Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2001

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's comments. As a long term member of parliament, I am guessing that he has probably been aware of or participated in hundreds of international meetings.

A government member recently said that we need the bill for the G-8 session in Alberta. I do not know what the consequences would be, but the inference was that if we did not have the bill in place the G-8 would not be successful in Alberta.

With all the experience the member has and all the conferences he has attended and participated in, has anyone to his knowledge ever said that he or she would not come to Canadian without diplomatic immunity from breaking the civil or criminal laws?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. In fact, that is one of the questions I put to the witnesses in committee.

The short answer is, absolutely not. In fact, I have to ask the other question: How was it that the G-20 was able to go ahead in Ottawa this past weekend just fine? Over 20 different countries participated, finance ministers, the heads of the central banks in those countries, and somehow it went ahead without the bill, yet we are told that we need the bill for the G-8.

I do not think the bill is necessary. The G-20 was able to function just fine without the legislation and I think the G-8 will be able to function just as effectively.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question with regard to what the hon. member said about police powers.

There seems to be quite a voice going throughout the country from people at the grassroots level saying that giving up privacy rights if it will achieve catching terrorists, et cetera, that a large percentage of the people are behind that kind of movement.

I gather from what the member said that he would not agree with the results of the polls that are being taken in that regard. I know privacy is a big issue with many people but apparently as high as 75% of Canadians have expressed the view that they are prepared to give up some of their privacy rights to fight terrorism. How does the hon. member respond to these people?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild Rose raises an important question. It is absolutely true. I have seen the same polls and there certainly is that indication.

However, if the hon. member, for example, were to go home and find out that he or his colleague from British Columbia had a wiretap on their phone because somebody suspected they were subversives, I suspect he might be a little cautious and want to know where the evidence was to back that up.

In the abstract, especially after September 11, when people are asked if they are prepared to give up a bit of their privacy in order to be more secure, most people would say that they absolutely are. That is a natural reaction.

However, I would say that it is precisely at times like this that we have to be most vigilant about our liberties. As Tom Berger wrote, those freedoms are very fragile.

I look back at the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin. I look back at the invocation of the War Measures Act. As the hon. member for Wild Rose said, in both those cases there was a huge majority of Canadians who said that it was the right thing to do.

If we govern just by opinion polls, sure we will get those decisions made, but it is important for there be very careful consideration, not just of opinion polls but of the long term impact of those kinds of violations of some of the most basic rights of Canadians.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a longstanding member of the House as you yourself are. November 21 was the 13th anniversary of my first election to the House. It is also the anniversary for a number of other members in the House of Commons. I also had the opportunity of sitting as a member of the opposition for five years, and have now been in government since 1993.

Opposition members oppose everything. They are there to cause trouble and to exaggerate. I have been there and I know what is done in opposition. The difference is though that suddenly the opposition becomes the government and members have to be responsible and put forward legislation that is necessary at the time. That is what we have been trying to do since 1993, and I believe we have been doing it fairly successfully.

With regard to Bill C-35, we all know that Canada will be hosting the G-8 meeting next year. We do have a responsibility to clarify our authorities in statute to ensure that this event can be properly handled. There is no problem in looking at how things can be done better but that does not mean that we are granting new immunities.

I have sat here and listened to two previous speakers and I can say that there was gross exaggeration. We are not extending immunities. All these people would have come here either through a minister's permit or whatever.

What we are doing is ensuring that it is all done under the authority of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Bill C-35 does not affect the immunity of diplomats or consuls who are already accredited to embassies and consulates in Canada nor does it affect their families. Its primary focus is on international organizations and in that regard it does not expand the level of immunities which the law provides for representatives of foreign states to international organizations or to conferences of such organizations in Canada.

What the bill does ensure is that Canada can treat international organizations or conferences that are not created by treaty, such as the G-8 summit or the summit of the Americas, in the same way that we treat a conference by a body created by treaty. Here I will refer members to the UN and to la francophonie.

However that does not mean that there will be no screening of individuals. I will use la francophonie as an example. Canada asks each individual representative to give a list of their representatives who will be coming into the country. Those people are screened in the usual fashion, by going through CSIS and Immigration Canada. We do not automatically allow everybody into the country. With the falsehoods being stated here it is very important for us to set the record straight.

People will come into the country but only after they have been screened. This has always been the case, whether they come under ministerial permit or otherwise. These screening procedures are in place and there are regular consultations between the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, CSIS and the RCMP. None of that will be bypassed, nor should it be, nor do we want it to be. We are the government. We are responsible people. We do not want people in Canada who average Canadians would not want. This is not a blanket okay to let anybody in. I would be the first to say absolutely not if it were the case. Let us not exaggerate. It is just a better way of being able to handle certain conferences, such as the G-8 which is not a treaty organization.

We talk about diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity is not a licence to commit crimes. The Vienna convention expressly obligates states and their diplomats to obey local laws. The vast majority of diplomats in Canada respect our laws. Everyone listening here today should realize there are hundreds of good people living in Ottawa who follow the laws and with whom we work closely.

Let us not pretend there is a massive problem. There is not. There have been problems. We know of the tragic event involving Ms. Catherine MacLean and Ms. Catherine Doré. That was a terrible event. The person who committed the crime has been charged and we are awaiting his indictment.

That being said, the incident pointed to shortcomings. No one is perfect. It is important to note that we have taken steps to address the shortcomings that were in place before the incident. We all regret the incident and wish we could have done this before. Unfortunately we did not. Hindsight is always 20:20.

However at least I can say our Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken steps. I am told he has demanded quarterly reports with lists of foreign diplomats in Canada who are involved in criminal misconduct. It is important to state that. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said he wants to know every four months what has been happening so this kind of incident will not be repeated. He has also indicated that quarterly reports will be made available subject to appropriate privacy considerations following an access request. As with anything else we cannot just publish the names of individuals.

What is important is that the foreign affairs department will be on top of these situations. It is committed to ensuring accountability and proper examination and control of unacceptable behaviour by foreign representatives. As far as I know all embassies have been notified of this. Procedures are in place to take care of it. We will be as vigilant as members of the opposition. I thank them for that. It is important that we all work together in these cases. Not one of us, whether on this side of the House or that side, wants a repeat of what happened in the past.

I spoke about responsibility in terms of putting legislation forward. My colleague in the NDP spoke about a motion that was passed having to do with clause 5 and police powers in Bill C-35. Yes, there are concerns. We the Liberals on the committee who are the majority passed the motion. We want the solicitor general to come back and report to the House on our concerns regarding police powers within the next 150 days.

We did not do that lightly. We did it because we thought it was important. We want police to have the powers they need to deal with these international events. We are all concerned about the increased violence we have seen around these events. No one wants to see it continue. These events are good. There is dialogue. It is important that Canada participate, especially now in this century, because Canada is probably the first country that can show a face of multiculturalism.

We are the country that is most advanced in terms of dealing with different peoples from different parts of the world. We are populated by immigrants from everywhere. Some of us came a long time ago, some of us have grandparents who came, and some of us are more recent.

While we cannot purport to be perfect we have a way of dealing with new arrivals and making them feel comfortable. We have a way of accepting who they are and where they are from, celebrating our differences and working together.

As many members know, when we travel internationally people ask how Canada has done this. They are impressed by it. We need to continue to lead the world and show others how to live together and build a great country. This is something we have done and on which we need to continue to work. It is something in which we need to play a key role in a century where the migration of peoples means diverse populations must live together. They must all learn to live together as equals because it is the only way this globe will move forward. It is therefore important for Canada to be involved in these conferences.

Bill C-35 by and large is about housekeeping. There are a number of points. It would modernize the legislation to comply with Canada's existing commitments under international treaties and respond to important new developments in international law. It is necessary to correct deficiencies in the existing definition of international organization. That is what Bill C-35 would do. It would not create any new powers. It would simply enable us to deal with them in a similar fashion.

The bill contains amendments designed to provide clear statutory authority to support the security measures necessary for our police to fulfill Canada's international obligations. This is extremely important. Our police forces are very good. They must continue to work together. We have added an amendment to make sure they do. This is important because we need to rely on them more and more.

Does that mean we would give them carte blanche? No, it does not. They are not asking for that. They need to be allowed to do their job. They do their job well and must be allowed to continue to do so. By and large I have confidence that the different levels of policing will continue to behave in a way consistent with the makeup of our country and the kinds of meetings that go on in it.

We talk about people who march for different causes. There many of them. They have legitimate concerns and I want them to be heard. Unfortunately there are hooligans who use legitimate protest marches to do damage. Frankly they detract from the message being brought forward.

I would hope and beg that as much as possible we allow legitimate protestors to protest. However legitimate protestors must be careful they do not condone the kind of wilful damage that sometimes goes on at these conferences. I do not think any Canadian wants that.

As an MP I have had many protests in front of my office in Sudbury. I have no objection to that whatsoever. However over a number of years the protests have become somewhat more violent. The last few times some of the protesters came into the office with drums and loudspeakers. The office is staffed by two people who are by themselves most of the time. They were absolutely terrified. They still are to this day. Whenever there is a new protest we are less likely to ask them to come in because they are afraid.

I often tell them people have the right to protest. They agree but wonder what good it is if protesters can come into the office and frighten people. They wonder why we would want to listen to them. My message to protesters is that they should beware. If they get carried away their message may be lost.

Bill C-35 is a necessary piece of legislation. As I said, we had concerns. We have brought forward amendments that would address those concerns. We have asked for a report. It is important for everyone to realize we want to be responsible. We want to have the proper legislation and tools to deal with these people.

However at no time do we want to let people into Canada who we feel will cause trouble. We will continue to insist on the screening that has always gone on. We will deny access to people on the lists whom we do not want in our country. It happens all the time. Maybe we do not hear about it but I have been there and it happens. Lists must be submitted and every person on the list is screened.

We should support this piece of legislation. Opposition members should support the legislation. However if they do not want to support it they should not exaggerate the things that are in it. What I have heard this morning is a total gross exaggeration. Frankly it is not responsible. We on the other hand must pass legislation that is responsible and that will work for us in Canada. That is what is important.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by congratulating you on your 13 years of service. I can understand how hard it must have been to get started. I appreciate the work you have done. However you may become anesthetized to what is happening because you are now in a position to protect what the government brings forward. I disagree with what you think the role of the opposition is.

The opposition's role is to nudge the government into seeing flaws in its legislation or, if necessary, drag it kicking and screaming into reality. That is what our job is on this side.

I disagree with many of the comments made by my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas today. However, Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the comments made by you.

The problem we have over here is that there are many different pieces of the legislation. The part of concern to me is that it would expand the scope of diplomatic immunity. I have heard it denied on the other side of the House many times but that is in effect what the legislation is about.

Yesterday the member for Waterloo--Wellington and the member for Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford made comments regarding the presentation made by the member for Vancouver Island North. He outlined a number of things that have happened which were not made up or imagined. He talked about occurrences where diplomats in Canada have been involved in cases of rape, assault and drunk driving. He lined them all up. These are the things we have a concern with.

We are not being alarmist if we raise these things. If we have a law that does not protect Canadian citizens from these kinds of actions by people who are covered under the diplomatic section we are in a lot of trouble. We must be more vigilant about this.

I am not concerned about the portions of the bill that would give police additional powers. That is easy to control. I have absolute faith in the police to do what they are supposed to do. I do not agree with protesters who come here and smash windows, create violence and ruin it for the people who have a message they want to deliver to the country and the government. Non-violent protesters deserve to have a voice.

Could the hon. member tell me something that would ease my concerns about the expanded powers the bill would give to people who were not previously covered by diplomatic immunity? If she can do that perhaps I will be more assured about what the legislation is about.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I agree with the member in terms of the role of the opposition. It is the opposition's job to criticize and sometimes yell and scream and do all sorts of things to attract attention. I did the same thing when I was sitting where the member is.

In 1993 when we won the election, I remember thinking, my goodness, now we have to do this thing. It was frightening. It was easy to sit over there and criticize, but it suddenly dawned on me that night that we had to be responsible and do it. It puts a certain responsibility on us here on this side to do things that those in opposition do not have to consider.

Let us talk about the Vienna convention. As much as anything else, the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations is there to protect Canadians abroad. It is very important that we have this convention. We would not want our Canadians representing Canada to be mistreated in other parts of the world. It is important that we have this and that we reciprocate.

That does not mean we have to accept the fact that sometimes people come into our country and commit crimes, obviously not. There are no guarantees and there can be no absolute guarantees to ensure that all of the people who come with immunities will obey the law at all times. When persons with immunity commit serious crimes, the Canadian government has one of the most stringent policies in the world. We seek waiver of immunity to prosecute the individual. Unfortunately we rarely get it, but we do seek it in every instance. Where the request for a waiver is refused, other sanctions, including expulsion from Canada, are taken.

However, what we have to understand is that this piece of legislation does not grant different immunities to this group of people. They would have been granted these immunities by ministerial permit. They would still be allowed into the country for the period of that conference. We would still screen them in the same way. All it does is concentrate them in the same place, those treaty organizations, where they are dealt with. That is what it does. It does not change the level of immunity they would have had if we had left it the way it was. It just streamlines our way of dealing with it.

We are not intent on adding and expanding immunities. That is not what this does. We still screen each person on the list as it is submitted. The foreign affairs department and all the departments have a whole screening process. It is very important to remember that. We do not just admit everyone because they happen to want to come to a conference and claim to be with a particular group. They have to be part of the official list. All the names on the official list are screened, much as, by the way, what happens when we Canadians go to a conference. Our names have to be submitted in advance. Those countries screen the names in the same fashion we do. It is not something new. It is something that carries on, but it is a streamlining of the way we do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out that she was elected 13 years ago yesterday. So was I, but the difference is that I was given a little vacation in 1993 and recycled in 1997 so I can be considered environmentally friendly.

I have two questions for the member. She said several times that those members are now in government so they must be responsible. I think that is a good philosophy, but is it not responsible to ask the government to do an annual accounting of who claimed diplomatic immunity in a given year? We have asked for it and the government has turned it down. I think that is a responsible attitude and approach. It would respect Canadians and would provide Canadians with the information to which they are entitled. It is open and transparent.

It is very important for the member to listen to my second question. She said there is no blanket coverage, but there was a public statement in a newspaper article written by Greg Weston. The statement can only be interpreted as saying that the bill would provide blanket coverage. The member should listen to this statement and if it is wrong, correct it. The statement is that under the bill anyone showing up at international conferences:

--that's delegates, officials, staff, families, bag-carriers--would have diplomatic immunity to rape, steal, drive drunk and otherwise break Canadian laws with impunity, compliments of our national government.

If that statement is not correct, it should be corrected. Would the member say specifically what is wrong with that statement?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the difference, having been elected to government in 1988 when I was elected to opposition. He now sits in opposition. He is very much experienced on both sides of the House and he does know how it operates.

He speaks about wanting a report once a year. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has demanded quarterly reports because he wants to know for sure. Barring privacy considerations, these things can be made public through access to information. It is important to know that it is not once a year that the minister has asked for reports but four times a year. He, as well as the government, has decided we do not want to take any chances that these things can fall by the wayside without notice. It is important to remember that.

The hon. member talks about Greg Weston. I do not know Greg Weston. All I can tell the hon. member is that I do not always believe everything that I see in the newspapers. I will tell you one thing in direct response to your question--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I just want to caution members, notwithstanding everyone's experience in the Chamber, to please direct comments and interventions through the Chair.

I remind the hon. member for Sudbury that she has two minutes left in her intervention.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me that I must pay attention to you, Sir. You as well were elected on the same day I was for the first time.

Let me remind the hon. member that the list of delegates is submitted, the delegates are vetted and then they are given permission to come to the country. It is not permission to come into the country to commit crimes and most of these people never do, so while it appears to be based on some truth, the reality is that people are not allowed to come into the country if they do not first of all pass this scrutiny.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will allow the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester to make a very short intervention. I will ask the member for Sudbury to do likewise in the very little time I will permit.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up a good point. The minister has said he wants quarterly reports. If he feels it is justified for him to have quarterly reports, and it is just a commitment by this minister, why will the government not put it into legislation and obligate all future ministers of foreign affairs to make annual reports to parliament? If it is worth it for the minister, why not make it permanent?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to think that it is now there quarterly and that whether it is in legislation or not we will demand to get these reports every quarter regardless of who is in office. I think we should.

I do not think it is necessary to put it in legislation, but if at some point someone feels that is better, who knows, we may consider it.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice to that of my colleague and thank all those who were elected in 1988 for their sacrifice to the country. It is not a joke. It is honestly said.

Bill C-35 is a very important bill because it has wide ranging implications and ramifications for a number of issues, including foreign policy, diplomatic immunity, immigration, international organizations and such. In regard to the debate that has gone on so far, I want to say that the Vienna convention is necessary not only to protect our diplomats in doing their jobs but to protect those who do the job internationally. However, it does not protect against individuals who hide behind diplomatic immunity and commit indictable offences.

The Vienna convention, in spirit if not in word, does not protect us against individuals who are willing to commit, as my colleague mentioned, murder, rape, theft and the destruction of private property, to knowingly do that and hide behind the Vienna convention and the diplomatic immunity that it affords. That is why we have concerns with the bill and the extension of that immunity.

What we would like to see is the government working with opposition parties to proffer an international solution. We would like to see that for those individuals who are criminals hiding under a diplomatic cloak there is an avenue through which they can be brought to justice, so that they are not immune from justice and above the law, so that indeed, under the common principles that we share as part of the international community, these individuals who do commit crimes, be it in Canada or in another country, be it our own diplomats or those from another nation, will be met with the common law that we share.

There are opportunities, as my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party mentioned. One of the things that can be done is to have the crimes of those who acquire diplomatic immunity made public and transparent. Another option, perhaps under the Hague, is to have a group of two or three judges sent to a country where there are allegations of a diplomat committing an indictable offence. They would preside over a hearing and a court under common international law and the norms of international laws that the international community supports.

Why would we do that? It would ensure that individual diplomats would not be used as scapegoats or unfairly treated by the country in which they are working. It would ensure that their work would not be compromised by virtue of being used or set up by the leaders of the country they are working in. Yet it would provide the civilians of that country with protection against the small number of individuals like the Russian diplomat who killed a Canadian woman here in Ottawa while he was drunk. Now there is no protection from those individuals.

That is something the Minister of Foreign Affairs can take up. It is something he can bring up at the United Nations. I suggest to the government that there would be widespread support in the international community for ensuring that in regard to those people who are criminals hiding behind diplomatic immunity there is a fair and transparent avenue through which they can be brought to justice. That is what we are talking about. Indeed, if the minister would do that I am sure that he would find a great deal of support across party lines.

On the issue of immigration, we brought up the fact that a very small number of individuals coming into the country are criminals. Some of them do come to this country feigning refugee status. Our current system is not able to ensure that we have a steel sieve, as I call it, that enables true immigrants, law abiding immigrants and true refugees to enter Canada but keeps out those individuals who are criminals. We do not have that and my party has been asking for it for a very long time. Can it be done? Absolutely, but it requires a commitment on the part of the minister and the government.

We need appropriate checks and balances at the exit point from which they are coming. We need to differentiate between true and false refugees. We need proper background checks on individuals who are coming in through the usual immigration process.

Individuals who come to this country by plane claiming to be refugees and who do not have identification should be sent back home unless they have a very good excuse for why they do not have identification upon landing at places such as Pearson international airport.

Surely those individuals from other countries had identification when they boarded the plane. They could not have entered the plane without identification. Why do we accept individuals who claim refugee status and do not have any kind of identification? That should not be allowed, with very few exceptions.

I am sure the public would be flabbergasted to know that 40% of individuals claiming refugee status come from the United States. Why are we accepting individuals claiming refugee status who have been living in the United States? I raise this issue not because we are against individuals who claim refugee status but because we are trying to streamline the process so that people who are true refugees can get access into Canada.

The failure of the government to have an adequate refugee assessment policy hurts those individuals who are true refugees trying to get into Canada because either their lives are at stake or they are being persecuted. Above all else, we do a grave injustice to those individuals when we do not fix and get our house in order.

In my office, and I am sure in the offices of many of our colleagues, we are continually confronted by numerous individuals who would be superb immigrants to Canada and would make enormous contributions but numerous obstacles are put in their way. In fact many are sent home.

I am an immigrant and I am beyond being extraordinarily grateful for what Canada has given me. It breaks my heart to see individuals who can make effective contributions, who are working and can work but cannot stay in Canada after they have been here a while.

It is unbelievable that we have a system which does not allow these individuals to stay. Our country needs a larger immigrant population but needs to ensure that the population represents people who can make an effective contribution and integrate into Canadian society and that we truly allow real refugees into Canada.

Heaven knows there are enough of them in the world who need our embrace and protection. We must not allow individuals in who are criminals, false refugees or economic refugees masquerading as refugees.

We are a party to a number of international organizations and we have been signatory to many international treaties. While the treaties are superb on paper they have not prevented numerous tragic, gross violations of the basic rights those treaties purport to support. I am talking about Sierra Leone, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe, East Timor, Burma, and the list goes on. It is a serious problem that the treaties do not have any teeth as they are unable to back up what is on paper with effective action.

Our country needs to take a number of actions with the international community. It needs to assess and determine with our counterparts how to put teeth into these treaties. How can we ensure that treaties will be backed up by action, punitive if necessary, when they are not upheld? What is a piece of paper if there is no consequence to not adhering to it? That is a serious problem and that is the failure of many treaties that we have today.

Another thing we need to look at is how and why we are members of so many organizations. If our participation in an organization is effective then we should participate. We should at least ask whether or not our participation in an organization is worthy, whether that organization is effective, and whether the actions and responsibilities of that organization can be merged with another, thereby saving money, limited resources and indeed our effect.

Umpteen organizations work on the same types of issues all over the world all of the time. The problem is that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and we do not get commitments from all the countries. We tend to have hodgepodge fractured activities, be it the environment or foreign policy.

If September 11 demonstrated anything it shone a bright light on our strengths but more so on our flaws. What it has shown is that we have been living in a bit of a Pollyannaish world over the last nine to ten years. We have been thinking that we were making enormous strides internationally, living up to our defence policy commitments internationally and doing very well economically.

The reality is that Canada has been punching far below its weight for a long time. No one, particularly the government, is looking at a critical analysis of defence, foreign policy, immigration and economic competitiveness which needs to be looked at if Canada is to be competitive internationally and do its part. The hard questions of Canada's role in the world are not being asked. Nor are they being answered other than with the usual rhetorical flourish.

We have to ask those tough questions. We have to find the answers and we have to act on them. Can we? Absolutely. We have an extraordinary wealth of talent within the House as well as across Canada. We have an extraordinary number of individuals that can make effective contributions to answering those questions.

One of the first things we need to do is to conduct a review of our defence and foreign affairs policies. The review of defence and foreign affairs policies must go hand in hand because defence is merely the arm of our foreign policy. If we do not know where we are going from a foreign policy perspective, we do not know where we are going from a defence perspective and we cannot arm and outfit our soldiers to meet our needs effectively.

Where is Canada's niche in the world? What can we do? Is it as a player as it was during and after World War II when it had the fourth largest military in the world? Or, is it to take the other extreme and completely back away from its international obligations and set up a wall around the country? I hope the latter is not the case. Somewhere in between is the balance that we have to strike. Somewhere in between are the effective questions that must be answered.

What is our role in the world? We need to ask ourselves what organizations we will participate in. What are our obligations under NATO? Will we live up to them? We must live up to our NATO obligations, but we also have an incredible role to play internationally in being a peacemaker in a new world order or a new foreign policy that makes the 21st century safer. We can strike while the iron is hot.

The reason I say that is that we have built a coalition. We are a member of a coalition to defeat terrorism. In the construction of this coalition we are partners with groups such as Pakistan, members of the Arab world and others that we had never imagined before. There is an opportunity to work with these groups to ameliorate some of the large challenges that exist today in the world such as Kashmir, Palestine, Israel and the divide between the west and the Arab world. All those issues must be addressed.

If we walk away from this coalition after the so-called war in Afghanistan is won, which is not the end of the issue of terrorism at all, we will have missed an unbelievable opportunity to make the world a safer place. Our country can play an extraordinary role in that for many reasons.

We do not have a history of colonialism. We are respected internationally as a fair player. We do not move the goalposts around in the middle of a game. We sit as a divide between the Far East and Europe, between the north and the south, between the United States and the rest of the world. That is a role and opportunity that no other country in the world has. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, our government and the House can work together to address those challenges in a pragmatic way.

One of the things we need to do on the Kashmir situation is to set up a dialogue between President Musharraf and the prime minister of India. That can be done now in conjunction with the developments in Afghanistan.

We need to work with the Americans and put pressure on the Israeli government to recognize a Palestinian state. Israel must stop building new settlements in Palestinian territory. It must remove those settlements from Palestinian territory forthwith in an effective plan, much as it did in the Sinai when it was setting up a peace agreement with Egypt. Large settlements were removed. So it can be done.

Along with the international community we must say to the Palestinian authority that it must apprehend, arrest and ensure that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups stop the killing of innocent Israeli civilians. The Palestinian authority must clean up its act. The corruption must be routed out. If it is not the economic taps should be turned off. We can enter into a dialogue and bring moderate Israelis and moderate Palestinians together to engage in economic and social co-operation.

We need to look at our economic situation. We have seen a significant slide in our dollar. The slide in our dollar represents many things, but one thing it represents is a tolerance to allow our competitiveness to be held artificially high by allowing our dollar to decline rather than dealing with the roots of competitiveness: education, a lower tax structure, the removal of rules and regulations, and others.

If those questions are addressed we will have an opportunity to ensure that Canada will become economically competitive once again. We owe this to Canadians. If we do not do this we will be left behind.

Unfortunately the government has chosen to paper over cracks and holes in the problems of our country rather than fill them in. It has not sought out the best minds and the best practices in our country and abroad to deal with our problems. If it did that then we would have a country to be proud of. We would have a country that was competitive economically and internationally. We would have a nation that could be at the table as a fair and equal player in the challenges facing us today and tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca when talking about refugees arriving here without proper documentation, took the opportunity of a debate on Bill C-35 to actually make comment on Bill C-11, the immigration bill that received royal assent two weeks ago. Since the hon. member has done that, with your permission Mr. Speaker, I would like to rebut his remarks on Bill C-11.

His proposition was that people who arrive in Canada by air who do not have proper identification or have no documentation whatsoever should be immediately turned around and sent back.

I would remind him that in the real world of people fleeing state terrorism, it is very difficult for genuine refugees to get proper documentation. They often travel on false documentation. When they arrive by aircraft, the people who make those false documents often encourage them to destroy that documentation.

What happens is when they land in Canada there is no documentation, false or otherwise, so their identity is in question. What now occurs is they are very carefully questioned to establish what their actual identity is and then they go through the process.

What is at issue is the abuse. Sometimes false refugees arrive and refuse to undergo the questioning that will determine their identity.

During the report stage of Bill C-11, I moved an amendment that was adopted by the House. The amendment determined that all those who refused to co-operate in determining their identity when they had false documentation or no documentation would be detained until deported.

The loophole was plugged at the same time that we, as a compassionate nation, still permit genuine refugees to arrive without proper documentation. If they co-operate they are landed.

When Bill C-11 went through third reading, the opposition party voted against it. So the very party that the member belongs to and who is criticizing the legislation of Bill C-11 that closed the loophole on improper refugees coming in and refusing to co-operate in disclosing their identity, voted against it.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the member more that we need to be a compassionate society. We need to be compassionate, but we do not need to be a patsy. That is the difference.

Indeed, members of the Immigration and Refugee Board have said just this year that more than 90% of the individuals who come in front of the board claiming refugee status are actually economic refugees. In fact, one of them said that less than 1% were true refugees in the sense that they are defined in international conventions.

We want to ensure a system where true refugees are indeed allowed into Canada. If we do not allow in true refugees, but we allow in economic refugees, we are actually violating our international responsibilities. We are doing an enormous injustice to the vast number of people who do need our protection, who are true refugees and must be brought into Canada.

To deal with the facts again, 40% of the individuals claiming refugee status come from the United States and have been staying there. Why are we accepting as refugees in Canada people who have been living in the United States who are not allowed to stay there any more? Does that not seem simply passing strange?

I would totally agree with the hon. member that if individuals have to come to this country and they do not have any identification papers, there are circumstances that will account for it. We are completely in accordance with that.

What we do not agree with is when people get on planes, and most of the people claiming refugee status actually come by plane through Pearson International Airport or through Vancouver, and those individuals have documentation when they enter the plane but they destroy it when they leave the plane. That is a serious problem. The vast majority of those individuals are not true refugees.

I would suggest that the member speak to the minister of immigration and to the members on the Immigration and Refugee Board. Listen to what they have to say and act upon their constructive suggestions. That will enable us to have an immigration system that allows true refugees into Canada, not false ones.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby--Douglas spent much of his time discussing Bill C-36, the terrorist bill and now the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has spent much of his time discussing Bill C-11, the immigration bill. However the bill we are discussing today is Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

This proclivity on the part of two members who usually exhibit some knowledge in foreign affairs to ignore the fact that we are debating at third reading stage Bill C-35, is beginning to impact negatively on my self-esteem. Not to sound petulant, but it is my job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to try to bring forward a particular bill. My difficulty is trying to get some members to focus on that bill.

That said, I will attempt to reach to the hon. member's strong background and suggest that his idea that we should move out of the Vienna conventions and into an international court, perhaps the international criminal court of the treaty of Rome which has not yet received near the number of ratifications to bring it into existence, is naive. I say that most honestly. The Vienna convention is already established. Many nations participate. To tear that down and begin again as the hon. member is suggesting is something that is almost impossible to commence.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not for a moment suggest tearing up the Vienna convention but what I would suggest is that we amend it.

The Vienna convention in the context of other international conventions particularly those governing human rights which would take precedence over the Vienna convention, does not protect an individual who commits indictable offences such as rape, assault or murder. They do not and should not. We must not allow a convention to be used and manipulated as a tool to hide and protect an individual who has committed a serious indictable offence in a country. I know the member understands that. I also know her commitment to the essence of the Vienna convention. I have no doubt she agrees with what I am saying.

The question is, how do we arrive at a situation where a convention is not going to stand in the way of justice? I would suggest that justice will prevail if we amend the Vienna convention and allow an impartial third party to investigate, hear and ultimately try individuals who are diplomats yet who have committed serious criminal acts in a foreign country. I believe an amendment to the Vienna convention would do just that.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak on Bill C-35, which, my Liberal colleague reminds us, deals not with immigration or antiterrorist measures, but rather international meetings and foreign missions. This is what we are talking about now. We are now at third reading and realize that the government is refusing to withdraw clause 5. Most of my comments will focus on this.

Despite our voting in support of the principle of this bill at second reading, the fact that clause 5, which basically confers more powers to the RCMP, unrestricted powers, is being maintained, we do not believe it is appropriate to include powers for the RCMP in a bill that deals with the Department of Foreign Affairs. There are already provisions or powers granted to either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General

It is somewhat strange to have measures dealing with powers conferred to the RCMP suddenly appear under the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have not researched the laws in other countries, but I am told that this is not the usual approach.

So one has to ask why, all of a sudden, RCMP powers, including the power of determining safety perimeters during international meetings, have to be included in a bill under the jurisdiction of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Apparently some of the government witnesses who testified before the committee—I was not present myself—have said themselves that for the next G-8 meeting in Alberta next June, there is no need at all to amend Bill C-35.

Since this is the only international meeting planned for now, one has to ask why? If it is not necessary for this meeting, which is only planned for June, why do it?

Everyone can hypothesize as to why. My own feeling is that the answer can be found in the effects of the unfortunate events of September 11 at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United States. One cannot help but feel sad and we do, but, at the same time, I believe that governments around the world must refrain from contributing to spreading panic needlessly by using these events to broaden the powers of the police. I am not taking aim at the police per se. Giving more powers to the police without giving them guidelines on their use is like giving a hot potato to my neighbour who might not know immediately how to handle it.

I do not want to impugn motives and say that in general the police do a poor job. However, occasionally they can make mistakes because of tiredness or for all sorts of other factors.

The Quebec City summit where the blame could be laid on both sides is a case in point. I am not here to applaud people who carry out acts of vandalism, but at the same time as a member of the standing committee on foreign affairs and human rights , where all year long and as events unfold we hear witnesses and observers testify that human rights are consistently being trampled, we at home should not be too free about giving increased powers to the RCMP. It could arrange to be less lenient. Then, we would have less freedom of speech. Again I must stress that we are not talking about the anti-terrorism bill neither are we discussing the changes to the Immigration Act.

We are discussing a bill intended to support the desire of the minister, of the Canadian government, to hold international meetings here. Unless, of course, no more are wanted. Judging by what the previous speaker just said, every time foreigners come here, we would have to take care.

On the other side of the coin, when we take part in international meetings outside the country, we have a right to expect a certain number of rules and guidelines relating to immunity and security, because not many would go to an international meeting if told “In that country, the Geneva convention is not applied, nor the various other international conventions. It is not certain that there will really be security, and the agenda topics will be highly controversial. But feel free to go”.

I am pretty sure that no hon. members would go to international meetings if that were the case. We are, like it or not, fully into an era of globalization: communications, faster and faster air travel and so on. Whether we like or dislike globalization, it is here to stay. Increasingly, problems are international in nature.

At the same time, every nation wants to see its representatives address these questions. It is like politics. When I was younger and less interested in politics than my father was, he kept on telling me “You may not be interested in politics, but politics will be interested in you”.

I would say the same about international politics, about globalization; it will be interested in us. So we have no choice but to deal with it. This means taking part in foreign missions and receiving in our country international bodies that are organizing meetings here.

I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette, provided he arrives in time. If not, I have a pinch hitter lined up in the person of the hon. member for Lotbinière, who will step up to the plate as soon as I have finished my allotted ten minutes. I still have three minutes to find out who will be speaking next. I apologize for doing things this way, but I wanted to make sure I was following the parliamentary rules, since I am talking about respecting rules internationally. Needless to say, the rules here have to be respected as well.

Let us now talk about these three new provisions under clause 5. The first one is very direct and cannot be said to be engaging in excessive diplomacy, since it says:

10.1(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act and to which an order made or continued under this Act applies.

As for the other provisions, they relate to the first one and refer to security perimeters and all such issues.

Again, the rules governing diplomatic immunity do not apply to a refugee who wants to come to Canada. They are rules on temporary immunity that apply to someone who comes from abroad in the context of an international meeting. Of course, there are also ambassadors, consuls and consular staff who are here all year round.

This legislation will modernize and update what existed previously, but did not include some international meetings and non-governmental organizations that are present in Canada on a permanent basis and are entitled to be treated as international organizations, just as we expect our people, whether they are volunteers or have some other status, to be treated in the same fashion when they belong to international organizations abroad.

There is no reason to keep clause 5, which gives greater powers to the RCMP, particularly since these powers are not limited. The RCMP—or the mounted police as the Prime Minister would say— might not know what to do with these powers, since there are no controls. Some would interpret the act in their own way, which would sometimes be the proper way, sometimes the not so proper way, and sometimes the wrong way, because there are no controls.

The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice already have powers under several acts.

Because of the new context resulting from the September 11 events, we would not want to see a tightening of rules bringing us closer to a police state. This is not what we want. I am not saying this is the case, but we must not take steps in that direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remember well that colleagues opposite insisted in the House that we give more powers to the RCMP to fight biker gangs and organized crime.

[An hon. member]

This is not the same thing.

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

I wonder if it is the same thing in this case. This bill seeks to give more responsibilities to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police concerning perhaps violent protests at international meetings. I believe this is the same thing.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not the same thing.

I hope that when international organizations want to take part in meetings, they do not use the services of people whom they know are members of organized crime.

When it comes to international meetings in Canada, what rules would the member or any other participant like to refer to? There should be some kind of code of conduct that other governments would have for him. We should always keep this in mind. What the member is suggesting is that countries that invite us are treating people from international organizations as if they were members of organized crime.

To do this would be excessive. I believe that organized crime must be controlled through the activities of the solicitor general and under the Criminal Code. We are examining a bill that deals with international organizations and foreign missions. Let us not confuse the issue. In my view, yielding to this temptation would lead to a police state.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind members of the House that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of Bill C-35 at second reading because we support the principle of modernizing the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

Since the last review of this act, which was in 1991, the world has changed a great deal. There is now a whole series of international organizations that have been created, but not through treaties, which are therefore not covered by the old act. Given that diplomatic relations have changed, with summits as an example, whether it be the one in Quebec City or the APEC summit in Vancouver, it is important to broaden the definition of international organization and to ensure diplomats and foreign representatives who come here for this type of event are covered.

Nor did the old law cover missions here with international organizations. The International Civil Aviation Organization for example, with its head office in Montreal, has 40 different missions that are accredited with the organization, but that have not benefited from any status under the old law.

All of these provisions therefore, are extremely positive. We were quite surprised, at first, not to find any provisions to correct certain irregular situations, such as the incident in which a Russian diplomat used his diplomatic immunity to avoid answering for a crime related to an offence in which he hit a woman while driving his car in a state of intoxication. We were stunned that Bill C-35 contained nothing to correct this situation.

The explanation that was given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others during the committee hearings convinced us that introducing this type of provision in Bill C-35 would contravene the Vienna Convention. The directive issued by the minister to ensure that people who are considered persona non grata be removed, satisfies us.

From this perspective, Bill C-35 was a positive contribution to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and modernized it so that it would take into consideration new diplomatic relations and the new reality of these relations.

But the bill also includes clause 5. Since we supported the principle of modernizing the legislation, the hon. member for Mercier and I moved an amendment to remove this clause because, as I said, it is unclear, incomplete, dangerous and does not belong in this bill, since it is more a matter for the justice department than a foreign affairs issue.

Let me remind the House that clause 5 sets up a number of responsibilities for the RCMP. It purports to amend the foreign missions act so that the RCMP is the organization in charge of security of events, whereas it was traditionally responsible for the protection of individuals, foreign dignitaries in our land.

This is a very significant change. The RCMP could interfere with the work of other police forces, and it is not given any criteria. One witness who appeared before the committee stated that, if we want the RCMP to be the lead agency for security during international events, we should help it by establishing a series of criteria. Those in charge sometimes have to make snap decisions, and, if they to not have any criteria to go by, they might disregard fundamental rights.

This is all the more likely because this same clause 5 says:

—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

This institutionalizes the creation of security perimeters, such as the one in Quebec City, which were the exception. Why institutionalize a practice which is the exception in legislation on foreign missions? This is a very serious question. Particularly as the RCMP would make its own decisions about the measures that were appropriate in the circumstances.

The RCMP is not limited in any way in establishing these security perimeters. As I have already mentioned, a Montreal lawyer challenged the existence of the security perimeter in Quebec City, saying that it violated his freedom of expression and his freedom of movement. The judge ruled that, while it violated his rights, this was compensated for by the fact that the perimeter was necessary to ensure the safety of the dignitaries visiting Quebec City.

So the RCMP already has the authority to establish these security perimeters under existing legislation. Obviously, court challenges are always possible. It is up to the RCMP to demonstrate the need for and appropriateness of these security perimeters. Now, with clause 5, it will be able to establish them whenever it wishes, without being accountable to anyone.

Subsection (3) says:

The powers referred to in subsection (2)...shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any other federal or provincial Act or regulation.

On the one hand, we are told that the status quo will not do, because clause 5 must be included and, on the other, we are told that this will not in any way change the existing legislation. This is hard to believe. I think that this parliament would have done better to pass the amendment put forward by the member for Mercier and myself.

Besides I was happy to note that all opposition parties supported the amendment aimed at deleting clause 5. On the other hand government members, somewhat by principle, insisted on keeping clause 5. But, as we know, certain Liberal members are not comfortable with this clause because it could lead to infringement of rights. They are ill at ease because the provision is not where it should be. These changes should have been put in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, not in legislation dealing with foreign missions.

These Liberal members even tried to submit a recommendation in the committee report pointing out to the government the dangers presented by clause 5. But in the end, everything was watered down. We would have wished that these members, when the moment came to vote on our amendment, had voiced their concern by voting in favour of the amendment.

For those reasons, since clause 5 remains in Bill C-35, we will have to vote against the bill, all the more so since it comes with another legislation that will be discussed in the days ahead, Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act.

I fully agree with the previous speaker. We are now witnessing in Canada a dangerous shift with regard to civil liberties and a strengthening of tools of repression that can lead to major drifts with which we do not want to be associated in any way.