Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2001

Starred Questions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 73. I ask that the question and the answer to Question No. 73 be printed in Hansard as if read.

*Question No. 73

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

With regard to grants, contributions and/or loan guarantees made either by a Crown corporation, a department and/or an agency of the government to General Motors in Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, for each fiscal year since 1965: ( a ) how many such grants, contributions and/or loan guarantees were made; ( b ) what was the source and value of each grant, contribution and/or loan guarantee; ( c ) on what dates were they issued; ( d ) what was the reason such assistance was provided; and ( e ) what is the present status of the grant, contribution and/or loan guarantee (whether repaid, partially paid, or unpaid, including the value of the repayment)?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed as follows: Industry Canada--In 1987 the minister of regional industrial expansion, a predecessor department to Industry Canada, and the Quebec government provided a cost shared 50:50 30 year interest free loan to General Motors of Canada, GM, totalling $220 million conditional on the upgrading of the Ste-Thérèse plant’s paint facility and the awarding by GM of a new product mandate. The loan is repayable in April 2017, whether or not the plant’s operations are maintained.

Transport Canada--1995-96 until September 2001, nil; 1964-65 to 1994-95, regrettably the information is not available. According to guidelines from the National Archives of Canada records related to grants and contributions must be kept for six years after which they may be disposed of.

Insofar as the other departments, agencies and crown corporations, they have reported no information on this question.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement government orders will be extended tonight by 32 minutes.

The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to talk about Bill C-35, which we spoke about last night. I appreciate your indulgence.

The fact of the matter is that I find it rather strange that we have this contradictory situation. The Minister of Transport has just introduced a bill increasing security and is spending a great deal of attention on focusing on enhancing security in the transport system, and as well we have Bill C-36 which increases police powers and creates new arrest powers for police, and here we are talking about Bill C-35 which expands immunity from our laws. It seems we are going one way with the two bills we are discussing today, and with Bill C-35 we are going in a completely different direction.

Bill C-35 is an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. Essentially it expands immunity far beyond anything we have ever done. Most Canadians think of diplomatic immunity as applying only to diplomats. The bill expands it much more broadly so that it is not just for diplomats. The bill expands it in a whole new definition of people who would quality for immunity under our new laws.

I will quote from one newspaper, in which Greg Weston states about the bill that:

Under it, anyone showing up at international...[conferences]...that's delegates, officials, staff, families, bag-carriers, mistresses--would have diplomatic immunity to rape, steal, drive drunk and otherwise break Canadian laws with impunity, compliments of our national government.

The bill includes delegates, officials, staff, family, bag carriers, everyone, along with the diplomats, so it is no longer diplomatic immunity; it is immunity that covers everyone who attends an international conference in Canada. We think it is unnecessary and goes far beyond anything that is required.

The newspaper article continues with respect to how immunity would be determined. One foreign affairs official quoted in the newspaper states:

If we give (diplomatic) privileges and immunities for a meeting, then all of the participants we let in for that meeting will get it.

This direction is completely different from the one we have taken before with respect to diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity was always provided in order to avoid harassment of diplomats and to ensure that the senior diplomats were protected from harassment by foreign governments, and in any case this does not happen in Canada, but now we have expanded it to a wide range of officials, assistants and staff so that they can come to Canada, break our civil and criminal laws and completely disregard the laws because they can claim immunity, even though it is far more than diplomatic immunity now.

It is so ironic that Bill C-36 is imposing new penalties on Canadians, giving police new powers and even creating new laws against Canadians at the very same time that we are debating Bill C-35 in the House, which is giving diplomatic immunity to a whole new range of people who attend meetings in Canada. It is completely contradictory and makes no sense.

Yesterday one of the government members suggested that we needed this very desperately so we could allow conferences like the upcoming G-8 conference in Alberta to be held. I disagree. We do not need this for that purpose. I do not think we have ever had a complaint. No one has ever said “I am not coming to Canada because I do not have diplomatic immunity. I am not coming to Canada because I cannot break civil laws and criminal laws and get away with it”. We do not need this expansion of diplomatic immunity and we should not be doing it.

There is absolutely no transparency in the bill. It removes the accountability to parliament about who claims diplomatic immunity. There is no obligation for the Department of Foreign Affairs to tell Canadians or parliament or the foreign affairs committee who claims diplomatic immunity. There should be a clause in the bill which states that every year or twice a year or four times a year the government must come to the foreign affairs committee or to parliament and present a report on who claimed diplomatic immunity and why.

Furthermore, it puts Canadians at further risk. Instead of tightening up security, the bill reduces security and increases the risk to Canadians. Not having an annual report creates an enhanced opportunity for repeat actions, such as the awful accident that took place on January 27 last year and to which we refer quite often.

In that case, a foreign diplomat had repeat offences but no one knew about it except the department. No one knew about it because there was no requirement for annual reporting. Had there been a requirement for annual reporting, this diplomat who had a series of offences would have been well known to the public, to the parliamentarians and to the foreign affairs committee. I am absolutely convinced that if this knowledge had been available he would not have had the opportunity to offend one more time. However, it was not available and he did offend one more time.

The bill does nothing to address that. The same thing could happen again without an amendment which requires an annual reporting. It just seems like such a common sense amendment and it is very disappointing that the government has refused this amendment. Many other amendments have been proposed and turned down. In fact, to the best of my knowledge all amendments were turned down even though many of them were sensible and were not intended to distort the bill or change the direction of it in any way, shape or form. They were common sense, thoughtful amendments but they were just turned down on principle.

The whole purpose of the bill is to avoid inappropriate harassment and we do not have any examples of that in Canada. We do not have any claims about inappropriate harassment against diplomats so I do not know why we are expanding this to cover more people. Even the people who are now covered have never complained, to the best of our knowledge. Staff members, assistants or officials have never said they would not come to Canada because Canada does not have immunity for them, and so what if they did say they were not coming to Canada if they did not have immunity? If they need immunity to avoid our laws and our criminal and civil actions we do not want them anyway. I do not know why we are expanding this immunity to cover all these new officials. Broadening the scope of coverage for diplomatic immunity really distorts it and creates more security risks for Canadians. It does not deal with it in an appropriate way.

Again, at the very least there should be an annual report about who claims diplomatic immunity in the country. There is not one, so in effect there could be diplomats who have a series of offences and claim diplomatic immunity time and time again. No one would ever know and the action that could be taken if parliament and public knew would not be. Again, let me say one more time that there should be an amendment for including annual reporting.

It is not all negative. We support some aspects of the bill. Certainly one is that the bill provides greater clarity for the role of the RCMP. In the international conferences I have been involved with there was a lot of confusion about who was in charge, about whether it was the local police, the provincial police, the RCMP or whatever. The bill makes it very clear that the RCMP is in charge of security at international conferences and that is a good thing. However, that was generated perhaps to some extent by the Hughes report on the APEC conference in Vancouver, which was such a fiasco. That report also suggested that there should be regulations to prevent politicians from interfering with the RCMP and there is no condition or clause in the bill that requires politicians to not interfere with the RCMP in the course of its duties. That was a recommendation by the Hughes report which was not addressed, so although the RCMP clearly is now in charge there is no restriction on politicians interfering with the RCMP while it is doing its job.

Another aspect of the bill our party does not like is that it further centralizes within the bureaucracy the power to allocate immunity from the law. For instance, special visitors now have to apply to the immigration minister's office to come to Canada if there is some concern about whether they qualify to come here. If there is some concern about whether or not they qualify for a visa they can apply to the minister of immigration. That will go with the enactment of this bill. They would apply through officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose job is probably to encourage the international meeting to take place in the first place. They may not be objective or they may be overwhelmed with applications from people who are coming to these conventions. As the newspaper article says, if we give immunity to one we have to give immunity to all, as a Department of Foreign Affairs official was quoted as saying.

Again, instead of having the department of immigration, which has expertise in this field, examine these visas and applications, it will be locked in with the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is most anxious to see these conventions occur and be well attended. Perhaps its officials will not analyze these applications. The foreign affairs official said that if we give immunity to one we must give it to all. It does not bode well. It does not give us any level of comfort that these immunity conditions will be granted with the proper authority and the proper consideration. We think they may be given too broadly. Even though the bill is broad, they may be expanded under the licence provided by the bill.

Again, the amendment our party proposed would have required annual reporting. Had that been in place there is a really good chance that the accident on January 27 of this year would never have happened. The diplomat had a track record of offences but no one knew about it. No one knew about it because he claimed diplomatic immunity, so there was no record. The public and parliament did not know that the man was a repeat offender. Had there been a public accounting annually, quarterly or even twice a year, parliament would have known. The embassy certainly would have been uncomfortable knowing that one of their diplomats was publicly named over and over again for offences. I believe that if the embassy involved would not have sent the diplomat home we would have insisted that he go home. However, we did not know about it because there was no requirement to report to parliament. This condition is still the same. The same thing could happen again. There could be a diplomat who is a repeat offender out there right now who we do not know about and never will know about. There is no requirement in the bill for an annual reporting on who applies for diplomatic immunity.

We hope that the minister will see the sense in this. It is interesting that Bill C-36 was amended by the attorney general to allow exactly what we are asking for in Bill C-35. The attorney general said that because of the opposition motions and the attention the opposition has put on this the government will have included in Bill C-36 a requirement for an annual report. This only happened two days ago, when she announced that the bill would be amended to include an annual report. Bill C-35 will still not have an annual report requirement, even though the same criteria and the same reasoning apply to Bill C-35. The government is going one way on one bill and another way on the other bill. There is no reason not to have annual reporting.

Another disconcerting part is the fact that the permission to come to Canada is transferred from the minister of immigration through special permits to the department. It is lumped in with many other aspects of the applications for the meetings.

These are our main concerns about the bill. Our party will not support the bill because of these very clear shortcomings. If the amendments were accepted we would probably support the bill, but instead of increasing security for Canadians it reduces it when everything else we are doing in the House is trying to increase security.

This morning the Minister of Transport tabled a bill to increase security regarding transport. The Minister of Finance said upcoming budget will focus totally on security. Bill C-36 is the anti-terrorism bill and is totally focused on security. Yet we have Bill C-35 in the middle, which expands immunity and allows people to avoid being held accountable under our civil and criminal laws. It is a complete contradiction to everything else the government is doing. Our party believes the bill should be sent back, as the amendment we are speaking to today refers to. The amendment asks that the bill be sent back to committee for reconsideration. Our party supports the amendment. If the bill goes back for reconsideration to the committee and is amended, then perhaps our party will change its position. If it does not, our party will not be supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cumberland--Colchester for his remarks. I would just like to follow up on some of them with a couple of questions.

He made the point that he did not see the reason why we needed to extend immunity to essentially foreign visitors to conventions. I wonder, though, whether he should consider the way Canada is perceived or the way these conventions are perceived by other countries. We have a situation now where difficulties occur when these conventions are organized. We have violence. We have protests that are out of control.

I wonder whether one of the reasons why it is necessary to extend immunity is that foreign visitors to these conventions may feel that they need this extra protection wherever they go in the world for these conventions. Perhaps they do not realize that Canada is a very orderly nation. We do obey the rule of law. Perhaps what they are seeking, on international terms, is legal protection. It is not just Canada they are worried about. It is other countries where these conventions may be held. Perhaps it is a perception thing that makes this necessary.

I would also very briefly like to point out the fear expressed by the member for Cumberland--Colchester that these people who get immunity will abuse it in the same sense that happened with the Russian diplomat with respect to drunk driving incidents. There is a difference because the immunity that is involved in the bill is only temporary. It is for people who are coming to the country for a few days for a convention and then leaving. It is not quite in the same category as diplomats who are here for years.

Are these fears that maybe the member for Cumberland--Colchester has somewhat overstated and perhaps not as serious as he might think they are?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. He has been a long standing supporter of access to information. I am sure he would support my amendment, if he had the chance to do so, to have an accounting once a year on who claimed diplomatic immunity under the new regulations.

To address his question, I do not see the connection between the violence in Canada at international meetings and protests that are out of control. I do not know how that affects the participants in the meeting unless they are involved in the violence, in which case, I do not think they should have immunity. If they come to Canada to protest for some reason and they do not obey our laws, then I do not think they should have immunity.

He mentioned the fact that they were here for a short term and it was short term immunity. If there is an accident or a crime that involves a death or an injury, it is still a death or an injury whether it is short term or long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too listened to the remarks of my colleague from across the floor. I find a number of things rather disconcerting, but particularly it is his criticism of making the change from the Immigration Act of obtaining a certificate from the minister and bringing that under the ambit of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The expert witness who dealt very specifically with that issue at committee made it very clear that he thought it was a very good amendment. It allowed for the same discretion that he as an expert saw as requisite. It put it where it should be, which is within the Department of Foreign Affairs. In fact, it is not something that will be carelessly done but rather will be dealt with case by case and requires an order in council.

I have difficulty with his inability to see that. Perhaps he could share his insight.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention but the witness who made that comment was the government witness. Also according to the newspaper article by Greg Weston, which I am assuming is correct, he said that if we gave diplomatic privileges and immunities for a meeting, then all the participants that we let in for that meeting would get it.

This is different from the minister of immigration looking at an individual application and saying that this person does not qualify or that this is a person we do not want to have in Canada who has diplomatic immunity from our civil and criminal laws.

What this foreign official has said is that if one gets in, they all get in. That does not sound to me like the Department of Foreign Affairs, according to this foreign affairs official, will analyze individual applications as in the past when a minister issued a special ministerial permit. This is almost blanket coverage, according to this foreign affairs official who was quoted in the paper. If anybody is allowed into these meetings, then everybody in the delegation will be allowed in and that is my concern.

I do not believe that I am exaggerating or that any other aspect of my comments was not realistic or practical.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester for the work he has done on this bill and for his remarks which were put in a very measured context of legitimate concerns. Sadly we have seen time and time again in this place that the government does not like any form of criticism, even constructive criticism.

When he referred to the bill, he encapsulated in his remarks the fact that individuals might be given this immunity in coming to a country and that much of the decision making as to who attended and who was the beneficiary of this immunity would be done by those attending these conferences. That is very much the focus of this particular bill.

I would suggest there is an implicit pressure on officials to ensure that the conference is a success and that individuals will be encouraged to attend. That puts equally in place an implicit pressure to ensure that this immunity is extended to encourage attendance and participation.

If the decision is being made by those who are very often involved and in charge of the organizing and will be left to bear the pressures and take responsibility for the success or failure of that conference, does this not again potentially politicize the decision making? Does this not leave those who are now vested with the power with a conflict of interest, in a sense, in making that decision and does it not remove the political accountability that would exist under the old system, where the minister would to make the decision and bear the fallout when that decision has been taken?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is very much a part of our concern with the bill, that there was and is right now a very clear set of rules and a system that ensures that applicants who come to Canada are screened individually, one on one.

This transfers it to almost a group approval. As the member mentioned, it has almost been relayed to us as a tourism bill, to promote tourism and the ability of Canada to hold international events. However, if people are not coming to Canada because they cannot come with protection against breaking our laws, civil and criminal, then why do we want them in the first place?

I do not think people would say they would not go to a G-8 meeting in Canada because they could not break the laws and get away with it. I do not think they have ever come to a parliamentary meeting and said they would not go to Canada because they could not break the laws and get away with it.

We do not need this expanded immunity at this time especially. We should not have it. The government should remove it. As a matter of fact the last line from the newspaper article is complimentary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It says “Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley and his officials have recently been doing—”

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but you cannot refer to an member by his name. It is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Even if I am trying to give him a compliment, Mr. Speaker? The article states:

(The) Foreign Affairs Minister and his officials have recently been doing an admirable job cracking down on law-breaking diplomats. They should continue their good work by consigning this particular legislation to the nearest shredder.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at the final stage of debate at third reading of Bill C-35 to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus and once again to oppose strongly the passage of the legislation.

I regret that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Mercier at the report stage of this bill was rejected. That amendment was to delete clause 5 of the bill, a very dangerous provision.

However the House voted against the amendment of my colleague from Mercier and we are now at the point of reviewing the overall legislation.

I have to pick up on the comments of my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. He asked quite eloquently why we even needed the legislation.

There are three major elements to the legislation. The first element which I want to touch upon is the issue of extending diplomatic immunity in a very sweeping way. We were told in committee that the reason for this was reciprocity and that we had to amend our legislation to extend, in a very dramatic way, immunity to people coming into Canada for a conference so that Canadians would be protected in other countries in similar circumstances. It might just be an informal conference between Canada and another country, but anyone associated with the meeting would have full diplomatic immunity.

When I asked in committee for the proof or evidence that there was a problem for Canadians attending conferences in other countries, the government ministers were silent. They simply could not answer the question. I asked them to give us a single example of a circumstance in which we had a problem at an international conference as a result of the absence of the reciprocity they were trumpeting. It did not exist.

What is the underpinning for this extension of diplomatic immunity? The Liberals can argue that this will only be the case for a conference and that people will only be here for a few days. However I think Canadians are more and more concerned about the whole nature of the sweeping immunities given to those who are considered diplomats and others attending foreign conferences in Canada.

That is the first point I want to make. We categorically reject those provisions of the legislation that would extend even further the ambit of that diplomatic immunity. Rather what we should be doing is promoting far greater awareness, accountability and transparency in the area of the existing diplomatic immunities.

My colleague from Cumberland--Colchester has proposed an annual report of the extent upon which these immunities are being relied by diplomats in Canada. That is an important step but it is one which unfortunately the government has rejected.

The issue came to the fore a few months ago with the tragic death of an Ottawa woman who was out walking her dog with a friend. A drunken Russian diplomat ran into her and killed her. This was not the first time this diplomat had been involved in drunk driving. He had been warned before and sent back. Why did it take the death of an innocent woman who was out walking her dog before the government finally tightened up the provisions on drunk driving by diplomats in Ottawa?

It is shameful that the government did not tighten this up significantly before then. The first time diplomats are involved in that kind of disgraceful conduct of drunk driving or refusing to take a breathalyzer, they should be given the boot and kicked out of the country immediately under the provisions of the Canadian law. They should not be given more opportunities to break that law. That is our first concern. We do not accept the extension.

The second concern is with respect to the issue of the permits under the Immigration Act. This issue is a straightforward one. As it now stands, participants who wish to come to Canada to involve themselves in international conferences, and who have a criminal record which otherwise would render them inadmissible to Canada, are required to get a minister's permit to attend that conference.

What is the problem with that?. Why should that not continue to be the case? Any other person who wants to enter Canada, who has that kind of criminal record, is required to have a permit. The law has worked quite effectively so far. It has not barred anyone. The example the minister gave was Nelson Mandela. My recollection is that Nelson Mandela came to Canada with no difficulty whatsoever.

Why should there be one standard for those diplomats or international officials who come here to attend conferences and another standard for everybody else? I do not accept that and my colleagues in the New Democrat caucus do not accept that double standard.

A minister's permit is a minister's permit and it does not unduly inconvenience those who would participate in these conferences whatsoever. But surely, if an individual has been involved in serious criminal wrongdoing, we have a right to ask that the person apply, just as any other person would apply, for a permit to be able to participate in these international conferences. That is the second major element that we oppose in the bill.

The third and by far the most important and dangerous provision is clause 5. It is a new clause that extends unprecedented sweeping powers to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to the issue of security for international meetings in Canada.

We are told that all this is doing is just codifying existing law. If that is the case, the obvious question would be why do we need this statute at all if it is not broadening the powers but simply codifying the existing powers? We do not need it at all.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, on which I have the honour to sit, took what is not an unprecedented but what is an extraordinary step. After passing the bill on division, with all opposition parties opposing the bill, a couple of members on the Liberal side of the House actually abstained in the vote. That is almost unprecedented as well. After the bill was reported, the same committee that heard the evidence submitted a separate report to the House on the bill. It virtually never happens that a standing committee that deals with legislation feels the necessity to submit a strong report to the government asking it to hold on because the committee has grave concerns about the bill.

I will quote from the report. I think Canadians have a right to know just exactly how concerned all members, including government members, were about the provisions of the legislation. The report submitted to the House said that whereas the testimony of expert legal witnesses before the foreign affairs committee on Bill C-35 has dealt with the issue of article 5:

--and has raised serious concerns about the adequacy and interpretive clarity of the existing language in article 5, notably in regard to the provisions regarding the primary responsibility of the RCMP for taking measures, including the establishment of security perimeters that are appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances;

Whereas, notwithstanding the existing authority of peace officers under the common law, of the RCMP under the RCMP Act and under other statutory authority pertaining to the security of internationally protected persons, article 5 will for the first time in statute give the RCMP explicit powers to establish security perimeters for certain conferences of an international nature;

Whereas these codified RCMP powers may affect the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens in relation to such conferences;

Whereas the testimony heard by the committee strongly pointed towards the desirability of a broader review of the statutory authorities governing police powers in respect of future situations within Canada where security perimeters may be warranted;

The committee urges the government to take into account the legitimate concerns which have been expressed in regard to the drafting of article 5 of the bill.

That is a very strong signal from the foreign affairs committee that clause 5 in the bill, the heart of the bill in many respects, is not acceptable. When there is a unanimous report from the committee saying to look out, that there are some real reservations about the clause, instead of listening to that and voting to amend the bill by deleting that clause and sending the issue back to the government, what did the trained seals on the government side do? They stood up and voted against their own colleagues on the foreign affairs committee who said to watch out for that particular clause.

They said that rightly. We are looking at this bill in the context of other legislation, in particular in the context of Bill C-36, the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation. It is very dangerous and draconian legislation. This week the Minister of Justice introduced some amendments to that bill, but it still falls far short of what is acceptable.

She did not touch the sections for example on the Official Secrets Act. She did not touch the sections on investigative hearings. She did not even subject them to sunset clauses. The definition of terrorist activity is still far too broad. Her so-called five year sunset clause in reality is a 10 year sunset clause because it can be extended by a simple majority vote in the House. That is not a sunset clause at all.

The fact is that the sun should never have risen on a number of the key provisions of that anti-terrorism bill. It is ironic that in the same week in which Nelson Mandela--

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding, and certainly it is written in the House order for the day, that we should be discussing Bill C-35. I would ask that the hon. member constrain his remarks to that bill and perhaps look to another opportunity to discuss Bill C-36.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is much more a point of debate, but the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas has certainly heard the message.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point of debate which I intend to ignore completely because it is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is we are talking about a bill that deals with police powers. It is very much relevant to look at the broader context in which these police powers are going to be exercised.

We have already seen the extent to which the police are abusing their existing powers and perhaps testing out the powers that they do not even have yet under Bill C-36. We have seen that in the context of Quebec City and the abuse of police power there. We saw it just last weekend in Ottawa where the police waded into a crowd of peaceful, non-violent protesters and singled people out for preventive detention. They sicced unleashed German shepherd dogs on innocent, non-violent, peaceful protesters. It was a disgrace. And this same government wants to give them more powers? I do not think so.

As I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. member, it is ironic that this week as well the House of Commons joined in celebrating the extension of honorary citizenship to Nelson Mandela. Under the provisions of that same anti-terrorism legislation, Nelson Mandela would have been very likely branded as a terrorist and those Canadians who supported his struggle against apartheid would have been branded as terrorists as well.

As Michel C. Auger wrote recently in the Journal de Montréal ,

The definition remains so broad that it still includes many unpopular or marginal political activities. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Twenty years ago, the present Vice-President of the United States, Dick Cheney, voted in Congress in favour of Nelson Mandela's being considered a terrorist. Today, Mandela is an honorary citizen of Canada. Today, we also have a Canadian Alliance member who described Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

What is certain is that anyone who is a citizen of Palestinian origin, for example, who comes from a troubled area, will now have much more difficulty even discussing the situation in his country.

That is the context within which we have to look at these sweeping new powers that are being requested by the RCMP in this bill. We heard eloquent evidence from a number of witnesses, including Bill Sloan, the president of the American Association of Jurists, and Professor Wesley Pue from the University of British Columbia law school on this issue.

Professor Pue raised deep concerns about the scope of clause 5, proposed section 10.1. He pointed out that there are two major problems with clause 2 around the issue of security perimeters. First of all he noted that the police are given the power to create security perimeters only at international conferences and second, there is absolutely no guidance given to police officers in determining what is appropriate and in which circumstances. When the RCMP erect a security perimeter, this affects a whole range of the rights of Canadians, such as the right of free movement within Canada, the right of assembly and the right of free expression.

On the subject of freedom of speech, I wish to denounce in the strongest terms possible the shameful treatment inflicted by Radio-Canada on journalist Normand Lester. I call upon the government to ask Radio-Canada to cancel his suspension. That is unacceptable in a democracy.

There are other fundamental rights as well: the right to enjoyment of property, the right to work, the right to go lawfully about one's daily life without interruption or harassment by the police.

As Professor Pue notes, a security perimeter affects all of these rights among others. How long will it last? Whose property rights can be derogated from under this security perimeter? Are police required to give notice to affected parties? What is the extent of the perimeter? How big would the perimeter be?

Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has pointed out “to be minimally effective, a demonstration must be able to create an atmosphere of political and social tension for those whose decisions it is trying to influence. While it is appropriate to keep protesters far enough away so that they cannot physically intimidate, they must be sufficiently close in order to politically castigate”. This legislation, Bill C-35, leaves wide open the question of whether indeed that will be the case.

For all of these reasons, because of the sweeping extension and unwarranted extension of diplomatic immunity, because of the removal of the provisions for ministerial orders in the case of those who would attend these international conferences who have criminal records, and finally and most important, because of the very dangerous extension of powers to the RCMP under clause 5 of the bill, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party will be voting against this bill at third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite suggested that Bill C-35 is going to extend immunities in a sweeping fashion to all kinds of classes of individuals coming to international conventions in Canada.

In my reading of the bill unless I am terribly mistaken the decision of extending the immunity rests with the governor in council. Therefore it is not something that is a sweeping power that is granted in the bill at all. The government will still have discretion to not extend this immunity except in those situations where it thinks it is appropriate.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the bill does represent a significant extension because the definitions of international organization and international conference are such that it is going to apply to a whole range of meetings which are not covered under the existing provisions for diplomatic immunity. For that reason, clearly it represents a significant extension of that immunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my hon. colleague's comments. I was somewhat disheartened to see him slip into rhetoric and polemics because I frequently have found him to be more thoughtful and to apply perhaps a more intellectual analysis than I have had to listen to this morning.That is disappointing. I was not surprised by that kind of approach in yesterday's debate by an hon. member from across the way, but I would have held the bar higher for my hon. colleague this morning.

I make particular reference to his mention of clause 5 as being the heart of the bill. This is coming from someone with his background in international politics and his concept and understanding of the Vienna convention, at times totally lacking from the other member. I understand his preoccupation with police powers. As much as we have attempted to explain that this is a codification of common law, his past has given him a great fear of police powers. However that is not reflected in the normal Canadian and in the polls wherein Canadians have asked us to provide the security and to do so of course intelligently.

On matters with regard to immunities, because of his background which I have described, he is very cognizant of the fact that there are consular and there are diplomatic levels. Unlike the colleague to his left from Cumberland--Colchester who spoke earlier, this is not just a matter of throwing open the doors to every conceivable official who comes into the country allowing them immunities on that scale.

I ask him to respond to those two issues that I have raised and to do so free of the rhetoric.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does raise some important issues. With respect to police powers, she has suggested that perhaps it is because of my own background and my involvement at Quebec City that I am particularly sensitive to this.

The fact is I think more and more Canadians are asking questions about the abuse of police powers at these international conferences. Any Canadian who witnessed on television the scene of the German shepherd dog being sicced on a peaceful protestor who was lying prone on the ground had to be deeply troubled about what was happening.

Any Canadian who was aware of the fact that over 900 rubber bullets were fired in Quebec City and over 5,000 tear gas cannisters were used has to be troubled about the abuse of police power.

This morning on CBC radio I heard the story of a young woman who was having a meal in the Rideau Centre in Ottawa on the weekend. She had been involved in a peaceful, non-violent protest. She had a sign beside her while having her lunch. She was detained, arrested and questioned by the police.

When the hon. member says that the government is simply codifying the existing powers of the RCMP, she knows very well, as we heard from a number of witnesses, that is not the case. Professor Sloan and Professor Pue said that this was extending those powers.

I have to say that before we in any way codify those existing powers, we need to have an independent inquiry as to the abuse of those powers under the current provisions of the law, both in the context of the G-20 and in the context of Quebec City.