Aileen Carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, the amendments would clarify three things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one last comment. No justice is rendered if charges are brought prematurely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too will attest to the hon. member for Colchester--Cumberland's hard-working approach to all that he does in the House of Commons. In that regard, he reflects of course the hard-working people of his province and my native province.

As well, I thank him for the comments he has made outlining the strengths of the bill to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. However, having delivered the good news to the hon. member, I was somewhat taken back when he indicated that he did not believe a thorough investigation has followed the tragic events regarding Mr. Knyazev's departure from the country and what led to it. I assure the House that we have been doing everything possible to assure that Mr. Knyazev is investigated and brought to justice.

In that regard, we have worked closely through the mutual legal assistance program with the Russian authorities. They have now completed their investigation and, in accordance with Russian law, investigators must now review their report with the victim and her family. This is consistent with their approach.

We have from the outset worked very hard to make sure that everything was appropriate, that this was a very thorough investigation, and although it has been extended, there is no concern whatsoever that any deadlines will be missed in that regard. I do feel it necessary and incumbent on the hon. member to check his empirical data in future.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Question No. 56, October 17th, 2001]

The Canadian Polar Commission, CPC, has responsibility for gathering, promoting and disseminating knowledge of the polar regions, including the Antarctic, contributing to public awareness of the importance of polar science to Canada; enhancing Canada’s international profile as a circumpolar nation; and recommending polar science policy direction to government.

In carrying out its mandate, the commission hosts conferences and workshops, publishes information on subjects of relevance to polar research and works closely with other governmental and non-governmental agencies to promote and support Canadian study of the polar regions. The commission established the Canadian Committee for Antarctic Research, CCAR, to serve as a national advisory body on Antarctic matters and to act as a link between the international Antarctic science community and Canadian scientists active in or seeking to become involved in Antarctic and/or bipolar research.

Information on projects involving Canadians in the Antarctic or on Antarctic-related subjects is submitted voluntarily to CCAR and published by the CPC. The July 2000 report entitled “Current Canadian Research Activities in the Antarctic, 1999-2000” identifies Canadian institutions working on a wide range of Antarctic themes including human adaptation, landscape evolution, ecology of extreme environments, paleoclimate reconstruction and ice sheet dynamics. The report also contains a bibliography of more than 80 Antarctic/bipolar scientific publications involving Canadians since 1997. “Current Canadian Research Activities in the Antarctic/ is updated on a periodic basis.

Canadians pursuing research activities in the Antarctic and on Antarctic-related subjects receive funding form a wide range of sources, including academic, governmental, non-governmental and private funders. Canadians also often partner their research efforts with national programs of other countries. As such, it is difficult to obtain accurate and reliable information on the share of the costs Antarctic research that is provided by the Canadian government.

[Communities in Bloom, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that the city of Barrie in my riding of Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford has blossomed into a winner. Barrie has won the top award in the national Communities in Bloom program. The announcement was made in a ceremony in Saint John, New Brunswick, last week. Barrie has also picked up another award. The National Capital Commission Award was given as a separate prestigious distinction for beautification effort.

I am pleased to congratulate all those involved in making my city beautiful and achieving this recognition. Special kudos go to Alderman Patricia Copeland, head of Barrie's Communities in Bloom committee. I thank those who worked so hard to achieve this honour. This five bloom ranking will help promote the city of Barrie to tourists and attract business and industry.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the bill entitled an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

The bill includes a variety of changes to the existing Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act most of which are technical in nature.

The main amendments are designed to facilitate international events including summits in Canada and to enable us to comply with our existing commitments under international treaties.

The bill would also correct several housekeeping inadequacies identified since the act was enacted by parliament in 1991.

As the House may know, the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act provides the statutory basis for the privileges and immunities of diplomats in Canada. It also provides the government with the ability to deal by order in council with the privileges, immunities and legal status of international organizations and their events or summits in Canada.

For example, existing orders in council under this act govern the legal status in Canada of organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, the United Nations and the Agence de la Francophonie.

The bill's core amendment is key to providing privileges and immunities to foreign officials who attend intergovernmental conferences or summits in Canada. The amendment broadens the definition of "international organization" to include international organizations and meetings that are presently excluded such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the G-8.

Several years ago the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations adopted the formal view that the present definition permits orders to be made under this act only for international organizations that are created by a treaty. Therefore we have the odd situation where, for example, the Sommet de la Francophonie is covered by the act, as there is a treaty relating to L'Agence and la Francophonie in that case, but the summit of the Americas and the G-8 are not.This is an anomaly that we would like to fix before Canada is scheduled to host the G-8 summit in June 2002.

This amendment would ensure that these meetings and foreign officials involved obtain protection and treatment under Canadian law.

The second amendment in the bill that I wish to draw to the attention of the House concerns the police authority to provide security and protection for intergovernmental conferences held in Canada.

Following the violent protests at international events, for example, Genoa and more recently the terrorist attacks in the United States, it would be timely for the government to clarify in statute the present common law authority for police to provide security and protection for high profile international events.

The legislation would provide that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would have the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper function or a meeting of an international organization attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and for which an order has been passed under that act.

The provisions would make clear for greater certainty the present authority of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to take appropriate measures to ensure that such international conferences or meetings are able to be carried out safely and effectively.

The bill would allow the government to extend privileges and immunities to international inspectors who come to Canada on temporary duty in order to carry out inspections under the chemical weapons convention and the agreement with the preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization.

Under the chemical weapons convention, a treaty ratified by Canada in 1999, a verification regime was established providing for both reporting via declarations and on site inspection by inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The chemical weapons convention requires that inspectors be granted diplomatic privileges and immunities similar to those accorded to diplomatic agents under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.

The problem is that neither the implementing legislation nor any other Canadian legal instrument can at present provide the privileges and immunities up to this level for these inspectors.

As a temporary arrangement, privileges and immunities have been provided by an order in council, which invokes less extensive privileges and immunities. This means that Canada could be criticized as not being in full compliance with the treaty. Therefore it is the government's obligation to resolve this situation as soon as possible, and the bill does just that.

The bill also broadens privileges and immunities to permanent missions accredited to international organizations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, located in Montreal. ICAO is presently the largest international organization operating its headquarters in Canada.

By enhancing our relationship with ICAO, the amendment would improve the ability of Montreal and other Canadian cities to service the headquarters of international organizations operating their headquarters in Canada.

The amended legislation would also help Canada compete with other countries to attract these headquarters of other international organizations.

The benefit to the local economy of such organizations is quite significant. A 1990 study showed that the economic benefit to Montreal and the international intergovernmental organizations located there was $80 million.

Montreal is not the only Canadian host city that benefits from the presence of international organizations. Vancouver hosts a Commonwealth of Learning Secretariat and Halifax of course hosts the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

The final important amendment that I wish to mention is the clarification of the relationship between the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and the Immigration Act.

The amendment which is supported by the minister of immigration would make clear that when an order is passed under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, the requirement to grant ministers' permits under the Immigration Act is removed.

In summary, the bill to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act would allow Canada to live up to its international obligations to grant privileges and immunities to international organizations.

The amendments would enable Canada to continue to safely host important international events and summits in Canada and thereby fulfill our treaty responsibilities.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and I would say very frankly that the emotional responses which I was attempting to calm people about are related very much to the comments I mentioned earlier, the belief about President Bush's omission or our Prime Minister not going to New York. I had no negative response concerning Canadians of Arabic or Muslim origin.

We have all read about some examples of that. All of us on all sides of the House have made it very clear how utterly unacceptable that is. We are appalled by it. I do believe that these incidents are few and far between. The media has managed to make a big fuss about them, just like the media, if I may make a horizontal shift, made a great fuss about whether or not the perpetrators of this deed came from Canada. That has done a wonderful job of spinning into the American press that Canada has all of these loopholes and difficulties with security when in fact all 19 of the accused perpetrators came from countries other than Canada. None of them came from this country, but this does not seem to get picked up in the press.

I found that there was total awareness among European colleagues that the perpetrators had either been in the United States or had come from the countries of the parliamentarians with whom I spoke. Europeans do not seem to get their knickers in a knot on these issues the way we Canadians tend to do, and whether that comes from our sense of ourselves needing to gain more confidence I do not know. As has been mentioned by my colleague, it is disappointing to see that kind of coverage enhancing a few incidents.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very balanced and responsive question. I would undertake to do what he has asked, but I think members are doing that. I think they are in many ways inputting into the process. All of us in parliament engaged in the take note debate last Thursday night.

I will assure the hon. member that unlike those in Britain we have come together and we have discussed this. Sometimes we argue more than we discuss, but we have been very much engaged in this process, as the Prime Minister said, since the horrors occurred on the September 11 and the House reconvened. Members should be assured that there is a great deal happening and that there is a willingness and openness here to bring to the House all that we can. The ministers on the front benches have tried to convey that.

At the same time, as I am, all members are students of history. The leader from that corner of the House, having been a former minister of foreign affairs and a former prime minister, knows only too well that one cannot bring information into an open forum, however venerable this forum is, that might in any way endanger people who are trying to put together the very response that we are all anxious to see formulated.

Those who form the government must balance the democratic values of openness and provision of information with the onus of the task that is ours, which is to develop, frequently in a military setting, the response that will be coming.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the UN Security Council passed a landmark resolution, UNSCR 1373. This resolution acts on a range of issues related to terrorism, from financing to travel documents to intelligence sharing. Canada supports the resolution entirely and will take immediate steps to implement them.

All three of those categories are obligatory. It triggers a response of member states that they must comply with. We are well prepared with many pieces of legislation to do so. Some of the other aspects are non-obligatory, but at the same time Canada takes those very seriously and will be engaged in an appropriate response.

The security council resolution recognizes the right to self-defence and calls on all states to co-operate in bringing terrorists and their sponsors to justice. To emphasize, the right to individual and collective self-defence is enshrined in the UN charter. Canada supports efforts to build a broadly based effective coalition in support of the U.S. in responding to terrorist attacks.

Yesterday NATO invoked article 5 of its charter. It did so by accepting that the evidence that had been brought forward met the bar of NATO and they had therefore complied with the United States in its request that article 5 be invoked.

The statement by NATO which relies on article 5 was immediately conveyed to the UN in conformity with the UN charter. Lord Robertson, the secretary general, announced that the U.S. has delivered sufficient evidence to satisfy that Osama bin Laden is the primary perpetrator of the September 11 terrorist acts.

We have discussed today with respect to our hon. colleague's motion that there is a need on our part to look other than to NATO, which is how I am reading the member's request, how to respond to the horrors of September 11. It is important to accept that an institution such as the international criminal court, the ICC, which Canada was instrumental in initiating and bringing forward first of all is not an appropriate venue because it is not yet fully in place. There have not been 60 ratifying nations. It is also important to note that it is not able to reach back. Once the ICC is in place it will not umbrella or grandfather past events. However much it may be seen as an appropriate vehicle in response to what has happened in the United States, it simply does not have the jurisdiction to meet that bar.

Last week I had the opportunity to be in Strasbourg as part of a Canadian delegation. At the Council of Europe there were parliamentarians from 44 nations. The discussion, an emergency debate on the terrorist attack on the United States, was front and foremost. As a Canadian it gave me the opportunity to be removed from the emotional response that seemed to pervade everywhere in our country, perhaps because of our historical alliance with and geographical proximity to the United States.

It was an opportunity to step away and listen to the views of parliamentarians from 44 nations and to hear the commonality of concern, the desire to be there as allies and friends of America. There was a noted difference in approach. It was mentioned during question period today that there was a desire again to move the response mechanism to within the ICC and that the ICC perhaps set up a special tribunal. This may be a more typical response, but at the same time there was great agreement with NATO moving as it was moving and an understanding of the limitations of the court.

There was a concern about the definition of the word war. Interestingly enough in the final resolution there was reference to what had happened as a great crime. There was a reticence to use the word war. Perhaps it was a different sense or interpretation of the event. Perhaps it brought a great historical perspective to the issue that we in North American do not share. We had not seen world wars on our territory until perhaps what happened in New York.

It is interesting that people in countries throughout the world are shocked and determined to stand together to do whatever is necessary to fight the horrors and the evil, as our Prime Minister has said, that this represents. At the same time I saw the commonality with my European colleagues. I have been tremendously proud of the Prime Minister. He stood firm in the face of those who would have us race forward without stopping to consider what was the appropriate response, at the same time knowing he had to balance the values of our country and the people we represent. I sensed that at the Council of Europe and I had a feeling of sharing that.

It is very important that we come together as a nation and as parties in the House to determine where Canada will go and how we will muster our resources to be the ally our allies want us to be. I would hope that we could step away from some of the emotions that seem to have infused in the last couple of weeks.

That remark is very personal. A number of people in Barrie have called me. They were terribly anxious that President Bush had not included Canada when he mentioned a number of nations. Others who called were upset that the Prime Minister had not raced immediately to New York. My advice for both was that although these are very intense and frightening times it is important that we recapture the Canadian posture of staying a little laid back, to use Mr. Trudeau's words, la raison avant la passion, to reach back to our ability to analyze and reason. We should not come out of the starting gate with an emotional response. That will not bring intelligent reaction. It does not help us as public policymakers to sift carefully, intelligently and analytically through the responses we need to make and how best to be allies with our NATO partners, allies to the United States.

It is not easy at times like this when we feel fear, horror and empathy, and when we see all that Canadians have done throughout this whole tragedy, not to get caught up in an emotional treadmill. It is very important we resist that, or having done that, now try to step back and look at the realities.

Today our Minister of Foreign Affairs mentioned a couple from Maryland who wrote about the hospitality they had been shown in Halifax. It was one of many letters he has received. That is how Canadians respond most typically. Although I am very proud to be the member of parliament for Barrie--Simcoe--Bradford, I am a native Haligonian and I was very proud to learn of all they did.

There was the story of a couple from Britain. They were engaged and were flying to Los Angeles to be married. Like so many other fellow travellers they had to stay in Halifax. All their luggage, including the wedding dress, was left on the plane. In the end they were married in the backyard of their hosts in Halifax. A wedding dress and food for the feast was provided and they had new friends as their wedding guests. A story that will always be told in that British family will be the wedding that took place in Canada and the Canadian hospitality which facilitated that event.

There are wonderful examples of what we are as a nation and what we should be very proud of. We can be proud too as we muster our resources, our armed forces and our intelligence capabilities, all that we have within this public administration to bring to the task.

It is important to be very realistic, to look at something like the ICC as being the appropriate venue some day but not now, to try to sort through all of these various venues and work with our NATO partners, and finally, to resist a constant emotional response and stand up and be just exactly the kind of nation we are. I am not sure that I can add anything further to that, but I would be more than pleased to respond to questions. I thank my colleagues for their attention.