Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, with the patience and perseverance of the member for Wild Rose, I want to say that my understanding was that the member was querying as to whether there was reciprocity. Now I understand the question to be whether a Canadian member of a delegation has ever been turned away from a conference in another country.
While I cannot give the member an answer, yes, this particular person was, nor can I--
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I better understand the question that was asked by both members of the opposition.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I am not sure when that incident occurred. I know that the zero tolerance policy and many other reporting policies were triggered by the incident of the Russian diplomat who was involved in the accident that caused a death. However I do not have knowledge of that one and I believe it predates that, but I am not exactly sure.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, no, I could not at this time provide the hon. member with a specific example. I did make mention that the United Kingdom and the United States have similar provisions for the extension beyond non-treaty, that is to say, for the extension of immunities beyond treaty based organizations, similar to what is contained in the bill. However, I am sorry, but I am not able to provide that. I can undertake to do that but it will not be today.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, the suggestion that the hon. member has brought forward has merits, and we have discussed it. As I understand, he is satisfied with the current reporting system; that four times a year those numbers on incidents are available to anyone who wishes to have. There is no requirement to go in under access to information. A copy of those reports will be made available on request.
I hope I am not stepping outside this, but I understand his concern is that this is not included in statute. Again, my understanding is that, although he is content with the policy of the department, he is concerned that when this minister is no longer minister or when this government is no longer in power, there might be another minister who is part of another government who would not continue that policy. I can understand his concern. At the same time, I am of a view that one cannot put everything in statute. One has to accept the government's function, with a combination of legislation, regulation and policy. To date that is the mix the government is proposing.
I certainly have conveyed his views and I understand them, but there is no intention at this time on the part of the government to make that policy a part of this law.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Madam Speaker, let me convey to the hon. member that I do not need talking points. I am more than delighted to speak extemporaneously to address his concerns.
I have heard constantly, as have other members on this side of the House, the opposition focus on the number of criminal charges that have been brought forward against diplomatic persons in Canada. I think the attempt is to convey almost a criminal element that countries across the world apply to be diplomats and that this is the most desired career for anyone who has criminal proclivities.
On the whole, if one compares the percentage, one would realize that the percentage of charges brought against persons in Canada, who are here on a diplomatic or consular level, is far below the percentage within society at large.
Also, the dreadful occurrence and what happened, which again was a major focus of one of the member's colleagues in committee, to Ms. Catherine MacLean and Ms. Catherine Doré was a horror that none of us in any way underestimated. The response to that on the part of the minister and the department was a zero tolerance policy. When new people come to Canada to represent their countries, they are briefed completely on what expectations are in this country as to adherence to the criminal code.
It is important as well that I take advantage of this opportunity to try to convey one more time to some of the members of the House and to members on the standing committee that this is a reciprocal obligation and comes within the Vienna convention. These diplomatic immunities and consular immunities are accorded so people can safely go to countries around the world and conduct the business of diplomacy. We ought to remember exactly what risks our Canadian diplomats take when they go to work in countries that do not extend these same privileges. Canada does extend them and has a very high bar for what the expectations are.
I am appalled at the attempt to continually use hyperbole and take one or two instances so as to smear the entire process. It is disheartening to say the least. It is misinformed, to give the very best analysis to it.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act November 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin speaking on third reading of Bill C-35 which amends the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. We worked on this in committee and had good discussions and the opportunity to hear from some excellent witnesses, and in so doing better understand the issues.
The bill extends immunities in Canada to non-treaty based international organizations such as G-8 and other meetings that will be held in Canada. It allows for the application of diplomatic immunity to people participating in those meetings, whereas in the past immunities such as those included in the bill could only have been extended to treaty based organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization which is in Montreal. Another treaty based organization of course is the United Nations.
In providing for this application in Canada, we are not in any way enhancing the levels of diplomatic immunities. We are only extending them to include persons coming to Canada for the reasons I outlined. Other developed countries, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, have provisions in their law as well to grant privileges and immunities to non-treaty based organizations.
As well, I want to say a word concerning the proposal in the bill to clarify that an order in council for an international organization or meeting excludes the obligation now to issue a minister's permit to allow entry to Canada of persons who fall within the inadmissible classes under the Immigration Act.
The opportunity now to treat the application of such persons on a case by case basis will reside with an order in council, but it moves it within the ambit of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It was the view of some of the top experts who spoke to us that it was exactly where such an action should be located. It provides therein for continuity and keeps all of what is related to persons attending international organizations in Canada within the ambit of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
There has been discussion in the media about this bill. While I can understand some of the discussion related to other bills, I fail to see the hyperbole of some articles recently concerning Bill C-35, as the bill is not about enhancement or enlargement. It is but merely the horizontal application of the diplomatic immunities to include persons falling within the categories I described.
Therefore, I move:
That the question be now put.
Question No. 78 November 28th, 2001
(a) no, Canada has not made a declaration recognizing the competence of the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination, as provided for in article 14 of the convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, CERD; (b) see response to question (a) above; (c) persons alleging discrimination in Canada currently have two other international complaints mechanisms available to them:
(1) as a state party to the international covenant on civil and political rights, CCPR, and its first optional protocol, Canada recognizes the complaint mechanism established thereunder and administered by the human rights committee.
(2) as a member of the Organisation of American States, OAS, Canada is also subject to the American declaration on the rights and duties of man declaration, and to the individual complaint mechanism before the commission regarding the declaration.
In addition, Canada is concerned about the committee’s broad interpretation of article 4 of the CERD. This interpretation is based upon a report commissioned by the committee and adopted in 1983, the Ingles report. This report interprets the requirement in article 4(a) of the CERD to “declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred” to (a) include a prohibition of all ideas based on racial superiority and hatred, and (b) require the imposition of a penalty for the mere act of dissemination, regardless of intent. It is a fundamental principle of Canadian criminal law, as well as the charter, that criminal liability should not be imposed unless someone intends their action.
An interpretation as set out in the Ingles report does not recognize the important balancing that is necessary between the need to protect people from hate speech and the need to also protect the right to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and the right not to be deprived of liberty or security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Canada supports an interpretation of article 4 that is consistent with all international rights and freedoms as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, the United Nations human rights committee has on several occasions interpreted article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as protecting all forms of expression, even hate propaganda. However the human rights committee also held that, as in the Canadian charter, prohibitions of hate propaganda can be justified if certain precise preconditions are met. When restricting freedom of expression we believe it is necessary to be cautious and careful. This is exactly the approach Canadian courts and other international bodies have adopted.
Foreign Affairs November 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, having mentioned at the outset how very cognizant we are of the very bad situation in Zimbabwe, the hon. member is well aware that what he has proposed in the way of sanctions, economic and political, will not function on a bilateral basis. Unless there is that kind of reaction, sanctions and that sort on an international basis, it simply will not be effective.
We are looking for an effective response.
Foreign Affairs November 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the minister has attended, along with the hon. member, the conference dealing with these issues. They are being very carefully monitored. The situation is being assessed, and we are ready and prepared to respond when we feel all of that information is at hand.