2001-10-05

Business of the HouseMs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties, as well as with the member for Jonquière, concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-209 scheduled at the conclusion of private members' business later this day.
You would find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-209, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for second reading be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, October 16 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

The Speaker: Does the chief government whip have unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Foreign Missions and International Organizations ActHon. Stéphane Dion (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs): 
moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): 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.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Surrey Central I am pleased to lead the debate on Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.
My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance and I resent the sneaky way in which the bill was introduced. The first debate is taking place four days after the bill was tabled in the House and three days after opposition MPs had a first glance at it. We are debating the bill on a Friday when most MPs are on their way to their constituencies for a one week break.
The government is trying to slip some major changes through parliament by hiding them in an innocuous looking act surrounded by mundane housekeeping provisions. There has been no advance notice from the government side, no media coverage and no press release from the department. There was no legislative summary or explanation of any kind provided and the Library of Parliament was not instructed to prepare such documents.
There was no meat on the bones in the briefing of the opposition by the department on Wednesday. There was very little in terms of information regarding the legislation. We did not have time to consult and debate it in our caucus. The opposition was not given enough time to adequately prepare, research and develop an indepth analysis. Perhaps this was intentional, and I am tempted to oppose it on that basis alone.
The bill amends the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act to modernize the privileges and immunities regime. This would allow Canada to comply with its existing commitment under international treaties and to respond to recent developments in international law. It corrects the deficiencies in the existing definition of an international organization. It attempts, perhaps as a marketing tool, to encourage international organizations to come to Canada. It empowers the RCMP with the primary responsibility of ensuring the security and proper functioning of intergovernmental conferences.
This authority supports the security measures taken by the Canadian police in fulfilling Canada's obligations to protect persons who have privileges and immunities under the act. It attempts to give security and protection a statutory basis. Security at international conferences will be quite significant, especially in light of the recent terrorist attacks and the upcoming G-8 summit in Canada. Despite all of these significant issues the bill is labelled as housekeeping in nature.
The bill proposes roughly 10 amendments in five broad categories. The first category of amendments modernize the legislation to comply with Canada's existing commitments under international treaties and to respond to important new developments in international law.
For example, international chemical weapons inspectors that conduct inspections under the chemical weapons convention would enjoy immunity at par with that of foreign diplomats. It would enable the inspectors to import specialized technical equipment without paying customs duty.
The second category of amendments correct deficiencies in the existing definition of an international organization. Traditional definitions cover only international organizations of a formal institutionalized nature based on treaty such as the United Nations.
Unstructured intergovernmental organizations such as the G-8, OSCE and APEC are not covered by that definition. This is a concern because non-treaty based organizations are less accountable to Canadians since they are established by an order from cabinet rather than by a treaty which is then subject to review in parliament.
The Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act went into effect in 1991. If this is a housekeeping change, albeit an important one, why did it take the weak Liberal government over eight years to correct these deficiencies? It has been sitting on these improper definitions for eight years.
This shows the government's general attitude of neglect. The government has neglected so many important issues facing Canada such as the budget, national security and safety, health care issues, defence and agriculture, it is always taken by surprise by situations such as this one.
The third category of amendments gives statutory authority to support security measures for Canadian police to provide security and protection to persons who attend high level meetings held in Canada such as APEC, the summit of the Americas or the G-8.
The government says that the legislation clarifies the role of the police, but in the same breath the amendments authorize the RCMP to take appropriate measures that are justified, reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances. The government uses words like reasonable, appropriate, proportionate and so on.
Lawyers make millions of dollars from vague words like reasonable, appropriate and proportionate. The Hughes report on APEC cost over $5 million. Bill C-35 would multiply that by many times. It might also curtail freedom of expression, the right to peaceful protest and assembly.
Does it mean that pepper spray, stun guns or even bullets would be appropriate and reasonable? I wonder if this is an escape valve for the Prime Minister to avoid political controversy such as the one over pepper spraying at the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1998.
The reason the Prime Minister and his government do not want to clarify the powers of the RCMP and write them in common law is that it potentially leaves room for political interference. They prefer to keep the directions vague so that they can exert political influence whenever they need to do so.
How could the police possibly satisfy the charter requirements? If the bill were passed it would be an invitation for endless charter challenges because the terms are vague. The words appropriate and reasonable cannot be defined clearly. It would provide wide umbrella coverage for the RCMP to take any action against people who are protesting peacefully. This cannot be justified.
This is a matter for debate and will probably lead to many court cases. I do not understand what the difference would be then between the approaches taken in a repressive regime that we condemn and in a free and democratic Canadian society.
Bill C-35 leaves no question of who is in charge of the situation since it is the primary responsibility of the RCMP to ensure security for the proper functioning of an international event.
The department's shallow briefing notes state that these amendments have no impact on the powers of provincial and municipal police forces. Some members on the other side say that these amendments may not give the police any new powers. Why are these amendments there in the first place? Is it a sugar coated but bitter medicine?
The common law authorities of police forces have been clarified in legislation in countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Why do we not do that in Canada? Our criminal code says that police officers are responsible only to the law itself.
These amendments may affect any number of outstanding court cases to date of protesters arrested at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City or during APEC in Vancouver, British Columbia. That has to be seen.
In principle there are few problems with clarifying the role of who is in charge of security at these important meetings. My concern is that Canada's police, especially the RCMP, is already stretched to the limit.
The Canadian Police Association recently accused the government of playing shell games with the security of Canadians. It said in a press release that when it comes to security at our borders and airports Canadians should not be lulled into a false sense of security. It explained that the RCMP had to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. It means that the RCMP has been moving officers to priority areas in the wake of the terrorist attacks.
If the RCMP has to reallocate officers from one assignment to the other then we have to study the impact of adding to those demands and responsibilities without adding further resources. Could this mean that when the G-8 comes to Kananaskis next year RCMP officers will be pulled away from their duties providing security to our citizens and communities and leave them without protection?
The fourth category of amendments seek to clarify provisions granting immunities from immigration restrictions to alien registration and overriding the Immigration Act provisions that prohibit the entry to Canada of inadmissible persons but not overriding the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
According to the amendment, when an order is passed under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act the requirement to grant a minister's permit under the Immigration Act would be removed. The minister's permit would be granted by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration because it is related to immigration matters, but under this amendment that would be overruled.
What would happen if a leader or a representative of a country happened to be a criminal or terrorist? The amendment overriding the Immigration Act would allow for that criminal to have easier access to Canada because he or she would be given access by the foreign minister or immigration minister who may not have all the checks and balances in place.
Where would one draw the line on the nature and magnitude of criminality? What kind of minor criminal act would be exempt? What is the definition of a minor criminal act? We do not know. September 11 brought security concerns to the forefront of everyone's consciousness.
Bill C-35 would allow the foreign affairs minister to supercede the authority of the immigration minister by allowing him to sign an order for a foreign visitor to be admitted into the country who would otherwise not be allowed to come to Canada.
I hope the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not want the House to rubber stamp this power grab.
If we take a less neutral example, not a Nelson Mandela, but a leader known to have committed human rights abuses or supported terrorism, the government would have the authority to admit him or her on political grounds, if they thought it furthered Canadian interests. What a ridiculous idea.
This gives more power to the government than with which most Canadians would be comfortable. Also, this power grab by the Minister of Foreign Affairs creates a situation where a serious criminal would be treated better and differently than an ordinary person with a minor criminal record.
The bill would create a double standard. For instance, a person with a criminal record, even a minor criminal record, would not be allowed to enter Canada under special privileges. Whereas a spouse of a Canadian with a minor criminal charge would not be. That person would be allowed to enter Canada, despite the person's criminal record, but an ordinary person with a minor criminal record would not.
I do not say that criminals should be admitted to Canada, but for the sake of this example it might be a case which would cause a Canadian family to split. It could also cause a marriage to break down because that individual, who may have committed a minor criminal offence, would not be able to rejoin his or her family in Canada. Allowing the government to use vague words like national interest is not good enough.
It is already clear that the act centralizes a lot of power in DFAIT. Is it the bureaucrats, or the Prime Minister or the cabinet who will decide? We do not know that because the bill does not tell us. The amendment is vague and leaves wide latitude that can be abused or even accidentally or unintentionally erred.
We know that at the francophonie games a record number of sports persons applied for refugee status. Imagine if the participants had come under permits from the foreign affairs minister, superseding the immigration minister. Where are the checks and balances? Who will find out what their backgrounds are? It brings the immunity of delegates to international conferences and international organizations into question.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Canadian authorities do not have the right to arrest, detain or question diplomatic personnel. Canadian authorities cannot search or enter their premises. Also, the convention obliges Canadian authorities to protect diplomatic premises. This also includes the premises of not only the diplomatic missions, but also the premises of international organizations. This means that a terrorist or a potential criminal entering Canada under the guise of diplomacy would not only be immune from prosecution in Canada, but our authorities would also be responsible for his or her safety. This is giving the red carpet treatment for potential terrorists, spies from other countries, criminals or even brutal dictators.
The bill would do two things to supposedly improve the immunity of foreign officials in Canada. First, it would expand the number and type of people who would enjoy immunity. Second, it would deepen the level of immunity they would enjoy.
How about extradition if someone under diplomatic privilege is charged in another country? Could that person be immune and not extradited to that country? We do not know that. The bill does not touch on that part at all.
The fifth category of amendments are called housekeeping amendments. There are many amendments, but one that got my attention. It is disgusting that it has been included in a supposed housekeeping section. It clarifies the governing statute for diplomatic missions to import liquor into Canada.
Canadians still remember the immunity given to the Russian diplomat who killed a Canadian citizen last year while driving drunk. This was in spite of a number of previous drunk driving allegations in Canada for that individual. I wonder if that Russian diplomat was ever charged for his crime anywhere, in Canada or in Russia. We do not know that.
The question about this amendment is not duty free status. I do not have a problem with that. The question is about the drunk driving aspect. The bill does not mention any measures about diplomats under immunity driving drunk or being involved in a fatal accident while driving drunk. Not only that, according to the bill this murderer could be allowed back into Canada as part of a Russian delegation to a conference. While he is on Canadian soil, he could kill someone else and his immunity would protect him again. That is pathetic.
The government now wants to expand the number of people enjoying these privileges. This is a serious concern. Our briefing by the department said that this section was to clarify the confusion over federal and provincial jurisdiction in the area of liquor imports and diplomatic rights because the liquor imports were a provincial jurisdiction. This means the potential for harm is greater than before the bill was introduced. It highlights the insensitivity of the government.
The lack of proper checks and balances is already a problem with the general concept of immunity and the bill would only make the matter worse. Maybe that is why the government is keeping the bill so quiet on a Friday, when no one is participating in the debate.
Some other serious concerns I have with the bill are covered under three categories. The bill does not deal with so many other important issues, for example, the corruption at foreign missions. The bill is in respect to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act. When we talk about foreign missions, we must talk about how our foreign missions operate. The corruption at foreign missions is a serious issue in the wake of security concerns. Our security begins at our foreign missions abroad. They screen people before they even enter Canada. They are our first line of defence.
Some strange things have been going on in Canada's diplomatic missions overseas. Let me first point out that most of our diplomats and foreign services civil servant employees are very honest, hard-working and dignified individuals. I commend them for the jobs they do in representing Canada abroad. However, I will mention that there are a few bad apples as well.
I will give some examples. In Damascus a Syrian national skimmed close to half a million dollars in visa processing fees and tampered with the immigration computer for years. The RCMP managed to recover about a quarter of a million dollars from that individual in 1999.
In the New Delhi and Islamabad High Commission offices, corruption has been reported frequently. Based on the information given to me by my constituents, I reported this to the immigration minister and the RCMP.
After the investigation they fired some locally hired employees based on the information I provided them. The question is who was minding the queue.
It has been reported that an office boy at the Canadian high commission in New Delhi, who was supposed to mail out Canadian visas after they were issued, did not mail them. He sat on those passports, hiding them in his drawer, yet wrote down that he mailed them. Every passport had an address so he sent his agents to the holders of these passports and extorted bribes from them before releasing their passport. That individual is gone.
In Beijing an internal report for CIC warned of organized crime groups providing fake documents to people interested in obtaining student visas as a back door entrance to this country. According to the facts, at least two-thirds of the more than 5,000 visa applications processed in Beijing in 1999 were linked to organized crime.
In Los Angeles three Americans from the Canadian consulate were fired in 1997 after they were connected to theft and the illegal issuing of visas.
According to reports, an RCMP spokesman said the mounties had investigated 38 cases of fraud and theft in about 20 Canadian diplomatic missions in 1998 alone. The extent of corruption and abuse is giving Canada a black eye.
In Hong Kong the RCMP quietly investigated the alleged infiltration of the computer assisted immigration processing system, we call CAIPS, by local staff at the mission who were said to be linked to triads. Remember these foreign missions are our frontline of defence. An estimated 788 computer files containing sensitive background information on criminals and businessmen wanting to emigrate to Canada were allegedly deleted from the computers. In addition, the RCMP probed the alleged disappearance of more than 2,000 blank visa forms from the embassy. We do not know who got the visas issued on those 2,000 blank forms or whose files were among the 788 computer files deleted.
The RCMP confirmed investigations of a large immigration consultancy firm believed to have used a secret diplomatic contact and possibly a political contact as well. There is evidence the RCMP knew that the suspect in the case of the missing Hong Kong files on gangsters was living British Columbia. Some RCMP officers were puzzled as to why there had been no follow-up on that information. According to a newspaper report that suspected individual is living in British Columbia in a beautiful mansion.
Our foreign missions are our firstline of defence for Canada, but I do not see anything in the bill that would protect and restore the integrity of our foreign missions. Despite an abundance of leads, the discovery of fake Citizenship and Immigration Canada stamps in the office of a locally engaged staff member, there have been allegations of political pressure to cover up the investigations.
A number of RCMP officers were assigned to the case and then abruptly transferred just as they made significant finds, according to a former senior employee of the department.
Canadian diplomatic staff in Hong Kong were reported to have been treated to nights at the horses races, parties and an abundance of gifts. The RCMP investigated a night at the races involving red envelopes stuffed with dollars. The investigation showed that what they were doing was carrying on with corrupt officials at the horse races and giving them huge sums of money. They showed that they won the money at the horse races and black money was turned into white money which they could then bring into Canada and do whatever they wanted with it.
In some cases the whistleblowers were harassed, punished and even dismissed from their jobs. Despite all that, no independent public inquiry into these cases was held. It is pathetic. We need a public inquiry into what went on or may still be going on in some of our diplomatic missions abroad. We need to fix the system. We need to restore the integrity. We ought to make it fair but there is no political will by the government to do that. There is no political will on the government benches to restore integrity in Canada's foreign missions. They are the defence line for us when people want to enter Canada.
The waste and mismanagement in our foreign missions are big embarrassments which have not been addressed in the bill. A civil servant blew the whistle on the spending of millions of taxpayers' dollars to keep Canada's diplomats in the lap of luxury. After senior foreign affairs officials violated treasury board guidelines, that official blew the whistle and we know what happens to the whistleblowers in this country. We do not have any whistleblower legislation. I have a private member's bill on whistleblowing but I do not know when I will have a chance to debate it in the House.
According to that employee, expensive sites have been purchased for offices or residences but they are left unoccupied for many years. If the official does not like the property, he or she is allowed to rent another expensive apartment to live in and the initial investment is wasted.
One site was purchased in Turkey in 1958 and it is still unoccupied. Why did we invest in buying that property in 1958 when we are not using it? It is the taxpayers' money. The litany of waste and negligence has been reported. Millions of taxpayer dollars have been blown on staff housing from Tokyo to Turkey to Mexico. I am not talking about the utilization of the money; I am talking about the waste, the real waste, the real mismanagement.
The civil servants who blew the whistle have been suspended. They have been harassed and their careers have been paralyzed. Has there been a public inquiry? No, there has been none whatsoever. Is there a political will to fix these problems? No, we do not see that. Is there anything in the bill to address these issues dealing with foreign missions? No, there is nothing about these issues mentioned in the bill. This is an area of concern.
Another important issue that the bill ignores is Canada's membership in international organizations. I remind members that the title of the bill is “Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act” but there is no mention of Canada's membership in international organizations in the bill.
Canada belongs to many international organizations. Perhaps we are the world's greatest joiners. Some organizations shut down in the 1970s and those organizations are still on Canada's membership list. We should join international organizations if we intend to do a good job, otherwise we should not join them. We should not join them just for the sake of joining.
What are the criteria for joining the international organizations? We cannot find them anywhere in the bill. It does not address that issue at all.
We know for sure that the costs Canadian taxpayers a lot. Canada's total expenditure on international organizations is difficult to assess. A few years ago we wanted to do some research but we could not get that information. Even the Library of Parliament could not get enough information. It is difficult to assess.
One CBC study estimates that Canada spent as much as $1 billion annually on the United Nations and its related agencies. In 1999-2000 assessed grants and contributions to international organizations were said by DFAIT to total about $275 million.
Canada has a tendency to view multilateralism as an all embracing panacea. Its reflex reaction to international problems has often been to support and even aggressively promote the proliferation of international organizations.
One example is the Arctic Council, founded in 1996. Touted as a forum for Arctic issues and sustainable development among circumpolar states, its precise purpose and utility still remain unclear. Moreover, United States enthusiasm for the council is limited. As a result, the council cannot deal with military security matters. It is open to question whether Canada's membership in such organizations bears tangible relation to our national interests. This concern is not new.
In 1928 the then opposition leader, R. B. Bennett, noted that the Mackenzie King government's enthusiasm for signing international agreements did not clearly advance Canada's interests. He questioned the increasing evidence as the days went by of a desire on our part to find a place in the sun by signing conventions and treaties, thus suggesting that we had become a very important people. Importance in the world is not measured in any such manner. In other words, joining a proliferation of organizations does not by itself promote Canada's influence and credibility. Bennett added that that is not a test of our greatness.
Under the current Liberal administration, Canada signed the Kyoto, Beijing and Rio conventions without any intentions whatsoever of implementing them.
Ottawa seems to be proud of its record of paying our dues and frequently criticizing our major ally, the United States of America, for deliberately falling into arrears. Whatever Canada's record is on paying fees, no international organization that receives tax dollars should be immune from audits by the Canadian government. If we pay the dues, we should have the right to audit.
For example in 1995 UNICEF disclosed that $10 million went missing from its Kenyan operation due to fraud and mismanagement by its employees. Some $10 million from UNICEF was missing. In 1998 an independent audit of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees highlighted serious failings in the agency's financial management procedures, dubious accounting practices and possibly fraud at a cost of millions. That is what the situation is with some of the organizations.
These reviews show that we must examine the effectiveness and utility of an international organization to Canada before we join it. After such a review has taken place, parliament should decide what course of action is necessary, whether we should continue our membership, withhold the fee to induce reform in that organization, or withdraw fully from the organization.
I recommend that: Canada engage in international organizations which clearly promote conditions for expanding Canadian political and economic interests; the role of parliament be strengthened to provide genuine oversight over the activities of international organizations and the extent to which they serve Canada's national interests; Canada participate in audits and reviews in the international organizations with a view to remaining in those that advance national interests and consider withholding resources to induce reform.
In conclusion, this is a sneaky bill which does not deal with those important issues. It hides the important issues and disguises them as housekeeping changes. I mentioned that waste, mismanagement, corruption and membership of international organizations are serious concerns with respect to the bill.
Since it has been indicated that my time has expired, I will end my speech here but I have more to say.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to this bill. First of all, despite the numerous questions being raised and the fate of the amendments--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I forgot to move an amendment. Can I move it now if I have consent?
The Speaker: The hon. member was well past his time when he ended his remarks. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill today. In spite of numerous questions and taking into account the answers and decisions we get regarding the amendments we will be proposing at second reading, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.
The bill essentially seeks to extend diplomatic immunity to people who are involved in various international organizations, but who are not covered by treaties or members of intergovernmental organizations. Our support is based on that objective.
Diplomatic immunity has recently generated a lot of questions and even resentment among the public, particularly in the Ottawa-Hull area. This feeling spread to all of Quebec and Canada when a Russian diplomat driving under the influence killed Catherine MacLean and injured her friend. We later learned that this was not the first time this diplomat had been caught while driving under the influence. However, his immunity had prevented him from having to face justice the way ordinary citizens would have had to.
It can even be said that if, at the time, a poll had been conducted on support for diplomatic immunity, the results might not have reflected the interests of the international community. At the time of this incident, the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave assurances that such a thing would not happen again. The bill makes no reference to this, but the fact is that diplomatic immunity is necessary.
Diplomatic immunity is necessary and it would be interesting to see what it entails. However, since I have little time until oral question period, I want to affirm that even, and particularly in these difficult times, diplomatic immunity is necessary to allow diplomats to do their job.
As we know, there are several countries where the rule of law is not the same as it is here. In many countries, criticizing the government is an offence. In other countries, freedom of religion is not recognized. In others still, a person can be imprisoned without being accused of anything and it may not be easy for that person to regain his or her freedom.
Without diplomatic immunity, it would be impossible for the government and its spokespersons to criticize the actions of foreign countries without putting at risk the diplomats who work in these countries.
If there were no diplomatic immunity, Canadian nationals abroad also could not benefit from the protection of Canada during a situation of upheaval or conflict.
Lastly, if there were no diplomatic immunity, it would be difficult to establish sustained relations between countries, to play an active role in conflict resolution, to maintain dialogue in the event of disagreements, and to defend the interests of Canada and Canadians abroad.
It is, therefore, necessary to the proper maintenance of international order.
Nevertheless, although the intention of this bill is to extend diplomatic immunity to diplomats working for international organizations not currently covered by treaties or on intergovernmental delegations, it raises very many questions. I will list them now, and will go into further detail after oral question period.
The new powers given to the RCMP need to be questioned. Even if the background documents from the government stipulate that this changes nothing, the standard response is “If it adds nothing, why state it, and particularly why write it down for inclusion in a law?”
Especially since the experiences of the APEC summit, and other heated discussions, there are some important questions to be raised. Questions also need to be asked about the changes to certain definitions which appear to limit these organizations, while at the same time recognizing new ones. The number of these organizations seems to have been reduced.
There is another matter that is not addressed at all, or at least we did not see it: the increasing number of parliamentary organizations, which also have a role to play.
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she will have 33 minutes after oral question period in which to finish her speech. I hope that she will be available at that time to do so.

Statements by Members
Prime Minister of CanadaMr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister of Canada and member for Saint-Maurice, in Quebec, is more popular than ever.
According to the results of a Gallup poll released today, the Prime Minister has beaten his own popularity record, and is now the first choice of 62% of Canadians.
Since being re-elected for a third consecutive term of office as leader of the Liberal Party in November 2000, the Prime Minister had never made it above 56%, already amazing, given the number of parties on the Canadian political scene.
The Liberal Prime Minister's biggest jump in popularity was in Quebec, where it climbed to 65% in September.
If an election had been held last week, the Liberals would have won, with 60% of the vote in Canada.
In Quebec, 68% of the population would have voted for the Liberal Party of Canada, led by the Liberal member for Saint-Maurice.
ThanksgivingMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Monday is our national day to give thanks and will be a day more meaningful than most. What happened this year will be remembered forever as so many lives have been shattered and put on hold.
This Thanksgiving many will set a place at their table for their missed loved ones so that the missing will be with them in the spirit of the day. The grieving will be in need of the solace and comfort the symbolic presence of the missing can give as their family and friends gather this year.
This year and in all years to follow let us ask new friends to join in our Thanksgiving to give blessing for our bounty on earth. This tragic year let us set a place at our tables for our neighbours who are missing to share with them the thanks and feast of the living. The missing would want it so.
Ignace-Nicolas Vincent TsawenhohiMr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I call the attention of the House to the designation of Ignace-Nicolas Vincent Tsawenhohi as a historic figure by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
This man played an important role in the history of Wendake and of Canada, first as a war chief of the Huron-Wendat nation, later as a diplomat ensuring liaison between the British forces and the various aboriginal groups.
He helped to maintain Canada's sovereignty during the conflict with our neighbours in the last century.
Upon his return to civilian life, he continued to serve his compatriots as Grand Chief of the Huron-Wendat nation, bringing considerable respectability to the position through his political, diplomatic and military achievements.
Ignace-Nicolas Vincent Tsawenhohi also helped give the Wendats a strong pride in being Hurons, and helped maintain good relations with the colonial authorities.
For all these reasons, I wish to draw the House's attention to this initiative by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Canada Customs and Revenue AgencyMs. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last weekend I had the pleasure of representing the Minister of National Revenue at the British Columbia Community Futures Conference in Whistler, B.C.
Small and medium size business plays an essential role in the Canadian economy. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the CCRA, is proud to work with this vital sector of our economy.
Over the past several years the CCRA has worked with business and the provinces to develop joint registration for new business, to improve the scientific research and experimental development program and to provide enhanced customs programs that make doing business easier internationally.
These are just a few examples of how the CCRA and business are working together to provide the best possible services to Canadians.
Breast Cancer Awareness MonthMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is a time to celebrate survivors and people challenged by the disease. Each member of the House has been affected by breast cancer in some way or knows someone who has been.
In Burlington we are fortunate to have Breast Cancer Support Services, an invaluable resource for women, men and their families to get information on treatment options and the critical support they need.
I congratulate the BCSS and similar organizations across the country for the important role they play in helping those affected by this terrible illness.
Last Sunday Canadians participated in the 10th annual Run for the Cure. In Burlington more than 5,000 people ran or walked to raise over $300,000. In five years our community has raised more than $1 million for breast cancer research.
All of us can help raise awareness and educate Canadians. Mammograms and monthly breast self-examinations contribute to the early detection of the disease. Together we can fight breast cancer. Let us all work to find a cure.
TerrorismMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week at a press conference after a fundraiser the Prime Minister suggested terrorism is not such a big problem in Canada. What does the Prime Minister consider to be big? Would he care to explain what he meant by that comment to the families of the 329 victims of the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985? That flight came out of Vancouver.
In 1988 Tara Singh Hayer, a prominent newspaper publisher, was shot, paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair as a result. He had been vocal in his criticism of terrorism. In 1998 he was shot and killed in his driveway. Many suspect Sikh extremists in his unsolved murder.
The question now being asked is whether journalists like Tara Singh Hayer will be protected under new anti-terrorist legislation as they are under the criminal gang laws. Perhaps the Prime Minister would explain to Mr. Hayer's son David, now a member of the B.C. legislature, why he thinks terrorism is not such a big deal in Canada.
Community Care Worker WeekMr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to the House that the week of October 15 to 21 is Community Care Worker Week.
Health care professionals and parka-professionals and volunteers providing care in the community are an integral part of our health care system.
Community workers include nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, visiting homemakers, and volunteers.
These people are the frontline workers. They provide home care and long term care in facilities. They offer meal and community support programs.
As many health care services are being moved from the hospitals to the community, community care workers are increasingly in demand to help in the transition and to ensure the continuity of patient care.
I invite you to join me in paying tribute to community care workers in Canada and in acknowledging Community Care Worker week.
Mental Illness Awareness WeekMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, October 7 to 13 is Mental Illness Awareness Month. This annual campaign serves to demystify illnesses that can affect anyone of us, unfortunately.
Ever worsening statistics show that suicide is the primary cause of death among young people aged 15 to 24 and that depression will be the main cause of potential illness by 2020.
Worse yet, there is little if any funding. Children are the primary victims of government inaction and pay the cost. Only one child in five receives the mental health care necessary.
It is high time the federal government listened to Quebec's requests to transfer to it the money necessary to establish a real plan of action for mental illness.
Guy BeaulneMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I attended the opening of an exhibition marking the 150th anniversary of the Institut canadien français. The honorary chairman of the event was Jean-Pierre Beaulne, who took the opportunity to speak to us of his brother Guy. Guy Beaulne had suffered a heart attack the week before, and died last Monday.
His brother spoke of his beginnings with Le Droit , and of the theatre scholarships he then received, which led to a magnificent career in the theater. He was the first director of La famille Plouffe . He headed the Grand Théâtre de Québec and the Conservatoire d'art dramatique de Montréal, and was awarded both the Ordre national du Québec and the Order of Canada. He founded the Association canadienne du théâtre amateur.
On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to thank him for his lifetime of accomplishments and to extend my most sincere condolences to his family and friends. As the curtain drops for the last time, I would like to wish him the very best, as in the famous French theatrical expression.
Grey NunsMr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize the contributions of the 1966 graduating class of Regina Grey Nuns nurses. This week representatives from the class are marking their 35th anniversary in our nation's capital.
For almost nine decades the Grey Nuns have provided the utmost in compassion and care to families in the Regina area. These dedicated women have been not only active in the nursing field but have been leaders in the communities in which they live.
With heartfelt dedication these women have shared their vocation and talents with those in need. Their exemplary commitment to the health and well-being of the Canadian people is a reflection of their love.
On behalf of all my constituents I extend my gratitude to the Grey Nuns nurses for their dedication to serving the citizens of Regina and Saskatchewan. May their 35th anniversary reunion be filled with joy and fond memories.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak today on behalf of all my colleagues in the House when I express my outrage and disdain for comments made recently by the member for Yorkton--Melville.
The member, who has since admitted he had no evidence to back his claims, suggested in a video to the U.S. based National Rifle Association that Canadian negligence contributed--
The Speaker: The hon. member knows that under Standing Order 31, statements may not be used to make comments on other members and their statements. I think we will move on.
Petro-CanadaMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1975 the Government of Canada did a good thing. It followed NDP advice, took over Petro-Canada and made it into the profitable company it is today. Media reports now state that Canada is thinking of getting rid of its last 20% share.
After September 11, with concerns about energy and the security of energy sources on the minds of every Canadian, we ask the Government of Canada to withdraw its decision to sell off the remaining stake. This year alone the government would have gained $19 million in dividends from its 20% investment in Petro-Canada.
In light of the circumstances of September 11 we encourage the government to withdraw selling off any further stake in Petro-Canada and to secure for all Canadians a say in the future energies of the country.
Théâtre du Nouveau MondeMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago this coming Tuesday, October 9, the curtain rose on opening night of Molière's L'Avare , the first play presented by the Théatre du Nouveau Monde.
The theatre was founded by a small group of theatre people, including Jean Gascon and Jean-Louis Roux, after their stay in Europe studying theatre. Since its inception, the TNM has produced and toured great works from the classic and contemporary repertoire, while promoting national creative talent.
Hundreds of actors and directors have produced works for Quebec audiences that have been milestones in our artistic history, attracting audiences of up to 123,000. These include Jeannine Sutto, Robert Gravel, Denise Boucher, Guy Hoffman, Monique Miller, Michel Tremblay, Michèle Rossignol, Gérard Poirier and Huguette Oligny, to name but a few of the people connected with TNM who have brightened up our spirits and our lives.
In the fall of 1972, the company moved to the magnificent quarters we are familiar with today. Under the masterful artistic direction of Lorraine Pintal for nearly 10 years now, the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde has a fine future stretching before it. To everyone connected with the TNM, we extend the traditional theatrical wish “Break a leg”.
Communities in BloomAileen Carroll: 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.
TaxationMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, lower income Canadian students and labour intensive industries are pleading with the Liberal government to stop targeting them with crippling payroll taxes.
The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association has made a recommendation to the human resources committee to establish a $3,000 yearly basic exemption in the employment insurance program as a cost effective way to reduce the payroll tax burden on labour intensive industries such as food service, retail and tourism.
Financially it would help lower income workers and expand job opportunities for entry level workers. In these times of economic uncertainty the need for targeted payroll tax relief has never been greater.
The finance minister has forgotten his new framework for economic policy statement of October 1994 in which he stated:

We believe there is nothing more ludicrous than a tax on hiring, but that is what payroll taxes are. They have grown dramatically over time. They affect lower wage earners much more than those at the high end.

I concur with the finance minister. It is time for him to heed his own words and introduce payroll tax relief immediately. A fall budget would be a perfect opportunity for him to do so.
Child Abuse Prevention MonthMs. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that October is Child Abuse Prevention Month. Sexual, physical and emotional abuse and neglect toward children are among the most disturbing problems facing Canadians today.
We must prevent child abuse. We must promote social and economic conditions that support parents and reflect the great value we place on our children. We must challenge attitudes that propagate child abuse. We must intervene when we suspect a child is being mistreated, hurt, neglected or exploited.
The Government of Canada through partnerships with community, national, corporate and voluntary organizations supports a number of initiatives to help prevent child abuse and support families and young children.
These include family violence initiative and community based programs such as the community action program for children and aboriginal head start. Together we must continue to reaffirm our commitment to protect Canada's children.
AgricultureMrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, agriculture in our country continues to suffer due to lack of action on the part of the Liberal government. According to Stats Canada the agricultural industry saw the largest job loss in the goods producing sector. An astonishing 39,000 jobs have been lost.
This is simply not a number. These are 39,000 people who are now struggling to pay their bills and feed their families. These are 39,000 people whose way of life have changed forever.
The minister of agriculture tells us that current safety net programs are enough. Obviously these programs are ineffective and insufficient. Would 39,000 jobs have been lost if these programs actually worked?
The agricultural community is not looking for handouts. It is in dire need of programs that work, programs that would enable them to compete in the global market, programs that support families when disasters happen and programs that will get them back to work. Something must be done.

Oral Question Period
National SecurityMr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when we have raised concerns in the House about Canada's security weaknesses, we have been accused of partisanship and fearmongering. Yesterday, in acknowledging the need to play catch up, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was refreshingly frank in the media when he said:

You can't just sit at the G-8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom.

We now hope he will be as open to MPs in the House of Commons as he was to the media outside the House and tell us just how much money the government is prepared to commit to the very needy beefing up of our defence and our security.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the point we can all agree on is that the world did change on September 11. What I have been saying consistently is that imposes upon all of us a burden to review what we are doing, what we need to do in the future and how we will conduct ourselves to meet the challenges September 11 have presented to us.
Canada has punched above its weight in the G-8 and elsewhere. The Prime Minister's influence, because of his experience and the positions he has taken, has given us greater influence than our size or our population would otherwise indicate.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about his comments pre-September 11. We agree with post-September 11 that a lot more has to be done.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said, and this is not just a headline, that Canada still trades on a reputation that was built two generations ago and more than that, which we have not continued to live up to.
For the last three weeks the government has maintained consistently that its past funding has been adequate. The Minister of Foreign Affairs now says that the past funding was not adequate. Is this a change of government position, or is the minister being punished for his refreshing honesty?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would read what I said I think he would discover that some of the things I think we need to be putting more money into are not ones that his party has supported in the past. That includes our contribution to overseas development assistance.
We have long had a target that has been difficult for us to achieve. In years of cutbacks it has been even more difficult to achieve. We have seen the situation that followed September 11. Did the United States expect to put that much overseas development into Afghanistan on September 10? I do not think so. The world changed.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we thought we were seeing some refreshing frankness. It sounds like he is headed back to the washroom.
One way to improve security in Canada and in the United States is to create a North American security perimeter. U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke, a number of premiers and some important business leaders are asking for such a security perimeter.
Why does the Minister of Foreign Affairs feel that their idea is simplistic? Why is it simplistic?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of the Industry, I spent years urging provincial governments to reduce interprovincial trade barriers.
We do not need provincial governments to help us find ways to open our borders with the United States. If we had free trade between the provinces the way that we do between the two countries, things might be a lot better than they are. This is not a provincial issue.
Airline IndustryMr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the transport minister has ruled out the use of air marshals on planes foolishly, calling it “a radical idea”, but his rush to judgment will hurt Canadian carriers badly.
Yesterday Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport reopened, but only to planes carrying air marshals. Not only has the transport minister denied Canadians another layer of security they want, deserve and need, but he is now putting a roadblock in front of Canadian carriers that compete with American carriers.
Will the transport minister admit that he was wrong to rule out air marshals and reconsider the idea today?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, the hon. member is very selective when he brings forward the facts. The fact is that Ronald Reagan national airport has been partially reopened to a limited number of U.S. air carriers serving only eight cities.
Up to this point Canada had a privileged position in that Air Canada was the only foreign airline allowed to fly into Reagan national. As the U.S. authorities deem Reagan national to be safe for full operation I hope we can resume the Air Canada service into that airport.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada has formally requested to put air marshals on planes because it wants to be able to fly Canadians in to the capital city of Canada's largest trading partner.
If Canadian carriers are to compete internationally, they will need to have air marshals on planes. Will the minister withdraw his statement that air marshals are radical and commit to putting them on planes so that Canadians will feel safe and so that Canadian carriers can compete around the world?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I have said consistently that the use of air marshals was not the preferred direction of the government.
We want to ensure that security measures are in place at airports to prevent the need for putting armed personnel on planes, which in itself creates some degree of danger and is not endorsed, certainly not at this point, by the pilot unions in this country. In fact, Mr. Bush has not even agreed to the arming of cockpit personnel on planes.
This is a matter that is evolving. This is a matter that we will be discussing in future weeks with the FAA.
Foreign AffairsMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 have shown that countries are vulnerable and forced us to rethink our notion of security.
As President Bush appears to be opening up slowly to the problem of disparity in the world, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree recent events have shown that from now on—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. Something happened, and I did not hear the end of the hon. member's question. Perhaps she could repeat the last part of it.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, as President Bush appears to be opening up slowly to the problem of disparity in the world, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree recent events have shown that from now on, no country will be able to think about its internal security without giving thought to the political and social situation in the world?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. Something very important that occurred after the September 11 situation was the effort by the Americans to create an international coalition against terrorism. They realized that a coalition must be carefully built not only in North America and western Europe, but throughout the world.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, in an interview with the National Post , the Minister of Foreign Affairs noted that Canada no longer has the means to keep up its reputation in a number of areas in which it excels, including peacekeeping and international aid.
How are we to interpret the latest statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, it is simply that the events of September 11 have altered the situation. Canada's reputation is very positive in the world, as is that of the Prime Minister. However, the burden is considerably greater because of the events of September 11.
If we want to continue to play such an important role, we must recognize that the burden will be greater.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs' courageous observation that we can no longer afford to live up to our commitments raises many questions, and even concerns.
What means does the minister propose in order to deal with the new realities that he has identified?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, first, the member should recognize that we had already made a start, even prior to September 11.
We are one of the few governments that have increased their military and international development assistance budgets.
This is the approach we need to take. However, we are already on this path, we have already expressed our intention to increase our support, and we will continue.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that a number of the changes he is proposing will take time, and that the struggle to correct the imbalance between countries will also take time.
However, in the meantime, Canada can quickly step up its international assistance, particularly in Afghanistan, but also in many other countries.
Does the minister have any specific measures in mind to meet the needs in the near future?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the minister responsible for international assistance, has already announced our support to the tune of $6 million for Afghanistan.
Also, in the region, there was a major announcement of almost half a billion dollars in assistance for Pakistan, to convert Pakistan's debt to CIDA.
So, we are already in the process of announcing our support in a very troubled region.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor of the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, said this week that it would be tragic indeed if the major democracies were now to become outlaws in the face of the tragic events in New York City and Washington on September 11.
He called for full adherence by the nations of the world to the provisions of international humanitarian law. He stated that the sanctioning of the assassination of suspected war criminals and unlawful attacks on innocent civilians would clearly be in violation of international law. Is that the position of the Government of Canada?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the invocation of article 5 by NATO, as well as the adoption of resolutions by the security council of the United Nations, together with article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, give the ability to respond on a military basis in self-defence to the United States and its allies in this situation.
That is the legal basis in international law for any such intervention. The European Union, Canada and most other countries around the world support that position.
Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently stated on Larry King Live , or perhaps it was at a Liberal fundraiser, that Canada would participate in a U.S. led military strike on Afghanistan if asked.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs assure the House that parliament will be recalled next week, if necessary, to debate and vote before any Canadian troops are asked to participate in a U.S. led military strike?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking about a hypothetical situation. I have been working in co-operation with all House leaders on the functioning of parliament. We have had good relations in that regard.
Although it is an unlikely proposition, should there be anything involving military deployment I would endeavour to have a parliamentary debate as soon as parliament is reconvened, possibly as early as the first evening, but again it is hypothetical.
TerrorismRight Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the FBI, the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency briefed the U.S. congress that militants linked to bin Laden will probably attack American targets in the near future. The expected targets include natural gas lines and power plants. Natural gas, electrical power, sir, that is Canada's business. Those energy targets may well be in Canada.
Has the Government of Canada been briefed by those American security agencies about energy related threats that might impact Canada? If that information about Canada is being given to the U.S. congress, why is it being kept from the Canadian parliament?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, consistently the Prime Minister, the solicitor general and other ministers have emphasized the point that in the parliamentary system of government discussions of this nature are on the floor of the House in general terms, but when it comes to security information it is kept privileged for the very reasons that it is sensitive and it deals with national security.
Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case with Larry King and that is not the case with the mother of parliaments in the United Kingdom.
My question is about the Export Development Corporation and potential terrorist connections. When the EDC decides to become involved in an international transaction, does it specifically inquire into all of the sources of funding and into the background of all participants in those transactions that it insures? Could the minister say categorically now that there has been no involvement by the EDC in any transaction involving a potential terrorist group? Is that matter being investigated now and will, in the British parliament--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister for International Trade.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not say if the EDC has had any transactions when the leader over there was in the government. Maybe over the years there have been under the previous government. However, I can say that we have made sure that EDC works very closely with the foreign affairs department and that it very closely follows our risk assessments and analyses all over the world, all the time, so I--
Joe Clark: So the answer is no.
Pierre Pettigrew: I think the leader should give me the opportunity to give him an answer, if he is interested in it, instead of just scoring political--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Athabasca.
National SecurityMr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:

Something troubles me about this perimeter talk, because I believe it's a short form for something, but I don't quite know what it's short form for.

A survey shows that 81% of Canadians believe that a secure perimeter is necessary. What part of secure perimeter does this minister not understand?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk surveys we will talk 7%.
I understand why people will respond to a question that has to do with their sense of security, because people do feel insecure as a result of the events of September 11.
The problem we need to deal with, though, is much more contained than the opposition would suggest that it is. We need to deal on a practical, step by step basis with the government of the United States, as it is our border with that other country, in order to solve any real or perceived problems that exist. That does not--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Athabasca.
Dave Chatters: Mr. Speaker, the minister calls a security perimeter simplistic. He says he does not want to turn over the keys to sovereignty. There is no sovereignty without security. Why is this minister wimping out on the idea of a secure perimeter?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to wimp out on the idea of a country. What Canada wants and what Canada deserves is for our people to live in safety and security. Our government is intent on ensuring that we take every measure that is necessary to ensure that our people feel secure behind our borders.
I can assure the hon. member that if we satisfy Canadians that they are living in safety and security, we will probably be able to satisfy the government of the United States as well that people in Canada are no great risk to them.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that a security perimeter was a simplistic idea.
In an interview given to the National Post , however, he said that Canada could not afford to be outside any future American security perimeter. For his part, Canada's ambassador to Washington says he is discussing the perimeter issue with the U.S. government. It is confusing to say the least.
While we may agree with the minister that the short term solution does not lie in this security perimeter, will he admit that the objective should be to make the continent safe without hampering trade?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, absolutely, that is our objective.
In fact, there are two objectives: first, to reassure Canadians that they are safe in their country, Canada; second, to ensure the free flow of trade between Canada and the United States.
These are the two objectives.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, what seems to bother the minister about the idea of a security perimeter is that the discussions would involve Mexico.
But Canada has everything to gain in seeing the discussions go from bilateral to multilateral.
How can Canada claim to be a partner of Mexico and the United States in NAFTA and, in the same breath, exclude one of its partners, Mexico, from crucial discussions concerning security and trade in North America?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, we have no border between Canada and Mexico.
I think that the member is well aware that the situation between the United States and Mexico differs completely from the situation between Canada and the United States.
It would of course be more complicated if we were to try to discuss borders from a trilateral point of view.
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, we are a bit disillusioned. We thought the new era of perestroika that the minister was bringing in yesterday was a refreshing sign, but he is beating a hasty retreat now.
The area in discussion, a secure perimeter, has been talked about by the U.S. ambassador, the former ambassador to the United Nations, provincial premiers and key community leaders. They are all talking about having a secure perimeter. It is not the only thing that should be done, but it is one of them.
What does the minister have against their idea of a secure perimeter and why does he say it is simplistic?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to explain is that we are not looking for a simple way of trying to characterize the steps that need to be done. Everyone acknowledges that there are steps that need to be done to assure everyone of our safety and security after September 11.
As for the notion that there is a quick and easy fix to that, in reality there are many departments and agencies of both governments that need to work closely together in order to deal with the myriad of issues that relate to safety and security. It is not just simply a matter of putting up some kind of barrier around fortress North America.
The EconomyMr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Americans and some Canadian leaders are taking extraordinary steps to conquer an extraordinary attack on our security and economy. Instead of just echoing the litany of half measures the finance minister has taken in the past, will he please tell Canadians what extraordinary measures he is taking or planning to take to counter the anticipated downturn in the economy and employment?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we have suffered as a result of the events of September 11. Let me assure the House that we are very closely monitoring the fiscal situation in Canada. We are taking steps to work with the international community because the global economy has been impacted by those events. We will continue, as we have in the past, to exercise very prudent economic stewardship in Canada. This means, as the Prime Minister said and as the finance minister said, that we will have an economic update--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past week, various ministers of the government have been appearing before standing committees of the House, claiming to have plans for dealing in the short term with the exceptional situation that has resulted from the tragic events of September 11.
Has the government assessed the costs relating to these short term plans, since we still do not know all that is involved?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware that the Bloc is calling for $5 billion from us. They are demanding a reduction in contributions. But we have already done that. They are calling for EI reform. We have already done that.
They have asked us to do something for the airlines. We have already done that. They have asked us to do something for small and medium size businesses. We have already done that within our taxation system.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: He is not even answering the question.
Jim Peterson: But we--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot.
Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, could we please have someone serious to answer our questions?
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance told us that he too had an overall plan to deal with the situation.
I am asking the government, someone serious in the government, what the Minister of Finance is going to propose as an economic recovery strategy in Washington at the G-7 meeting this weekend, when there seems to be a complete inability here to support the economy and employment.
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I must tell the hon. member. Our government is going to do its best to avoid a deficit. That is vital. We must continue to be responsible in our administration.
Softwood LumberMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday my colleague from Vancouver Island North informed the House that Indonesia successfully negotiated the removal of U.S. tariffs on Indonesian plywood. That move was made to bring Indonesia into the coalition against terrorism.
Since Canada is also a member of this coalition, why has the government not asked the United States to remove the countervailing duty against Canadian softwood lumber?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, frankly I am amazed by the question from the opposition. We have been asking for removal of the countervailing duties of 19% from day one. We have been saying for months that we are trading fairly in the United States and now we are being asked if we asked the American administration to eliminate the 19% countervailing duty.
I have asked. The Prime Minister asked as well when we met with President Bush. We are doing a lot of very serious work, really constructive and long lasting work on the softwood lumber issue.
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, then maybe the hon. minister should find a better way to ask. As the Indonesian plywood deal made very clear, the United States is now making trade and other economic concessions to its coalition partners.
MPs from all parties agree that the duty against softwood lumber is damaging our forestry industry. Will the government listen to Canadians and their representatives and take action to save the nearly 50,000 jobs that are in jeopardy?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House one thing. The Government of Canada will not negotiate our friendship and support for the United States at this time. Our friendship is not conditional. We will fight the terrorists around the world with the Americans and we will not negotiate our support of the Americans at this time.
We will continue to do everything we can to do good work, as we have been doing during the past few days on the softwood lumber issue.
They should do their homework better and not negotiate our future.
EmploymentMr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today Statistics Canada released its unemployment figures for September. Therefore would the Minister of Industry provide the House with more details of this report?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister repeatedly have said, the economy of Canada is fundamentally solid at its base.
As we have seen today, Statistics Canada has released a report which demonstrates that the unemployment rate for the month of September has remained the same as the previous month at 7.2%, notwithstanding these difficult times.
Further, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has released its own survey today which shows that business confidence among small and medium sized enterprises remains strong as well.
We have some serious challenges, but we have an economy that is fundamentally strong and Canada will recover quickly if it comes down to it.
Foreign AffairsMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom I applaud when I hear him say he does not want to give up on the idea of a country. I would ask him not to give up on the idea of parliament either and consider whether or not parliament should be consulted before any decisions are made rather than after the fact.
My question for the minister actually has to do with the lifting of sanctions on Pakistan. I wonder if the minister could give us any indication whether or not any guarantees were given or sought on the part of Pakistan with respect to nuclear testing and the--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, in removing the sanctions previously on India, and this week on Pakistan, in both cases we have made it clear that the decision to do so does not reflect any change in our disapproval of their nuclear policies.
In addition it does not extend to trade in military goods or nuclear co-operation. Furthermore, we made it very clear, and I did so personally to the foreign ministers of both countries, that we expect both sides to use a great deal of restraint in their dealings between each other at this very sensitive moment.
EnergyBill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear all of that but I wonder whether there were any commitments. My question is for the minister responsible for energy.
Given the report in the paper today that the government might be considering selling off what interest it has in Petro-Canada, I wonder if at this time when there is uncertainty in the energy sector what the wisdom is of selling off what little possible leverage the government may have in the energy sector. We might come to a point where we want to be able to use Petro-Canada or expand our ownership in it.
Could the government say, please, that it is not considering such an option?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the representation to the government of the people of Canada by the hon. member but surely he does not think that I would be so naive, standing here in the House of Commons, to speak on behalf of the government on such a sensitive matter which could impact on the stock markets of Canada.
TerrorismMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Solicitor General of Canada said that CSIS has the ability to collect intelligence outside of Canada but the truth comes from the foreign affairs minister who said that there is a glaring deficiency in that department.
The defence minister said that the armed forces is up to the job of protecting Canada but the truth comes from the foreign affairs minister who said that Canada has inadequate defence capabilities.
The Prime Minister said that Tony Blair is fearmongering but the foreign affairs minister thinks the British prime minister's performance was great.
I agree with the foreign affairs minister on each of these points. Why is he the only minister over there who seems to face reality when it comes to fighting terrorism?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to take support where I can find it but I wish he had understood what I had said. I know he does change sides frequently though.
I think Canada's record speaks for itself. We have punched above our weight in the world for many years but the challenges we face now are challenges that are different from those we faced on September 10.
It is important for all of us in the House to consider carefully what the implications will be in that area and then we will see how we can build on the wonderful reputation we have achieved in the world.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to terrorism the best defence is a good offence.
Richard Fadden, the deputy clerk and co-ordinator for security intelligence at the Privy Council office in Ottawa said that we need to develop the necessary tools to protect Canadians, whether here at home or abroad and suggested that it is time to consider creating a foreign spy agency. In other words, a good offence against terrorism requires an effective intelligence gathering agency.
If the most senior civil servants understand the need to combat terrorism abroad, and if the foreign affairs minister understands the need to start pulling our weight in this area, why has the solicitor general not moved quickly to establish the foreign spy agency?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that the world has changed since September 11. That means that security demands and security and intelligence has changed.
We have not ruled anything out but it is important for all members to understand that CSIS does operate abroad. CSIS investigates threats to Canada's security inside and outside of the country.
HealthMr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Health Canada officials are frustrated and in the dark because they do not have the information on how to tell Canadians how they can protect themselves in the event of a bioterrorism attack.
Would the Minister of Health table in the House today his plan on how Canadians can protect themselves in the event of a bioterrorism attack?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can be assured, as I told the House the other day, that Health Canada is working closely with other members of the government and with provincial partners to anticipate and prepare for whatever might occur.
The events of September 11 have made it clear that governments have to start thinking what was unimaginable in the past. That means anticipating everything from chemical, biological and other kinds of catastrophes.
Over two years ago we opened the centre for preparedness at Health Canada. We are building expertise and broadening networks to make Canada ready. We are engaged in that work now.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that Canadians and members of the minister's own department are not reassured. They are scared and frustrated because they have not seen a plan from the minister.
Silence breeds fear. I have another question for the minister. Back in March 2000 Health Canada was warned of a possible bioterrorism attack. The U.S. department of health has allotted a quarter of a billion dollars for that eventuality.
Will the minister tell the House how much money he is prepared to spend to let Canadians know what they can do in the event of a bioterrorism attack?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that Health Canada along with every line department of the government is reassessing their capacity to respond in the public interest as a result of the events of September 11.
I can also tell the member that when we have looked critically and realistically at what we need and what we have to do, the government will do it.
Canadian Security Intelligence ServiceMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a report by journalist Normand Lester, on Radio-Canada, revealed that an informant working for CSIS, who had a mandate to infiltrate the fundamentalist networks in Montreal, was in fact the spokesperson for an organization advocating the use of violence and terrorism.
How does the solicitor general explain that the informer, Youssef Mouammar, remains in the employ of CSIS, despite the concern expressed by the review committee in its 1997-98 annual report?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, what CSIS does is investigate information of threats against the country. When they obtain the information they inform the RCMP or appropriate police forces so appropriate action can be taken. That is what they have done and that is what they will continue to do.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, could the solicitor general tell us whether the Government of Canada is still protecting Gilles Breault, alias Youssef Mouammar, instead of laying charges?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is well aware, I do not disclose matters of security intelligence from CSIS or the RCMP. My hon. colleague should know that is important for the security of the nation.
I am surprised a former prime minister does not know we have to do that for the security of Canada.
National DefenceMr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the first duty of government is the protection of the citizens. It is common knowledge that terrorists are seeking to acquire the capability to release biological or chemical weapons.
My question is for the defence minister. Is there an operational unit trained specifically in chemical and biological warfare ready and equipped to be deployed to protect Canadians, yes or no?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a unit called the nuclear, biological, chemical response team which is located in Borden, one of our bases. It works with the RCMP as well in providing those kind of capabilities.
Also the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and the resources that entity brings to bear on any disaster or emergency that may occur in this country are an important part of helping to ensure the safety and security of Canadians.
Leon Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the training unit in Borden. I have been there, seen it and know what it is. I am aware of what is ready in emergency preparedness Canada. The fact is these are not operational units. They are not units ready to be deployed to protect Canadians.
I ask the minister again to explain where the operational unit is so that Canadians can be reassured that there is some protection in the case of a biological or chemical attack.
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the member does not seem to understand that the Canadian Forces, whether they are in that unit or any other unit, are there for the people of Canada. They are there to protect Canadians. If they are called upon they will respond to it.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans continues to pursue a long term strategy for the Petitcodiac River causeway in New Brunswick.
Could the minister report to the House on the progress of discussions with the province of New Brunswick regarding a proposed environmental assessment of options to resolve the fish passage problem at the Petitcodiac River causeway?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been working very closely with the New Brunswick government. Just this week I met with Minister Jardine, the minister of the environment, and I was happy to announce that the Government of Canada will be spending up to $2 million to have an environmental assessment jointly with the government of New Brunswick.
This is good news for the Petitcodiac causeway and for the river. It shows the two governments how they can work together.
Now we need the provincial government to be a proponent of the project, register it so we can move forward quickly on a problem that has been there for 30 years, do a full environmental assessment and move forward to protect that river.
ImmigrationMrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Immigration Act gives the government the power to declare any country as a safe third country when it comes to assessing refugees.
The European Union considers all of its member states to be safe third countries so refugee claimants cannot hop from one jurisdiction to another.
Why does the government not use its power under the act and declare that it will not accept any refugees from the United States or the European Union?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try once again to explain so that the member and all members will understand that while the authority is in both the existing Immigration Act and the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, a safe third agreement, it requires the agreement of the other country. It is not the sort of thing that any country can or should do unilaterally.
The member refers to the European experience. It was an agreement among all European states and there are some that do not think it is working very well at all.
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, we have had eight years to negotiate bilateral agreements. We signed a memorandum with the U.S. six years ago but we have not concluded a single bilateral agreement.
The climate has changed since September 11. Will the minister get on with negotiating a bilateral agreement with the U.S. on an urgent basis or use her power to declare the U.S. and the EU as safe third countries?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again. No country can unilaterally make the declaration that the member opposite is asking for.
We have over the past attempted to negotiate an agreement with the United States. Over 40% of all the refugee claimants in Canada come to Canada from the United States and, for obvious reasons, the United States has been reluctant to agree to such an agreement.
I also believe that since September 11 this has not been the highest priority for the United States or, frankly, for Canada. We are looking at taking efforts that will protect all of our citizens following those terrible events.
Canadian Security Intelligence ServiceMichel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that CSIS informed the RCMP. If this is true, how does the solicitor general explain that the RCMP arrested Mr. Mouammar and then released him without charging him when they learned he was a CSIS informer?
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of allegations being made here and I would evaluate the situation. If my hon. colleague is asking me why a certain action was taken by a certain police force on information, I think he is fully aware that it would be inappropriate for me to indicate that publicly.
However I will look into the situation for my hon. colleague.
LabourMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Could he tells us what his department is doing to commemorate the national fire prevention week?
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour launched national fire prevention week. All Canadians need to stay relevant to the dangers of fires at home and at work to minimize loss of life and property.
I ask all members to be active supporters of fire prevention week in their constituencies and work toward reducing the terrible losses we suffer every day, every month and every year.
International SecurityMr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, PC/DR): Mr. Speaker, no one is calling a North American perimeter security a quick and easy fix as the minister just referred to.
In a fragile economy we must ensure that goods and people can move freely across the border with our largest trading partner. Some 86% of our trade is with the U.S.
Why does this minister insist on putting our trade and economy at risk by categorically ruling out a North American perimeter security?
John Manley: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Because I agree with the preamble to his question, what I suggest to him is that we more quickly and sensibly deal with any issues that may arise on the border by tackling them one by one with our good partner and ally the United States, rather than chasing after a concept which is not well understood and has not had time to be developed.
It took 40 years to get the Schengen district in Europe. We will not create a perimeter around North America next week. Let us deal with real problems, in real time and get real solutions for real people.
Employment InsurancePeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, there are real problems for the unemployed people of the country. My questions are for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Human Resources Development.
Will the government not reduce the number of eligible hours for thousands of employees and their families from 900 hours to 700 hours?
With the downturn in the economy, thousands of human resources employees in hundreds of offices across the country are under a terrific strain. What is the government doing to alleviate the strain on these very hard-working and valuable employees?
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government has set up an employment insurance policy which is working well. We know that HRDC officials spent time with the airlines and the unions yesterday, in what I understand was a very helpful meeting.
This concerns the airlines and other industries that have laid off people in large numbers.
Fourth Jeux de la FrancophonieMs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned this week that the director general of the fourth Jeux de la Francophonie, held in Ottawa and Hull, Rhéal Leroux, also backed sponsors of the event, and his businesses collected, according to some sources, as much as 15% commission on revenues, in addition to his salary.
Will the Minister for Canadian Heritage admit that this is a blatant case of conflict of interest and that the governing body of the games should not have authorized such an arrangement.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question, with my colleague who chaired the organizing committee of the Jeux de la Francophonie, and say that the approach was the same as in all games.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsRaymonde Folco: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to two petitions.
Committees of the HouseHon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to its order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, 2001, the committee has considered Bill C-15A, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts, and has agreed to report it with amendments.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of Wednesday, September 26, in relation to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts.
As Canadians understand the importance of an efficient and safe border in national security and economic terms, the bill modernizes customs administration by providing the expedited movement of persons or goods into Canada. It achieves this by providing streamlined clearance procedures for low risk passengers by pre-arrival risk assessment of passenger information.
The bill is a step in the right direction in making our border's business friendly and people friendly. The committee has considered Bill S-23 and reports the bill without amendment.
PetitionsMr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC/DR): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents of Brandon--Souris. The petitioners are opposed to any United States national missile defence system that may well be put forward. They are calling upon the government to speak in opposition to the proposed missile defence system.
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by approximately 5,000 of my constituents of the riding of Sault Ste. Marie.
Many of my colleagues know that Algoma Steel, the main economic engine in my riding, is currently operating under an order of protection from creditors under the Company Creditors Arrangement Act. The petitioners request that parliament participate in the process to create a plan of arrangement between Algoma Steel and its creditors.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I would like to present today.
The first petition supports section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This section of the criminal code states that every school teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child who is under his or her care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
Section 43 recognizes the primary role of parents in the raising and disciplining of their children. The petitioners recognize that the federal government is under pressure from various sources, including the United Nations, to remove section 43 because we have ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child. Removal of this section would strengthen the role of bureaucrats while weakening the role of parents in determining what is in the best interest of the child and, therefore, would be a major and unjustified inclusion by the state into parental rights and responsibilities.
The petitioners recognize that despite the government's stated attempt to preserve section 43, it continues to fund research by people who advocate its removal. Therefore, they request parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's criminal code as it is currently worded.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I would like to remind the hon. member that members have to be brief when presenting petitions. I hope his other two petitions will be brief.
Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition signed by a number of people from Nova Scotia expressing their concern about the vulnerable in our society. In this particular instance, the petition is about the concerns our citizens have about the disabled and it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada Latimer decision.
The petitioners would like the Parliament of Canada, under section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to uphold and continue to uphold the Latimer decision of the Supreme Court of Canada by ensuring a 10 year minimum sentence be served. This would send a strong message to deter other similar criminal acts and would recognize that vulnerable Canadian citizens are equally protected as in an able-bodied society.
Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, the third petition I am pleased to table is signed by 30 citizens in various locations in Alberta. The petitioners are concerned about how Canada Post Corporation affects the rural route mail couriers. In particular, these couriers often earn less than the minimum wage and have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages and working conditions like other workers in similar occupations, such as private sector workers who deliver mail in rural areas or public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post in urban areas.
The petitioners' concerns are directed at section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act which prohibits these couriers from having collective bargaining rights and that this denial of basic rights helps Canada Post keep their wages and working conditions at an unfair level and discriminates against rural workers.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Questions on the Order PaperRaymonde Folco: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, the bill before the House is one which deals with the proposed amendments to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.
I should indicate at the outset, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my coalition colleague and friend from Saanich--Gulf Islands and critic in this area.
The bill is aimed at modernizing the privileges and immunities regime that is contained in other legislation. The amendments would enable Canada to comply with international commitments that exist currently under international treaties and respond to recent changes in international law. This is a fairly technical bill yet it has very many practical applications.
In addition the bill itself would amend the FMIOA to correct several technical inadequacies that have been identified since it was first introduced in parliament in 1991 under a Conservative administration.
The amendments themselves can be broadly divided into five categories. I intend to focus on those as they affect security and the RCMP. My colleague in his remarks will touch on the other elements which deal more with international trade and international obligations.
The amendments deal with modernization of legislation as it exists with commitments to international treaties. They also correct deficiencies in the definition of international organizations and further to state clearly statutory authority in support of security measures necessary for Canadian police officers to fulfill Canada's international obligations, in particular, when hosting events such as in recent years where the G-8 countries gathered in Canada, the APEC conference and future conferences like the one to be held in Kananaskis.
There is a need to clarify some of the technical amendments, so there are housekeeping amendments that are attached. Finally, there is the need to clarify the provisions granting immunity from immigration restriction and alien registration that override the Immigration Act of Canada.
The technical inadequacies have been identified in a number of ways. The legislation aims to: broaden privileges and immunities to permanent missions accredited to international organizations; authorize ministers to make orders with retroactive effect under the act for the purposes of granting tax relief; clarify the act to grant privileges and immunities to political subdivisions of foreign states; authorize ministers to take limited orders under the act and provide legal framework needed to authorize retaliatory countermeasures in the areas of customs, the areas of infringements of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations or the Vienna on consular relations with foreign states; and finally clarify the government's statute with respect to the importation of alcohol by foreign missions.
We can see quite clearly the bill has a broad range and touches on a number of subject matters. It deals in particular with the international organizations in the area of security.
There is a role for the RCMP that is clearly defined. This role is set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. What the legislation attempts to do is give greater clarity to the role of the RCMP in its participation in security measures at gatherings, such as the APEC conference in Vancouver. It also allows the RCMP to define its role vis-à-vis security with foreign dignitaries.
In particular, there is a need for clarification when a dignitary who comes to Canada may have what is deemed by that country's judicial system a criminal record. The most obvious and compelling example of that is Nelson Mandela.
Nelson Mandela, as the House knows, was granted honorary Canadian citizenship, which was an extraordinary step on the part of Canada and one of great pride on behalf of the government and all Canadians. However, Nelson Mandela at one point in time was deemed a terrorist by his country of South Africa and spent almost 20 years in prison.
When an individual like Nelson Mandela visits Canada there is a need to grant a certain level of immunity where in other circumstances he would not be permitted to enter Canada's borders.
The police authority for security of international events is currently provided under common law. Its specific powers are set out in the RCMP Act. The primary responsibility of the RCMP is to provide security at events where international world leaders may gather. Its authority to take appropriate necessary measures to ensure safe events and safe conduct is set out and empowered in that legislation.
The bill does not grant any new powers to the RCMP. It does not confer any new ability to suspend civil liberties, to act in a way that is inconsistent with the current RCMP Act or any other federal statute. However the federal government may have missed an opportunity to improve Canada's ability to host important international meetings in this changing global environment.
The events of September 11 will impact on the way in which all countries view security in the future. The bill does very little to address this changing environment, with the possible exception of clarifying or restating the role of the RCMP.
It is unclear how the passage of the legislation would improve or allow a host country such as Canada to manage international affairs and conferences. It does not in any way set out in detail what Canada might do differently.
For example, Canadians struggled with the degree of force that was used to deal with protesters at the Quebec City summit. That situation raises questions with regard to the G-8 summit to be held in Kananaskis, Alberta.
The bill may have been the opportunity to explore and examine in greater detail what security measures should exist and what limits should be placed on the RCMP and security personnel in the enforcement of security around the perimeter.
The Hughes report was a voluminous document tabled in response to what happened at the APEC summit in Vancouver. It pointed out the need for clear perimeters and parameters to be placed around RCMP security. It suggested the need for the RCMP to operate within a statutory description and for there to be clear divisions between political commentary and instruction while at the same time fulfilling the role of normal law enforcement and normal security practices.
There was ample evidence that direction was coming from sources outside the traditional RCMP lines of authority. The evidence traced itself right back to the RCMP. Jean Carle was very active and present during the APEC summit. Mr. Justice Hughes concluded that there was a greater need to clarify and in some instances improve the arm's length relationship between the RCMP and political offices including the PMO.
Any external interference, and I am talking about political sources, must be limited in carrying out the essential work at any international conference where there are high stakes and/or VIPs in attendance. Unfortunately what we saw at APEC highlighted some of the deficiencies that exist. It led to a lot of questions about who should be making decisions on the treatment of protestors at such events.
The legislation is intended to move in the right direction although there is a paucity of real direction and no clear indication other than a restatement of what the RCMP is currently doing.
The legislation covers international organizations. It sets out, for example, that stand-alone organizations can move from country to country, that new international organizations can be given status and headquarters in Canada, and that all international organizations that originate by treaty such as NATO and international civic aviation organizations would be given status.
Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-35 on behalf of all residents of Saanich--Gulf Islands and as the international trade critic for the coalition in the House of Commons.
My hon. colleague is accurate that this is a lot of housekeeping, but a few important issues should be brought to the floor of the House of Commons. One of the primary points the bill deals with is extending the definition of who should be granted diplomatic immunity.
Under existing legislation the definition covers international organizations of formalized institutions which are based in treaty. It does not cover organizations such as the G-8, the OSCE and APEC. When we host these very important international meetings there is discussion on whether the legislation is there to grant immunity.
It is important to emphasize that in no way would the legislation override the crimes against humanity and war crimes act which would supercede this legislation. Anyone who has committed a crime under the crimes against humanity and war crimes act would in no way shape or form be given any kind of immunity under any circumstances.
We were given short notice of the bill. From what we have been informed it is basically a housekeeping bill. I do have concerns whether we would be going too far in granting additional immunities. Are they absolutely necessary?
Members will recall when an Ottawa woman was killed by an impaired driver who was a Russian diplomat? There was huge public outcry that the driver should be brought to Canadian justice. Having said that, the democratic representative caucus will be supporting the bill.
Another issue the bill deals with is the primary role of the RCMP. It is to be responsible for security of international meetings such as APEC and the G-8 summit. That is a positive step.
Following the APEC meetings in Vancouver the Hughes report recommended that the role of the RCMP be formalized. It would be appropriate for the government to put more substance in the bill rather than just broadly describe that the RCMP is the primary organization responsible for international meetings.
Some parameters need to be set around security so that we can remove the political interference which was very apparent in Vancouver. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on subsequent inquiries that the government was compelled to call. That type of detail is not present here.
What are the parameters of the RCMP when it is entirely responsible for the security of international meetings? That should be laid out so there is no necessity to have any discussions of a political nature between the commissioner of the RCMP and anyone else at a senior level such as the Prime Minister's Office or senior levels of government.
We feel those concerns should have been included in the bill. We want to ensure that the police do not overstep their bounds or violate the Canadian charter of rights. I am not suggesting the police would do that, but we do not see that information in the bill.
Bill C-35 is primarily a housekeeping bill. It would extend diplomatic immunity to people attending a conference in Canada such as the G-8 summit or APEC. I will be recommending that the members of the conservative coalition support this housekeeping bill.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from our coalition for his speech. This is a technical housekeeping bill. Yet, as I have indicated in the House since we have returned, it surprises me that the government would proceed with its legislative agenda as though nothing had changed on September 11. It is surprising, given the fact that we need to pay attention to some very serious legislation dealing with terrorism and additional funding for the RCMP.
Also, in the area of foreign affairs there is a conflict between what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying in comparison to other ministers of the crown. My colleague asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs in question period today why he was putting our trade at risk by ruling out of hand the notion of border security. The minister stated on September 11 that indeed the world had changed.
The House closed for 35 minutes yesterday because the government could not bring forward a bill. It did not have anything to say for 35 minutes. That is shocking. I could not believe that we adjourned the House for 35 minutes, given the serious events that have taken place. The government by its actions is showing that it is sleeping.
Does my colleague share the same surprise that I have with the government's inaction in these major areas and that it is proceeding with its legislative agenda as if nothing has changed?
Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, the member for Dewdney--Alouette raises an incredibly valid point. He says we are standing in the House today debating a housekeeping bill which deals with in the government's own language technical amendments.
It is now October. On September 11 we saw horrific events which forever changed how our country will operate. Yet we have not seen one word in legislation to deal with terrorism. That is a tragedy.
The hon. member was correct to point out that the government has run out of things to do. It had to adjourn the House yesterday for 35 minutes. When the government wants a critical piece of legislation drafted it can get it done in a matter of hours. If legislation affects the government it can have it brought in and rammed through the House in a day or two. Yet we have seen nothing on terrorism.
The government has told us it is still waiting. It says it will bring legislation before the House after the break week. That is completely unacceptable. The bill deals specifically with the security of the diplomatic community when we host incredibly important international meetings such as the upcoming G-8 one and APEC.
The question on the minds of all Canadians is whether we will be able to provide security and whether we need to make changes in light of what has happened. I am not being critical of the government but we live in a different world now and things must change.
Our economy is on eggshells and everyone is concerned. Members on all sides are concerned about where the issue will go. Canadians are concerned. The point my hon. colleague from Dewdney--Alouette is making is that we are in the House dealing with a bill that contains technical amendments and makes no mention of terrorism. It addresses the Hughes report which says the RCMP should be the primary police agency responsible for such meetings. However it has no parameters and does not go into any detail.
We will support the bill although it contains only technical amendments. The real shame is that we are not standing to debate the events. We are not debating how to protect Canadians, ensure the free flow of goods between Canada and the United States or secure our borders.
I wish members a happy Thanksgiving. My party looks forward to seeing the government's bill on terrorism when we return because it is the number one issue Canadians are concerned about.
Svend Robinson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus to debate the important legislation before the House. The legislation was tabled only a couple of days ago so there has been limited opportunity to study it. My comments are made in that light.
We have been told by the government that the bill contains technical changes to the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act and is in effect a housekeeping bill. I urge parliamentarians to give careful scrutiny to the changes proposed in the legislation because the implications of a number of them are serious indeed.
I will not speak to all aspects of the legislation because we are debating the principle of the bill at second reading. However the member for Surrey Central raised a number of concerns that we share.
The proposed amendment to the definition of international organization would be an important change. It would give privileges and immunities to international government organizations such as APEC, the G-8 and others, even if they are not treaty bodies. We would want to study the amendment carefully in committee in terms of its implications.
I will talk about the bill's proposed amendments to the Immigration Act. At present government representatives who wish to enter Canada and who have criminal records are required to obtain a minister's permit. This provision of the Immigration Act applies whether they are world leaders or members of delegations to international conferences.
Frankly in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary it is the way the law should remain. It is unacceptable to suggest that an individual who is a government representative, part of a delegation to an international conference, or for that matter a world leader, should not be required to obey the law and submit to the same requirements with respect to ministers' permits as anyone else.
During this debate a number of my colleagues have referred to the former Russian diplomat charged with the serious offence of drunk driving, an offence that gave rise to the tragic death of a Canadian.
If that individual were part of a delegation to an international conference it would surely not be unreasonable for Canadians to have the opportunity to say no. If he were convicted of the offence he should not be entitled to enter Canada as a member of a delegation. At the very least he should be required to obtain a minister's permit to do so. In other words, it is not acceptable that ministerial permit provisions be invoked only in cases of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
There are other provisions in the legislation on which I will not comment but which I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in committee. I am concerned about the apparent absence of consultation with provincial, territorial and municipal governments about this important legislation.
The federal government has indicated in background documents that it understands and accepts the urgency of working in partnership with provinces and municipalities to provide the most appropriate and effective security arrangements for all federally hosted international meetings.
If that is the case why did it not bring forward the bill following consultations with provincial, territorial or local jurisdictions? In the committee that studies the bill we will want to ensure these levels of government have been fully consulted and that we have heard from them before the bill passes.
In my remaining few minutes I will focus on the provisions of clause 5. This is the new clause that gives what is called statutory authority to provide protection or police powers.
The government's briefing notes say the amendment was developed in response to security issues raised by the summit of the Americas. The Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada arrived at the view that the existing common law authority of the government to provide security and protection for these events should be given a statutory basis.
However clause 5 of the bill raises grave questions about the extent to which we are prepared to not only codify existing police powers in law but significantly enhance them. Many Canadians, including myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, are concerned about the growing criminalization of dissent in Canada. We have seen an alarming trend toward giving more powers to the police. Bill C-35 is part of that trend.
Recently the House adopted legislation to give police and law enforcement agencies sweeping powers to break the law in the pursuit of their goals. We in the NDP opposed that legislation. We oppose the bill now before the House because it provides no clear statement as to why it is necessary to amend the law.
The government has put Bill C-35 before the House before presenting us with its package of so-called anti-terrorism legislation. I understand that it will be tabled before the House when we return in about 10 days. We will need to scrutinize it carefully because it is precisely at times like this that our most fundamental civil liberties and human rights are most vulnerable.
We all recall the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970. While it may have been popular with the public it was recognized in retrospect to have been a significant overreaction. I am proud that it was my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus of the day, led by David Lewis, who stood and said no, that it violated the most basic and fundamental rights of Canadians. We will need to be vigilant regarding the legislative package that will be tabled in the House when we return.
Bill C-35 would give new powers to the RCMP. Clause 5 states:

(1) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has the primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference in which two or more states participate, that is attended by persons granted privileges and immunities under this Act--
(2) For the purpose of carrying out its responsibility...the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may take appropriate measures, including controlling, limiting or prohibiting access to any area to the extent and in a manner that is reasonable in the circumstances.

That is a sweeping and dangerous extension of the powers of the RCMP. In light of the recent abuse of those powers in the context of the APEC summit we should not be prepared to grant new powers lightly to the RCMP. The report of Justice Hughes raised serious questions about the extent to which it might be necessary to codify in statutory terms the relationship between political authority and the RCMP. Bill C-35 would do nothing of the kind.
Perhaps the most serious illustration of the abuse of RCMP powers was the recent summit of the Americas. We are told the amendment before the House is a response to security issues raised by the summit. Rather than responding with a statutory extension of the powers of the RCMP we should be asking tough questions about the abuse of police power and criminalization of dissent we witnessed at the Quebec City summit of the Americas.
We in the NDP and others have joined in calling for an independent public inquiry into those abuses. Over 6,000 tear gas canisters and over 900 rubber bullets were fired.
Many of the victims were people who were engaged in peaceful, non-violent, legal protest against the assault on democracy, the environment and human rights that was taking place inside the RCMP's wall of shame.
Why on earth would the government now bring forward legislation extending new powers to the RCMP when Canadians are asking very serious questions about the abuse of the powers it currently has.
Take the case of Éric Laferrière, for example, who was hit with a rubber bullet, a rubber bullet fired at his throat. He was taking part in a peaceful protest, but was shot and hit by a bullet fired by the RCMP. He will never be able to speak again. Obviously, he will be suing the RCMP.
I have to wonder how is it that this government is prepared to grant more powers to the RCMP, when there are so many questions regarding the abuse of power during the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, last April.
We oppose this legislation and we certainly will ask tough questions when it comes to hearings on the bill. It is essential that the committees study very carefully the provisions of this legislation and call extensive witnesses from civil liberties associations.
Representatives of the Quebec Civil Liberties Union published a report which seriously criticized the conduct and actions of the RCMP, especially its use of tear gas and rubber bullets.
We will want to hear from them and others. Before we are prepared to accept these changes in legislation, we want to be convinced that it does not represent a very dangerous and unacceptable extension of the powers of the police.
Criminalization of dissent in this country is a serious concern and this legislation may very well contribute to that alarming tendency. For that reason, I rise on behalf of my colleagues in opposition to the bill which is now before the House.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest as our colleagues talked about the bill before the House today. The previous speaker, two speakers ago, talked about how this is a bill with technical amendments. It is very important that the contains many technical amendments, but it is also important that it codifies the common law.
The last speaker said, that the bill did not codify the common law. I would respectfully disagree. In fact, the legislation ensures that we as the government have the tools necessary for us to live in our society, especially since September 11.
I do not want to delay the debate. I just want to set the record straight. At this time I move:

That the question be now put.

Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this very important bill which affects Canadians across the country.
I want to echo the comments made by the member from the NDP that this bill was expected to be merely a housekeeping bill, a bill which did not have much significance, a few amendments here and a few amendments there.
The fact is that buried within this so-called innocuous bill are many profound changes that can have a huge impact on the country, on the powers of the RCMP and on the ability of Canada to not allow certain types of individuals, terrorists and criminals, into Canada. It behooves the Canadian public to know what is in the bill. My colleagues will try to do that over the coming weeks, but we are certainly will not give it the free passage which the government wants.
The government brought this bill forward four days ago. It gave the bill to us two and a half days ago and did not even allow the Library of Parliament to give us an analysis of it. That is not appropriate. That does not provide for adequate scrutiny of the bill.
The bill would allow a number of things, including allowing the foreign affairs minister to order the detention by officers under the Customs Act of goods imported by a diplomatic mission or consulate post of a foreign state. This is very important. We know internationally that certain consulates and embassies use their consulate bags to import and move contraband around. It is known internationally that the contraband can involve diamonds, drugs and weapons. It can also involve the illegal trafficking of endangered species, which is worth billions of dollars. This illegal trafficking is responsible for the decimation of thousands of species around the world, many of which have become extinct.
The bill also deals with a clause involving the RCMP's primary responsibility to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conferences that may occur. Clearly we do not have a problem with that.
I want to bring forward an issue that the NDP have been harping on for a long time, which I find quite offensive. NDP members keep on criticizing the RCMP about its actions at international meetings. It is true that there has to be some analysis, as the Hughes report mentioned, about certain activities. However, for heaven's sake, when individuals who protest are willing to advocate violence, or assault the police, or teardown banners or throw molotov cocktails at the police, the police have a responsibility to protect those who are behind them as well as protect themselves. It is totally irresponsible for certain parties and certain groups to expect members of the RCMP to stand back while certain individuals impart violence against others. It is the responsibility of the RCMP to protect individuals who come to Canada and to protect those who protest peacefully.
We do need to investigate those incidents in which peaceful protesters were somehow hurt. We should also investigate the incidents where banners were put up, but were then torn down and where people were apprehended and taken into custody or thrown in jail before anything actually happened. That violates our basic tenets of freedom of speech which cannot be allowed.
However we cannot keep on using the RCMP as a punching bag for certain political interests that may exist, particularly those who violently oppose anti-globalization efforts.
The bill also lists treaties, conventions and agreements that entitle foreign representatives to immunities and privileges. It was brought forward at some of the meetings here that some foreign leaders, who are thugs, or criminals, or who have grossly abused citizens in their countries, are allowed to come to Canada to attend international meetings.
There certainly is an argument to say that if we do not sit down at the table and discuss matters that may be very difficult and painful, then a resolution cannot be found. Some people we talk to are individuals who, by most definitions, would be considered murderous or thugs at the very least.
We can use a tool to work toward peace. Perhaps the quid pro quo for international despots to arrive at a table and be welcomed as a member of the international community would be that they show good will within their own countries and stop abusing and violating the basic rights of their people.
The international community could apply pressure on groups and leaders in countries from Sierra Leone to Liberia, Angola, the Congo, Sudan and others by using the lever that they genuinely put forth an effort to deal with the significant human rights crises and wars in their country or they would not be allowed to attend international meetings in Canada or abroad. This lever ought to be used.
The problem we have with international treaties is that while they have nice words, they are toothless. We have to put some teeth in international treaties like the Geneva convention, or the rights of the child or the convention on nuclear weapons.
From the United Nations, to the IMF, to the World Bank, many agreements are made, they sound nice on paper and in a perfect world they would make a lot of sense. However many of these treaties are violated, yet there are no penalties, no implications nor ramifications for those who choose to violate them.
I bring attention to an issue that the government has been involved with for a long time and that is the issue of the wars in West Africa. In Liberia, Charles Taylor the president, has for a long time played friend and supporter of a man by the name of Foday Sankoh, the head of the RUF a group of rebels who are committing atrocities in Sierra Leone. They go into villages and chop off the arms or legs of children, women and men, not with the intent to kill them but to terrorize them.
The international community has until very recently turned a blind eye. Only recently have we applied the tools and levers against Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh to do something. The implications of failure, in this case, is that tens of thousands of innocent people have had one or more limbs amputated with hatchets and have been left to die. That is beyond comprehension.
This conflict is flowing into Guinea as we speak. This has resulted in hundreds of thousands more refugees and the destruction of entire sectors of this area.
Why I bring this up in relation to the bill is that Canada can indeed take a leadership role by applying pressures, using levers, and putting teeth in the international agreements which exist today. The argument to support it is not merely the obvious humanitarian argument that it is wrong to mutilate innocent civilians, or commit gang rape, or murder innocent civilians on the street or purge the economic resources of a country without sharing it with the civilians.
Perhaps the self-centred argument that should be put forth to the international community is that if it does not deal with these despots now then we will pay the price later on.
The costs of post-conflict reconstruction are massive. Whether we talk about the former Yugoslavia, West Africa, the Congo or Rwanda, the costs are in the billions of dollars. When the precursors to conflict were staring us in the face, as they have been for years, perhaps we should have got involved. The argument could be that if we had spent a bit of money, if we had put forward a bit of effort and if we had spent a bit of time and attention to deal with these precursors to conflict, economically we would not have had to deal with the disasters that followed.
We cannot talk about the penalty we pay in human terms. That far greater penalty is borne by the civilians in the some 50 countries around the world where bloody conflicts are occurring today and to which we in the international community have by and large turned a blind eye. We need to get involved. We need to apply levers internationally. There is an opportunity to do so in the international agreements referred to in the bill, in treaties and in the meetings we sometimes host.
Next year we will be hosting the G-8 summit. It is rumoured that the summit in part will deal with Africa. I hope it will also deal with the issue of terrorism. There is a grand opportunity for us as a nation to put some constructive solutions on the table. There is an alignment of the stars. Recently, led by South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki, a millennium plan for Africa has been put forth. It deals with such issues as economic development, conflict prevention, resource management, political changes, democracy and human rights. Rather than looking at the past, it deals with some pragmatic solutions that can be done now and in the future.
There is an opportunity for Canada to link up with the some 15 leadership countries on that secretariat dealing with the millennium project and merge the G-8 summit leaders with the millennium project in Africa so that there is some commonality in the actions they pursue. Next year in Kananaskis, there is a great opportunity for Canada to take a leadership role with the G-8 nations. Those constructive solutions could be put forward with the blessing and the co-operation of the members supporting the millennium project in Africa, most notably the South Africans. There would be an enormous possibility for pursuing peace and security.
The bill also deals with protecting individuals who have committed crimes in Canada, such as the tragic murder of a woman by a drunk driver, a Russian employee at the embassy. Canada has faced problems in dealing with that because of today's laws.
Motion No. 373, placed on the notice paper on June 5, deals with just that. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade should: (a) release the names of all foreign nationals and diplomats employed in Canada in the service of their country who are charged with an indictable offence under the Criminal Code; and (b) urge the sending states of said diplomats either to recall their respective foreign officers, allow them to proceed through the Canadian judicial system, or allow their diplomats to be subject to expulsion from Canada as provided by the Vienna Convention of 1961.

The motion would enable Canada to deal with individuals who have indeed committed crimes here in Canada, rather than allowing them to flee to their countries of origin.
There is another thing that may be of help to foreign service officers here and indeed to our foreign services officers abroad. Once they come to Canada, their families cannot work. It is a problem. Similarly, the families of our foreign service officers cannot work when they go abroad. It would be useful to have provisions in the bill that would allow the family members of individuals who are employed by foreign embassies in Canada to work in our country. The quid pro quo would be that the family members of our foreign service personnel working in our embassies abroad could work in those countries. That would be beneficial to them and would provide a great deal of security for the individuals and their families.
The bill also deals with a number of immigration issues. My staff in Victoria and the staff of every member in the House have been plagued by problems with respect to the immigration department. The bill could have dealt with that.
For example, the visa officer is in Gambia for the hearing process once every six months. The office in Gambia deals with a lot of refugees from the bloody conflicts in Sierra Leone , Liberia, Guinea and others. If that foreign service officer comes down with the flu, that officer may not get there for a year. People who apply for refugee status in Gambia can only get hearings every six months and sometimes it takes a year. Bear in mind that this is only one step in the emigration process.
That office in particular needs to be looked at. There are other problems. People who go to that office say that the individuals who work there do not really care. When informed that gangs of people were shooting refugees in Sierra Leone on sight, they said there was no danger. Imagine. The international community knows that people have been shot, murdered and chopped up in Sierra Leone, yet our office in Gambia said that there was no danger. When a boatload of refugees was sent back from Sierra Leone, the office in Gambia denied that it ever happened. Either that department is overwhelmed or some significant structural problems exist there.
There are serious concerns in the embassies in India and the Philippines. I do not know if those concerns have been substantiated but the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration needs to look at this issue. Visas are potentially being sold and there are suggestions that people are being bribed.
Not Canadians, but nationals working in our embassies in the Philippines and India allegedly have been selling visas and access to the immigration system in Canada. That is not appropriate. We have repeatedly brought this to the attention of the minister yet we have had no significant response from her to date. Given the number of people who are coming through India and the Philippines it would certainly behoove her to investigate what is going on at those two embassies.
The filing fees and landing right fees are prohibitive for a number of individuals. There has also been little flexibility on the part of the departments there and pettiness has been shown in terms of the documentation required.
We are very disappointed that the government has not taken the bull by the horns. It has not demonstrated to the House the importance of the bill and the critical issues contained within it. We feel the bill is quite sneaky.
The bill should have dealt with reforms to the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations. There were opportunities in the bill to deal with some conditionality arrangements. They ought to be made but they do not exist.
Conditionality is critically important within the context of how we disburse our taxpayers' funds through these organizations. The World Bank is primarily tasked with aid and development. The International Monetary Fund deals with the security of international markets. The United Nations deals with a whole collection of issues.
The bill could have made suggestions on how our members internationally could reform these systems. It could have enabled the UN, World Bank and the IMF to communicate with each other more effectively. Canadians and the international community would be absolutely appalled to learn that those organizations rarely speak to each other. That they rarely speak to each other now is actually headway because they hardly spoke to each other before. That is bizarre given that all three organizations are supposed to be working in concert on a number of critical international security issues.
There are a number of opportunities in the bill. The Canadian Alliance will try to improve the bill by offering constructive suggestions and solutions to deal with the issues within it. I therefore move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substitute the following therefor: “Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sure the hon. member was here earlier when there was a motion moved that the question be now put. Therefore the member's amendment is not receivable by the Chair.
Dave Chatters: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On that question I would like to point out to the Chair that the Liberal member who moved the previous motion made reference to Marleau and Montpetit at page 556 where it states “the previous question is at best an unpredictable method of curtailing debate”. I find that unacceptable. This is the 72nd time that the government has moved a motion to curtail debate in the House. That should be ruled out of order and it should not be acceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The previous motion was in order.
Dave Chatters: Madam Speaker, in light of your ruling, I guess the only way for me to express my outrage of the actions of the Liberal government is to ask you to call quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We will call quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We have quorum.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale.
Mr. Bill Graham: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we are taking advantage of expressing our outrage at procedures in the House, perhaps you will allow me to express my outrage that the member for Athabasca, when he called for quorum, then left the House himself, thereby delaying debate.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Order, please. I know it is Friday afternoon and everyone wants to go home, but we will resume debate and we will not name members who are not in the House, please.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought that there might be some opportunity for questions and comments on my speech.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I thank the hon. member. We will go back to questions and comments before we resume debate.
Bill Graham: Madam Speaker, since the speaker from the Alliance had taken advantage of expressing outrage, I thought perhaps at the beginning of my questions and comments I could allow my outrage to be expressed as well. That is, I think, in order, not that I would mention any members.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful speech. It is indicative of the great knowledge of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca and his interest in international affairs. We really appreciate his comments in the House.
I particularly appreciated the fact that he pointed out that the bill is largely a housekeeping measure and that when it comes to the police powers which he referred to in the bill, he did point out that in fact if we are to have coherent and excellent international co-operation and international meetings in our country, the police must be able to have the proper powers to be able to manage them, respectful as they are of the rights of Canadian citizens to protest, to express their views.
If we think back to the most recent summit we held in Canada, the summit in Quebec City, we would say that our police, at all levels, behaved with extraordinary coherence. They behaved extremely well in making sure that the rights of everyone were respected in very difficult and trying circumstances.
The reason I mention this is that I was in the House when the member for Surrey Central, the lead off speaker from the member's party, spoke about the bill. If I understood the member for Surrey Central, he was very critical of those provisions. He said he did not understand why those provisions would be there. He did not understand the reasonableness that was contained in the bill. He sounded more like the member for Burnaby--Douglas, who compared the bill to something like the War Measures Act.
I am trying to understand from the hon. member where his party is coming from. Is it supporting the police and the need of the Canadian government to have important meetings in this country and to enable our police authorities to manage those meetings or is it criticizing the provisions of the bill which would enable the police to do that?
Perhaps he might also wish to comment on his last statement, that he felt the bill should be broader in scope and deal with things like conditionality on IMF loans and other things. I presume the hon. member was just using this as an occasion to talk about a favourite hobbyhorse of his. I would not have thought that he normally would think IMF conditionality would be appropriately put in a bill that deals with diplomatic immunities and other rather more mundane matters.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Rosedale, the head of the foreign affairs committee. We congratulate him on his reappointment to that post. It is well deserved.
I have to say that our party's deep concern is that the bill was labelled, as the minister said, as merely a housekeeping bill. While as a party we have been strong supporters of the RCMP, and indeed have backed them up when others have tried to criticize them in the face of doing a very difficult job, our concern is that when we start giving extra powers to the RCMP we do not believe this is merely a housekeeping issue.
This issue deserves a complete and public debate and public knowledge. Only by doing that will we be able to have the buy-in on the part of the public, the buy-in on the part of the House and the full knowledge of the public as to what powers we are giving.
I know the member would abhor the belief that in any way, shape or form we would want to turn Canada into a police state. No one wants that. However in certain quarters there are those concerns, particularly among the anti-globalization crowds he referred to.
Our responsibility is to make sure that those people, and indeed all Canadians, are well aware, in a transparent fashion, of the kinds of powers that this bill would represent within the statutes of our country, and we will not simply say that this is some housekeeping bill that we will slide in through the back door. That is the problem our party has with it. We want to make sure that there is a transparent and public debate so that all Canadians will know what is in the bill.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, I would like to turn to one of the themes that my hon. colleague dwelt upon which falls within his own area of considerable expertise and experience. He talked about the human rights situation in other countries, particularly Africa. My hon. colleague has visited Africa and worked there as a medical doctor on something like 17, 18 or 19 different occasions over the past several decades. He has developed an extraordinary knowledge of the situation in Africa in regard to the economic situation and the human rights situation and has a very subtle understanding in some cases.
I have a question for him that breaks down into several parts. First, in dealing with how we could respond to the situation in Africa and other parts of the world where we see terrorism of domestic populations taking place, I wonder what kinds of sanctions or penalties could actually effectively be imposed and would actually work.
In asking that I would like to extend it out a bit. As an historian I tend to look at what has been done in the past and what has worked and what has not. What has my hon. colleague seen that has worked effectively in other parts of the world? Drawing upon that, which of these possible sanctions could actually be advocated effectively by Canada for these kinds of situations? Of course there are some actions that perhaps we cannot advocate for one reason or another. Looking at countries in situations similar to our own, such as the situations of the Americans, the Australians, the Swedes, the British and so on, what has been advocated by those countries for encouraging a reduction in this kind of abuse of human rights in countries such as Africa and elsewhere?
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, who has a Ph.D. in history, so I would never want to joust with him on this because I would lose every time. He has extensive knowledge in this area.
Basically what his question refers to is what we are to do in the face of domestic terrorism. What do we do in regard to a despot who is willing to abuse his or her citizens in the most egregious way?
I think we could divide it into two responses, military and non-military. Both would require a multilateral, multifactoral approach. In the non-military response, I think we could use our international organizations through the IMF and World Bank. We can use economic levers as a carrot or as a stick for those leaders who want to abuse their people. That can easily be done through IMF tranches and World Bank help.
As a country we can also apply our help in international aid in a diplomatic carrot or stick approach. Also, with respect to diplomatic recognition and bilateral involvement, we could make them conditional on a country's willingness to support the basic tenets of human rights.
We also need to deal with communication. As we have seen in Pakistan and Afghanistan and indeed in certain areas of the Middle East, how we actually stimulate people to take up arms against another group is to feed them a steady diet of violent propaganda against that group. We in the international community ignore this when communication is used not as a lever of peace but as a tool to stimulate one group to fight against another group, but we can apply other tools. The UN has ways to do that through shortwave radio and other tools whereby we could institute positive propaganda, positive information, to build bridges among disparate groups and to support moderates.
Last, on the military option I firmly believe a rapid reaction force should be developed with the command and control structure that is already in place. In my view we also need an international arms registry that deals just with the bulk sales of automatic weapons. If we had an international agreement that would enable us to track the bulk sales of automatic weapons it would go a long way to making this world a safer place.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Resuming debate. The hon. member for Carleton Lanark.
Scott Reid: Madam Speaker, if I might just bring to your attention the fact that a frequently made error in the House is assuming that the name of my riding is in alphabetical order. In fact it is in reverse alphabetical order. It happens all the time. People frequently misspell Carleton as well. It is an ongoing struggle but we make do as best we can.
I want to dwell on the civil rights aspect of the legislation before the House. It has been referred to by members on the government side as a piece of housekeeping legislation, which is one of those phrases that makes my ears perk up. My hackles rise a bit when I hear that phrase being used, in much the same way that one's nerves get unsettled when there is a knock on the door and someone announces “I am from the government and I am here to help”.
It is too easy to deal with civil rights issues and the reduction in civil rights by means of slicing off a little at a time and saying that it is just housekeeping, that it is just a little right here, a little right there. When we look at the whole question of civil rights and legal rights, the whole system of protection we have built up is a series of very small, very careful protections against those little salami slices that can be cut away. That is why when we read a bill of rights or our own charter of rights, we find that the protections for civil liberties tend to be very much in the nature of protections against a whole range and series of individual potential abuses as opposed to a broad umbrella statement of the rights that ought to exist.
For example, it is not enough to talk about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or the right to a fair trial. One has to go on and say, for example with regard to the right to a fair trial, that one has a right to habeas corpus, that one has a right not to be tried twice for the same offence, and a whole series of other similar protections, the right to counsel, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Also, within that right against unreasonable search and seizure are certain sub-rights to prevent against warrantless searches. When warrants are issued, any evidence collected can only be evidence that relates to the terms of the warrant. For example, if the police come into a person's house because they think that person is guilty of crime A and they find evidence that suggests that in fact the person is guilty of offence B , that evidence cannot be used in that prosecution.
This kind of ad hoc protection against ad hoc abuses is absolutely vital when we see ad hoc reductions in these rights, particularly those which are not clearly and specifically spelled out in our charter. We have reason to want to take very special care to make sure that we are not seeing the beginning of this process of slicing off those little salami slices of freedom. Just taking away those little bits of freedom might result in that great mass of freedoms, which makes us such a beacon to the world, being lost. That is the kind of thing we worry about.
Today we are dealing with a very specific right. This is the right to freedom of assembly to register one's protest. This is a right that has existed in our society and in our ancestors' societies for centuries. I am thinking particularly of England.
There was a time when Britain's parliament was far from being the model that it is today. For example, at one time women could not vote, working men could not vote, men who did not hold property could not vote, and the franchise was exercised only by a tiny fraction, less than 10% of the population. Also, the system of representation in the boroughs was extraordinarily corrupt. There were some boroughs known as the rotten boroughs in which there could be as few as a dozen people casting ballots to elect a member of parliament. Other boroughs were of enormous size and as a result experienced a great deal of underrepresentation
All kinds of theories were developed on how to deal with this. In the end, the right of protest on the street, of going out and demonstrating was practised. Sometimes there was a little bit of alcohol consumed and these things could evolve into riots, but that was understood and accepted.
That actually was the framework within which we in this country were able to develop a greater degree of freedom. This applies to the British and the Americans as well. That was absolutely critical. It would be a great shame to see that lost or reduced at all.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The hon. member for Lanark--Carleton will have another five minutes when we resume debate on the bill.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-209, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (Public Transportation Costs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to deal with the consideration of the merits of private member's bill, Bill C-209.
There is no question that encouraging the use of public transit is a laudable goal. As a matter of public policy this is a goal that is obviously consistent with the government's plan. Every time we remove a private automobile from our roadways, there is a direct effect in the reduction of greenhouse gases and that is a relationship that all of us can understand and appreciate. The government recognizes the importance of reducing greenhouse gases, but in doing so we must remember that the tax system is only one of the possible methods and mechanisms we can use in order to help us reach that goal.
First and foremost, governments at all levels must work together to be effective in this challenge. Second, I submit that we should examine the legislation we have before us today in light of the other options that are available to us and also look at where we could most effectively utilize the money that this proposal might cost the public purse.
It has been estimated that this proposal, if enacted, would in fact cost the public purse approximately $100 million annually. For $100 million annually, the question is, do we believe that this would accomplish the goal and would there be other expenses that might be incurred in its implementation?
Clearly those who already take public transit do not need a tax deduction to encourage them to use this service, so why, as the bill advocates, should we spend money from the treasury to provide a subsidy to those existing users? It might be beneficial to those current riders, I suppose, if they had sufficient income to be taxable, but the deduction from taxable income is not helpful at all to those who do not have a net taxable income.
Clearly this part of the bill is a discriminatory measure and would take away from the benefit a person of lower income might have received. Surely this was not the intent of the drafter of the bill, but it certainly would be the ultimate effect as it is drafted. Whether they were patrons of the transit system or whether they would decide to begin using public transit, surely a section of this nature is truly inappropriate. The bill would not legislate any sort of direct payment to the person who uses the public transit system but in fact would legislate a deduction from net taxable income. That is a very important distinction to make in relation to the bill as it appears before the House.
As I look at the bill my initial thoughts are that, first, the tax system credits proposed would not be equally applicable to all riders because of our graduated tax system. Second, if one is not taxable at all, obviously there would be no financial benefit or incentive under the bill. Third, if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases by increasing ridership, why should we provide any financial support to those who already take the transit system? Fourth, this proposal would not appropriately target the group that we wish to encourage to take the public transit system, that is, those who currently simply do not use that system.
When we reflect on what we should consider, other alternatives ought to be taken into consideration. Some of the alternatives we should be looking at, I would suggest, are the infrastructure programs that are used for transit capital improvements, for direct capital investment and for adding to operating grants. These are effective ways of keeping down the cost of public transportation and also of broadening the base of support through the extra moneys that would be provided by capital infusion. We want to induce more people to use the public transit system and ultimately reduce greenhouse gases.
I would submit that public expenditures that are directed at creating the least expensive, cleanest, most well maintained, modern and efficient means of public transit would be a better and more direct method of achieving the goal of getting more riders to leave their cars at home.
Another problem with the bill is the practical application of the accountability section as drafted, subclause 118.96(3), which states:

The individual shall provide supporting vouchers indicating the amounts paid by the individual for the use of a public transportation system.

With respect to the bill itself, the word shall used in subclause 118.96(3) is a mandatory word which requires one to provide the supporting vouchers or receipts in order to deduct from the net taxable income this public transportation expenditure.
Let us think about what this really does. What does it really create? Not only does it create a new administrative problem for the traveller in having to obtain and maintain the receipts, but there is also an expense created for the travel provider on every trip taken by the taxpayer.
This is not to mention the fact that ultimately CCRA has to receive and store all of these vouchers, which conceivably could be in the hundreds per taxpayer, which again could be something significant.
The cost of producing the vouchers by the travel provider and the cost to receive and store these vouchers by CCRA would not be, I suggest, a positive use of government resources, again taking into consideration that the primary purpose of the bill is ultimately to reduce greenhouse gases.
In the bill I think what we are looking is possibly the creation of a very expensive administrative system, not only for the federal government but for all levels of government, which in effect really are part and parcel of the whole idea of public transit. That would include the provinces as well as the municipalities.
The government is committed to reducing greenhouse gases and clearly excellent public transit is one important part of that policy. The government is committed to the important principles of sustainable development across a wide spectrum of government activities. That means clear goals in relation to the environment. The federal government has required all of its departments to prepare sustainable development strategies for tabling in the House. As well, every federal budget since 1994 has included measures that will help achieve a better integration of the economy and the environment.
In budget 2000 and in budget update 2000, $1.4 billion was allocated toward key environmental challenges. One of those challenges of course is climate change. A green municipal investment fund is a part of those initiatives and is there to provide loans in support of municipal projects in such areas as urban transit.
As part of reducing greenhouse gases within the scope of mass transit, our government is also leading by example. The Alternative Fuels Act of 1995 requires that three-quarters of the federal government fleet, which includes those green buses we see travelling up and down the Hill, if vehicles meet the minimum feasibility requirements, will use alternative fuels. Clearly this is a positive step in reducing greenhouse gases.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the hon. member for bringing this important issue to our attention, but as I have articulated there are better ways to use public moneys in order to achieve the goal of minimizing greenhouse gases and better serve the environment. The tax deductibility provided in Bill C-209 does not meet the tests required for an efficient, effective and wise use of public funds. Therefore I am not in support of Bill C-209.
Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-209, introduced by the hon. member for Jonquière. I cannot overemphasize how well advised she was in introducing this bill in the House.
A few moments ago, I was listening to the comments of the Liberal member. I should point out that this bill is in response to a motion agreed to by this House in 1999, concerning a tax exemption for using public transportation. That motion was presented by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Nelson Riis. The motion was agreed to, but nothing was ever done about it.
We have to remember the decisions made by this House before dismissing out of hand a legislative proposal by a parliamentarian based on an earlier decisions of the House of Commons.
The summary of the bill states its objective very well:

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to allow an individual to deduct certain public transportation costs from the amount of tax payable.

This is of course a bill that includes many benefits and positive elements. In the next few minutes, I will explain the various positive elements that I see in this legislation.
First, let us look at the economic activity. It is all the more important to talk about it, since all the indicators seem to point to a rather significant downturn in our economy. Consequently, we have to see what we can do to stimulate the economy.
This bill would provide a tax incentive to individuals who use public transportation and thus reduce the number of vehicles on our roads. This would, in turn, greatly improve the movement of goods and people in and around major urban centres. Since our economy is increasingly based on the just in time delivery principle, it is becoming more and more important that vehicles move as freely as possible, particularly those that transport goods, so as to allow businesses to meet their obligations in this respect.
I think it is important to point out that one 40-foot bus on the road eliminates 40 to 50 cars from that same road. Multiplying the number of 40-foot buses. one can see the effect that can have on car traffic. In Montreal, for instance, if people all took their own cars, the average length of a trip would be tripled, to one and one-half hours. That is pretty significant. The more emphasis is placed on public transit, the more likely there is to be a drop in the number of vehicles on our roads.
Why would this incentive have that effect? As I have said, it would be, for people who need to travel, an incentive to use public transportation. This would raise the revenues of public transportation companies and could have the spinoff effect of improving service, frequency and routes, thus improving ridership still further.
There are also numerous advantages relating to the environment and health. Our Liberal colleague has just referred to the Kyoto protocol, which the Canadian government has signed, committing it to a 6% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010-2012.
This is wonderful in principle. It is entirely laudable. However, we are waiting for the government to actually follow up on this commitment.
Contrary to what might have been expected, the government has for some time now taken a number of decisions which struck us as illogical, counterproductive and even harmful, given the stated purpose. One obvious example is the fact that the government, while now racking up significant budget surpluses, has deliberately decided to reduce its annual funding of $7.2 million to the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion. The centre's activities were part of a vast program of international research into nuclear fusion, which will eventually enable us to develop a clean, abundant and safe form of energy that is respectful of the environment.
In its great wisdom, when it decided to sign and initial the Kyoto protocol, the Canadian government simultaneously decided to end nuclear fusion research in Canada.
As it perhaps now realizes, if it had not already been secretly planning this, it is now using taxpayer money to promote the Iter project, which would be located in Ontario. The purpose of the Iter project is to construct a nuclear fusion megareactor. Expected to cost in the billions of dollars, this project comes after the nuclear fusion reactor in Varennes in my riding was shut down.
We have also looked at other decisions and other avenues the federal government has in mind in order to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. It is apparent that the government is trying, or thinking of trying, to shift most of the work onto the shoulders of the private sector, of industry. A look needs to be taken at the legislation in effect in the various provinces. I am thinking of Quebec, where environmental legislation is very tough and where industry has already made considerable efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are being asked for 6% more, while the federal government is making little or no effort.
We should be able to expect the federal government to subsidize public transportation, but the federal government is not contributing a penny. This is all the more astonishing when we hear that the U.S. government is investing $41 billion over six years in public transportation. The U.S. government, which is the outcast of the international community because it refuses to implement the Kyoto protocol, because it is going back to thermal power plants and the list goes on, is investing $41 billion over six years in public transportation.
Yet it is very clear that public transit reduces the number of vehicles on the road, vehicles that are to a large extent the source of greenhouse gas emissions.
I have a few statistics supplied by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, which reveal the scope of the problem. A vehicle emits some four tonnes of pollutants annually, nearly four times the per passenger amount emitted by a bus. One bus permits a saving of 70,000 litres of gasoline and nine tonnes of atmospheric pollutants every year. These figures send a clear message.
In health terms and my colleague from Jonquière pointed this out in her speech, some 16,000 Canadians die each year as the result of high levels of urban pollution. This is not to be taken lightly. The number of children hospitalized for problems related to asthma increased by 23% between 1980 and 1990. In terms of health care costs alone, the government would likely save as much if not more than the fiscal spending this measure proposed by my colleague from Jonquière would entail. I would like to add that this measure would also be fairer.
We have seen recently that the number of Canadians earning over $250,000 and not paying a cent of income tax had increased--
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. The hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.
Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, death, taxes and traffic congestion are three things that we can be certain of in life and in the brilliance of Bill C-209 it deals with all three of them.
I congratulate the hon. member for Jonquière on this good idea.
The bill is very good and provides guidance and direction to the government where it has failed in dealing with more innovative ways in which we can reduce our greenhouse gases and dependence on fossil fuels. The bill would allow tax reductions for users of public transportation services in Canada.
There is a cost for our failure to deal with alternative fuels as we have not looked at ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Some 16,000 Canadians die prematurely every year from poor air quality. The increase in asthma and other pulmonary related disorders among children has increased by a whopping 23% between 1980 and 1990. This has a huge cost upon our health care system.
Health care costs resulting from automobile use alone were reportedly over $1 billion a year. Motor vehicles are the principal source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 32% of the total amount.
The bill is important because it would lessen our dependence on cars. It is an innovative way to ensure that people would use alternative methods, particularly public transportation. We are one of the very few western democracies that do not have a national public transportation plan. There is no co-ordination within our country on how to lessen the dependence of the movement of people on our roads. The bill provides that option.
There are many economic benefits apart from the health ones. It lessens our dependence on using roads. Therefore it lessens the considerable costs that we have in terms of rebuilding our transportation arteries. It is a very significant deficit as members from across the country will attest. Almost all of us have some very serious significant problems in all of our ridings with respect to the transportation arteries in our country.
There has not been enough money applied to transportation arteries by the government. One source of revenue is gas taxes. The Canadian public would be surprised, in fact shocked, to know that only 4.5% of the revenues derived from gas taxes goes toward the improvement of transportation arteries. By comparison, some 90% of the money that is taken from gas taxes in the U.S. goes toward the improvement of transportation arteries.
We are no paragon of virtue in terms of public transportation. Perhaps, then, we ought to look not only within the bill but at the experiences within Europe. There were similar activities in Europe and the costs of private transportation use decreased. Private transportation use declined and public transportation increased dramatically.
My friend in the government made some assertions on the costs to the public purse of employing the bill. I take issue with that. I agree with him that there are certain costs. However those costs would be offset by the benefits not only in terms of health care but in terms of new construction on our arteries and greenhouse gas emissions which have a profound impact on agriculture. Greenhouse gas emissions and weather changes have had a profound impact on agriculture and on our gross domestic product. Therein lies some very strong economic evidence to support Bill C-209.
Canadians have done some very good work in looking at innovative ways to use our tax structure as a tool for environmental improvements. The tax structure could encourage the use of alternative fuels and alternative methods of utilizing energy. Those who use electrical power, solar power, or who have cars that do not use fossil fuels but rather combinations of methanol, ethanol and other substances that lessen emissions, should receive a tax credit.
Researchers who investigate other forms of energy use should also receive a tax credit. Perhaps gas taxes could be targeted toward the exploration, research and development of alternative fuels. There are quite a few researchers doing innovative work in a number of universities across Canada. Some excellent work on new types of electric fuel cells that hopefully will lessen our demand on fossil fuels is being carried out at the University of Victoria.
Bill C-209 could be a jumping off point into some very innovative and positive ways which the government could encourage the use of alternative fuels and alternative uses of energy.
Water is another area where there is abuse. The cost of water to us does not represent its true value. There are opportunities within our tax structure to encourage alternative uses of water and alternative methods to save water through the type of toilets we use. There are certain types of low flow toilets that decrease the amount of water use considerably.
There are alternative methods to water use within agriculture. Farmers have implemented very innovative ways, copied from Israel and Texas. They use low flow forms of agricultural irrigation that minimizes water use with maximal benefit. Those farmers, industries and consumers that are using alternative fuels of non-renewable resources should receive tax credits.
On the surface one might argue that there is a cost. My friend from the government is correct. That is, however, offset by savings in terms of encouraging this alternative method. The tax structure is a method of encouraging more responsible use of non-renewable resources that would provide not only an environment which is more conducive to our health but significant savings in terms of agriculture, health care and our economy as a whole.
I bring to the government's attention its failure to address this issue in a very substantive form and I congratulate the member for Jonquière for bringing this bill forward.
I encourage the government to work with the member for Jonquière and others in the House who are leaders in the environment such as the chair of the environment committee. He has been in the House for a long time and has some very profound and important ideas. He is also a member of the government. These members would advise us on what we could do to improve our environment.
I encourage the government to take a leadership role, step up to bat and look at the ideas within the House and our country. Considerable expertise, knowledge and research has been done. The government should work with the provinces to develop a comprehensive plan to have a more sustainable and healthier environment.
Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Jonquière for bringing forward this motion, which is not a new request.
The Canadian Urban Transit Association and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have been exerting pressure for years in support of this change.
Moreover, Mr. Riis, a former colleague and member of parliament for Kamloops from 1980 to 2000, also supported this initiative.
It is expected that between 1991 and 2020 emissions caused by vehicles will increase by 52%. If we really want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must find a way to promote public transportation.
A tax exemption for public transportation passes provided by employers would be a very good first step.
We support this motion. As I indicated it has a history within the NDP. The former member from Kamloops, Mr. Riis, was a great advocate of this measure, as have been other New Democrats over the years. We would go further to allow businesses to write off the expense of providing public transit passes to employees.
These are some small steps that the government could take toward trying to encourage Canadians to use public transportation. They could be small parts of an overall strategy to meet our commitments as far as Kyoto is concerned and as far as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is concerned.
That is why I was very disappointed a member on the government side rose and did the usual thing. He trashed the idea by saying that it was not good enough. It is a whole lot better than nothing. It is a whole lot better than what we get from the government when it comes to real policy changes to encourage people to use public transportation.
If the hon. member has a better idea maybe he should say so, instead of just pouring cold water on every suggestion members come up with for trying to help our society to save the planet so that someday our grandchildren will not inherit from us an environment in which they cannot breathe the air or drink the water as a result of the disposition on the part of the government to find fault with every proposal that is made but then not come up with any of its own.
So far all I can see on the part of the government is that it wants to get credit for trees when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. This is the Liberal strategy: count the trees, count them as carbon sinks. In that way they do not have to do anything. They can just be involved in a sort of global bean counting, global manipulation of the figures so that Canada does not have to actually reduce any greenhouse gas emissions at all. Is that not wonderful? Will that not make the air a lot better?
I do not get it. Yet the Minister of the Environment and the government seem fascinated by this approach.
We think there are a number of measures, and this private member's business is only one aspect of what could be done. Certainly I would have thought that anybody in their right environmental mind would support a motion like this designed to encourage people to use public transportation.
I do not know where the hon. member is from, but I sure hope he is not from Toronto. If one has ever been to Toronto, Montreal, or for that matter Winnipeg or any of our bigger cities, one of the things we have to do is to get more people out of their cars and into public transportation, walking, cycling or whatever. Those things are not always possible, particularly in Winnipeg in the winter. We have to find ways to encourage people to use public transportation and here is a way we could do it.
The member from the Alliance was very eloquent as to the growing incidence of pulmonary and respiratory diseases, the growing incidence of asthma among young people. This is not a coincidence. It is not like this generation is somehow genetically inferior over the last generation when it comes to their lungs. It has to do with their exposure to air pollution.
If we cannot read the writing on the wall, how long do we have to ask our children who are coming down with asthma and these other respiratory diseases to be the canaries in the mines for us? The canaries have asthma. The canaries have other conditions. They are telling us something. They are telling the Liberal government to act, to not count the trees and see what kind of credit it can get for that in some kind of global statistical game, but to do something about air quality in this country.
One of the things the government could do and one of the things backbenchers could do, even if their government were not willing to do it, would be not to get up and recite the latest departmental argument against this but to actually show some courage and be for something that parliament could do. We should be giving instructions to the departments on how we will solve our problems and not the other way around.
In the long term the savings to our health care system would be incredible if we could deal with some of these problems, but no, we want to keep all the accounting separate and have walls between all the separate books we keep on health, the environment, transport, et cetera.
These things are all related to each other. The time has come for us to do a different kind of accounting here and take into account all the costs of the way we do things. If we did that and took into account all the savings that would come from encouraging people to use public transport, we would have an entirely different set of books and a set of books that would justify us taking these kinds of environmental measures.
In case I have not made myself clear, I am in favour of the motion. I hope other members can see their way to being en faveur de cette motion également.
While I have a few minutes left I would just like to say that there is a comparable public policy issue, a favourite of mine. I cannot resist the temptation to insert it here because it runs parallel with this. The concern to get people out of their cars and into public transportation, particularly in an urban context, is, in my mind, very much like the concern I and other members have to get freight out of the trucks, off the highways and back onto the rails where it belongs.
Here again we have exactly the same situation. We have more greenhouse gases being emitted than need be. There are trains that are about 10,000 feet long, which is too long in my view but nevertheless they are there. Can anyone imagine how many trucks that would equal? Yet they are all being pulled by one diesel unit. The same comparison would be to take all the people off a bus and put them in individual cars.
If the government is serious about its greenhouse gas emission strategy, that is to say the reduction of the gases, it should stop counting trees, making up stuff about carbon sinks and get with it. It should devise a transportation policy that will encourage people to use public transportation, that will create incentives for people to ship by rail and, for that matter, disincentives for people to ship by truck where there is no real justification for doing so.
Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. He does have a tendency to build enthusiasm into a debate. I appreciate a number of his comments as well as the comments of other members of the House during the debate.
I appreciate him chastising the government member for Northumberland who spoke in opposition to the legislation. I am afraid I will to have to continue on with that tact.
The member for Northumberland did not put a very convincing debate forward as to why he and the government should not support the legislation which is a small start and a small piece of a very large problem. The legislation put forward today would be one way to start the process and ultimately reduce emissions in the atmosphere.
I continually see the Liberal government spending an inordinate amount of energy coming up with reasons not to do something positive as opposed to coming up with reasons things should happen in a positive fashion. I will give some examples.
The first reason the government came up with is that this cannot happen because it is a tax rebate of sorts. It would be a tax write-off against the cost of public transportation. The member for Northumberland says that not all people who take public transit actually have taxable income and therefore it would not be an advantage for them.
Is that not wonderful? If that is the case, perhaps there should not be any taxable write-offs at all. I am sure some people would be affected where they do not have taxable income and therefore it would not be an advantage for them. However it would be quite an advantage to a number of other people who do have taxable incomes. We should look at the positive side of this as opposed to the negative.
I could not believe it when I heard the member suggest that because we now accountability a person has to collect receipts in order to get a taxable benefit write-off. He said that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, heaven forbid, would be flooded with the receipts that people would collect and be able to use as a tax write-off.
Why have any taxable write-offs if CCRA cannot put together a simple system to account for the tax deductibility of a bus ticket. Is that not wonderful? We have a tax collection system that cannot possibly handle this flood of receipts that would be put forward for a tax write-off.
If that is the reason the government does not want to accept the legislation, it should come back to the House with some better alternatives. It is so easy to say no. It is always easy to throw water on something that is very positive but it is not so easy to come forward with some positive suggestions.
Let us look at another one. In another life I actually had a lot of experience with respect to public transit. I sat on the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I also sat on the transportation committee of the FCM. Every year we put forward to the federal government a suggestion that there should be a tax advantage if in fact people take public transit.
We have a chicken and an egg scenario here. Public transit is funded by the municipalities and the provinces. Since the federal government has no responsibility for public transit, why should it take any risk and lose income?
The municipalities for the most part fund public transportation. They put a lot of funding into it so they can take people off their infrastructure, get them out of their cars and into buses, LRTs and GO trains. The municipalities and the provinces fix the roads, not the federal government, which has abdicated its responsibility for that.
It is to the advantage of the municipalities to put money into public transit and get people out of their cars. All we are suggesting is that the federal government take the small risk of getting people out of their cars and into public transit.
By the way, when we take people out of their cars and put them on public transit we also serve a useful purpose, which is to protect the environment, a responsibility the federal government has once again abdicated to other levels of government.
I had the opportunity to live in the wonderful city of Toronto for a number of years. When I drove from my house to downtown Toronto where I worked, I could see in the skyline a terrible yellow haze. The haze came from pollution. We know now that in our major urban centres we have a serious problem with pollution. We know that on an annual basis Toronto has more and more days where there are smog alerts.
As the member for Winnipeg--Transcona has indicated, if members have not got the message already, support the legislation on behalf of the coalition. I would really like to see the government rethink its position because it is a good first small step. It should do something positive for once.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Pursuant to order made earlier today, all the motions at second reading stage of Bill C-209 are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at the expiry of time provided for government orders.
It being 2.15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, October 15 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)