Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Portage--Lisgar for allowing me to clarify my thoughts on those two issues.
First, it must be recognized that the tragic events that occurred in the United States several weeks ago have shown, like no international event has before, that all the concepts we had so far pertaining to international relations regarding strategy and the balance of military forces have been seriously challenged.
Since World War II, international relations have changed considerably. If it is true that in the past relations were established essentially between states, or in bygone days between the sovereigns of those states, they have become quite different today.
The legislative framework for the protection of diplomatic immunity must adapt to this new international reality.
As a first step, I believe we should pass legislation that will modernize the protection system applying to the immunity of foreign representatives in Canada.
When I said that international relations have evolved, this means that more and more international organizations are totally different in nature from the ones we used to know in the past. This is why we must take measures allowing us to recognize those international organizations.
That does not mean--and I am getting to my colleague's second question--that we cannot do something internally to avoid abuse. I pointed out this shortcoming in the bill because the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us, following an accident here in Ottawa a few months ago, that he would see to it that a diplomat causing injury or death while driving under the influence would no longer be allowed to drive.
The bill before us does not contain any provisions that would follow up on what the minister wanted.
This does not mean that we cannot impose a number of obvious restrictions to address certain situations like those that we faced a few months ago.
That being said, it is also important not to restrict, through legislation specifically designed to broaden it, the definition of certain organizations that could be granted certain immunities and privileges.
I referred earlier to certain organizations of which Quebec is a member, including COPA, in relation to the fact that the bill establishes a new distinction when it says that the only organizations made up of states will be recognized. Does this mean that organizations of which federated states are members, such as the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas, would be excluded from those that can be given immunities and privileges?
As I was saying, the world has changed a lot, and federated states have an increasing role to play on the international scene in areas that fall under their jurisdiction.
Therefore, Canada must put an end to the traditional paternalistic attitude that it has shown with regard to the role of provinces on the international scene and recognize this new reality in the legislation. But it seems that the federal government has chosen to go the other way in its bill, and that is one aspect that is of concern to us.