Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I think it's really important that we put on the record some facts before we discuss this motion.
It's important to note that in 2008, Canadians made over 53 million visits abroad. For a country of 33 million to have 53 million visits abroad gives you an idea of how many of our fellow citizens are moving around the world. An estimated 2.5 million Canadians reside outside Canada.
This is another statistic that's really important to remember: every minute of every day, the consular service receives three requests for assistance at one of its points of service. Every 20 seconds, around the world, there is a Canadian asking for consular service. In 2008-09, over 1.3 million Canadians received assistance while abroad.
I'm making the point that we are dealing in this motion with some pretty rare exceptions in the service performed by the government--I'm referring to the previous government as well as to our present government--and the civil service. These numbers are very, very big.
First, I'll talk about my difficulty with the motion. It appears to be based on the false premise that there's a constitutional duty to protect Canadians abroad. There is not. There is a right of return found in section 6 of the charter. However, all citizens, including Canadians, are subject to local laws outside Canada. The provision of consular service is done exclusively in foreign jurisdictions, and the international framework governing those services is the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In the implementation of consular policies and the development of new policies, such as those that approach issues of citizenship, which is the basic determinate of consular service, our government compares notes with a number of key western partners. Those services would be broadly similar to our own.
Our Department of Foreign Affairs has a cadre of trained professionals in the field, with support from headquarters, who already work with local authorities in providing consular services. There are mechanisms in place to respond to Canadian citizens who are dissatisfied with the level of consular service they receive while abroad. Our government has implemented a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week emergency hotline. People can contact their members of Parliament or the Department of Foreign Affairs, or they're welcome to contact the mission on the ground.
Our government has improved resources for Canadians abroad. Resources are available to them if they feel dissatisfied with the level of service when they return home and want an investigation relative to their dissatisfaction.
I did a little bit of research on this, and I understand there is one country, Germany, that obliges its government to provide consular services. This is contained in the Law on Consular Officers, their functions and powers (Consular Law), 1974. The law is general on many points, as circumstances and the capacity to deliver would vary from country to country. For example, article 5 of their law provides that “Consular officers shall help Germans in their consular district requiring assistance if the state of this distress cannot be resolved in any other way.”
The obligation does not extend to Germans or dual nationals habitually resident in a foreign state. Assistance may be refused if the person has abused such assistance in the past. Paragraph 5 provides that the “nature, form and degree of assistance shall depend on the conditions prevailing in the receiving State.”
To the best of my knowledge on the research that has been provided to me, this is the only law of a nation that would have many of the same standards as ours, that actually would oblige the German state to provide consular services. But in fact,when you read through it, you see that it doesn't really oblige Germany to do that. It fundamentally would be equivalent to our current Canadian status quo.
What about the U.S.? There are references to an obligation under U.S. law for the government to provide consular assistance. This is far from straightforward. Section 1732 of chapter 23, “Protection of Citizens Abroad”, of title 22, “Foreign Relations and Intercourse”, of the United States code provides that the President is to demand the release of any U.S. citizen wrongfully imprisoned abroad and take measures short of war to affect the release of the citizen. The law dates, by the way, all the way back to 1868.
However, the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, volume 7, which is akin to our manual of consular operations, does not refer to any obligation under the U.S. law to provide assistance. Rather, it cites authority to provide such assistance. Part 7(1) of Title 22 of the consolidated federal regulations sets out the authorities for the consular protections of Americans abroad.
There are references in some commentaries to obligations to provide consular services contained in various provisions in U.S. law, but the initial research yielded only what is cited above.
Basically, this motion would go into realms that no other nation has gone to, save Germany. As I say, we've already seen that the status quo that we have in Canada does not differ, with any significance, to what currently exists in the great country of Germany.
So, Mr. Chair, I think this motion is based on a false premise. I can't see any way in which it would be workable. I have difficulty understanding how it would be of any great value. In some of the testimony that I heard earlier today--with the greatest respect to our presenters, who are people with good knowledge and experience--some of the actions that it seems to me were implied would be for Canada, in the case of Sudan, to send a force in and invade when there is a suspicion of torture, or issues like that.
How else could Canada have acted or reacted in a situation like that? I realize that is taking it to the absurd, but that is where we end up when we say we demand that this is going to happen or that is going to happen. We have to recognize that in the same way that Canada is a sovereign nation, we must respect the sovereignty of other nations, short of absolute force.
As a consequence, Mr. Chair, as I say, this proposal, this motion, is one that absolutely cannot be supported by the government.