Daniel Turp

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 6.

That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 1 with the following:

“its most serious measures for the most”

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the whole constitutional issue is taboo. We must not talk about the constitution or wonder if it is being upheld or not, and we cannot amend it when we all know that it should be amended in order to meet the aspirations of many Canadians, including Quebecers, natives and all of those who want some of the provisions of the constitution to be amended.

Canadian constitutionalism has failed, and that is why some of us do not want to address these issues. They say that these issues should not be considered, even in our parliamentary debates. And when we go ahead and address these issues, they call it “constitutional obsession”.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville likes to talk about constitutional obsession when we raise constitutional issues and try to stand for the interests of Quebec and to protect the current version of the constitution, which recognizes the jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces in some areas, especially in the area of environment which is being undermined by Bill C-33.

But of course we do not hear about constitutional obsession when the minister and some of his colleagues base this bill and other pieces of legislation on spending power, for instance, or legislative power, because it deals with cross-border issues and cross-border pollution. No, they forget all about constitutional obsession when they need to exercise their federal jurisdictions under the terms of the constitution. But there is an obsession with the constitution when it comes to protecting and defending the integrity of Quebec's jurisdictions, in the House and before parliament.

It is not an obsession. As long as Bloc members are sitting in the House, defending Quebec's interests will mean defending the respect of the current constitution before the day comes, and it will come soon, when we will decide, because of the numerous violations of this constitution, to give ourselves a country, to give ourselves the jurisdictions which will allow us to develop Quebec without having to suffer continuously, through parliament, violations of the constitution.

In fact, to respond to the question of my colleague, I would also like to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada is a strategic ally of the government and of the Parliament of Canada on this issue.

The theory on the national dimension which I mentioned earlier is a theory that the Supreme Court of Canada has tried to apply in many areas. On the environmental issue, on the transborder pollution issue, in the Crown Zellerbach affair, which was a very important case in Canadian constitutional history, the supreme court went very far in recognizing a federal legislative jurisdiction over the environment and the protection of the environment.

That the supreme court can use this to enrich and to interpret the Canadian constitution, largely in favour of increasing federal jurisdiction over the environment, is very disturbing. It concerns the Quebec government, which in other matters, especially when it comes to passing environmental legislation allowing for federal impact studies, has tended to want new powers and to expand its jurisdiction in an area where federal legislation could be interpreted by the courts in such a way as to annihilate the jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec by enshrining it in the constitution.

This is unacceptable. If this legislation is not amended so as to respect the jurisdiction of Quebec and other provinces, the government will not have the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Environmental groups and industries which oppose this legislation will know that our objection is based not only on the criticisms they share with us but on an even more fundamental basis, that is, that we do not want this legislation to pass. Parliament must not pass legislation it does not have the jurisdiction to pass.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, we share the same concerns. I hope the NDP will be consistent with its view that this piece of legislation is incomplete. It is certainly weak when it comes to defending the interests and allowing for better protection of the fauna and flora.

One of the very obvious weaknesses is not to want the scientific community to have the last word on the wildlife species that need to be protected. In that sense, together we should make sure that the government amends the provisions of the legislation so that it does give a say, and I would say a final say, to the experts on these issues.

In the draft legislation the cabinet, obviously, will have the last word. I think this kind of decision should be removed from the cabinet. It should not be ministers who make that decision. We should rely on experts. That is something that is not unusual and something that could be done in this case.

Hopefully the government will understand that this law is imperfect and it should be amended, which is contrary to what the Minister of the Environment has said. The environment minister said that this bill was good as it was.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the start of this new political season, I have the pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. I would like to take this opportunity to send greetings to the people of my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry and my colleagues here in the House and to wish the latter a hot autumn.

Today, we have new leaders here with us in the House. We will also have several interesting questions on the Order Paper. I trust that the business carried out in the House will meet the expectations of the people of Canada, and of Quebec in particular.

Bill C-33 on the preservation of Canada's wildlife is one deserving of debate in this Parliament for a number of reasons, primarily the fact that it seeks to implement a number of Canada's international obligations under conventions it has signed, such as the Convention on Biodiversity and others like the Ramsar Convention, which is aimed at protecting species and preserving the flora and fauna of this planet.

This debate is of particular interest to me because there is a wildlife sanctuary in my riding of Beauharnois Salaberry, the Haut-Saint-Laurent, which is home to a number of species, some of them at risk. This is an issue that interests me particularly because certain individuals have made representations to me, including those who keep various species and want to have the public get to know them at the Hemmingford safari park. They think the present legislation is inadequate and should be expanded and improved with standards to ensure better species protection.

The Bloc Quebecois would like improved protection, legislation ensuring such protection for endangered wildlife, but in a debate such as this, it is concerned about the government's desire to pass legislation without any possibility of amendment.

We recently heard the Minister of the Environment say that this bill was fine as it stood, as he had introduced it, as it had been tabled in the House. What is the point then of today's debate, which will continue before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, if we already know that the government does not want any amendments, does not want it improved?

And yet, this bill is far from perfect. We could cite criticism by members of the government even, who hope the bill will be amended once we have passed it or when we are called to pass it.

I quote, for example, the member for North York, who said on June 12:

We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless this bill leaves committee as a good...piece of legislation. The House must support legislation that is strong, fair, effective and makes biological sense.

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis, an expert on environmental issues, who served as minister of the environment in Quebec under Robert Bourassa, said on the same day with respect to Bill C-33, and I quote:

Instead of being recognized as being the final list produced by scientists of the highest repute who have worked tirelessly over the last two decades, the list will now be subject to the discretion of cabinet—

The member for Lac-Saint-Louis added:

I find that terribly ironic...

We are not even starting with the roll of the list of the 339 species identified by COSEWIC. That is a glaring fault in the law. Without a listing there cannot be protection.

As members can see, this bill needs to be amended, it needs to be improved upon, as suggested by two Liberal members. They are not the only ones who think that the bill is flawed.

A number of environmentalists and environmental groups have also said that the bill would not eliminate the loopholes left by certain provinces. Some of these groups, including the Sierra Club, also said that this legislation, which the minister claimed to be the strongest in the world, is an embarrassment for Canada at the international level.

According to Elizabeth May, of the Sierra Club, species at risk are not adequately protected under this bill. On behalf of her organization and of several environmental groups, she said that politicians, not scientists—and this is definitely an area where the voice of scientists should prevail over that of politicians—have the last word regarding the selection of species deemed to be at risk, when we should in fact call upon an independent group of experts to make an annual list.

This criticism from environmental groups should be listened to. It should trigger a debate and a thorough examination by the members of this House. I hope that the criticisms made by some Liberal members, including the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, and by environmental groups will be taken into consideration by the committee.

In something rarely seen when it comes to environmental issues, industry is also opposed to the bill in its present form. For instance, two organizations, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, which wished to comment on Bill C-33 as it now stands, and the Mining Association of Canada, have indicated that the government could have taken a much tougher approach with respect to federal lands, public lands and natural areas, where the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction is not challenged by any of the provinces, particularly by our party, the Bloc Quebecois.

This brings me to the intergovernmental and constitutional aspects of Bill C-33. As my party's intergovernmental affairs critic, I feel it is necessary and indeed essential that the constitutional issues raised by this bill be tackled at this stage of the proceedings.

In matters of the environment, the division of powers in Canada is such that the federal parliament and the parliaments of various provinces have overlapping jurisdiction. This is affirmed in the preamble to the bill. But many provisions of the bill proper seem to run counter to this division of powers with respect to the environment and, by extension, the protection of wildlife.

Here, as in other areas, what we are seeing is a desire by parliament and the government introducing this legislation to drag in the issue of national interest.

Moreover, this bill is intended to implement an international treaty, namely the Convention on the Preservation of Biological Diversity referred to in the third paragraph of the preamble. It might serve, as has already happened in the past before the courts, the Supreme Court of Canada in particular, to imply that there is a national dimension to this bill, since it is intended to implement an international treaty and international obligations. Then, because of this national dimension, the appropriate legislation for the purpose of implementing these obligations becomes the federal legislation.

We in the Bloc Quebecois and all the governments of Quebec, one after the other, have always challenged this national dimension theory. The courts have hesitated to apply it, although they have sometimes been tempted to broaden the range of federal jurisdiction through reference to this theory, particularly when the environment is concerned.

It seems this is the case again here, because certain provisions in this bill clearly suggest the desire for this legislation to apply to the provinces, and apply to them without their consent. Moreover, a number of its provisions are along those lines.

For instance, paragraph 34(2) is the most explicit, and is very clearly aimed at having federal legislation apply within a province and without the province necessarily wanting this to be so. I will quote this, because it is worth reading in its entirety:

(2) The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in lands in a province—

This relates to the listing of a species of wildlife as extirpated species.

—with respect to individuals of a listed wildlife species that is not an aquatic species or a species of birds that are migratory birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994.

Federal legislation can thus end up being applied in a province without the province's consent.

This would indicate that the government has little concern about potential overlap between this upcoming federal law and certain provincial laws passed in previous years, which have enabled the provinces to meet some of their obligations, including international ones arising from Canada's ratification of certain treaties on biological diversity and the protection and preservation of flora and fauna.

This is the case with Quebec, for example, since it passed two important bills: the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species and the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife. The National Assembly considered it practical and essential to pass these laws to preserve endangered wildlife in Quebec.

Accordingly, the Government of Quebec, through its minister of the environment, Paul Bégin, has said that Bill C-33 constituted only more unnecessary duplication for Quebec and that its aim was to put in place a safety net for endangered species and their habitats in areas under federal jurisdiction. This is in keeping with the provisions of the constitution and the jurisdiction it afforded parliament over the environment, but the federal government wanted to do the same thing on Quebec soil, which the government of Quebec was not prepared to accept. Neither are the duly elected Bloc Quebecois representatives in this House prepared to accept it, and their voices must be heard.

I would add that some provisions of the bill are also likely to be declared unconstitutional as they are incompatible with the division of powers. I am thinking in particular of clauses 36, 39 and 57 to 64, which also seek to allow the federal parliament and this legislation to interfere with the powers granted to the Quebec National Assembly and to the other provincial legislatures.

I take this opportunity to praise the work of our critic on environmental issues, the hon. member for Jonquière, who, in this area as in several others, shows not only an interest for the environment, but also for the protection of the right to the environment, this third generation right whereby we have a duty to protect species, to protect nature, plants and animal life against the dangers and the harm that man and institutions can cause.

In particular, I wish to emphasize the work done by my colleague regarding the importation of MOX, a fuel that entered Canada against the will of several environmental groups. In fact, MOX could still enter Canada through Quebec and Ontario even though no real debate, no consultation and no adequate impact studies have been conducted to our satisfaction and that of a number of other parliamentarians and groups representing the civil society.

The Bloc Quebecois will not accept and will not support a legislation which, we are already being told, cannot be amended, even though we know it is inadequate, even in the eyes of Liberal members such as the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who is here with us. This bill is deemed unacceptable by several environmental groups, by a number of people in the industry, who want the federal government to take action in this sector, but only in those areas and territories over which it has accepted and recognized jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will not accept a federal act that creates overlap and duplication in this area, as is the case in so many other areas.

Yesterday afternoon, we learned that the government wanted to impose another gag—and this sets off bad memories for us; members have only to recall the series of gags imposed this past spring by the government, which was trying to ram through its clarity bill, gag by gag—to prematurely cut off debate in order to get its young offenders legislation passed.

This is another debate in which the Bloc Quebecois has been trying to defend Quebec's interests and its jurisdiction in a field where it has shown that flexible, intelligent legislation encouraging the rehabilitation of young people was much better than federal laws designed to put 12 and 13 year olds in jail when what they deserved was a chance at rehabilitation.

The government does not seem to be interested in making the effort or urging others to do so, but is instead casting doubts on the chances of rehabilitating young people, and thus perhaps responding to the people represented by many Canadian Alliance MPs today, who are calling for tough measures against young offenders.

The young offenders bill, like Bill C-33, other bills, programs such as the millennium scholarships and others that come under provincial jurisdiction, shows just how far the federal government is prepared to go, this government which claims to be a national government, which wants to be such a government and in fact reiterates this in the bill when its speaks of its desire to defend Canada's national identity and history, of which its natural heritage is an integral part, and shows just how unfederal its federalism truly is. It is for this reason that so many of the Quebecers represented by the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois are challenging this federalism and calling for their own country.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for Châteauguay, I am pleased to table a petition signed by 891 people in my riding which brings to the attention of the House that the cable company Vidéotron is not respecting the community programming slot it promised the CRTC it would preserve.

The petitioners are asking for CRTC intervention in order to obtain the re-opening of our community television channel as soon as possible, as well as asking the CRTC to carry out the public examination of broadcasting distribution that was promised in January 1998.

[Bill C-20, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 has yet to be adopted, but it continues to draw serious criticism.

Yesterday, Claude Ryan strongly criticized the bill when he said:

Because it reduces the National Assembly to the rank of an inferior parliament, because it reflects a deep distrust of the Quebec democracy, because it suggests that Quebec sovereignists are seditious people who must be kept under surveillance, this bill is humiliating for the parliamentarians who sit in Quebec City and for the people whom they represent.

Even if Bill C-20 is passed by the current Liberal senators and those whom the Prime Minister will have to appoint to ensure that it is indeed passed, that will not give it the legitimacy it lacked when passed by this House.

This gag law will never deprive Quebecers of their right to choose their destiny, because Quebec is free, and the Quebec nation is sovereign.

[Petitions, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the people of Quebec, and those of my riding in particular, pointing out that plutonium is a potential threat to human health, that the federal government unilaterally authorized the importation of MOX plutonium in Canada, and that it did so without public consultation on the principle of bringing this plutonium into Canada.

The petitioners consequently call upon Parliament to take all necessary steps to ensure that the public and its representatives are consulted on the principle of importing MOX plutonium. These two petitions have been signed by a total of 710 people.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, June 9th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 2 the following new clause:

“2.1 The purpose of this Act is to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute.”

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-19, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 43 on page 9 and lines 1 to 6 on page 10 with the following:

“8. A person who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 6 or 7 may be prosecuted for that offence if, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, Canada could exercise jurisdiction over the person.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 11 the following new clause:

“11.1 For greater certainty, in proceedings for an offence under any of sections 4 to 7, an accused who formerly occupied a position as a Head of State or government, member of a Government or parliament, elected representative or government official and who, at the time of the proceedings, no longer occupies that position, may not rely on immunities or special procedural rules that may attach, by virtue of statute law or common law, to the official capacity of the person.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 22 the following new clause:

“32.1 A certificate issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating that at a certain time a state of war or armed conflict existed between Canada and the state named therein is admissible in evidence in any proceedings in respect of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under this Act and is conclusive proof of the facts so stated.”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-19, in Clause 70, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 37 with the following:

“of the Extradition Act, the Visiting Forces Act, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or the Foreign Missions and International”

Madam Speaker, that group of motions will give us the opportunity to comment on the substance of Bill C-19.

As a plenipotentiary in this House and after hearing with pleasure the comments of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, as well as those of the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I would like to begin my speech on the second series of my substantive amendments to this the bill by saying that the Bloc Quebecois strongly supports Bill C-19.

We believe that it is very important for the House to pass the bill so it can become an inspiration for other nations or parliaments that will also be called upon to meet their international obligations by fulfilling the commitments resulting from their participation in the Rome conference, the adoption of the statute, its signature and its ultimate ratification, which usually follows the adoption of an implementation bill like Bill C-19.

It is true that Canada could become one of the main advocates of the statute in the international community to convince 50 other states to ratify the Rome Statute. So far, ten nations, one very recently, have ratified the statute. We need 50 more countries to pass similar legislation so that the statute can come into force and the International criminal court can start to operate, try and, if need be, sentence people found guilty of serious crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes.

Consequently the Bloc fully supports the bill and, with my colleagues from Mercier and Laval Centre, we co-operated in the work of the committee to improve the bill. However, there is still room for improvement. That is the object of some of our amendments at report stage. Incidentally, we had made our intentions known in this regard in committee.

I understand the secretary of state's surprise, but is it not appropriate sometimes for the opposition to surprise the government? It always has so many surprises in store for us.

In this case, we wanted to propose a few amendments to further improve the bill. I will call the members' attention to two of those amendments for the purposes of this debate and, most likely, for the purposes of the arguments that may take be raised before the courts that will be called upon to enforce this legislation, prosecute and eventually convict the authors of such serious crimes.

Motion No. 5, which amends clause 8 of the bill, would give Canadian courts extended universal jurisdiction in the case of serious international crimes such as those covered by Bill C-19. In this bill, universal jurisdiction is limited in scope because there has to be some kind of connection with regard to the nationality of the victim or the accused, or to the person who, during an armed conflict, committed a war crime.

There is also the connection to the territory since a person cannot be accused if he or she is not present in Canada. We would like to see this notion of custodian jurisdiction extended so that Canada has the power to request the extradition of a person for prosecution under this bill, a power countries such as Belgium and Switzerland seem to have already assumed.

We would like the universal jurisdiction recognized in Bill C-19 to be wider in scope, so that Canada can stop being a haven for war criminals and become a place where these people are brought to justice. If Canada gave its courts extended universal jurisdiction, compared to what is provided for in Bill C-19 as it stands now, Canada would be in a position where it would meet its international commitments better than any other country and where it would show its desire not to let serious international crimes go unpunished.

There is another provision that we would wish to see amended. It would involve adding to this bill a new clause, clause 11.1, which would very explicitly recognize that, if a foreign head of state or government or member of a government, or even a member of parliament, is on Canadian territory and could be brought to trial, this person would not be able to rely on immunity before the courts.

To make this clear, we could give the example of General Pinochet who, if he were on Canadian territory, could be brought to trial, but could perhaps claim some immunity before our courts if our legislation were not clear enough.

During the work of the committee, experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs told us that the precedents set by the judiciary committee of the privy council in London that examined the case of Mr. Pinochet had deprived General Pinochet of his immunity. Consequently, these precedents could be applied here. The common law that resulted from these precedents could be applied by our courts and deprive someone such as General Pinochet or someone in a similar situation of his immunity.

What the Bloc Quebecois would have wished for and still wishes for is for these precedents set by the judiciary committee of the Privy Council to be included in the bill.

This is why we are proposing subclause 11.1, which would clearly say that an accused who formerly occupied a position as a head of state or government, member of a government or parliament, elected representative or government official and who, at the time of the proceedings, no longer occupies that position, may not rely on immunities or special procedural rules that may attach, by virtue of statute law or common law, to the official capacity of the person.

Such a provision would be useful because it would provide for more certainty; we would be absolutely sure that individuals suspected of having committed serious crimes, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, could not obtain immunity before our courts. It would enshrine the common law in the statutes of Canada and would allow courts to strip those individuals of their immunity in order to punish crimes that should be punished.

We have proposed other amendments that should improve this bill, including a provision clearly stating that this act relates to the discharge of Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute.

In conclusion, I would like to say how important it is to sustain the effort to ensure rapid implementation of the Rome Statute.

The adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries was a turning point in the history of humanity. We are collectively trying to establish an institution that would allow nations and international institutions to truly punish international crimes. We already have an institution. All we need now is to adopt and ratify the treaties, pass the implementing legislation, as we are doing today, and that dream will become reality.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to someone who is no longer with us, Justice Jules Deschênes, who devoted part of his life to these issues. A major report was drafted by the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, which he presided. I want to pay tribute to Justice Deschênes and to thank him and his family for his contribution to this debate, which he would have been proud to witness today.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, June 9th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 1 the following:

““Minister”, in relation to any provision of this Act, means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of that provision.”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 2 the following new clause:

“3.1 The Governor in Council may, by order, designate any member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada to be the Minister for the purposes of any provision of this Act.”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 2 the following new clause:

“3.1 The Minister may designate any person to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Minister under this Act that are specified in the designation and on that designation that person may exercise those powers and shall perform those duties and functions subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as are specified in the designation.”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 22 the following new clause:

“32.1 The Minister shall prepare an annual report with respect to the implementation of this Act and shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House of Commons within three months after the end of each financial year or, if the House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that it is sitting.”

Madam Speaker, we have noticed that some of the clauses which are the subject of the amendments you just read cannot be found in several pieces of legislation recently passed by the House of Commons to implement international conventions.

For example, in the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act and in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, it says at the beginning that a particular minister is designated by the governor in council to administer the act and that it is possible for that minister to delegate this responsibility to another minister.

In the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, there is also a provision that was added, at our request, to take into account the way in which Australia fulfilled its obligations under that convention, provision whereby the minister was required to submit an annual report on the application of the act in order to inform the people about how the act was administered and how it allowed the country to fulfil its obligations under the treaty to which it had become a party.

That is the reason why amendments such as these could not only be useful, but could also give more consistency to the various implementation bills this Parliament is called upon to pass so that Canada's international obligations under the treaties to which it becomes a party are fulfilled.

I am calling here for a certain degree of consistency in our treaty implementation legislation, a consistency which is lacking and which the House should reflect upon more deeply since we do not seem to be able to have the same legislative practices whether we are dealing with the anti-personnel mines convention or, in this case, with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

These amendments would improve the bill and give more consistency to our treaty implementation legislation.

[Crimes Against Humanity Act, June 9th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I read the Chair's decision on the acceptability of certain of the amendments to Bill C-19 I introduced. I find the Chair's decision on two of them questionable and I would ask that it be reviewed.

At issue are the two motions dealing with the schedule. Basically, both amendments are aimed at making sure the complete text of the Rome Statute is incorporated into the schedule to the bill, whereas currently only two articles are incorporated in the bill as it now stands.

These two motions were supposedly found out of order because the amendments went beyond the scope of the bill. I find it difficult to understand how the amendments go beyond the scope of the bill as they are aimed at incorporating the whole statute when some parts of it are already incorporated into the bill.

The true aim of these amendments is to circulate the text of the Rome Statute so that citizens may learn what it is all about when they read the act, as is the case with other implementing acts which include the text of the Geneva conventions, for instance, or of the treaties on antipersonnel mines or the nuclear test ban, which were recently passed by this House.

I urge the Chair to review the decision and rule in order two of the amendments aimed at incorporating the complete text of the Rome Statute in Bill C-19.