Bill Casey

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my question does not pertain to the principles of Bill C-35, but rather to the principles of access to information.

Why will the government not commit to a report to parliament? The government acknowledges that it is necessary, because the minister has said that he agrees to report on the people who apply to make use of a claim for immunity four times a year, but it will not put it in legislation. It seems to me that the minister is saying it is necessary and he will do it, but he wants to keep that flexibility so he can change his mind later on.

This kind of goes along with what is in Bill C-36, with restrictions to access to information. There seems to be a reluctance on behalf of the government to share information with parliament. All we are asking is if the government will provide a list of those people who claim immunity under these very significantly expanded immunity rules.

When I talk to Liberal members individually, they seem to agree that this is a good thing to do. Could the parliamentary secretary indicate if there has been a change of heart? Will the government add an annual report to parliament in the bill?

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, only four days after the elected officials of the municipality of Cumberland accepted a clear, written offer by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to divest the Two Rivers port to the county, DFO broke the deal with the county and announced it was giving the port to the Millbrook band, 150 kilometres away. While the municipality was dealing in good faith, DFO and Millbrook were striking a secret deal to give the port to the natives.

Will the minister reverse this disgraceful and underhanded deal and start the process all over again in an honourable way?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my traditional question. I am still seeking to find the reason why the government brought this bill forward because I am assuming there must be one.

Is the member aware of people from any country who have said that they would not attend conferences or meetings in Canada, such as the G-8 or G-20, unless we expanded our immunity to include officials, families and assistants aside from the senior diplomats or that they themselves would not come if this immunity was not expanded?

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

Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to find out why the government brought the bill to parliament, I asked several members if they were aware of any case where Canada was refused attendance by a foreign delegation or if anybody has ever said they would not come to Canada because our immunity laws are not satisfactory, that they could not break Canada's civil and criminal laws and get away with it and consequently would not attend a convention.

Is the member for Saskatoon--Humboldt aware of any case where a convention held in Canada was prevented from going ahead because people would not come because there would not be immunity? Is there any justification at all by delegations from other countries to refuse to come to Canada because we do not have the bill in force?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up a good point. The minister has said he wants quarterly reports. If he feels it is justified for him to have quarterly reports, and it is just a commitment by this minister, why will the government not put it into legislation and obligate all future ministers of foreign affairs to make annual reports to parliament? If it is worth it for the minister, why not make it permanent?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out that she was elected 13 years ago yesterday. So was I, but the difference is that I was given a little vacation in 1993 and recycled in 1997 so I can be considered environmentally friendly.

I have two questions for the member. She said several times that those members are now in government so they must be responsible. I think that is a good philosophy, but is it not responsible to ask the government to do an annual accounting of who claimed diplomatic immunity in a given year? We have asked for it and the government has turned it down. I think that is a responsible attitude and approach. It would respect Canadians and would provide Canadians with the information to which they are entitled. It is open and transparent.

It is very important for the member to listen to my second question. She said there is no blanket coverage, but there was a public statement in a newspaper article written by Greg Weston. The statement can only be interpreted as saying that the bill would provide blanket coverage. The member should listen to this statement and if it is wrong, correct it. The statement is that under the bill anyone showing up at international conferences:

--that's delegates, officials, staff, families, bag-carriers--would have diplomatic immunity to rape, steal, drive drunk and otherwise break Canadian laws with impunity, compliments of our national government.

If that statement is not correct, it should be corrected. Would the member say specifically what is wrong with that statement?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's comments. As a long term member of parliament, I am guessing that he has probably been aware of or participated in hundreds of international meetings.

A government member recently said that we need the bill for the G-8 session in Alberta. I do not know what the consequences would be, but the inference was that if we did not have the bill in place the G-8 would not be successful in Alberta.

With all the experience the member has and all the conferences he has attended and participated in, has anyone to his knowledge ever said that he or she would not come to Canadian without diplomatic immunity from breaking the civil or criminal laws?

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

Even if I am trying to give him a compliment, Mr. Speaker? The article states:

(The) Foreign Affairs Minister and his officials have recently been doing an admirable job cracking down on law-breaking diplomats. They should continue their good work by consigning this particular legislation to the nearest shredder.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is very much a part of our concern with the bill, that there was and is right now a very clear set of rules and a system that ensures that applicants who come to Canada are screened individually, one on one.

This transfers it to almost a group approval. As the member mentioned, it has almost been relayed to us as a tourism bill, to promote tourism and the ability of Canada to hold international events. However, if people are not coming to Canada because they cannot come with protection against breaking our laws, civil and criminal, then why do we want them in the first place?

I do not think people would say they would not go to a G-8 meeting in Canada because they could not break the laws and get away with it. I do not think they have ever come to a parliamentary meeting and said they would not go to Canada because they could not break the laws and get away with it.

We do not need this expanded immunity at this time especially. We should not have it. The government should remove it. As a matter of fact the last line from the newspaper article is complimentary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It says “Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley and his officials have recently been doing—”

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention but the witness who made that comment was the government witness. Also according to the newspaper article by Greg Weston, which I am assuming is correct, he said that if we gave diplomatic privileges and immunities for a meeting, then all the participants that we let in for that meeting would get it.

This is different from the minister of immigration looking at an individual application and saying that this person does not qualify or that this is a person we do not want to have in Canada who has diplomatic immunity from our civil and criminal laws.

What this foreign official has said is that if one gets in, they all get in. That does not sound to me like the Department of Foreign Affairs, according to this foreign affairs official, will analyze individual applications as in the past when a minister issued a special ministerial permit. This is almost blanket coverage, according to this foreign affairs official who was quoted in the paper. If anybody is allowed into these meetings, then everybody in the delegation will be allowed in and that is my concern.

I do not believe that I am exaggerating or that any other aspect of my comments was not realistic or practical.