Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2001

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been here for quite some time and I thought we were looking at Bill C-35. Just in the summary of the bill it says it has to do with foreign missions and international organizations that allow Canada to comply with its existing commitments under international treaties and respond to recent developments in international law. Where is the relevance of the last 10 minutes?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I ask the hon. member for Medicine Hat to tie everything he said in the past 10 minutes to the subject at hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member cannot see the relevance of talking about basic fundamental rights whenever we talk about any legislation, I am afraid I cannot say anything to him that would get the picture across.

Every piece of legislation that comes through this place has to be screened at some point, and I hope justice department lawyers do it, to determine whether or not it is in some violation of our fundamental rights. I can say nothing more than that to clarify it for the hon. member.

The summary of the bill talks about empowering the RCMP, giving the RCMP new powers which some people are concerned may kick the door open for political interference by the RCMP in matters that might embarrass the government. That is really the point I am trying to make. I am simply saying that there are precedents for governments violating our rights. One of the rights that have been violated, I would argue again, is a property right.

Andy McMechan, a Manitoba farmer, was put in chains and cast into prison for the great crime of selling his own wheat, a violation of his most basic right to property. It was absolutely ridiculous.

That is my response to my friend across the way who was wondering whether or not the legislation has any connection at all to the idea of basic rights. I argue that of course it does.

I go beyond that and touch on something else which my friend from Crowfoot touched on. He is here right now. He gave a great speech when he talked about some of these different things. I simply point out that when it comes to protest, I believe completely that people should have the freedom to protest.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. The hon. member for Medicine Hat has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the freedom to protest takes many forms. The freedom to protest is limited like every other freedom. Every freedom has a reasonable limit. When protesters in Quebec City started to tear down fences and break windows, they should have been arrested and charged. They should have been convicted and sentenced, if in fact they were guilty of those crimes. I want to make that very clear. No freedom is unlimited. There are reasonable limits to all of them.

Instead of introducing new limits on freedom, what should happen is that security forces of various kinds should be given enough resources to enforce the laws that presently exist.

We do not need more and more laws that restrict our freedoms. We need adequate resources to enforce the ones we have. We made that argument in the past about Bill C-68 and other pieces of legislation. No law by itself will stop people from doing things if they have criminal intent. What will stop criminals is more police on the beat, more security and more intelligence gathering. All those things can stop criminals but just passing laws does nothing in and of itself.

When we are confronted with something like the APEC protest or the Quebec City protest, the issue is getting more police out there to ensure that people can protest peacefully and have their say about things, but the moment they step over the line, trespass on property or vandalize, that is when the police should step in and do their job.

One of the best examples of how well that can work is in New York City pre-September 11. Members will remember that when Rudolph Giuliani was elected as the mayor of New York City quite a while ago it was in a state of turmoil because there was a tremendous amount of crime. Mr. Giuliani said that if he were elected he would hire more police and put more cops on the beat. He did that.

They started charging people for crimes already on the books. Graffiti artists were arrested and charged. They cracked down on crime. They cracked down on those who were harassing people on the street. They cracked down on petty vandalism.

As a result, not only did they deal with petty crime but the violent crime rate dropped like a stone. That is the point. Making new laws will not fix everything, but if police are on the beat to enforce the laws it makes a huge difference. We know that empirically. Common sense tells us that.

For a long time in my own community we were battling to get a proper number of RCMP officers. The federal government had cut back funding to the RCMP. We had a situation where a lot of new people had come to town and the crime rate went up. Since we brought more police into the community my understanding is that things have stabilized. I do not know that crime is going down, but it certainly is not rising the way it was previously.

We are grateful the government is finally starting to put a bit more money into justice after listening to the Canadian Alliance. I guess it started to realize that perhaps it is not such a bad investment after all to put money into these things.

My point is simple. We should not assume that by creating new laws, and perhaps even violating some of the fundamental freedoms in which we believe so strongly, somehow some of the problems with crime will end. It will not happen. We need reinforcement. I conclude by saying that the government's first role has to be the security of the liberty of people.

In fact a lot of people would argue that the security of people's liberties should be the government's overwhelming and overriding role. What does that mean? It does not just mean securing their personal safety, as critical as that is, it also means securing all their fundamental rights, including the right not to have their lives interfered with by their own government.

While we are in this period where we are all concerned about threats from outside the country, we should also be alive to the danger of interference within the country from our own government.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes on this side of the House I am regarded as a somewhat conservative Liberal in the sense that I am very much a proponent of financial prudence, of financial transparency. I deplore the effect special interest groups have on government policy and that kind of thing.

Having listened to the member for Medicine Hat speak just now, I realize that despite these, shall we say, conservative tendencies, I belong on this side and not that side because the member for Medicine Hat brought in the concept of property rights and individual rights versus collective rights. If something defines me on this side, and I think defines the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the Conservatives as well, it is the idea that collective rights have to take priority over individual rights.

The member for Medicine Hat is actually echoing a philosophy that exists in the United States, indeed, it is actually written in the constitution of both the state and the federal constitution in the United States. It is the idea that an individual has vested rights in property against every other influence.

We on this side of the House, and I think some opposition members, would think that the collective good actually transcends the individual's right to his or her own personal advantage.

He mentioned the species at risk legislation in which property rights may be in collision with the need to preserve species.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where my friend was going. Let me simply say that there have been many times, and I did not touch on all the examples, where individual rights have been breached for the good of the collective. Let me point to one that may resonate more with the member.

During the second world war we rounded up Japanese Canadians, took their property away and sent them to internment camps for the good of the collective. My point is that everybody should have a personal right to the security of their person no matter what, as long as they do not violate the equal rights of every other person to have that same security and freedom.

I want to argue that when we see things like what happened during the second world war when those people were rounded up, that was a violation of individual rights because of collective rights.

I want to make the point that when it comes to endangered species, there would be no collision between private property rights and the endangered species legislation if the government would simply compensate people for taking away their property. That is all we are asking.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

For the few minutes that are remaining, let us come back to foreign missions and international organizations, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the section in the bill that deals with the role of the RCMP and the whole debate we just heard, reflects the cynicism that members in this place have about the ability of the House of Commons to deal with issues that are important to the public. Many of the decisions being made are made by the Prime Minister, by the PMO, outside this place, and Liberal members are just as frustrated as members on this side.

I completely support my friend in what he said. The Prime Minister's comments speak volumes about his respect for the House of Commons. I think that basically sums it up.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would remind members again that we are discussing foreign missions and international organizations.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think your reminder is timely.

In response to my point of order before, the member is quite right, everything we do in the House is related to everything else that we do in the House and it is not difficult to make those relationships. For example, he has been discussing property rights and endangered species. I am pleased to see that there is an element of compensation in the current Endangered Species Act but, as Mr. Speaker just pointed out, this act has to do with foreign missions and international organizations.

What does the member think about the change in the legislation in the definition of international organizations? Does he not think this is an appropriate thing to do at this time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what that has to do with property rights.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robertson is a gentleman in Ottawa who spent quite a few decades as the privy council president. This past winter he said that our system of government had evolved into a form of elected dictatorship and that cabinet had become nothing more than a focus group. I am concerned that there be a separation between the powers of the police and the state, especially given the comments made by a very respected person in this town and one whose opinion I respect.

I just wonder whether we should not really be focused on separating the power between the dictatorship and the police force and make sure they work in an arm's length relationship.

I would ask my colleague from Medicine Hat if he has any such concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the inability of parliament to insert itself truly into this debate. We are having a debate today and the minister is not here. None of the ministers are here. We are sitting here--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member is a veteran of the House. He knows perfectly well that he cannot refer to the absence of any minister nor any member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the ability of parliament to become relevant in these sorts of debates. With rare exceptions, the decisions are made well before the legislation gets to this place. Again, Liberal members are just as frustrated about this as we are.

I have talked privately with many Liberal members. When we go to committee to sit down and talk about making changes to bills, I often see a parliamentary secretary hovering like a hawk, waiting for any sign that there might be some deviation from the government line on a piece of legislation, and if there is, members are brought to heel very quickly. That is unfortunate. We have competent people on all sides of the House who should be allowed to do their job, which is to represent their constituents and to use their talents and skills wisely.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will, upon conclusion of my remarks, attempt to address some of the concerns that have been raised.

But I will not discuss the price of eggs in China.

I think basically that is the kind of thing that has been brought into the House today. I am disappointed when I hear speakers complain as they do about their perception of parliament not being relevant and then go on to list anything but what we are discussing today, which is Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

I would assure the House that as a Liberal member I am quite able to discuss and put forward my frustrations, such as they may be, and have never had need for the opposition parties to convey my frustrations. I have always been able to do that.

To move to the topic at hand, which is Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, I am pleased to perhaps bring a focus to the discussion today that not only are we amending an act but we are doing it at a time and within the ambience of the very tragic events in the United States, which reminded us that threats to public safety are of a global concern, that no system is infallible and that no country is immune.

Our commitment is to protect persons who attend international meetings in Canada. That is our focus and it is very clear. It is incumbent upon us, when we host any kind of meetings of organizations, to have the legislative power and authority to ensure the safety of everyone involved. As was mentioned, Canada is obligated to do so under various international conventions. The amendments that we brought forward clarify our ability to fulfill that obligation.

In June 2002, Canada will be hosting the G-8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta. This will be the first meeting of world leaders since the horrendous acts of September 11. In preparing for this event, we will need to take all necessary steps to protect our international visitors and to ensure the meeting can take place safely.

These amendments provide clear statutory authority to support security measures and to ensure public safety and the safety of foreign delegations at international meetings hosted in Canada such as the G-8 summit.

The amendments also help us to respond with greater certainty to continuing and growing threats and to public safety in a world that has so remarkably and fundamentally changed since September 11.

Does the statutory authority to provide security mean that the police will have broader powers? Absolutely not.

I want to just digress from the notes that I had planned. I think there is a failure on the part of some members to understand that the federal government, in this situation, is attempting to umbrella two systems. One is the common law which we develop according to precedent. The law is growing and very much, as Thomas Aquinas said, a living thing.

At the same time, the province of Quebec has the code civile, the Napoleonic code. Instead of developing in a similar way as the common law, the Napoleonic code has all of what one wants contained in a statute written down and codified. It is incumbent on the federal government then to create legislation that recognizes and allows both systems to function within our ambit.

What I think is causing some concern here with regard to police powers is that all the authority has been very much in place within the ambit of common law. What these amendments attempt to do is clarify and codify in a manner that allows for no confusion. What is happening is that the confusion is occurring on the other side of the House.

The police have always had the authority to take whatever necessary and reasonable security measures were required to protect internationally protected persons and to preserve the peace in order for the important business of these international events to proceed. These amendments would simply clarify in statute police powers that are already in place.

This is also in line with legislation adopted by other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand which have gone ahead and clarified police powers in similar circumstances, just as we are going to contend with within these amendments. This is the prudent thing to do given the changing nature of international meetings and evolving challenges to global security.

In traditional diplomatic situations in the past, frequently the dialogue and negotiations occurred on a bilateral basis. Therefore, the immunities and all of what was set up within the Vienna convention were aimed to apply to what was the traditional method of conducting diplomacy, which was in a bilateral setting.

However, today, as we have evolved more and more, a great deal of our negotiations and our protocols are an end result of multilateral negotiations and rather than just occasional multilateral negotiations, they occur within the ambit of permanent international organizations that continue on a weekly-monthly basis, many of which have headquarters in Montreal and in other parts of Canada.

Specifically, the amendments would clarify three things:

First, the RCMP's role for assuming primary responsibility to ensure security for the proper functioning of an international conference attended by internationally protected persons.

Second, the RCMP's authority to take security measures, such as controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to an area in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances.

Third, they clarify the fact that these statutory police powers do not affect the powers that the RCMP and other provincial and municipal police forces otherwise have under common law.

I would like to highlight to the House the tremendous co-operation that now takes place between the RCMP and its provincial and municipal counterparts to ensure the safe and secure running of these events.

The security for the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, for example, was the largest operation of its kind in recent Canadian history. It involved a partnership of over 3,600 RCMP members, 2,700 members of the Sûreté du Québec and 500 members of the Quebec City and Ste-Foy municipal police forces.

I wish to assure the House and Canadians that the RCMP will continue to work with its many international, federal, provincial and municipal partners to provide the most appropriate and effective security arrangements for all federally hosted international meetings much as it did in Quebec City.

The threat that faces us in the aftermath of September 11 will not be easily removed. Our actions will be ruled by resolve. If laws need to be improved they will be. If security has to be increased it will be. However our actions will continue to be driven by the need to safeguard the values that we cherish, the values of hope, freedom and tolerance to the world.

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, everyone has the fundamental freedoms of, among others, assembly, expression and association.

These amendments balance the government's need to ensure public safety and the need to protect an individual's right to demonstrate, as has been mentioned, openly, publicly but in a safe setting. They are in no way intended to hinder peaceful protest. Any security measures taken by the police will still need to satisfy charter requirements: that they are necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The amendments will help us to respond with greater certainty to a changed world. They will ensure public safety and the safety of our visitors at international meetings hosted by Canada. They will build on the success of partnership that police forces across jurisdictions have demonstrated at past international events. They will also protect the cherished values and freedoms that define what is meant by being a Canadian.

I certainly hope that some of the confusion that has been exhibited in speeches here and at the first reading have been addressed by my remarks. If not, I would be pleased to answer any questions that my colleagues may wish to ask.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is aware of the fact that in times like these the government must respond. We must look at existing legislation but we need to be careful not to overreact in the area of the charter of rights and freedoms and the values we all hold dear.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary two questions, one to do with security and one to do with international organizations.

First, there is an amendment with respect to security and the powers of our security organizations. Does this mean that until now police have been unauthorized to protect people who attend high level international meetings in Canada?

Second, why at this time do we need to extend diplomatic immunities to international organizations not established by treaty?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Peterborough for his questions. With regard to the security question I would assure the member that police can provide such protection under common law, as was mentioned earlier. However the amendment hopes to clarify that power. To assuage some of the concerns across the way, clarification frequently leads to a delineation that is meant to make clear that police have a certain authority beyond which they cannot go. They cannot extend it to levels that would concern people. Clarification frequently means exactly that. That is all we are hoping to attain by moving out of the realm of common law and into a codification of that power.

The second question, a very good one, was with regard to international organizations that have not been established by treaty. This allows us to grant immunities and privileges by order. It is not an automatic trigger. It requires an order to be passed to organizations and conferences.

For instance, the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the G-8 are organizations that meet frequently in different places and have not been established by treaty. It almost goes without saying, but I guess we now need to say it in an amendment, that people who attend the OSCE, G-8 or similar bodies must have the same immunities and privileges as those who attend organizations set up within the ambit of a treaty. Staying with the G-8, I suppose it is timely to have this clarified and in place.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight, at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester, National Defence; the hon. member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, Airline Safety; and the hon. member for Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan, Transportation.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.