Svend Robinson

[Foreign Affairs, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The 23 million people of the independent sovereign state of Taiwan were just admitted to the World Trade Organization and participated recently in a vigorous national election campaign which led to a historic victory by President Chen's democratic progressive party.

Will the Canadian government now recognize reality and support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization and other international bodies? When will the government lift the visa requirement for visitors from Taiwan?

[Taiwan, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, December 1, the people of Taiwan voted in elections for the legislative yuan and for county magistrates and mayors. In an historic outcome the party of President Chen Shui-bian, the Democratic Progressive Party, won the largest number of seats.

On behalf of my New Democrat colleagues I congratulate President Chen and the DPP for this impressive victory and this affirmation of the vitality of democracy in Taiwan.

It is time now for the international community to welcome Taiwan as an international sovereign state, including membership in the World Health Organization. As well, the Canadian government should end its kowtowing to the mainland in its visa policies for Taiwanese government visits, such as the recently proposed visit of the Minister of Health, and remove the visa requirement for Taiwanese visitors to Canada.

May the coming years bring even stronger economic, political and cultural ties between the people of Taiwan and the people of Canada. I say to Taiwan “Bansue”.

[Softwood Lumber, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

In the softwood lumber negotiations, B.C. forestry workers and communities are being sold out by the B.C. Liberal government which is caving in to the U.S. government on raw log exports from crown lands. Exports of raw logs mean exports of good quality Canadian jobs.

Will the minister assure the House that he will not in any way weaken or remove federal controls on raw log exports from private lands as part of a deal with the U.S. on softwood lumber?

[Question No. 78, November 28th, 2001]

Regarding Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination: ( a ) does the government recognize the competence of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to handle complaints from individuals or groups in Canada; ( b ) has Canada made a declaration that details the treaty mechanism for handling individual complaints; and ( c ) if not, why not?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

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.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

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.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

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.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

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.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

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.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

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--