No, I'm not finished. I'm catching my breath here. Excuse me while I have a little drink of water.
Once again, we go through the very problematic scenario here of trying to adhere to...or insist that Canadian law, the Canadian Constitution should take precedence in other countries. Really, it's rather ignoring...and I think it's setting a poor precedent, because it's giving Canadians the false hope or the false premise that their Constitution takes precedence, so they will be protected regardless of what the laws of another country say. Is that really what we want to do?
I think more than this--we had the discussion in an earlier committee meeting here--is perhaps the question of whether Canadians are aware of the laws of other countries. A lot of Canadians travel internationally. We have Canadians all over the beaches in Mexico and the Caribbean. Are they aware of what the laws of those countries are? Their laws are different. Even former British Commonwealth countries have their own laws instituted. What we should be doing here rather than saying and implying by a motion like this, which rather implies that Canadian constitutional law is instituted internationally--it is not, and that is completely in error--is educating Canadians.
I suppose you could say that while this Constitution is Canadian-made, Canadian-built, and Canadian-instituted, it is not internationally instituted. You'd better be aware when you travel to another country that you have a responsibility not just to conform to the laws of the other country but to be cognizant of some of the differences that those countries might have in their legal system.
If you're not cognizant, you might inadvertently fall into problems in the other country. Do not depend on the Canadian Constitution or Canadian law to be able to bail you out. That's hugely problematic.
Now I'll move on here to article 14, where it states the following:
A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Once again, we're speaking about an enlightened constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the 1980s, taking advantage of the enlightenment earned by a country that has been very prosperous and probably one of the world's leading countries as far as civil society is concerned and has the luxury of being able to write these things into written law. I have to go back to saying that must be understood in all other countries on the face of the planet earth.
It's very presumptuous ordering the foreign affairs minister to go into a country because someone there has a problem understanding the language and laws of the country and the proceedings that are being conducted. It is presumptuous; and this one not only says that but goes into who is deaf and has the right to the assistance of an interpreter. I'm not sure whether that's considered to be a right in other countries or not. Certainly here in Canada we go out of our way in our judicial proceedings to be able to help people with sign language, and indeed to help the blind so that they can follow the proceedings. We also take the time here in Ottawa, not only for our official languages, but to bring in interpreters of other languages. We do this, but we have the capacity to be able to do this. That's not to say that all judicial systems around the world have that capacity or have that capability to do that.
Once again, we have a scenario here where, yes, this certainly is in place in Canada, and we certainly do appreciate it, and probably in the United States, and probably some of the western world countries have provisos like this, but when we start looking into second and third world countries, do they have that capability? Is it proper for Canada to insist that this be done, and to what level? This says, in my understanding, we take it to all levels of criminal justice. This really doesn't spell it out, because we don't spell it out here in Canada, but what about other countries? Does that mean you're going to order that somebody with a parking ticket in some obscure country be provided interpretative services? Is that what we're really saying here? We don't have to clarify here, because we would, but what about in other countries?
Then, of course, with the parking ticket and no clarity on the language, we're going to order the foreign affairs minister to go in there and give the protection. So it gets to a ridiculous level here on what we're trying to compel the government to appreciate and accept.
Now I'm up to article 15. And I do appreciate the time to be able to go through this and give these explanations.
Article 15 states,
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Once again, this does work here in Canada, and that certainly has been well developed and well thought-out, but it is a made-in-Canada charter. It's a made-in-Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other countries can have different understandings, and so be it. Other countries around the world may have different understandings.
Article 15(2) here is the one that really spells out the differences on it. It says,
Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
What that article really compels is that even here in Canada we're saying everybody has the right and is equal before the law. It really says “except for”. Here in Canada, we're giving except fors. You can imagine, with some 200 countries around the world, how many except fors they would naturally have within their own system.
It could be for any variety of reasons. We've had our debates here in this country, for example on same-sex marriage. Well, that isn't understood by all countries on earth. As a matter of fact, it's understood by only a very few countries on earth. So even from that standpoint, for a person travelling into many countries on earth they'd better be aware that not all countries are as accepting and enlightened as Canada is. That issue alone could be problematic in many countries.
Once again, we go back to the basis of this motion here. To expect the Canadian government to recognize this constitutional duty... How do we recognize that when it's in conflict with many other countries' stated law? You have an impossible scenario here. I think more than this, there's a responsibility for Canadians to comply with the laws of the country they're visiting, and they have to be prepared to accept that Canadian law, and their understanding of the Canadian charter and the Canadian Constitution... They just may have to be flexible. If they want to visit that country they have to be prepared to accept the standards, the laws, the customs of the country that they're visiting, or else they're going to be in conflict.
Then we go back to the basis of this motion. That's an impossibility. Can you imagine, under a scenario like that, where we'll use that one issue, where somebody inadvertently...? They don't know, or they do know and they just ignore it, and they now are into a problem and a conflict with another country. According to this motion, we're going to order the Minister of Foreign Affairs to go in and fix things. How does he fix things when it's an affront to the laws of the other country?
Once again, it's an impossible thing to do here. I think we have to be aware, if we look around at the various countries of the world... I'll revert again to the suggestion that it's not just countries, it's international understandings, and international understandings of Sharia law. I think there was a movement here in Canada to try to bring Sharia law into Canada, and fortunately, in my humble opinion, that movement was forestalled. Even here in Canada, to bring in customs and laws from other countries is hugely problematic, and Sharia law, of course, brings up the question... When we talk with specific communities and they say, yes, they would like to have the proviso that's in Sharia law that one man can have four wives, that brings up the question of whether that means that one woman can have four husbands. Is that what it means? So we get into huge discussions, and I would guesstimate that those who subscribe to Sharia law would probably take umbrage to the idea of one woman having four husbands. Would that be a fair consideration to say?
So we have a problem even with trying to bring laws of another country into Canada. If we have a problem bringing other laws into Canada, don't you think for one moment that the other countries will have a problem with Canada bringing its laws into their country? I would think that it would be a huge problem.
We could go through other forms of international understandings and laws, and how problematic it would be for other countries, for Canada, to bring their laws into this country.
So we go back again to article 15(2), and here in Canada, yes, we want to have this. We celebrate this Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and rightly so. We just recently published it to all the schools in the country and sent out a very nice format that has the charter in it. And yes, absolutely we should celebrate it. Quite frankly, probably internationally it's widely respected, and hopefully it's being emulated by other countries, and maybe other countries are instituting their own personalized forms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So be it. So the world should be progressing. We should be gaining more enlightenment around the world. We're into globalization. We're into internationalism. When we do trade with specific countries around the world, we like to imply that the Canadian maple leaf is on that crate going to another country because it's significant, significant of the enlightenment that Canada has in its laws and in its charter and in its constitution. I'm sure that even the maple leaf flying around the world on the side of an Air Canada plane is respected and regarded as significant.
Canada is an enlightened country and a respected country. When we see other countries that we trade with, we hope that we're not being instructive. I've had people visit, as many of you have, from China. I have to hesitate on it because, as I mentioned earlier, China has a culture that goes back 5,000 or 7,000 years. It's awfully presumptuous of us to say that we and our constitution and our charter know more than that long and wonderful history of China.
However, one thing that cannot be disputed is that our charter and our constitution are an enlightened charter and constitution. It's not perfect, and we're going to work on it. We're going to improve on it and correct it over a period of time. We're going to make it better. We'll make it the best we possibly can, but that's not to say that we cannot suggest, when we're trading internationally with countries that are not up to the high standards of Canada, that we don't encourage them to move along.
That's also not to say that we're not going to trade with other countries that we know have problems in bringing their democratic reforms and institutions up to date. That's not to say that we will not trade with them. No; you trade with them because through development, through trade, through prosperity, they will gain the wherewithal to be able to develop their own institutions and their own judiciary.
I think several trade pacts have been signed recently with certain countries. The suggestion is that we should not trade with them because they have certain problems with rights infringements. That's not the way to look at it. You look at it from the basis that prosperity, development, growth as a country, and international engagement provide stronger and stronger encouragement. There really isn't one of those countries that does not want to be a better citizen or that will not become a better citizen and treat its own people better if it has the wherewithal to do so.
I go back to that example of a country in which somebody who perpetrates a crime is beaten up, thrown in jail, and tossed out in the morning. That's because that country doesn't have the wherewithal, but as countries acquire the wherewithal, even they can see that such an approach is a barbaric way of dealing with things. They will improve if they can take the first step of being able to afford to feed their prisoners. That's the first step.
They'll improve further if they're able to afford a reasonable justice system to give some justice to the system and if they're able to afford proper policing and the proper jailing techniques. All these things are additives. When we're dealing with foreign countries and saying that they have some human rights questions, I suggest that those human rights questions will be answered in due time, as their economic circumstances improve and they become able to devote more resources to better management of their citizenry.
That's article 15. I think, once again, that's what we have here in Canada, and I certainly think articles like that would be widely perceived as being desirable in many countries around the world. I'm sure many countries will be advancing towards those stages as their economies develop and as their financial wherewithal develops.
Article 16 refers to the official languages of Canada:
English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament and the Government of Canada.
Once again, this is a Canadian aspect. Many countries of the world have multiple languages. Even here in this country we have more than the two official languages. We probably have every language on earth here in this country, represented in our immigrants. I don't think there is another country in the world that has such a great number and variety. I describe it that Canada really has every country in the world represented in this country. That is its strength. Even though the languages are unofficial languages, that is a powerhouse of a capability for this country to be able to compete worldwide. You can pick any one of the ethnic communities and see what a powerhouse of capability that is for international trade and the globalization we're engaging in today. It is an unbelievable asset.
Sometimes, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we recognize that and appreciate that enough. One of the things we have been doing, as a government, in the past few years to emphasize that is putting more emphasis on foreign affairs.
Once again, I return to this motion. It would have huge negativity to be interfering with other countries at a specific point and juncture in time when we are trying to encourage this. We are trying to encourage this development. We are trying to encourage the diaspora of the multitude of different countries we have in this country to use their assets, use the power of language, use the power of international familiarity to be able to engage in the world and around the world. Even before we became government here, I go back to some of the work I was doing in the Caribbean or in eastern Europe, and you see the powerful diasporas that we have in this country and you really want to know why we aren't using them more.
Our government is getting there. Certainly, our government has done more in the international community than governments in the past. We see this by our Prime Minister's visiting the Caribbean and putting a lot of emphasis on the Caribbean and the Caribbean rim countries. We see this by the emphasis just last week of his visiting China and the good relationships developing there—and, I might add, with the Charter of Rights and with the discussion of rights, not leaving it alone, making the point internationally that we make no apologies that we want to have and protect our rights and freedoms. There are no apologies there, and we will speak out on rights, but at the same time, we will also speak out and say that in the case of China, we have a Chinese diaspora that probably is a million people. It is a huge number of people. We also have an Indian diaspora that would be a million people. It is a huge benefit to be able to engage very large segments of world trade, if done properly, if done forthrightly, and if done correctly.
I believe our Prime Minister really has to be commended for the work he has done, particularly on his trip to China and in how we are engaging India but also for how we are engaging other parts of the world. I believe it was one of our ministers who has set up free trade beginnings with Ukraine, part of eastern Europe. If we look at that initiative, we first recognized Ukraine as an independent country in 1991, and since 1991 it has been kind of left on its own. But we have taken the stance and the initiative in the last several years to put some emphasis on eastern Europe, and particularly in the last month to put emphasis on the Ukraine with the Ukrainian diaspora.
I was at the Embassy of Ukraine just last week and spoke to the many people who were there. There are very enthusiastic Canadian business people looking at what this could mean. They were looking at the fact that Ukraine needs nuclear power. There was a comment from one of them, Lavalin, stating that what that means is 20 or 25 nuclear power stations.