a person who has a criminal record to come to Canada. The outstanding example of this is Nelson Mandela. Not one of us in the House, I think, would ever question Nelson Mandela's right and privilege to come to Canada, speak with us and meet with us in parliament, but he has a criminal record and he required a minister's permit to allow him to come here. That would no longer be necessary because the permit would be issued under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and would no longer require the minister's permit.

Another part of the bill that was dealt with by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough was the RCMP aspect. It is a very important aspect because it very clearly defines who would be responsible when international guests are here. Many people in Canada were outraged about the violence and protests during recent meetings in Vancouver and Quebec. There always was confusion about the chain of command, about who ordered the police to do what and when, whether it was political, RCMP, local or provincial police or what. The bill would correct that.

It would remove that question and would allow a lot of us to have a little more peace of mind when we are inviting meetings to Canada. I hope it would help us and help them if there would be just one police department involved with the protests. We hope they would better understand the rights of protestors to protest and demonstrate. They do have a right to protest and demonstrate, but with the confusion over who was in control of the meetings and who was responsible for policing and law enforcement, I think things happened at the meetings that should never have happened. I believe having one group in charge would be a positive move. The huge report on APEC pointed out the need for clear parameters in order for the RCMP to be able to police these meetings without having to answer to political bosses, provincial police forces and so on.

It would be a very positive step and I hope the RCMP will take advantage of the opportunity to better understand how people can be allowed to protest and demonstrate legitimately without encouraging violence or demonstrations that turn into anything other than demonstrations.

The legislation appears to cover three general types of international organizations. There are international organizations originating by treaty, for instance, NATO and the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal. They are currently covered under the immunity, which would be extended to a second category, the new international organizations with headquarters in Canada, like the IOC, the environmental secretariat and different NAFTA bodies, which are growing steadily.

The third one is stand alone organizations that move from country to country, like APEC and the G-8. I am not satisfied nor am I comfortable with how that is defined and what groups could be included. Could groups involved with the chambers of commerce and things like that come under that umbrella of immunity? We are anxious to get the bill to committee to analyze it and see if there are extended immunity rights that were never meant to be part of the bill.

There is no question that our country should be in a position to play host to these organizations. I think Canada is an attractive destination for them. Recently we moved the meeting of finance ministers to Canada because it could not be held in India. That is just an indication of what we have to offer.

To wind up, I am concerned about the double standards between Canadians and non-Canadians. The bill would extend immunity and taxation exemptions to a number of groups. It seems to ring a bell to me with extending the immunity or exemption from the firearms control act to non-Canadians whereas Canadians have to follow those rules. We need more clarification.

On the upside, the bill ensures that Canadian diplomats receive the same privileges and immunities that their representatives in Canada receive when our diplomats are in foreign countries. It has an enforcement clause and that is a good aspect in it.

We support both the purpose and philosophy but we hope there will be amendments that deal with some of the concerns which I and my colleagues have raised throughout this debate.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that we should trust him to conduct a legislative review of Bill C-36 in three years.

I wonder if we could just examine the record on this. Criminal code amendments regarding mental disorders should have been reviewed five years ago by the government. They have not been. Criminal code amendments pertaining to sexual offence proceedings are overdue by a year. Employment Equity Act amendments should have been reviewed by a similar committee. They are also overdue by one year. The Referendum Act should have been reviewed six years ago and the government has still not reviewed it.

Given that the government continues to honour these things only in the breach, why should we trust it now?

Bill C-36

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who has said repeatedly that she wants to listen to the advice and recommendations of the committee but she knows that the committee will not be giving advice or making recommendations. The committee will either be amending the legislation, Bill C-36, or not.

Is the minister prepared to say in the House that she will accept amendments coming from the committee that have to do with sunsetting certain controversial clauses of the bill? That is what the House and the committee needs to know.

Privilege

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the government House leader does not want us to raise our point. Is he hiding something? Does this bother him?

In short, the Minister of Justice and officials from her department did it again in a meeting this morning. Notwithstanding the complexity and the importance of this bill, it is, at the very least, peculiar that nobody at the Department of Justice requested simultaneous interpretation for their briefing session on Bill C-36 this morning. For more than one hour at the beginning of this briefing, the minister's officials provided information solely in English.

Assistants of members of the Bloc Quebecois were present at that meeting and were unable to obtain the information in their native language, despite the complexity of the bill.

The right to service in the language of one's choice is guaranteed under section 133 of Canada's constitution as well as under the Official Languages Act.

In view of the complexity of this bill and taking into account the language barrier, it becomes very difficult for parliamentary assistants and for the members themselves to form an informed opinion about such a bill.

The reference book entitled House of Commons Procedure and Practice says on pages 66 and 67, and I quote:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege”--

I could also refer to Erskine May, who said the following, and I quote:

The privileges of Parliament are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.

Let me now quote from Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition, chapter 2, page 13:

If someone improperly interferes with the parliamentary work of a member of parliament--i.e. any of the member's activities that have a connection with a proceeding in parliament--in such a case that is a matter involving parliamentary privilege.

In conclusion, my right to receive information in my native language, through my assistants, was violated this morning by the Minister of Justice.

Considering these facts, I submit that my privileges as a parliamentarian were also violated.

Should you rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege relating to an event that occurred during oral question period but, rather, a question of privilege that results from a briefing session on Bill C-36 given this morning by the Department of Justice.

I want to put this question of privilege in its proper context and to stress once again the indifference shown by this minister and her department toward the members of this House and their right to information, which is a priority. We saw the Minister of Justice's way of doing things with Bill C-15, which resulted in a question of privilege on the part of the hon. member for Provencher. That question was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons amended the directives for members of the Privy Council Office.

As regards Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, a lot of information was released even before the bill was introduced in this House on Monday. One simply has to read the October 13 edition of the National Post , which included whole parts of the bill and which came out before the briefing session organized by the Minister of Justice on Monday morning, the day that Bill C-36 was introduced in the House.

Our right to information as duly elected members of this House, which is a priority, was once again violated. This leak about Bill C-36 in the National Post was the subject of a--

Anti-terrorism Legislation

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday when Bill C-36 was tabled in the House it was not the first time that the country heard about the legislation. Documents relating to Bill C-36 were leaked to the Toronto Star and the National Post .

Canada is at war. The Prime Minister says so. Parliament says so. President Bush says so. NATO says so. These are confidential, delicate matters and delicate information.

What is the justice minister doing to ensure that national security is preserved and these sorts of documents are never, ever leaked again?

Anti-terrorism legislation

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the privacy commissioner is excluded from Bill C-36. This means that no one, no organization, not the commissioner, not parliament, not the justice system will be able to control the actions of the government.

Does the minister consider this acceptable in a free and democratic society?

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for her question, because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate and clarify this aspect of the bill.

By itself, within the context of Bill C-35, this aspect of the bill would already raise some concern. We could certainly be concerned to see the RCMP being granted, through this bill, the power to organize by itself all the security aspects of international activities or conferences held in Canadian territory.

We have seen it in the past. We only have to think of the APEC Conference in British Columbia, when the RCMP, and indirectly the federal government, were asked to plan the security of this conference. Is seems--and it has not been denied yet--that there would have been a close relationship between the two as far as the conference security, the so-called security, was concerned. We are therefore justified in being concerned about the new provision in Bill C-35.

But when this provision contained in Bill C-35 is combined with all the provisions in Bill C-36 on combating against terrorism, then we become really concerned, as I indicated earlier in my speech.

We will recall that one of our colleagues from the Liberal Party suggested that the provisions of Bill C-36 might be interpreted in such a way that protesters at the last Summit of the Americas in Quebec City could have been considered as terrorists.

With the Royal Canadian Mounted Police solely responsible for security in such a context, it would be all the more reason to be concerned. If the past tells us what the future will be, the government will have to bring clarifications on this disturbing provision in Bill C-35 as well as on the other provision contained in Bill C-36.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes speech is silver, sometimes silence is golden.

It is unfortunate that our colleague from Lanark—Carleton decided to use the time he had left, although that is his right, to complete his presentation. It is not that we do not recognize his erudition and his eloquence, but it had, I believe, been agreed among our various colleagues to allow the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who unfortunately had a plane to catch, to speak for a few minutes to this bill. He really wanted to and will not be able to, unfortunately, under the circumstances.

I know this is not common practice in this House, but I would like to mention, for the constituents of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and the people of Nova Scotia, that he wanted to speak in this House on the bill, but circumstances prevented him from doing so.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35, in part because I have fond memories of my stint on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade as the former Bloc Quebecois critic in the matter. I refer to the act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

I would right off like to congratulate our colleague from Mercier on an excellent job in this matter.

This bill sets out the privileges and immunities enjoyed by diplomats and international organizations in Canada. It sets out Canada's obligations under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations that took effect in 1963.

I would first say a word on diplomatic immunity. It has, let us not fool ourselves, had bad press. We recall the death of Ottawa lawyer Catherine MacLean and the injuries suffered by her friend Catherine Doré. They were struck in March by a Russian diplomat posted to Ottawa, Andrei Knyazev, while he was unfortunately intoxicated. Mr. Knyazev escaped prosecution because of his diplomatic immunity. Russia, in a gesture I cannot support, refused to waive the immunity.

Members will recall that the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced at the time that he would do something so that foreign diplomats arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol would never drive again in Canada. I am surprised that the bill before us makes no mention of this. We will certainly have an opportunity to question the minister on the matter in committee.

People have trouble understanding that some people are above the law simply because they have diplomatic status. If a poll were taken today, I would not be surprised if a majority of the population said they were against diplomatic immunity. It is for this reason, curiously, that I come to its defence today.

Diplomatic immunity is essential for the success of international relations. In many countries of the world, arbitrary decisions take the place of the law. In some areas, there is no freedom of religion. In others, criticizing the government is a crime. If the diplomats we post to these countries were not protected by diplomatic immunity, they could be imprisoned at a moment's notice, or even executed for the slightest criticism or indiscretion.

In such conditions, without diplomatic immunity it would be difficult for the Government of Canada, and even for the House of Commons, to take action vis-à-vis these countries without endangering the lives and the safety of the Canadian diplomats posted there. It would be difficult to intervene at the UN General Assembly. Without diplomatic immunity, our diplomats would have trouble coming to the assistance of Canadians in troubled regions around the world. In short, it would be difficult for diplomats to play their role fully. And the role that diplomats play abroad is an important one.

One has only to read the Vienna Convention to realize this. Diplomats are responsible for representing their government, defending it, negotiating on its behalf, promoting economic, cultural, political and scientific relations and finally, protecting its nationals. Without diplomatic immunity, these functions could be interrupted as soon as there was unrest in the country to which they were posted. And it is at these precise times that diplomats’ functions are most essential.

Diplomatic relations between states or sovereigns have always existed. What is more recent are the diplomatic duties performed within international organizations. These functions really took off with the creation of the United Nations, after World War II. But it is not just the UN. Progress in the transportation and communication sectors have helped the development of international organizations. Some, but not all of them are created by treaty.

In addition to these international organizations, we also have major international meetings and summits that are not always under the aegis of organizations, but nevertheless play an important role in international relations.

The current Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act is ill-suited to this new situation, hence Bill C-35, whose principle is supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

Still, several provisions of the bill raise questions and even serious concerns. We will see in committee how these concerns can be lessened. It is too early to say whether we will support the bill at third reading.

The definition of international organizations found in the existing act is very restrictive. In order to be considered as such, international organizations must be established by treaty. However, a number of organizations, including the OECD and the G-8, are not established by treaty.

The definition of diplomatic mission is also very restrictive. Indeed, the existing act only recognizes embassies or consulates accredited to Canada. Diplomatic missions accredited to international organizations are not recognized. There is a need to adjust the legislation to the current reality, where international institutions play a major role.

Quebec's international reputation, and particularly that of Montreal, is well known. This is especially true in cultural and educational areas, in the environmental sector, and in the aviation industry, where Montreal is known worldwide through ICAO, among others, the International Civil Aviation Organization.

There are already 70 international organizations in Montreal, including 40 that are recognized through agreements with the Quebec government. Seven of these organizations are made up of states and would be covered by Bill C-35. Under Bill C-35, diplomatic missions accredited to these organizations will enjoy the same privileges and immunities as diplomatic and consular missions accredited to the government.

The presence of these international bodies in Montreal has a direct economic impact in excess of $185 million, as well as over 3,300 jobs. On top of that, there are the international meetings attracted by their presence in Montreal. This is another aspect of Bill C-35 which will help Montreal develop its international role. Major international meetings participated in by other countries, might enjoy privileges, taxation ones in particular, under this bill.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Quebecois is extremely perplexed by certain clauses in this bill, as I have already said.

First, the definition of international organizations. In the present act, an international organization is defined as any intergovernmental organization of which two or more states are members, while Bill C-35 adds “whether or not established by treaty”, which is a good thing. However, the French expression “regroupant” (bringing together) has now been changed to “formée de” (made up of) several states. Why?

Does this mean that an international organization of which several states are members, but also federated states or provinces, would no longer be recognized? I am thinking here, of course, of the Francophonie, and also of other organizations in which Quebec will be sure to participate, because they deal essentially with matters over which Ottawa really does not have much, if any, jurisdiction, such as culture, education or health.

The bill has as little to say about interparliamentary associations. These, as we know, are becoming increasingly important. Some even have a permanent secretariat here. I am thinking in particular of COPA, the Parliamentary Association of the Americas, one which is very familiar to you, moreover, Mr. Speaker, and is headquartered in Quebec City.

These parliamentary associations may have foreigners on their staff. They are not comprised of states, but rather of parliaments. The bill does not mention this, and thus affords them no particular tax status. Here we have an excellent opportunity to proclaim the importance of the international role of parliamentarians. It would be a pity to miss it. We are entitled to question such matters, and will do so in committee.

Second, clause 4 of Bill C-35 has an impact on the recognition of delegations of what the bill calls, and I quote, “an office of a political subdivision of a foreign state”. This in fact refers to federated states, or provinces.

I will take the trouble to cite the legislation, because the issue is subtle, but very important. Section 6 of the existing legislation provides that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs may decide jointly, and I quote:

—for the purpose of according... treatment that is comparable to

(a) extend any of the duty and tax relief privileges provided for in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that have been granted to that office of the political subdivision of the foreign state, and to any person connected therewith;

In addition, the act provides that the minister may also grant to the offices and archives of these political subdivisions any of the immunities accorded to consular premises and archives by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Bill C-35 limits this. The duty and tax relief privileges are still there, but the immunity of premises has disappeared? Why?

And even with respect to tax privileges, the act provides that the minister may grant them only if he is of the opinion that, and I quote:

—the office of the political subdivision of the foreign state performs, in Canada, duties that are substantially the same as the duties performed in Canada by a consular post as defined in... the Vienna Convention—

This is a condition that is not in the existing legislation.

Federal states, particularly in countries consisting of more than one people, are playing an increasingly large role in international fora. The example of Belgium comes to mind, but there are others. Not all countries are like Canada, which uses every means possible to prevent the people of Quebec from bypassing Ottawa's filter and communicating with the other nations of the world.

Decisions taken in international forums now affect all areas, including some that do not come under federal jurisdiction. The role of federal states in these international forums will only grow.

Why then does Bill C-35 limit privileges, when the times we now live in would seem to require that they be broadened instead?

The Vienna Convention is based on the rule of reciprocity of treatment. If Canada reduces the privileges accorded delegations of foreign federal states represented here, the odds are that foreign governments will be tempted to want to reduce the privileges accorded Quebec delegations abroad accordingly. I have trouble understanding this restrictive clause, slipped into a bill the purpose of which is to be more open.

Quebec has 31 foreign offices: six general delegations, one delegation, seven offices and 17 sub-delegations on every continent.

These Quebec representatives abroad deal with co-operation, immigration and economic development. They play an essential role.

In passing, I would like to highlight one of Mission Quebec's successful economic missions last year, in which they came back with a one billion dollar Spanish investment, in the riding of my colleague from Mercier, to be specific.

Such success would have been more difficult without the presence of Quebec representatives abroad. We must not make things harder for them. Indeed, we must assist them. And one would think that this is the role of the federal government, as long as Quebec is a part of confederation.

Yet we know how much the federal government likes throwing wrenches in the works of Quebec when it comes to their international presence. We know how hard they work at erasing Quebec's presence in the international arena.

Much has been said about the federal government's little book for diplomats posted abroad on how to deal with separatist officials. We recall as well that one African country, Mali, was threatened with having all of its development aid cut if it invited Quebec to participate in a meeting of the Francophonie in the 1960s.

France had to intervene to solve the conflict, which in the end enabled Quebec, the only francophone state in North America, to become a member of the Francophonie. Such events make us suspicious. The government should reassure about clause 4 of Bill C-35.

My third concern, and I will end on this, regards the powers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This aspect of the bill already concerned me. Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act that was just introduced, increases my concerns.

Bill C-35 adds another section to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. It basically adds a new element that did not exist in the current legislation, that of security at intergovernmental conferences.

Indeed, the bill specifies that the RCMP, or the mounted police, as the Prime Minister calls it and as we used to call it 50 years ago, is responsible for the security of intergovernmental conferences.

One wonders what this clause has to do with the immunities and privileges granted to diplomatic missions and international organizations. This clause has nothing to do with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that the bill on foreign missions and international organizations will implement. Moreover, subsection 3 of this clause reads, and I quote:

—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.

If this clause does not have any effect on existing laws, then why include it? I do not understand. Let us keep reading. The same clause provides that:

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.

In the past, that responsibility was jointly assumed by the RCMP and the provinces, as we saw during the last summit of the Americas held in Quebec City in April, when RCMP and QPP officers fully co-operated together. The presence of the QPP was indispensable and beneficial in maintaining order.

We can all think of this somewhat ridiculous situation where unilingual anglophone RCMP officers would ask in English unilingual francophone protesters to disperse.

In order to be effective, security measures must be applied jointly.

But let us continue reading clause 10. subsection 2 specifies that for the purpose of carrying out its responsibility under subsection (1):

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

This clause institutionalizes the security perimeter. It legitimizes any measure that the RCMP may want to take to ensure the security of international meetings. It gets the parliament's approval regarding measures that may be taken without parliament being involved, even indirectly.

It is not normal to close off cities, barricade neighbourhoods and fence off downtown areas so that heads of state can meet. I understand that it is necessary sometimes, but it is not normal. In fact, it is indicative of some discomfiture in the operation of international organizations, a lack of democracy and transparency and a lack of sensitivity to people's needs. This can only give rise to frustrations and then demonstrations.

This therefore is an abnormal situation that can be only temporary. These measures are exceptional and must be treated as such. There is no reason to institutionalize them, especially in legislation that will be permanent, since its function is to ensure the permanence of international relations. This is an important distinction.

As my time is running out, I will conclude. It is clear that this clause is drafted to measure for the G-8 meeting in Alberta next July. It is clear that it is intended to apply parliament's stamp to the security measures the police are preparing to take, which will be, as we may expect, extraordinary. We must avoid doing so. At the very least, we must avoid doing it in the context of legislation on diplomatic relations.

It is, however, all the more distressing, when we consider the context of the G-8 meeting. The anti-terrorism bill will have been passed by that time.

I point out that the definition of terrorism in the bill is so vague that a Liberal member went so far as to say that, under Bill C-36, the demonstrators at the Quebec summit could have been considered terrorists. We must bear this in mind when we consider Bill C-35. We must be extra cautious.

Freedom of expression, of association and peaceful demonstration are fundamental rights. They are in large measure what distinguishes democratic countries from totalitarian ones.

The Bloc Quebecois will have many questions for the minister about the appropriateness of putting this clause on the security of intergovernmental conferences in Bill C-35.

As can be seen, the Bloc Quebecois is raising numerous questions and concerns. Those questions will have to be answered and our concerns will have to addressed during consideration of the bill.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge the need to modernize the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. Diplomacy is no longer practiced the way it was 30 years ago nor is it in the same forums.

Consequently, despite all the reservations that I mentioned, the Bloc Quebecois will support the principle of the bill.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing quite like a two week break in the middle of an impromptu speech to allow one to gather one's thoughts. I had the opportunity over the two week break to spend a bit of time curled up with the material and actually read the bill, something I had not done at the time of my first comments on it. It was fascinating reading. I am glad it is a short bill, unlike Bill C-36.

I will confine my remarks to clause 5 which deals with police powers and freedom of assembly. I will deal with some of the issues raised by these provisions.

When dealing with the question public assemblies we can start with the notion of an assembly of a small number of people for an innocuous purpose and work our way up to something which is a threat to public order and safety. There is a spectrum or range of actions but I will go through the bill and lay out some of the stages to make a point that relates to section 5.

The least aggressive or least intrusive form of public assembly is a gathering of people to discuss political action. The general public may not even be aware of it. This is the most clearly understood form of freedom of association and the one most clearly in need of fundamental protection.

Moving up the scale a bit, one may imagine a gathering which aims to draw attention to a concern or grievance but which is known about only by those who choose to pay attention. It may be a voluntary gathering to promote public awareness but only those involved in the issue would pay much attention.

Bumping it up a bit more, one might see a slightly more forceful gathering to draw attention to an issue. Perhaps people would gather in a public place where they know others would see them and where they would expect to be reported on the news and draw the attention of the public to their cause. Under normal circumstances this is both defensible and admirable.

Moving on from that, a gathering could draw attention through some form of preapproved and consensual interference with the regular routine of business; for example, a demonstration for which a permit has been received. A street could be closed off and the demonstrators could move down the street and disrupt the normal flow of affairs, but in a manner understood and accepted by those in positions of authority.

Provisions are written into municipal laws to permit this sort of thing. Indeed, sometimes it is ritualized in the form of political events we hold on a regular basis. What comes to mind is Remembrance Day when traffic is closed off in part of the downtown core so we can honour our fallen soldiers through a political action.

Moving it up a bit more, we might see an action or demonstration that directly interferes with the conduct of regular life in a way that is not fully consensual and does not have everyone on board. An example might be a picket outside factory gates which is not merely for the purpose of handing out leaflets but for obstructing the flow of traffic in and out. As used to happen in the United States, a demonstration may block the entrance to a prison and thereby make the carrying out of an execution more difficult. This slides over the edge into a bit of illegality but is not as serious as some of the examples that will follow.

Some demonstrations damage property. These are sometimes connected with strikes, strike breaking activity and some political demonstrations. A bit higher on the scale are demonstrations or gatherings that threaten personal security and safety. These move into what could be described as riots.

Finally, at the extreme end of the spectrum we may find forms of demonstration or collective action that threaten life. This is clearly the kind of public demonstration for which there can be no toleration in society.

The traditional legal description and manner of dealing with such assemblies can be found in sections 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the criminal code. I will read part of that if I might. Section 63(1) reads:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Subsection (2) states:

Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

Section 64 goes from unlawful assembly to imagine the stage of the spectrum I described as a riot:

A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.

The law then anticipates different punishments for those who participate in a riot or unlawful assembly. Section 65 states:

Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Section 66 refers to those who participate in unlawful assembly. It states:

Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The law has traditionally made a distinction between lawful and unlawful assembly. As members will notice, individuals who participate in lawful assembly are not merely not punished by law; their rights to assemble freely are protected by law. The charter of rights and, before it, the bill of rights clearly laid out such protections. The American bill of rights also lays out protections for lawful and peaceable assemblies.

We see a range, then, from completely legitimate and protected actions which the government may not interfere with to those which the government must necessarily interfere with for the benefit of society. This is a spectrum.

The law takes into account that at the same place and time there may be people who are legally demonstrating in a manner that is protected by the law and the constitution; people who are engaged in unlawful assembly and are subject to summary conviction; and people who are engaged in riotous behaviour and could be punished by up to two years in prison. This could all be going on at the same place at the same time.

The law is designed to provide incentives so that those who are assembled lawfully do not choose to move into an unlawful assembly and those who are engaged in unlawful assembly may resist the temptation to slide into riotous behaviour.

In general these are pretty good practices. They are longstanding conventions in the law and have served our society, American society and other societies in our legal tradition very well indeed.

I will turn from these general comments to clause 5 of the bill under consideration today. I will read it if I might. Clause 5 would amend section 10 of another act and make the following additions. It starts at subsection 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.

Subsection 10.1 (2) states:

For the purpose of carrying out its responsibilities 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.

Subsection 10.1 (3) states:

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.

This would include the earlier acts I have read.

This part of the law as I understand it is intended as a response to the kind of anti-globalization demonstrations and actions that took place in Quebec City, and before that, outside our jurisdiction, at the so-called battle of Seattle. Demonstrators at the Seattle conference a couple of years ago engaged in a range of actions from peaceful protests, to what is the American version of unlawful assembly, up to what everyone would agree was riotous behaviour with full battle gear in some cases, gas masks, bricks and all kinds of paraphernalia that allowed them to be quite disruptive and violent.

Looking at the example of Quebec City which is directly relevant to this part, I have some friends, including the man who ran against me for the nomination in Lanark--Carleton and with whom I have remained on very good terms, who were in Quebec City and protested against globalization in a peaceful manner. However there were others who were engaged in the worst sort of violent behaviour. Policemen were struck by bricks. Private property owners had their property destroyed as part of these unlawful protests.

There was a range between brick throwing hoodlums and those who were there acting under the protection of our constitution. We should be quite specific that the goal of those who were on the violent margin of all that was to have the effect of causing so much chaos at one of these assemblies that it would become impossible to carry on their function. What is going on is the assumption that they cannot win the debate against globalization, or whatever the issue happens to be, through the normal democratic means, that they cannot do it by convincing people through democratic, open and legal assemblies and therefore they will use those as a cover for illegal actions. That is reprehensible. To the extent that the legislation deals with that, it probably is a positive thing.

I note that clause 5 makes an attempt to deal with this by stating that the RCMP clearly will be in charge of security at all such conferences. The logic here is that in Seattle for example the local police were in charge of security. They had no idea what was coming. They had no specialized training for it and in addition they had no practice for that sort of thing. At first they underreacted which allowed the city to be put into chaos. Then they overreacted and beat up people who were completely innocent, dragged away people who had done nothing wrong along with those who had, and as a result were able to create sympathy for the illegal protesters in a manner that surely was completely unintentional. To this extent this part of the legislation probably is positive.

The one great caveat that has to be put on all of this is that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police unfortunately is becoming increasingly a politicized agency. This is done because the commissioner of the RCMP has the status of a deputy minister and effectively is now part of the regular civil service. This is a problem that generally is true in our semi-independent agencies in government. It is a very unfortunate thing. We saw the interference of Jean Carle for example in what was going on in Vancouver at the APEC conference five years ago.

It seems to me what would give greater security here would be if this particular legislation or other legislation were to try and re-establish the kinds of separation between the executive government and the political masters in the Liberal Party who do have a certain stake in ensuring that justice is not administered fairly. It is unfortunate that this is occurring. It could be corrected. With goodwill on that side of the House and in the government it would be entirely possible.

Anti-terrorism Legislation

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice informed us that Bill C-36 was carefully drafted to exclude lawful protests from the definition of terrorist activities.

Will the minister confirm whether or not she considers spontaneous demonstrations that have not obtained an advance permit from the appropriate authorities lawful protests?

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some brief remarks as we enter the final stages of this piece of legislation. After much deliberation and travail, the government saw the wisdom of listening to the opposition and splitting the bill. The legislation we now have before us is not controversial and not opposed by the opposition. It will proceed through the House at an expeditious pace.

The legislation will not be held back by the fact that it was originally tied to other pieces of legislation which were controversial in some parts of the House. Those pieces of legislation are now being dealt with separately. We notice that sometimes after much persistence the opposition does get its way. I am glad the government listened in this case. We applaud that fact.

Even though there was merit in rushing the legislation through, one of the downsides was that we could have heard from more witnesses than we did on some of the more technologically and legally complex issues having to do with the Internet, et cetera. We heard from some witnesses on that, but had we been able to do it at a leisurely pace we could have learned more. I regret we were not able to do so.

We know that the justice committee is not only seized with Bill C-15A and Bill C-15B but it is also seized with Bill C-36, the anti-terrorist legislation. We cannot always give a piece of legislation the kind of attention we might otherwise want to give it in a different context.

The issue of luring on the Internet, with which the government and all of us will have to deal at some point, was raised. Other members may have already referenced the whole question of age of consent. We have this glaring loophole in the law that would permit 40 year olds to exploit people who are 14 or over on the Internet because we do not have a law which is adequate to the circumstances that can now be created on the Internet.

We have to do it sensitively because we do not want to criminalize certain behaviours between people, particularly teenagers who are close in age. There must be a way to look at this issue with sensitivity in mind, but nevertheless laws must be created that would prevent or at least punish that kind of activity.

There is one caveat I would enter and one concern I would register, presumably along with other members. Provincial ministers of justice, the justice committee and the government should look at recommendations regarding the age of consent. I hope that some day we will deal with the issue of age of consent in the House.

What we have before us is good legislation. Some of the legislation is long overdue, but nevertheless better late than never. Let us get it into law and see how it works, and we can fix it after that if it needs further attention.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add to what is becoming a rather lengthy debate. A lot of things have been said by different members of the various parties in the House on this bill. It is a bill which of course is very important.

I will briefly underline a few things which I think are very important and necessary for us to combat terrorism in the country. I also want to add a bit of a personal perspective to this whole debate.

I would first like to say that the government has taken a necessary step in the right direction. I commend it for that. I listened with interest on numerous occasions to the Prime Minister and other ministers who said that this was an issue far beyond politics and that we should put political considerations aside. I agree with that.

In passing, though, I find it strange that when members of the finance committee, and I will not mention which party it was because I want to be non-partisan, put forward a motion to get this thing underway, the government used very strange tactics to prevent that motion from being put. Then it used strange tactics again for that motion not to be carried and, again, used strange tactics for it to come forward.

I would venture to say, and will do so as kindly as I can, that there was a lot of politics in the way that was handled in our committee. I really regret that. I believe that was a moral failure on the part of the government at the time. This is a time when, more than ever in the history of this parliament, parliamentarians ought to be able to act on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of all Canadians.

It is really quite interesting, and I will put it that way, that the government voted against our motion the second day parliament sat after the atrocities of September 11, but some two or three weeks later came forward with legislation that largely included those things for which we had asked.

What I want to do today is have the members on the government side actually respond to the conjecture in my speech as to why they voted against it at that time since it was very urgent, but I am not sure if they will. However, at the same time I would like to commend the government for taking action, fairly expeditiously, to move legislation forward.

I would also like to thank the government for including in this legislation the right to create and publish a list of known criminal activity with respect to terrorism. I wish the legislation in Bill C-36 were a little stronger requiring the government to publicize these names instead of just giving them the right to make a list. I feel that is a little weak but certainly a step in the right direction.

I remember when the finance committee was studying this Bill S-16, which originated in the Senate. It proposed to remove charitable organization status, and hence the right to issue tax receipts for charitable donations, from any charity which directly or indirectly raised funds for terrorist organizations. That would indirectly mean that collectively the taxpayers of this country would then be funding terrorism.

A motion was brought forth regarding this proposal in committee. I spoke against that motion for the very simple reason that I was opposed to only removing the charitable organization status from any charitable organization found to be funding terrorism. It was too soft.

I am pleased to see that fundraising for terrorism, directly or indirectly, is an illegal act under Bill C-36, which is what I proposed in the committee. This is a very good measure. Probably this has been mentioned in some of the debates when I was off the committee, but I have not heard that one in the House before. I wanted to emphasize that. With the passing of the bill, that type of fundraising would be banned.

Echoing some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to the human rights and freedom that we have come to enjoy, I also emphasize that we need to be very diligent and not indict organizations that are unwittingly drawn into the trap.

For example, one can argue that benevolent organizations which collect money to provide food for those who are starving reduce the costs of the governments in foreign countries where they work. Indirectly then, they could provide that government with more money for the production of arms and tools of terrorism. That is stretching it. I hope we are very judicial in how we apply that law to charitable organizations. However, where there is a clear and direct link, they will face criminal action, and rightly so.

I also congratulate the government for finally affirming what it should have done a long time ago, and that is that it will ratify the international convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism. That should have been done automatically and immediately when it was presented here. The government dragged its heels on that.

Finally, on the plus side, the legislation provides that it would be a crime to participate in any terrorist training or inciting terrorism. Again, that is moving in the right direction. It is incredible that it was not done years ago. It should have always been on the law books of Canada.

I remember many years ago when it was against the law to counsel someone to commit suicide. How come we did not have anything that said it was against the law to counsel an act of terrorism?

There are a couple of things that I think the government should have done.

First, there should be a prompt extradition of foreign nationals who are charged with acts of terrorism. That is not in this bill. I think I know the reason for this. I am only guessing, though, because I do not have any Liberal friends close enough to me who actually told me why they voted against this. I think most of them did so because it was a Liberal whipped vote. You may recall the day that you were the whip, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the Liberals through their whip would give such an instruction.

In any case, I think this is probably the nub of the reason for why the Liberals voted against it. Our motion on September 18 recommended that any foreign national charged with an act of terrorism should be extradited forthwith, even if that foreign national faced, in his designated country, a possible death penalty.

The Liberals cannot bring themselves to recognize that under certain circumstances there is not a penalty severe enough. I would put into that category the individuals who knowingly helped to train and motivated the people who hijacked those airplanes on September 11, and who caused so much havoc, pain, death and damage. Those individuals are clearly guilty. If we were to find some of those individuals in Canada, who aided and abetted that action, and if there were another country somewhere that said to extradite them because they were their nationals, not Canadians, that they belonged in their country, not Canada, and that in their country they would face the death penalty, then I would say, off they go.The bill fails to provide for that.

I greatly regret that my time has elapsed because I have several more points to make. I am looking forward to the bill going to committee. I hope the amendments we make will be given due consideration by the government.