FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 8, 2001

• 0914

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): Members, we're here this morning to do clause-by-clause study of Bill C-35.

On your behalf I want to welcome, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Keith Morrill, who is the deputy director, United Nations, criminal and treaty law division, and from the Solicitor General's department Caroline Fobes, counsel, legal services, and Marian Harymann, senior policy analyst, law enforcement division. They will be here as our expert supporters, and if we need to turn to them for assistance, I'm sure they will be there to help us in that regard.

• 0915

As you probably know, Mr. Graham, your chair, has gone to Qatar and our vice-chair, Ms. Augustine, needs to leave for her riding very shortly. The vice-chair from the opposition has a number of amendments to move, so he would like to remain where he is to give support to his own amendments. That explains why I am here.

So with that explanation, we will begin clause-by-clause, and as usual, we'll start with clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

(On clause 1—“international organization”)

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): I think there's an amendment.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes, I see there is an amendment, but I'll ask the question, and then the mover of the amendment can speak, in this case from the Alliance—the amendment is identified as CA-1. Mr. Pallister, I assume you'll be speaking to that.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Yes, I'd like to, Mr. Chair.

May I proceed, sir?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes, you may.

Mr. Brian Pallister: All right.

The gist of this amendment is that we're concerned that visitors to our country should not automatically get diplomatic immunity. That concern is, I think, well founded. Each of us on the committee received copies chronicling offences committed by those who have had diplomatic immunity to varying degrees over the last five years, which the department prepared for us. In many of those cases where offences allegedly occurred the department asked for diplomatic immunity to be waived, and in the vast majority of those cases it was, of course, not waived. There are Canadian victims in each of those crimes. There are Canadians who are very concerned, at this time especially, about security issues. Personal security is jeopardized when people are allowed to live above the law, as is the case with extending diplomatic immunity, where we permit that to happen.

So the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that we abide by the Vienna Convention, of course, but that we do not go beyond it in the case of visitors to our country.

I want to refer now, because we're all familiar with the Catherine MacLean incident of just ten months ago, to some of the comments that were made at that time. I think there's a danger that as time passes after events as tragic as that one, we somehow go back to being supportive of a status quo that was deemed inappropriate and unacceptable at the time. There's a danger that we say, as time passes, that things are fine the way they are. But they're not.

The minister commented at the time that he was concerned. I'm quoting from an article in the Ottawa Citizen of January 29 of this year, and the minister says, referring to the family of Catherine MacLean:

I think they'll feel very much deprived of justice if the Russians rely on diplomatic immunity. I think that will add to their sense of hurt and loss.

I think the minister's exactly right, and I know that the minister's concerns at that time were that diplomatic immunity should be waived. Of course, that request can be made and has been made by the department on numerous occasions, but it's so rarely granted.

I'm not talking here about rewriting the Vienna Convention. What we're proposing in this bill is to extend diplomatic immunity much more broadly than is currently the case, to include visitors to our country in it. We should be asking ourselves, what is the great urgency in doing so? Why are we compelled to allow hundreds, potentially thousands, more people to come to this country above the law?

• 0920

We have in this committee people with legal experience. I'm not a lawyer, but I would expect people with legal experience to make the point that the rule of law is an important thing, that criminal and civil law, some written over centuries and updated regularly, are there for a reason. They're there to give us codes of conduct, ways of behaving, ways of respecting one another, and ways of receiving compensation when damages are done to us, that are important for a structured and lawful society. What we do when we extend diplomatic immunity is say, no, these laws don't apply to you.

I don't know—it's come to me through discussion with some other people, and maybe this committee should know—if Catherine MacLean's family has the right to sue Mr. Knyazev or Russia and receive damages. I apologize if I go outside of the rules of the committee—I'm sure someone will point it out to me. I'm new to this process, so I don't know what is in order, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to ask that question. Can Catherine MacLean's family be compensated through a civil mechanism of some kind in a law suit? Does anyone here know if they are doing that or if they can?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Well, I don't know how germane that is to the discussion, but we'll start off at least in a lenient fashion.

Can you answer, Mr. Morrill?

Mr. Keith M. Morrill (Deputy Director, United Nations, Criminal and Treaty Law Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Mr. Chairman, I'm not handling the file, but as I understand it, Catherine MacLean's family is in fact proceeding with civil action against Russia and against Mr. Knyazev, a process that is permitted under Canadian law, given the fact that Mr. Knyazev's immunity as a diplomat becomes limited, when he ceases to be a diplomat, only to matters related to his function. An action against the Government of Russia is a matter not of diplomatic immunity at all, but of state immunity, which is governed by the State Immunity Act, a federal statute, which does give provision for law suits relating to personal injury and damage to property in Canada.

Mr. Brian Pallister: To be clear, Mr. Morrill, you're saying that if anyone here lost a family member because of the conduct of a diplomat, regardless of their immunity, we would have recourse to sue for damages? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Keith Morrill: I imagine it would depend on the facts of the case, Mr. Pallister. To the extent that an argument can be made in a Canadian court that the Government of Russia has a liability, Canadian law permits the person to sue the Government of Russia.

Mr. Brian Pallister: But not the individual person? I guess that's my question, sir.

Mr. Keith Morrill: And the individual person, when they cease to be a diplomat. Because Mr. Knyazev, of course, when the Government of Russia failed to waive his immunity, had to leave the country—I'm not sure whether he was actually expelled; I'm afraid I don't have the details of the case. He is no longer a diplomat in Canada, and the Vienna Convention states that his immunity for the period when he was a diplomat is restricted only to those matters that related to his function. While he was a diplomat in Canada, he could not have been sued, but since he has ceased to be a diplomat, he can be sued for matters not relating to his function. The separate matter of whether he has any money, of course, is one that faces all civil litigants.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Right.

I gather from the comment of one of the government members that they're concerned about relevance here. Let me clarify that what we are debating is whether or not to allow the Minister of Foreign Affairs to put hundreds, potentially thousands, more people above the law in this country. So if the member can't see the relevance of asking the question about the ability of Canadians to receive damages as a consequence of the behaviour of those we give immunity to, I'm sorry, she'll have to consult with others.

• 0925

Far be it from me to give advice to government members, but I would ask you to consider this. If you proceed with this bill and you broaden the application of diplomatic immunity more... The minister said in his comments to us on Tuesday afternoon—I won't quote them—this is a way for us to attract more international meetings to Canada, more international organizations could come here, and so on. So the rationale, in part, that's been given for this is that it is, essentially, a tourism initiative. We're going to be able to bring more people to Canada now. We don't seem to have any trouble attracting international meetings anyway. We're one of the most generous and permissive societies going. We are hosting meetings on a regular basis. I fail to see how this argument is so compelling. We're hosting the OECD meeting, Summit of Americas, Francophonie; in the next months and years we'll host the G8; the G20 meeting is here next week; we've got rumours that we'll host the World Economic Forum here.

I ask you to consider this. We don't seem to be having a lot of trouble attracting international meetings now. The difference, if we pass this legislation, will be that anybody who comes here, as a visitor, will be immune from criminal prosecution and from civil action.

Mr. Stan Keyes: If they qualify.

Mr. Brian Pallister: If the minister so chooses, he has the right to give them full immunity. I don't see the call for that right to be extended beyond the way it already is done. If this is the price of attracting folks who are outside the normal parameters of acceptable behaviour for us, and if the price of not putting them above the law is that they don't come, in my personal view, I would say Canadians would support that. I don't think Canadians would care very much to have people come to this country for that reason.

So I don't see the call for this. It goes way beyond the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention is there for a reason. I suggest that we pass this amendment and limit the ability of the minister to grant diplomatic immunity to visitors to the Vienna Convention's provisions.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): All right, Mr. Pallister. I'm going to hear from Aileen Carroll in a moment.

Mr. Morrill, on this question of what I might call a legal carte blanche to all who come, can you just reply to that?

Mr. Keith Morrill: I think a number of things are being mixed. The present legislation deals with two issues, as the title implies, foreign missions, that is, diplomatic embassies, high commissions, and consulates, on one side, and international organizations on the other. The amendment being dealt with, as I understand it, and most of the amendments relate to the international organizations side, so they do not, in fact, affect issues of diplomatic immunity per se.

Presently, the Governor in Council has the authority to pass an Order in Council granting certain immunities, up to the level contained in schedule 3 of the act, to international organizations. An interpretation of the term international organization has come out of the standing joint committee on regulatory scrutiny, which is that the words international organization must be read to mean, basically, an organization created by treaty. This has caused some concern, because in modern diplomatic practice a lot of important governmental, international, multilateral business is dealt with by bodies that aren't created by treaty, often in contexts such as summit conferences. One hundred years ago, of course, those conferences would have been completely immune, pursuant to absolute concepts of state immunity, but that's not the case any more. Therefore, we have a legislative structure in place that deals with multilateral organizations and the conferences of such organizations.

The intent of the amendment, as I understand it—and I don't want to speak for my betters—is to ensure that one can give the same kind of treatment to, say, the Summit of the Americas or the G-8 summit as one can presently give to a UN conference in Canada or a conference of the international civil aviation organization.

That would be my comment.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Thank you.

Ms. Carroll.

• 0930

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't be redundant and repeat the information my colleague from the department has given. I would merely state that the government is opposed, and I think it's rather clear why. This amendment reaches to the whole essence of the bill we have in front of us, which is indeed to extend to international conferences that are non-treaty the ability to grant immunity to those attending while they're in the country.

I would just go back quickly to Mr. Pallister's concerns, to remind him that where it is a person with a background, it will require an Order in Council. That will be done and triggered within the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is done by our minister now, not by the Minister of Immigration. I appreciate his remarks, but I think we all have to accept them as a general preamble to most of his concerns, so that we don't go to them each and every time. In the past a UN conference had these immunities because it was a treatied organization, while the G-8 and the Quebec summit did not, because they were not covered by a treaty. What we're going to do is just allow these same immunities to cover those people as well. The government opposes this, as it is indeed our intent to cover intergovernmental conferences such as the G-8.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, I'm not ready for the question.

I really appreciate Ms. Carroll's remarks, because they categorize the issue very accurately and very well. But what's missing—

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Under the procedures, if the question is moved, can you continue debating?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): My understanding is that there are no time limits on discussion.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, but when the question has been moved—

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Apparently the rules in committee are different, Mrs. Jennings, from rules in the House, and so if the question is called, it's not mandatory for me to proceed with the vote. Mr. Pallister can say something, but I would hope we can discharge this clause quite quickly.

Mr. Brian Pallister: That's obvious, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to ask Ms. Carroll something, because what's missing from her comments is the rationale as to why this is necessary. She says this is the objective. I understand that's the objective. What I think the Canadian people would be interested in knowing is why we have to extend immunity to more groups to come to Canada. Why is that? It's just a simple question.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: The simple answer is that we have recognized throughout history the need to have immunity for people who come and go from countries to act as diplomats. In the old days most of our diplomacy was conducted between formal and established embassies on a bilateral basis. Today that is no longer the case. Today we deal with diplomacy within the ambit of multilateral venues. The same rationale that existed in the past to allow diplomats the security they needed to go to countries where customs and traditions were different from their own is still in place, and they must be allowed the same ability to conduct their business today.

This is not a great enhancement. This is not something I see as related to the horror of the Ms. MacLean example Mr. Pallister brings up frequently here. The department has, just as a point of information, responded. The minister responded with a whole new set of protocols for diplomats coming into the country, so that they're well aware of what our demands are with regard to drinking and driving. I really think we can't keep going there, and we have to deal with what's in front of us.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I think Mr. Casey has a short comment.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC/DR): I just wanted a clarification on this. What is the process of determining who qualifies for this immunity?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Casey, I really have to say we've had a couple of weeks of witnesses and they spent considerable time giving that information. I don't think it's incumbent on me, unless the chair wishes to correct me, to do a review of all the testimony that came forward.

• 0935

Mr. Bill Casey: I'm just asking a simple question, it's not complicated. You are the parliamentary secretary, and we look to you for wise counsel. I'm asking a legitimate question. How is that determined?

The Acting Chair (John Harvard): Can one of the witnesses answer—it's a technical question—in a short fashion?

Mr. Morrill.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Can you repeat your question, Mr. Casey?

Mr. Bill Casey: How is it determined and at what stage is it determined who qualifies for immunity and who doesn't? Is it determined before they come here, is it a blanket immunity, or is it determined after an event?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: It's determined initially by the Vienna Convention, and then there are categories within that convention. Some of those categories apply to certain persons who come. For instance, if we have chiefs or heads of state come to a G-8, they are accorded the full diplomatic immunity of the head of a diplomatic mission. If, on the other hand, we have people come to Canada to do inspections of facilities as, again, determined by treaty, they will have a different level of immunity, again as prescribed by the convention.

However, as wise as you may find me, I may have a colleague wiser, if he needs to come in and detail that more.

The Acting Chair (John Harvard): Mr. Morrill, do you want to add to it?

Mr. Keith Morrill: No, actually.

The Acting Chair (John Harvard): I think we've given this section a pretty good airing.

Ms. Lalonde, then I'm going to put the question.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I'd like to answer Mr. Pallister's question directly. I think it's clear that because the world has fundamentally changed, international relations are more ongoing and involve a greater number of persons. Accordingly, a provision such as this is essential.

I'm not at all bothered by this clause. If serious situations like this arose repeatedly to the point where questions needed to be raised with the minister or the government, then I would perhaps go along with what you're saying, but based on our experiences, that is not the case.

Therefore, on this question, I'm prepared to go along with clause 1 as drafted, but with one reservation. Mr. Chairman, the meaning of the French and English versions differs and following the vote, I would like the floor again to discuss this matter.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Later?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: After we vote on the amendment.

[English]

The Acting Chair (John Harvard): Okay.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: One moment. I said I wanted to speak to this matter.

[English]

The Acting Chair (John Harvard): Sorry. Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm wondering if perhaps an amendment is warranted to ensure that the French and English versions have the same meaning. I'm troubled by this because I thought both versions would be consistent.

[English]

The Acting Chair (John Harvard): Can you explain the difficulty?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes. This difference is this: the English version gives the following definition for an international organization...

[English]

I will read it in English, and after that, tell you the difference:

“international organization” means an intergovernmental organization, whether or not established by treaty, of which two or more states are members

But in French,

[Translation]

it reads as follows: “organisation intergouvernementale formée de plusieurs États”, which would seem to imply that the organization is only made up of states, which is not what the English version says. In order for the two versions to be consistent, the French text would have to read: “regroupant plusieurs États” or “comprenant deux États ou plus”.

• 0940

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Couldn't we just agree to correct the French to ensure the two versions are consistent, or do we need to introduce a motion each time? I don't think that's necessary. What do you think?

[English]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair,

[Translation]

I'm not certain there is a problem, because when the English version says

[English]

“of which two or more states are members”,

[Translation]

this part

[English]

“of which...members”

[Translation]

is included in the word "formée". The reference to an "organisation intergouvernementale formée" implies that the organization is composed of a number of states, whereas in English, it's necessary to mention

[English]

“of which they're members”.

[Translation]

I'm not an expert in translation, but I don't think this poses any kind of problem.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm not clear on your interpretation of this provision, hence my question.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in my past experience chairing committees—and Francine will know, because she's been on a couple of my committees—there are times when the French does not always correspond directly to the English, and if we started to examine actual translation, line by line, word by word, we'd be here until next Monday.

What we have done in the past is that the bill is passed and amended, if the amendments carry. Then, before it hits report stage in the House, the government is advised that they should go through the French to make the necessary changes that might be suggested by the Bloc or anyone else who needs to make translation. If that can be a consensus of the group, we can proceed in the knowledge that if Francine or anyone else sees a problem with the French, it will be corrected at report stage.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I think Mr. Keyes has a pretty good suggestion. Really, we're left with two courses, Ms. Lalonde. One is a formal amendment by you, the other to simply have your concerns noted and dealt with, as Mr. Keyes suggests, just prior to report stage. I would like to think the latter is be preferable.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'll try, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): All right, thank you.

(Clause 1 carried)

(On clause 2—Detention of goods)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I see there are a couple of amendments. We'll start with the one from the Canadian Alliance. Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Despite Ms. Carroll's comments about the Vienna Convention, we've just agreed to extend immunity beyond what the Vienna Convention calls for. What this amendment does is accept the fact that the minister now has the right. But what it asks, colleagues, is that we agree to extend diplomatic immunity, as the minister wishes, with the exception of giving immunity from criminal conduct, if it is not required by the Vienna Convention. In other words, if we pass this, we're agreeing that if someone comes here and commits a criminal act, they are not immune. The minister will not be able to give them immunity from the consequences under Canadian law of committing a criminal act.

• 0945

So what this amendment does is ensure that any Canadian victim, family, whatever, of a crime committed by a diplomat, diplomatic staff, or the like who comes to this country will be sure they will receive justice under Canadian law.

Madame Lalonde said we haven't had that many problems, but I don't accept that. And I don't accept the fact that we should wait until we do in order to then, in hindsight, say, why did we give immunity for criminal acts under this bill? In hindsight we would wish—and the minister certainly does—that we could have done something different in the Catherine MacLean case and many others where diplomatic immunity removed Canadians' ability to be protected under Canadian law. So why not learn from those experiences and allow immunity to be extended only insofar as the Vienna Convention allows it to be extended, but not include immunity from criminal acts.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I think this discussion was presented by Mr. Pallister in debate with the minister himself, and the discussion took place during our hearings. Mr. Pallister obviously isn't satisfied with the bill on this particular issue. I don't think Mr. Pallister will be satisfied, even having had all the discussion on this issue, almost ad nauseam. I'd call for the question.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm not ready for the question. I'd like to cite the comments of the minister, if I may, after the Catherine MacLean incident.

Mr. Keyes, the minister himself was not happy with the circumstances—

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order. You don't have to quote back the minister. We were all here and heard the minister. We all heard what he had to say, we all heard what officials had to say, we heard what the witnesses had to say.

Ms. Diane Marleau: We all feel just as badly as you do about this.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We don't agree with you. You can start reading into the record all the quotes and do it all over again, if you'd like, but...

Mr. Brian Pallister: I presume you're as concerned that this not happen again as I am. And I presume you would understand, sir, that by putting people above prosecution from criminal acts, we gain nothing, and we jeopardize giving Canadians a sense that their own security is not our concern.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a point of debate.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes. I'm trying to get through this thicket as well as I can and I'm going to try to achieve some sort of balance, but I don't think we should go on and on. I do fully appreciate that we've had debate on these questions a number of times.

A short comment from Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I just wish to remind members of this committee that the object of this bill is also to ensure that when we, as a country, participate in international events in other countries whose criminal systems perhaps do not mirror ours, Canadians who are representing our government, not only the ambassador or the minister, but the entire group that goes there, are protected against a criminal jurisdiction that is completely different from ours and does not necessarily have the same protections built into it in respect of presumption of innocence, rules of evidence, and the whole bit.

So I just wish the members to keep in mind, when they're arguing about not affording the types of immunities that are foreseen in this legislation, that it would have a major impact on our Canadians participating in international events in other countries.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I'd like to put the question.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 0950

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Now we'll go to an amendment proposed by Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you very much. It's a very simple amendment proposing a subsection (5) after line 5 on page 2:

The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall make an annual report to both houses of Parliament providing details regarding every incident where diplomatic immunity was claimed in respect of any matter of criminal or civil jurisdiction.

I believe this is a pretty substantial increase in immunity, and I think it would give everybody a level of comfort if they knew that every year there would be a report made on all incidents. The second benefit would be that it would add an incentive to visitors to our country who know they have immunity to abide by our laws, if they knew that every year there would be a report made to Parliament and made public about incidents of immunity.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Are there difficulties with confidentiality at any time in this case? I wonder if we could ask the officials that.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Morrill.

Mr. Keith Morrill: I'm not an expert on privacy law or practice, but I can see difficulties in relation especially to family members who enjoy immunity. Our criminal laws prevent the release of names of children and other people in relation to family incidents. It depends on what we're talking about. If we're talking about release of names, I can see difficulty; if we're talking about incidents, then I think there is a reporting structure already.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Sorry, I have just a short follow-up, Mr. Chair. Can I ask Mr. Casey, does any other country have this kind of reporting mechanism in any of their situations where they grant Canadians immunity in their country?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I think Ms. Carroll would like to answer that question, Mr. Keyes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: We are going to oppose Mr. Casey's amendment, but it's only because, Mr. Casey, it duplicates what we believe is already in place. If you accept the commitments by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to make public quarterly reports, as was mentioned when he was here, on foreign representatives in Canada involved in alleged criminal activity or misconduct, to go further than that seems, from our perspective, to be excessive and duplicative. Also, the Department of Foreign Affairs can expect to be notified by the police of any alleged criminal activity by foreign representatives. There is no guarantee that the department will be made aware of a civil action, if the status of the diplomat is not contested. But it just would appear that we have that in place, and it's more than is required. Obviously, we acknowledge the wisdom of Mr. Casey's suggestion.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: This minister has made that commitment, but what about the next minister?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think the minister's commitments will be put in place with the protocols, some of which have already been put in place. I received a copy of those protocols. As soon as a foreign representative arrives on Canadian soil, he is presented with this new protocol. Here are the new rules on drinking and driving—hear them, read them, know them, it's zero tolerance.

Mr. Bill Casey: Why would you hesitate putting this requirement into legislation? Why the reluctance to make this information required?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: You don't put everything in legislation. Protocols are very effective. They establish what is an acceptable level of conduct and what is not. But you don't need to put everything like that in statute or regulation. And it is ongoing, it continues after a particular minister.

Mr. Bill Casey: And it changes—this one is changed. Why do you not want to put it in legislation? Is there something you're trying to keep from everybody?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I think she's answered that.

Ms. Jennings, did you have something to say?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. I was just going to make the point that in civil jurisdiction the government may not, in fact, be aware that diplomatic immunity has been claimed. To give you an example, if someone on the staff of the Bay sold goods to an individual who turns out to enjoy diplomatic immunity, and that individual didn't pay their Bay card or something, I'm not sure that if it goes before small claims court, there's any mechanism whereby, automatically, the foreign affairs department would be informed that there's a claim in small claims court because this garage mechanic didn't get paid for doing the oil check on a car.

• 0955

So I think Mr. Casey's amendment is just too widespread, too broad.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Madam Lalonde, you want to say something?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: As drafted, the amendment calls for an incident report. It seems to me that an incident can be reported to the House without having to mention people's names.

The amendment is poorly drafted in French because immunity isn't claimed further to an incident. Immunity is claimed because an individual has the right to claim it. That's the reality. It isn't claimed as a result of an incident. That's incorrect.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): If the amendment fails, as it might, we won't have to worry about how it's written in French. We'll let you speak, Mr. Pallister, and then we'll go to the question.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'd just like to speak in support of Mr. Casey's amendment, and I am sure that if the minister were here, he'd speak in support of it. In a Canadian Press article of March 15 this year he said “we will not turn a blind eye to diplomatic misbehaviour”. He went further and said that the deputy minister would compile a quarterly report on incidents and that this would be made available on the departmental website. He also stated that there would be an annual report and it would be made available. This is good. The minister certainly would agree. I know the minister would want to support Mr. Casey's amendment, so I certainly would defer to his good judgment. He would want us to comply with his promises, his commitments made after the Catherine MacLean incident, and I would think that this is the right thing for us to do. So I'll certainly support it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I think I've heard the question called.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On clause 3—Privileges and immunities)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I understand there are three proposed amendments to clause 3, and they're all from the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Pallister, you may proceed with the first amendment.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, sir. To be sure I'm on the right one, is this “that Bill C-35 in clause 3 be amended by deleting lines 19 to 36 on page 3”?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: This simply allows our non-treaty visitors, their household members, and their staff immunity to the same degree as the treaties we have with those countries state or as is required, in the absence of treaties, by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. I speak, certainly, in support of the government's intention, if it is to abide by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but I would speak in opposition, yet again, to going beyond it, especially in this post-September 11 world, which the government members are frequently heard to say is a new world that has changed in its attitudes toward security. I believe there are better ways for us to host people than to say they are above the law.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: This is to strike out the clause that extends privileges and immunities to classes of persons such as chemical weapons inspectors. This is one of the reasons the bill was drafted. We oppose it, because we do have a bill in front of us, and it intends to extend those privileges and immunities as we've discussed earlier. To keep this very succinct, since Canada has already entered into two international agreements, we would be found in breach of our treaty obligations if we didn't make this amendment.

• 1000

I'm just trying to convey that there is a rationale, there is a consistency. When you sign international agreements that deal with the inspection of these kinds of facilities, it's a reciprocity issue. I was very pleased to hear Scott Fairley the other day highly recommending the work done in this act with regard to reciprocity. So we will be found in non-compliance with agreements if we support this amendment. That, in a nutshell, pretty much says where we are.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Are you ready for the question?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Yes we are.

(Amendment negatived)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): We'll now go on to CA-4. Again, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you sir. This amendment says that Bill C-35 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 25 on page 4 with the following:

section 19 prevails to the extent of the inconsistency

It allows us to continue to use the Immigration Act ahead of an Order in Council. Where the two conflict, the Immigration Act would prevail. What the Immigration Act does is provide us with criteria for dealing with folks who would like to come here, but are otherwise inadmissible: people who have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable under an act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more; people who are actively involved in organized crime; people who have engaged in acts of espionage; people who will engage in terrorism; people who there are reasonable grounds to believe will engage in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; people who are members of or are likely to participate in the unlawful activities of an organization that is likely to engage in such acts of violence.

Next to this bill we have an anti-terrorism bill, and it is designed to limit the ability of terrorist organizations, if I can be so bold as to say that, to function in our country effectively. What we do, if we take away this criterion from the Immigration Act and say it does not apply, and it's superseded by an OC, is take away the ability to use a regimen of criteria that is very important, I think, in assuring Canadians that we are taking serious looks at who is able to come into our country and who is not. This doesn't stop in any way, shape, or form the government, if they want to bring an inadmissible person, from doing that. They can do that now. The immigration minister can issue what's called a ministerial permit, and it doesn't change that fact.

But there's a second aspect to this. My understanding is that if the minister chooses to bring in bad people through a ministerial permit, the minister has to report to Parliament, so there is a mechanism for oversight. The people of Canada, as represented by parliamentarians like us, get to oversee these decisions, we get to monitor them and understand the legitimacy of them, and we get to apply a criterion, as stated under the Immigration Act, that I think should not be removed from consideration.

So if we change this, we remove a degree of parliamentary oversight that I think is pretty important, and we remove the requirement for these cases to be included in the immigration minister's annual report. I don't believe the OCs provide the protection or the transparency that the present system does. Again, this does not restrict the government's stated desire to offer immunity to a wide variety of new people. What it does is simply leave the criteria under the Immigration Act in place, so we can assure Canadians that we're not letting people in without a good reason. I would prefer that we leave it the way it is. That is the purpose of this amendment.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, again, the witnesses who came forward did not criticize this change we're bringing through, and in fact, they saw it as the appropriate recourse. It was felt that it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs whose authority should be triggered when such a decision has to be made, as has been mentioned by Mr. Pallister. That is not a decision he can render alone. It does require an Order in Council, should the person's background be such as to trigger that.

• 1005

My understanding—I stand to be corrected, as always—is that even with the situation as has existed, which would be the status quo ante after this bill, the DFAIT minister trumped the Minister of Immigration anyway, but I'm not sure of that. In any case, I argue for a consistency in this, and I believe that his motion, of course, is directly opposite to the intent of a bill we're very comfortable with. So I'm going to oppose Mr. Pallister's recommendation.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Ms. Carroll alludes to witnesses. There was only one witness, Mr. Fairley, who she invited to come, who said this was something he thought better positioned with the Department of Foreign Affairs. When I asked him whether he understood the security aspects of this, he said he didn't. He said he was concerned about the convenience aspects. I'm more concerned about the security aspects than I am the convenience aspects, and that's why I raise the amendment, Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I hear you, Mr. Pallister, but I have a high comfort level that the security aspects will not in any way be negatively affected, and I believe the Order in Council will allow your concerns to be mitigated. I don't see, honestly, the validity of your arguments on this.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I'm ready to call the question on CA-4.

(Amendment negatived)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I shall now go to CA-5 and, again, Mr. Pallister.

By the way members, as much as possible, try to direct your remarks through the chair, so we don't get this back and forth between members.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Is that the rule, Mr. Chairman?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Well, as much as possible. I try to be lenient.

Mr. Brian Pallister: This is pretty straightforward. I'm catching on to this process now, so I don't want to keep the government members here too long.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You're doing a fine job too.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm doing my best, Mr. Keyes.

This amendment says that Bill C-35 in clause 3 should be amended by adding after line 26 on page 4 the following as subsection (5):

Notwithstanding subsection (1), any immunity accorded to participants at an international conference only applies in respect of those actions of the participants that are conducted in the course of their function as delegates to the conference.

In other words, if they come here and they choose to go off on their own and rape somebody, they're going to be prosecuted for that. If they come here to participate in business meetings on behalf of their country and they behave themselves in accordance with our laws, that's great, they're going to be fine. But if you defeat this amendment, you're saying it's okay, and the next time somebody comes here in a delegation and commits a crime against a Canadian, the government's going to be asked why Canadian law doesn't prevail, and the answer's going to be that you defeated this amendment.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): So there.

Ms. Carroll.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Pallister, we're both engaged in a process for the first time, so one never should apologize for that.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Chair, she's talking to me.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Through you, sir, to Mr. Pallister.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): You know Liberals. Liberals don't listen to Liberals.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: This amendment would, in effect, limit the capacity of the Governor in Council to grant immunity under section 5 of the act, and it would be limited solely to functional immunity. However, this would be contrary to the words of schedule 3, which in certain places grants more than functional immunity. So it would create a lot of confusion within the act. Canada's obligation to grant a higher than functional level of immunity to representatives of member states attending, for instance, a UN conference in Canada could not continue to be met. This is what happens when you put in a piece and the rest of the house tumbles. It's just not supportable, Mr. Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1010

In response to that, I would just quote from an article in the Ottawa Citizen of January 29 this year, in which the minister himself dismissed suggestions that waiving immunity in this case—and we're talking about the MacLean case again, of course, which we shouldn't forget about, we should learn from—might set a precedent that could expose Canadian diplomats abroad to the possibility of prosecution under foreign laws. He said:

I think the distinction we would make in this case is that clearly, this has nothing to do with carrying out one's responsibilities on the behalf of the government that the individual represented. And we would expect compliance with normal traffic laws as something that would happen here.

He went further and said “I can tell you, I wouldn't feel a lot of sympathy for them in that case”, in answer to the question, what if a Canadian diplomat killed a pedestrian in Moscow?

So the minister has clearly shown his desire to see us very carefully examine the legitimacy of extending full and complete diplomatic immunity beyond duties in his comments here. This is reflected in my amendment. Again, I am sure if the minister were here, he would speak in support of this amendment.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: In my view, the bill's provisions respecting immunity and the powers of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Governor in Council already address Mr. Pallister's concerns about the level of immunity to be granted to certain individuals.

As I see it, one of the problems with his amendment is that it says: "applies only in respect of those actions of the participants that are conducted in the course of their function as delegates to the conference".

When an international intergovernmental conference is held here in Canada, some of the people from foreign countries arrive as conference delegates and some as observers, while still others do not even work at the conference site, but are merely members of the delegation's entourage working for the delegates who enjoy immunity.

The problem is that only delegates would have immunity. There is a major problem with the wording of the amendment and that's why I cannot support it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Pallister seems to be forgetting that these provisions and policies are always exercised within the context of reciprocity. If conference participants enjoyed immunity only while the conference was taking place, many world countries would be hard pressed to find people willing to act as delegates. It's very important to understand that to some extent, because of the immunity issue, reciprocity becomes extremely important to many world countries that do not have democratic regimes and operate under different systems of law. Delegates assigned to such conferences could be placed in compromising situations.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I'd like you to call a separate, recorded vote on each of the proposed subsections in clause 5.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Sorry, I just have to put the—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Very well, but I made my position known in advance.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I have to put the question with respect to clause 3, now that we've dealt with all the amendments.

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5—Role of RCMP)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I requested a separate, recorded vote on each of the three paragraphs of section 10.1, as proposed in clause 5. I have no amendments to propose, because the testimony I've heard here has convinced me that these provisions would be better framed within the RCMP Act. There are incomplete here and it would take a considerable amount of work to amend them.

• 1015

Accordingly, I strongly object to these provisions. I'm waiting for amendment G-1 to be moved, because in my view, it will only make matters worse.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Madam Lalonde, I have a notice of a government amendment. It hasn't been moved, though. Does someone on the government side want to do that?

Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I just explain it.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): We'll come to your concern in a moment, Ms. Lalonde.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The purpose of amendment G-A is to correct the French version to bring it in line with the English version. The following is noted on line 26 of page 6:

[English]

to ensure the security for the proper functioning of any intergovernmental conference

[Translation]

Clause 5 of the bill, which proposes to amend subsection 10.1(1) of the Act, reads as follows in French: “d'assurer la sécurité lors du déroulement d'une conférence intergouvernementale”. The amendment calls for the French version to now read as follows:

sécurité pour le déroulement sans heurt de toute conférence

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): There's another one. Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: This amendment is that Bill C-35 in clause 5 be amended by adding after line 44 on page 6 the following new subsections:

(4) No member of the staff of a minister of the Crown in right of Canada and no member of the public service of the Government of Canada who is not a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall advise or instruct any member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the performance of his or her duties under this section.

(5) Any person who contravenes subsection (4) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine of not less than fifteen thousand dollars.

I expect, to some degree at least, this bill is influenced by the events of the APEC meetings and so on and perhaps anticipates other international meetings to come. The Hughes inquiry examined the conduct of the RCMP and a number of other issues surrounding those events, and after considerable expense incurred by the Canadian taxpayers and the loss of one minister's position, and a couple of chairmen, I think, these recommendations were made public.

I'll just read recommendations under 31.3, “Relations with the Canadian Government”. At 31.3.1, “Statutory recognition of police independence”, we have the following:

The RCMP should request statutory codification of the nature and extent of police independence from government with respect to:

1. existing common law principles regarding law enforcement; and

2. the provision of and responsibility for delivery of security services at public order events.

This bill is trying, I gather, to make it clearer what the RCMP role is in these international events. I believe that's the intent. But 31.3.2 addresses “RCMP responsibility”:

Pending statutory clarification, when the RCMP have agreed to police a public order event, there should be a clear understanding, by both sides, of the terms of the agreement regarding the provision of and responsibility for the delivery of security services at public order events. By whatever educational or other communication means available, the RCMP must instil in its officers, particularly those at senior levels who could be in contact in their professional work with senior representatives of the Government of Canada, that they are to brook no intrusion or interference whatever from government officials as they meet the responsibilities of providing the agreed upon security services. While there will be room for a consultative process in such matters, ultimate responsibility must rest exclusively with the RCMP. Officers should know that any actions on their part, beyond participating in a consultative process, that allows for intrusion by government officials into the formulation and execution of decisions relating to the provision of security services will result in disciplinary action.

• 1020

That's what the government's Hughes report says. And the government has acted on one part of the Hughes recommendations, the part about giving the RCMP broader latitude, but they haven't acted on the other, which is to get the politics out of the RCMP. That's a concern Canadians have, and it's a concern many RCMP officers I talked to have. They don't want the perception out there that anybody in the government's telling them what to do, and I don't think the government members should want that either.

So what we're asking here is, I think, very reasonable. What we're asking is that something be added. If we're going to clarify RCMP authority to police these events, if we're going to give the RCMP the right to restrict, in their best judgment, the behaviour of Canadian people, then we should make sure it's the RCMP making the decision and not the government using the RCMP for their particular political purposes. This would advantage the members of the government. Who am I to tell the government what to do? But I certainly think that there's a great concern out there that the politicians of this country should not be meddling in the operational decisions of the RCMP. I would hope the members on the government side would understand that is a legitimate concern, and we can deal with it here simply by adding subsections that reflect accurately the recommendations of the Hughes report.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Just before I go to Ms. Jennings, and then Ms. Carroll, I want to point out that there is a government amendment under this section. If Mr. Pallister's amendment were to be passed, that would be out of order.

Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to add that if amendment CA-6 were adopted, a staff member of a provincial or territorial minister, or of a provincial or territorial official would be able to advise a member of the RCMP in the exercise of his or her duties. There have been cases of intergovernmental or international conferences taking place in provinces where the municipal or provincial police force has worked together with RCMP officers to ensure that the conferences go off without a hitch.

Mr. Pallister would be creating a double standard. I think those who drafted this amendment for him should take a look at the Canadian Constitution and consider that in Canada, we have different government and police jurisdictions.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I'll recognize Ms. Carroll, and then Mr. Casey.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I would just add, Mr. Chair, that the Hughes report stated very clearly that it is appropriate for the government to be involved in security planning for major intergovernmental conferences.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Mr. Casey, followed by Ms. Lalonde.

Mr. Bill Casey: I don't think the Hughes report said the government should influence the direction and the operation of the police. I believe this amendment is appropriate and I'm going to support it, because if I don't, it would be interpreted as showing I support political influence in the RCMP, and I wouldn't want that.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Ms. Lalonde.

• 1025

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: In my opinion, this amendment should be adopted. I've worked in several areas , but not in the fields of security and justice. However, in any self-respecting democracy, a distinction is drawn between police and government. My impression of the proposed section 10.1 was that there should be a distinction drawn between the government and the police. That's an argument that we have heard here. If I had the time to review all the blues...

In this particular context, I think this amendment is perfectly acceptable. Conversely, the government's amendment is totally illogical.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): We now have a government amendment, G-1. Do you want to speak to it, Ms. Jennings?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

When we had the officials come before us to talk about this bill, I raised some concerns regarding proposed subsection 10.1(1), clause 5 of the bill, giving the RCMP primary responsibility for the security. There may be some provinces where the RCMP, through contractual agreements with the province or the territory, not only fulfils the function of the RCMP as our federal police force, but also fulfils the functions of the municipal police force or the equivalent of a provincial police force. But we also have provinces, such as Quebec and Ontario, that have their own provincial police forces. The RCMP, for instance in Quebec or Ontario, is not the provincial police force and does not act as a municipal police force. The way in which proposed section 10 was actually worded could create great deal of difficulty.

The government heeded my concerns, and it has come up with this amendment, which would add on another subsection to recognize that there is consultation and cooperation that must take place between the RCMP, provincial, and municipal police forces. The Solicitor General would have the authority, under the approval of Governor in Council, to enter into arrangements with the government of the province where the RCMP is not the municipal or the provincial police force.

I personally, as someone who comes out of law enforcement, see some reassurance in that. Our provincial and municipal police forces, for instance in Quebec, will have more standing than they would under the present proposed section.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Ms. Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I have to smile when I say that the amendment we've just received... Go on, smile a little.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): They don't have a sense of humour.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That's one for us. I'm curious as to the meaning of this amendment. In Quebec, the Sûreté du Québec is responsible for security, while the RCMP is responsible for matters of an international nature. The two services will therefore need to work together to decide the proper course of action to take.

• 1030

Amendment G-1 reads as follows: “the Solicitor General may, with the approval of the Governor in Council”. He therefore acts with the approval of Cabinet. I have a problem with this, because I thought police forces were supposed to work together. According to the amendment, the approval of Cabinet, that is of the Governor in Council, will be required. The amendment goes on to say this:

...enter into arrangements with the government of a province concerning the responsibilities of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and members of provincial and municipal police forces with respect to ensuring the security for the proper functioning...

This means the RCMP is negotiating powers that rightfully belong to the provinces. I have two questions. On the one hand, the RCMP is negotiating powers that belong to a province or municipality, and on the other hand, it is not negotiating in concert with the Sûreté du Québec. It is acting with the approval of the Governor in Council. In my opinion, that makes no sense.

What emerged from the testimony we have heard is that these three subsections lack clear direction, particular the proposed paragraph 10.1(2). The proposed paragraph 10.1(1) needs to state clearly that the RCMP must, as usual, negotiate with provincial and municipal police forces. The statement "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has primary responsibility" upsets the balance. Normally, the RCMP is required to negotiate, but according to paragraph 10.1(1), they have primary responsibility. This creates a problem and in order to correct that problem, the bill states that the Solicitor General may enter into arrangements for the sharing of responsibilities. This doesn't begin to address the concerns raised by witnesses. In fact, it does the opposite.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: First of all, in my view, the meaning of the amendment is clear. The key words are: “the Solicitor General may”. When I read clause 5 in its entirety, a clause which proposes to amend section 10.1 of the Act, it is my understanding that the RCMP may continue, as it has done in the past, to negotiate directly with police forces to ensure the proper functioning of a conference. My concern was that the proposed section 10.1(1) states that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police...

I can't even hear myself speak, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Members, can we not have so much talk? I understand that there's some important discussion, but the thing is that Ms. Jennings has the floor, and we want to hear her. Ms. Jennings, can you finish?

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: My concern - and I appeared to be the only one concerned - when I questioned Mr. McCallum from the RCMP was this: Yes, there has been some cooperation and consultation in the past, but what happens when the RCMP feels that certain actions are required to ensure the proper functioning of a conference, whereas the Sûreté du Québec or a provincial police force believes otherwise? Mr. McCallum was unable to answer my question and I took it to mean that pursuant to the proposed section 10.1, the RCMP would have the final say in the matter. I found that somewhat disturbing.

• 1035

With this amendment which would add paragraph (4), in the event of a conflict or disagreement which police forces were unable to resolve through a mutual arrangement, government level representatives would have the responsibility of settling the matter. The Solicitor General and, in the case of Quebec, the Minister of Public Security, would have to come to an agreement. That's why the text reads “may” and not “shall”. The Solicitor General is not under any obligation to enter into an arrangement if one is not needed. Such action is warranted only when police forces cannot come to an agreement.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): That deals with the amendments. Now proposed section 10 actually has four subsections. My understanding from Ms. Lalonde—and this is within the purview of the committee—is that she would like to have a separate vote on each of the subsections.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: First, I'd like to speak to the proposed subsection 10.1(2).

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I've just been advised that members are required in the House. Apparently there's no time.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Chair, I think we've just about come to the end of our work. It seems unnecessary to reconvene.

Mr. Stan Keyes: On a point of order, the chair can now ask the committee to vote on whether or not we should deal with these subsections individually or not. If he asks the question, we'll vote on whether or not we do it subsection by subsection, and if not, we can proceed to carry clauses 6 through 10, the title, and we're done.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I must point out, Ms. Lalonde, there are no amendments. It is up to the committee whether they want to entertain your request or not.

Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Forgive me for not knowing the protocol, but is it standard practice that we ignore the bell in committees? Are the government members able to force us to choose between going to a vote or staying here and voting? Is there no protocol for when the bells are ringing? I'm just asking.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's a 30-minute bell.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I was asking a theoretical question.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I think the committee can decide on its own.

Ms. Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The committee may decide, but members do have certain privileges. It was my understanding that the Standing Orders allowed a member to request a separate vote on each subsection. I thought a member was entitled to make such a request.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Well, it's up to the members. Does the committee want to deal with this particular clause subsection by subsection or not?

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Howard): Then we will deal with it all in one. Shall clause 5 carry as amended?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I've already asked for a recorded vote.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Do you want a roll call?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Yes, please.

• 1040

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Okay, the clerk will proceed with a roll call.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm very concerned that we not miss our vote.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): This will be done in a minute.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay.

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): As there are no amendments to clauses 6 to 10, shall clauses 6 to 10 inclusive carry?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Can I ask for a recorded vote?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes, go ahead. This is for clauses 6 to 10, Mr. Clerk.

(Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

(Schedule agreed to)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'd like a recorded vote.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Okay, go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

(Bill agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage? It's not necessary, so we won't do that.

Mr. Pallister?

Mr. Brian Pallister: What's the purpose of the the printing of the bill, Mr. Chairman? What does that enhance?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Nothing, except that there was only the one amendment, so the question is whether we go ahead and do it all over again, that's all.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Oh, I see. Thank you, sir.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Members, I'm still not sure about these bells. There is a resolution, now that the bill has been passed. The government wants to move a resolution. Do you want to deal with it now? Do we have the time?

A Voice: You've got 24 minutes left.

• 1045

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Let's have the resolution distributed.

Yes, Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You want us to vote on these items without having read them? Frankly, there are limits. This committee used to have a good reputation.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): I've just asked for advice from the clerk and it's this—this will only take a few seconds, Ms. Lalonde, I think you're going to get your way. There is a 24-hour rule on bringing in amendments. However, since this resolution is related to the bill, but is not a part of it, we could have a debate, if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent? There's no unanimous consent.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: May I ask on a point of information, does that mean we will deal with this when next we meet?

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): Yes.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay, that's fine.

The Acting Chair (Mr. John Harvard): That's on notice.

This meeting is adjourned.