It does go to add some clarity here with paragraph 6(3)(a), “The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province....” That certainly implies that the rights of movement, mobility, and freedom in Canada are subject to the laws of Canada. By extension, they would also be subject to the laws of other countries internationally.
We also have here under section 7, “Everyone has the right to...liberty...of the person and...not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”, except--in 7(3)11:
Any person charged with an offence has the right
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
That does not say Canadian law. It says that it's found by the general principles of law. By its own implication of course, that certainly would mean a variety of interpretations.
I think there's more of a need to educate many Canadians travelling to other countries to make them aware and cognizant of the fact that every country has its own jurisdiction, its own sovereignty, and its own set of laws that might be in conflict with Canadian law. They should be very much aware of those circumstances.
The next comment I have to make is on “Enact legislation to ensure the consistent...consular services to all Canadians in distress”. The information we have is that there is a consistent enactment of consular services for the over 50 million Canadian travellers internationally and the number of people seeking intervention by consular services. Of course, with such a great number, there might be some variances. Overall, though, we're hearing that there is consistency.
The third part I wish to comment on is “ordering the Minister of Foreign Affairs to give protection”. Well, what does protection mean? Does that mean the protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under the Constitution of Canada? Is that what this is implying? Once again, it is based on a false premise that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does apply internationally.
So I have problems all the way through on the wording and the implication of this motion, which seems to be reinforcing the false premise that the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply internationally and in all international jurisdictions.