Gurmant Grewal

[Foreign Affairs, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, first the Prime Minister did not know and did not care what part of Jerusalem he was in. Then he told the Palestinians to unilaterally declare independence. Then he said that Israel should keep disputed territories that are in fact subject to very delicate negotiations.

Why is the Prime Minister bent on damaging the delicate Middle East peace process?

[Foreign Affairs, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in 1967 Charles de Gaulle shouted “Vive le Quebec libre” and Canadians were outraged at this foreign interference in a delicate domestic issue.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister explain the Prime Minister's outrageous intervention in the domestic affairs of Israel and the Palestinian authority?

[Middle East, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has visited only two places on his seven state trip to the Middle East and now he has both feet in his mouth. His failure rate is 100%, like an HRDC audit report.

First he upset Palestinians by refusing to meet them in East Jerusalem and joking about it. Then he upset Israelis by telling Arafat to use UDI as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.

Yesterday he stepped on a landmine between Israel and Syria, and in reference to the Sea of Galilee he said “It is better for the Israelis to keep this body of water”. He is not taking the high road of diplomacy and fairness.

Canadians enjoy a reputation of peacekeeping and peacemaking won from our decades of efforts to alleviate conflict.

The Prime Minister is writing Canada's foreign policy on the bus between luncheons. He should have listened to Canadians, done his homework and delivered Canada's message.

Bring him home. He is not fit to lead. He is damaging the peace process rather than making progress in the region.

[Prime Minister Of Canada, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the Prime Minister's departure for the Middle East he promised not to create controversy, but he failed again.

First he upset the Palestinians by refusing to meet with them in east Jerusalem. Then the Prime Minister did not know where he was, in east, west or north Jerusalem. He then upset the Israelis by giving bizarre advice to Arafat to use a unilateral declaration for independence as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Then he did not know what he said. This is not new.

In 1994 the Prime Minister said in France that he would have been happier if Canada had not been conquered in the past by the English and if this part of North America had remained French. In 1997 he bad mouthed the Americans to other G-7 leaders, not knowing that his microphone was on. He had lame excuses when he chose to go skiing in Whistler rather than represent Canada at King Hussein's funeral.

The Prime Minister should be vaccinated for foot in mouth disease along with his usual flu shots before he is allowed to visit the remaining countries on his trip.

[1911 Census Records, April 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in support of Motion No. 160 presented by my colleague, the chief critic for national revenue, the Canadian Alliance member for Calgary Southeast. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

The purpose of the motion is to release post-1901 census data to the general public.

The motion has received a broad base of support from various members of the House, not just Canadian Alliance members. In addition, many MPs have received letters of concern from genealogists in their constituencies.

In Surrey Central I have received letters asking for the release of post-1901 census records. For example, Don Ellis of Surrey Central has been writing to me since I was elected. He points out that the Access to Information Act protects the census information from being abused while it allows for the benefits of the release of this information.

Mr. Ellis stated in his letter:

Previous census records have been released, and they have been of invaluable assistance to those of us researching our ancestry. We have long awaited the release of the 1911 census, and of future records, to give us additional information.

Apparently, the Privacy Act is being given as the reason for withholding these records. This is ridiculous in view of the freedom of information act.

Another constituent wrote to me, who said:

I have recently been made aware that our government has placed a closure on all future census records and that the 1901 census will be the last one available for public research. I would like to voice my objection to this unfortunate decision.

As an amateur genealogist and the family historian I have made extensive use of census records both Canadian and British and cannot overstate the value of this source in establishing family relationships. They are one of genealogy's most valuable resources and should not be allowed to be permanently closed.

Since the United States has made available the 1920 census and is in the process of preparing the 1930 census for release I would like to know the rationale behind Statistics Canada's decision. I believe the former ninety year closure to be more than adequate to protect the privacy of any individual.

Another constituent, Robert Paulin, has been generous with his information and has encouraged the official opposition to take action to release these records that are almost a century old.

Strong families make strong communities. Stronger communities make stronger nations. The government refrains from doing anything and everything that makes families strong, whether it is the definition of marriage or not reducing taxes, which creates a tremendous burden on family members.

Many years ago only one member of the family worked. Now both parents work, but still they are saving less. All of these constraints are weakening the family institution.

The institution of the family is important and the government needs to do everything it can to strengthen it.

Some of the letters and representations I have received are from people in the business of researching family trees. There is a significant demand for these services. The withholding of the census data threatens these jobs and the firms conducting this research, and deprives the beneficiaries of important sentimental information.

In my own family, my wife's great grandfather died in Canada, but we are unable to learn of his whereabouts since the census information has not been released.

Census data is important information for historical research, especially for those researching family history. Without releasing the information contained in the 1911 census this research is seriously hampered.

Finally, it should be noted that the vast majority of those who participated in the census have passed on and, as such, the potential for breach of privacy is minimal.

Up to and including the 1901 census in Canada census records were transferred to the National Archives and were subsequently made available to the public 92 years after their collection. This was possible because clauses in the Privacy Act allowed for the subtraction of certain pieces of information and their release to the National Archives, subject to certain aspects of the Privacy Act.

In 1906 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by order in council, legislated regulations that brought about an imposed secrecy on enumerators and other officers of the Census and Statistics Office. These regulations refer to chapter 68 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, an act respecting the census and statistics.

Within this ruling section 26 of the regulations stated that the compilation of census data could only be used for statistical purposes. By 1918 this regulation was codified, providing that no one could view the information without the express consent of the individual. Unfortunately, no time limit was given and, combined with a legal opinion of the justice department of 1985, it was interpreted that the information had to remain secret forever.

Some historians believe that the original 1906 and 1918 provisions had to do with a prevailing concern that the census data could be used for taxation purposes or military service. It is doubtful that the prevailing concern of the time was that historians would use the data some 100 years later.

In a most recent report, the privacy commissioner, Bruce Phillips, warned the industry minister that the release of census data could seriously hamper the accuracy of future census and renege on a previous commitment to secrecy. The industry minister has nonetheless asked Statistics Canada to undertake a study of options to amend the legislation in this regard by either retroactively changing the confidentiality provisions from 1911 onward or by amending the legislation for censuses taken from 2001 onward.

If Canada were to place its census data under lock and key forever it would sadly be far out of step with many other western nations. For example, in the United States census data is released after 72 years and an individual can retrieve his or her own data at any time. In Australia census data is released after 100 years. In France census data is released after 100 years. In Denmark census data is released after 65 years, and in the United Kingdom efforts are being made to release data after 100 years. It is now two years later. We are still waiting for something to be done by the government.

In conclusion, the panel will report to the minister by the end of May 2000. Hopefully the motion we are debating today will spur the minister to take action.

By the way, I had written earlier to the industry minister. To be fair, his original response to me was on the government's line, that they could not release the information. I wrote back to him and the chief statistician responded, admitting that the minister directed him to develop options for changing the legislation.

It appeared that the minister was going to pay some attention to the matter in order to release this information, which was positive news until we realized that he had struck a panel to study the matter. We urge the government to release this important information so that we can strengthen the institution of family and thereby strengthen our nation.

[Access To Information Act, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member and I found his comments surprising. On the one hand we can appreciate the efforts of the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, and on the other hand he clearly recognizes his government's dismal failure to provide timely and accurate responses to access to information requests. This weak Liberal government has an abysmal record when it comes to responding to ATI requests.

Last Tuesday the Canadian Alliance put forward a good and timely supply day motion. We asked for an order of the House that all departmental audit reports be tabled within 30 days of their completion and permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee. We asked that the audit reports since January 1, 1999 be tabled within 30 days after the adoption of our motion and that all audit reports requested under the Access to Information Act be tabled forthwith. We have since found out that the government has been less than forthcoming with respect to reporting and providing information to Canadians on how their tax dollars are spent.

Our supply day motion simply asked this weak, arrogant Liberal government to reaffirm its own regulations made by treasury board and the privy council. That day the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington spoke against our motion. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand the member wants to do something about the Access to Information Act to speed up the release of information, but on the other hand he spoke against our motion.

This bill was originally introduced as Bill C-268 on October 23, 1997. As we know, it is a votable bill.

The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington received the necessary 100 signatures of MPs for the bill so that it could be given priority on the order paper. Opposition members on this side of the House signed the bill because we feel that the ATI stonewalling by his own government is an attack on democracy.

Opposition members will do anything to force this weak government to hand over information that the public wants to know, and in fact has a right to know. It is the information on the spending of our hard-earned tax dollars that the government tries to hide by delaying and refusing to respond to ATI requests.

In June 1998 the member got the unanimous consent of the House to change the text of the bill, and the bill was re-introduced as Bill C-206, which we are debating today. We knew that the 100 signatures would be allowed to continue to apply to the bill, even though the bill had changed, so the deputy whip of the official opposition objected to that by raising a question of privilege. The ruling on that question of privilege saw the bill dropped to the bottom on the order paper.

Then the bill needed to have another 100 signatures and, with the co-operation of his colleagues on the Liberal side, the member got those 100 signatures twice, which was amazing.

The question is whether cabinet is hiding information so that it will not be released through ATI requests. We cannot understand, with the way this government is behaving, how it will withhold information when the hon. member is enlisting those members to sign his bill. The member, who is pursuing this bill because he could not get his cabinet buddies to listen to him, has now had the bill reinstated in its position of priority. Maybe the cabinet does not disapprove of the bill. We do not know. Maybe it is hiding behind the member's bill so that it does not have to take measures to strengthen our ATI legislation and system.

Canadians know that we cannot trust this government, and Canadians do not trust the Mulroney Tories either. Canadians now have an alternative in the Canadian Alliance and I am sure that we will test the waters at the next federal election.

The bill has a chequered past. It raises concerns and suspicions about who should change the ATI law. This weak Liberal government has lacked vision and now it should provide a transparent system for the changing of our ATI law. The ATI system needs to be kept up to date and constantly corrected with other housekeeping adjustments, but the Liberals do not want to do anything about it. “If the ATI system is broken, that is good. Don't fix it”. That is their attitude.

To break the suspense, the people of Surrey Central will not be supporting this bill. Instead, we urge the hon. Liberal member to visit or perhaps revisit his cabinet colleagues and tell them to get going on changes to the ATI.

There are about 40 changes to the ATI act proposed in this bill. For the information of the House and the people watching, the act is 18 years old. It needs to be modernized, redefined, refined and amended. The current information commissioner has expressed concern over amending this most public of our laws with a private member's bill. I wonder if the government is so weak that it cannot even fix it.

Today we have a lonely Liberal member of parliament trying to make up for his government's billion dollar boondoggle, corruption and mismanagement. This bill is in fact regressive. It limits the ability to access certain types of information and extends timeframes on access to certain information. Is the Liberal member of parliament unaware that his government lags behind, drags its feet and is late on the timeframe that already exists?

One of the most glaring drawbacks and concerns with the bill is that it proposes to exclude access to what it calls frivolous and abusive users of ATI. Who decides that? Who determines when too many ATI requests come from a certain specific source? Who decides what information is not important enough to send to Canadians? What criteria will cabinet apply to this provision in the bill?

Another thing is the fees. The bill proposes to charge a higher fee to those people who frequently use the ATI system. There are two standards here. This is so undemocratic that it is anti-democratic.

The government would be pleased if this bill passed. It could then control the ATI system, discriminate against certain users by monetarily penalizing them for the information they requested. Is this a new tax? The government loves to increase taxes because it thinks they are the best thing in the world.

The bill does not alter the government's ability to exempt and exclude certain files from access by specific sources. There is a section that allows the government to deny access if it would harm national unity. No wonder there were no amendments put forward by Bloc members. The revised bill also says that records injurious to the constitutional integrity of Canada can be kept secret for 30 years. That is the kind of information in the bill.

I would like to say that the people of Surrey Central and many members in the House cannot be fooled by this bill. We will not be supporting it.

[Air India, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago 329 people were killed by the Air India bombing. Since then a dark cloud of injustice has been hanging over the families of the victims. The current Prime Minister while in opposition said:

It is of fundamental importance that people who get involved in these tragic events know that there is no place they can land safely any more.

The current Deputy Prime Minister said in 1985:

We call on the government to do everything possible to assist the families of those who lost their lives in the Air India explosion.

Liberal government members when in opposition were demanding justice, but what have they done as a government in the last seven years? What help have they been to those families?

After a most expensive and lengthy investigation no charges have been laid. Instead of doing everything possible, for over a year they have stonewalled and denied me my right to have access to the RCMP investigation file. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[International Organizations, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak in support of Motion No. 30 introduced by my colleague, our former foreign affairs critic, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to move an amendment to the motion as follows:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after “should” with the following:

“continue and intensify efforts with other nations to further develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen the capacity of international organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) to enable them to identify the precusors to conflict and improve their conflict prevention capabilities”.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, April 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-19 that will fulfil Canada's obligations in the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

Before I go into the details of the bill, I would like to point out that this is my first speech as chief foreign affairs critic for the official opposition. I pay tribute and express appreciation to the former chief foreign affairs critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca who is now running for leader of this great party.

I also pay tribute and express appreciation to the hon. member for Red Deer, who was deputy foreign affairs critic for this party, for a job well done during his duty tenure. He did a great job. I have learned a lot and continue to learn a lot from them. I hope they will assist me when I need their help.

There are a few things I would like to mention before I go into the details of the bill. We understand that no nation stands alone in the global arena. We have to work with other countries in assisting and making sure that criminals, those monsters who have blood on their hands, are held responsible and accountable for their crimes and that justice is served. This is a very important justice issue. Criminals must be brought to accountability.

I listened with interest to the minister's speech on which I will comment in a moment. Before I do so I draw the attention of the House to the images of concentrations camps, ethnic wars and civil wars we have seen on television or have read in the newspapers. Very few Canadians have had firsthand experience. I know someone who was watching a documentary on CBC and switched if off because it was such a horrible experience. Let us imagine the circumstances and situations faced by individuals, families and nations torn apart because of those crimes, because of bloody civil wars.

We know that when crimes are committed against an individual we feel for that victim. But when crimes are committed against a mass of people, a huge number of the population, it is difficult to think about. Crime against a single person is wrong. Crime against humanity is wrong. Genocide is wrong. Ethnic war is wrong.

We must do the best we can to play Canada's role. Canada has played a significant role on the world scene in the past, showing leadership. I believe there is a need for us to continue to capture and maintain that position.

I lived in Liberia, a country in west Africa, for about eight years. Many people who are watching will know that there was a bloody civil war there in the early nineties. I lived in that country because I was a university professor, an assistant professor of management, teaching at the University of Liberia. I also had business there. I had close contact with youth who were studying at the university. I know how the people felt when that bloody civil war broke out.

I have two sons who were born there. Now they are 17 and 14 years old. I am often reminded of those families, who were poor, who were hard-working, but who somehow managed to make ends meet at the end of the day.

The civil war was based on the ethnicity of the people. Because the distribution of assets was wrong in the country, important positions in the government were given based on ethnicity and geographical regions that played a significant role. Small children, as young as eight and ten years, had AK-47s and other lethal weapons. They were killing people. They were chopping off hands and killing relatives and neighbours because they belonged to different ethnic groups.

I wonder about those little children. They were supposed to be going to school, instead of killing people with lethal weapons. When we look at pictures we can see that they were not even fully dressed. They were barefoot. I do not think they ate twice a day, but they had lethal weapons.

Where was the international community? Why could it not stop the infiltration or importation of the weapons? Those weapons were not manufactured in that country, but somehow they got the weapons to kill people. Why did they do that? Because someone was leading them. Someone was luring those children to take up weapons, take drugs and then kill people.

This was a crime against humanity. This was a serious crime. People were committing crimes not only against the children, but by using them to kill other people.

Canada should recapture its role and show leadership in the international arena.

The Canadian Alliance supports the bill in principle. We believe it is a good initiative, a step forward, but we do not agree with the contents of the bill, and I will give our reasons.

Our support is conditional. Until the conditions are met we will be unable to support the bill. Let me give some background as to why we do not support the bill in its present form.

Our Canadian negotiators on their way to Rome met with the foreign affairs committee approximately one week before their departure. Upon cross-examination the officials said in committee that they did not know what the details of the agreement might be. They did not know what it might cost. They did not think that any of the major offending countries would sign it. They did not think the Americans would sign it, our neighbours. They could not answer questions about the make-up of the code at that time. Above all, they would sign the agreement without knowing all of these things, like this weak, arrogant government has done in the past in signing the Kyoto agreement, the Rio convention, the Cairo agreement, the Beijing agreement and so on; signed without knowing the cost, the details, the signatories and so on. I cannot understand how the government could do that. The concept of signing agreements and then having parliament rubber stamp their implementation is not acceptable.

Let me highlight some of the important reasons we oppose this bill. The bill has every possibility of implementing another bureaucratic, non-functional international body. International agreements should not be signed before parliamentary debate. That is the purpose of parliament. The hon. members sitting in the House are the elected representatives of Canadians. They are representing 30 million Canadians. How can the government sign an international agreement without hearing members, without debating the issues or without giving members information about what will happen? That is how Canadian democracy should not work. We should not be part of a rubber stamp process. Hon. members have a significant role to play. They are not mute or people to be used as a rubber stamp.

The Canadian Alliance will oppose this bill because the bad countries will not sign such a treaty. Therefore, we will have liberal democracies around the world trying each other for genocide and war crimes. Without belligerent countries signing on this treaty will be meaningless.

Will this allow us to prosecute dictators in the francophonie who might visit us? Will we be able to arrest them and try them for war crimes, or will we continue to apply our double standard? The foreign minister did not answer these questions. Now he is not here to listen. He left the Chamber.

I question how effective the land mines treaty is because the offending countries have not signed. The U.S. has not signed the treaty and Canadians are still using mines to protect their troops. Land mines made in the basements of Kosovo, Angola and many other countries are as prevalent as ever. This was a PR job for the foreign minister, who desperately wants to become director general of the United Nations.

The foreign minister believes in these world governments, this concept of the United Nation; however, I do not believe that Canadians do. We should not support projects that have no cost or budget projections. An ad hoc tribunal approach would be more flexible, less expensive and would allow countries closer to the problem to participate.

Agreeing that there will not be capital punishment for those monsters who commit war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity is hardly an argument to support Bill C-19. I am sure that if there were a referendum on this issue the huge majority of Canadians would support capital punishment for those monsters who have committed crimes against humanity.

Having said that, let me go into further detail, with a little softer attitude toward the bill. What would the bill do? It would, through the court, deal with cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The bill would give Canada the domestic legislation to facilitate the prosecution of these criminals by Canadian courts, whether the alleged offences were committed outside Canada or inside Canada. The bill would give Canada the right to have first crack at the investigation, prosecution and sentencing of such cases at home. We could waive that right, if we wished, to extradite the accused to the International Criminal Court.

The bill would also affirm that Canadian law would not bar prosecution in Canada or extradition to the International Criminal Court or to any international criminal tribunal established by resolution of the security council of the United Nations.

Because our immigration laws are such that anyone can abuse them, they are like sieves, the back door is wide open and the front door is comparatively closed, anyone can sneak in.

If an individual suspected of a war crime was living in Canada, then that individual could stand trial here in Canada, if we so wished, or before the International Criminal Court. If Canada undertook an extensive investigation and the individual was found innocent of any charges, that would satisfy the requirement of the ICC.

As I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Alliance is hesitant to support the bill. The Canadian Alliance favours the prosecution of individuals who commit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We are committed to protecting national sovereignty, which is very important and which could be at stake. Before supporting the bill we demand that such protections be assured and that the other conditions I mentioned be met.

The relationship between domestic and international law is not spelled out in Bill C-19. The proposed amendments to the bill must be adopted at the committee stage before any support could be given to the bill. If these conditions are not met, then the Canadian Alliance must oppose the bill.

Let me mention some of the positive aspects of the bill. There are many good parts to the bill. It places further emphasis on guaranteeing the interests of victims. The court will be obliged to take all appropriate measures to protect the safety, well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses. The judges and prosecutors will be completely independent. The suspects and the states concerned will have the right to challenge the court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of the case during investigation or at trial.

The bill is one step toward creating an international judicial system in which any individual, regardless of position, will not be above the standards of the rule of law.

There is some criticism of the ICC that says that individual tribunals would be preferable and a superior option to establishing a permanent ICC. A tribunal would examine one specific case, render a verdict, and then disband. This could eliminate the cost of maintaining a permanent body and there would be no long term bureaucratic body in existence. However, these types of tribunals have proven to be ineffective in tracking down criminals and in having the legal authority to prosecute them.

The establishment of the international criminal court would bring legitimacy to international justice. By establishing one court for all war crime cases, much duplication is eliminated, counterbalancing the cost of the court's permanently.

As I said earlier, the bill is supposed to go to committee, where the real work should be done. It is critical that Canadian military and legal experts present testimony at the committee stage of this bill. That will definitely contribute to the quality of this bill.

If government members were listening and the Minister of Foreign Affairs was listening to the concerns of the official opposition, they will let the committee do the real job, listen to the official opposition and add some quality and substance to the bill which will be in Canadians' interests.

We want them to talk about the accountability of soldiers, officers and superiors in relation to the bill and in the Rome Statute giving rise to this legislative proposal.

We need to have on record their comments concerning the provisions of this bill which have been considered and negotiated at length by Canadian and American military experts at their own conference. Appearances by Canadian experts at committee should help to allay the concerns of some Canadians, particularly my constituents of Surrey Central, regarding certain aspects of this bill.

Since the Nuremberg trials of 1945, the international community has been working toward the creation of a permanent international criminal court. Momentum for the creation of the international criminal court was invigorated by strong support from the public, the media and non-government organizations.

After years of negotiations and an intense five week diplomatic conference with a thorough range of interests, the basis for the international criminal court was adopted in Rome on July 17, 1998. National judicial systems have failed to satisfactorily investigate or prosecute such individuals. There is a need for the measures in this bill.

I also understand, with the limited information the government has provided to opposition parties, as is usually the case, that the ICC is not retrospective. It will only study incidents that happen after the court is established. There will be no backlog, thereby allowing the court to begin immediate work on cases brought before it. This will help ensure that justice prevails quickly yet fairly.

Bill C-19 is retrospective for crimes committed outside of Canada, since we have always had domestic legislation in this domain. This legislation will be replaced by Bill C-19. The new retrospectivity of Bill C-19 is based on the status of international law at the time and place of the commission of the offence. This has always been the case in Canadian law.

The bill will allow individual governments to try war criminals within their own borders. Or, countries will have the means to transfer alleged criminals to the international criminal court to stand trial on the international stage.

No longer will heads of states have immunity against prosecution. They will be subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. Crimes such as rape, other serious sexual violence and forced prostitution may be judged as a war crime and crime against humanity. Imprisonment and fines will be administered. However, capital punishment will not be administered.

I will quickly go over the organizational component of the ICC. The international criminal court statute will come into force once 60 states have ratified it. It will be seated in the Hague, Netherlands. The 18 judges of the ICC and the prosecutor are selected on qualifications of supreme court level and must be ratified by two-thirds of states parties. Their terms are for nine years, staggered by one-third, that is, every three years six new members are appointed and six will leave. They may be removed by a similar two-thirds vote, if there is a need.

The registrar will be responsible for administration of the ICC. The rules of procedure and evidence are currently being negotiated through a series of meetings of a preparatory commission which includes delegations from signatory states and other interested states.

The details of precise meanings of terms found in the statute, evidence and court procedures, administrative structure, that is, languages, treatment of child witnesses, conditions of imprisonment, et cetera, are to be concluded in consensus agreements adjacent to the statute.

Parliament and Canadians need to have the information on these details once they are fleshed out. As I urged earlier, parliament should be given the information so that Canadians can know it is public knowledge.

The assembly of states parties to the court will ratify these rules of procedure and evidence upon the enactment of the statute after the 60th ratification comes on board. The assembly of states parties will meet once a year to provide management oversight and review the annual audit and budget in an effort to ensure financial accountability. Financial accountability is very important for international institutions to run smoothly.

The definitions of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity are carefully spelled out in the Rome Statute and are based on existing international law.

I will now go back to the part about the costs. Before going to Rome, the Canadian representatives or delegates had no idea what the costs would be. At present there is no set amount to be paid by Canada, as we learned.

All member states of the ICC will pay a fee for the creation, operation and management of the ICC. The United Nations will contribute half of the initial start-up costs and will continue financially when specific cases are mandated by the Security Council to the ICC. The remaining costs will be shared equally by all states parties, no less than 60 and potentially much higher.

As of February 7, 2000, 94 countries had signed the Rome Statute. The costs will not kick in until at least 60 signatories have ratified the statutes.

After some digging, the official opposition has found that the estimated financial obligation for Canada for the ICC, from a discussion with Mora Johnston in February 2000, revealed that the total initial contribution for the first to second years of the set-up period, after 60 ratifications brings the Rome Statute into effect, would be something like $300,000 to $500,000 Canadian. That cost will be less than the cost of the fountain installed in the Prime Minister's riding, which has created neither jobs nor any justice.

The annual expected contribution once the ICC is up and running is expected to be $1 million to $2 million Canadian. Canada's annual contribution to Rwanda and Yugoslavia's war crimes tribunals in 1998-99, assessed through the United Nations, was $6.3 million Canada. We can see how the cost operates.

There are some questions relating to the ICC. The permanent international body may become unaccountable and may override the sovereignty of a nation's legal and government systems. We did not get any answer nor did we hear about this in the minister's speech.

Although the ICC is to be complementary to national courts, it will investigate and prosecute a crime when the nations with jurisdiction are unwilling to do so. Here is one example of how the ICC can overrule the sovereignty of a nation. The ICC has been structured so that the sovereignty of nations will remain primordial. It does so by requiring the enactment of domestic legislation in each ratifying state which gives that sovereign state both the judicial equipment and the right to prosecute suspected cases of the crimes domestically.

Bill C-19 is Canada's version of this legislation. We can choose to waive the sovereign right to prosecute in our own court system and send the case to the international criminal court. This right cannot be circumvented unless we are unable or unwilling to use it, that is, that there is a deliberate fraudulent attempt to shield a suspect from prosecution, or our rule of law has completely collapsed and we have no government in place.

That this assessment could ever be made in a Canadian case is agreed among Canada's negotiating team and justice department experts to be simply unthinkable. In order for the unthinkable to occur, that is, the ICC were to nullify a Canadian investigation or the prosecution of a war crimes case, the following process would have to have been followed: First, the prosecutor must decide that there is a reasonable basis to question that Canada has deliberately and fraudulently misinvestigated or misprosecuted allegations with the aim of shielding a suspected war criminal; second, the prosecutor must consult with the Canadian government regarding his suspicions and try to arrive at a negotiated resolution of the discrepancy; and third, the prosecutor must convince a pretrial chamber of the ICC that the case is valid.

This stage would require concrete evidence that the accused war criminal is guilty of the offence and that Canada used a scam process to shield the accused from prosecution.

Canada could appear in front of the chamber to plead its case at this stage and could bring the case to a fourth appeals chamber stage. If the judges of the ICC go stark mad and judge that Canada is deliberately and fraudulently shielding a war criminal, this should be obvious to the international community. In this case, Canada has recourse in the procedure to remove rogue judges by a vote of two-thirds of states parties, if they agree.

In short, the international criminal court statute and Bill C-19 provide for substantial protection of a state's sovereignty viable only in blatant cases of judicial dishonesty or incapacity.

The strict requirements to overturn a sovereign country's treatment of a case have been negotiated and approved by the sovereignty maverick, the United States, and signed by the United Kingdom and France. They are intended specifically to protect state sovereignty for well behaved states while stopping rogue states from fraudulently protecting verifiable war criminals from accountability for their actions. In a way Bill C-19 affords us more sovereignty than improvised war tribunals.

There are some other problems. The ICC could lead to judicial activism on a global scale. Global judicial rulings should not be deemed regressive. It has been argued that a uniform, fair and equal system to prosecute individuals before the ICC will eliminate any chance of a kangaroo court.

It is clear that there is very limited room for any judicial activism in Bill C-19 or the Rome statute, either in terms of expanding the mandate of the ICC which is restricted to the three crimes listed or playing with the definition of said crimes which are very strictly and identically defined in both documents.

Why not continue the common practice of establishing ad hoc tribunals as cases involving these crimes come up? The 18 judges and prosecutors remain independent of government interference, with the exception of the removal clause, the two-thirds of states parties. The appointments are for nine year terms, as I mentioned. As shown in these numbers it is less expensive than setting up and administering individual ad hoc tribunals that lack the experience and legitimacy to efficiently and effectively hold criminals accountable.

The ICC not only allows the countries most implicated in a conflict to participate in the process. It gives them the judicial equipment and the right to prosecute the war crimes in their own courts. It gives them mechanisms and international support to achieve justice.

The ICC bureaucracy would be skeletal at first since it is purely prospective and does not have a backlog. It would only be used in cases where countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute domestically. When not in use, again the bureaucracy will be skeletal.

It is a one-stop shop for war crimes prosecution with specific expertise and experience in its limited mandate. It ensures continuity and consistency of international law. It will be much more legitimate and effective in bringing war criminals to justice and setting deterrents for potential war criminals than ad hoc tribunals.

Let me mention something about our neighbours, the United States. The U.S. has not yet signed the Rome statute. The Senate is unlikely to ratify it, given its present political composition. Some may argue that this makes the court ineffective. Although the U.S. is not a signatory the Rome statute can still be applied. The need for international justice can still be carried out.

There are examples of treaties and alliances that are successful without American participation. The United States has not rejected the Rome statute yet and is presently studying the ICC within the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House. They are heavily involved in negotiations on the rules of procedure and evidence at the preparatory commission. This involvement in the process could lead to their acceptance of the court.

In conclusion, I think we should participate in negotiations on the rules of procedure and evidence before they are concluded. We should participate in deciding the definitions that are being worked on before the bill is ratified by parliament.

Parliament should participate in serious consultations with regard to those negotiations. We know that the negotiations are secret. We want some degree of input, in camera or not, into how Canadian delegates negotiate the critical rules of procedures and evidence.

These things need to happen before my constituents of Surrey Central, Canadians and the Canadian Alliance support the bill. War criminals must be held responsible and accountable for the blood on their hands.

[Competition Act, April 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the good work by the member of parliament for Sarnia—Lambton on this matter over the years.

Bill C-276 seeks to amend the Competition Act to ensure that Canadian consumers are not victims of negative option marketing. Negative option marketing offers customers products and services that the consumer is required to expressively decline or opt out of.

How do we provide this protection for Canadians, including those in Quebec? Should it come in the form of Bill C-276 or can it be achieved through market based reform? Those are the important questions. The competition law can profoundly restrict economic freedom and market efficiency and the general move toward strengthening laws should be approached with caution.

With that good note, since my time is so limited, the Canadian Alliance supports free enterprise but recognizes the important role of the government in creating an economic environment with fair and transparent rules that protect both consumers and businesses.