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]

Tuesday, November 6, 2001

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I call this meeting of the committee to order. The minister's only able to be here until 5:30, so I'd like to get going right away.

Minister, thank you for coming. We notice you've been running a lot lately, Minister, running the New York Marathon and running the gamut of Mideast politics. I don't know which was easier on your system, but you look in pretty good health. Welcome to the committee.

The way we're handling this today, Minister, is that we have split your appearance into two, from 3:30—it's now 3:40, but anyway—until 4.15, so approximately 45 minutes will be devoted to Bill C-35, which the committee has been considering.

[Translation]

In the second half, which will last until 5:30, we would ask you to present your overview on general policy and especially the outcome of your trip to the Middle East.

Again, welcome to the committee.

[English]

I turn it over to you, sir, and as usual, I'd ask the cameras, since the hammer has gone down, if they could leave now. Thank you very much.

Minister.

Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I should be fine as long as you don't ask me to stand up, sit down, or do anything very quickly that involves the use of my legs.

The Chair: You said Sunday was a personal worst.

Mr. John Manley: I hope this will not be a personal worst for appearances before committees, but you never know what might be in store, I guess. One personal worst a week is enough for anybody, I think.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, we will begin with Bill C-35, an Act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

• 1540

I would first like to commend this committee for the excellent work it has done in reviewing Bill C-35. I have followed, with interest, the debates and witness hearings before this committee. This afternoon I would like to take the opportunity to comment on the main amendments and clear up any misconceptions that may have arisen.

[English]

As you know, this act, the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, provides the statutory basis for diplomatic privileges and immunities in Canada. It also provides the government with the ability to address, by Order in Council, privileges and immunities and the legal status of international organizations and events or summits held under their auspices in Canada.

Some of the subject matter we'll discuss here is somewhat dense and legalistic, but fundamentally, the amendment is about allowing Canada to fulfil better its role as a leader in world affairs in line with key partners like the United States, Britain, and others. Canadians understand, I believe, that Canada, as a leader in the international community and as a member of crucial world bodies like the G-8, gains both political and economic benefits by hosting important international gatherings where we achieve progress on issues that matter to Canadians and to the world at large. The proposals in this bill will permit Canada to show leadership in international fora, to fulfil its obligations in hosting the upcoming G-8 Summit, and to continue to present Canada, and notably the city of Montreal, which will be directly affected by these changes, as a prime location for the establishment of the head offices of international governmental organizations.

It's important to remember that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations are fundamental to the conduct of foreign relations. They ensure that diplomats can perform their duties without threat of influence by the host government. The purpose of privileges and immunities is not to bring personal benefit to individuals, but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions.

Bill C-35 is directed principally at that part of the act that deals with the legal status of international organizations and their meetings in Canada. It ensures that Canada can treat an international organization or a conference that is not created under the legal framework of a treaty, such as the G-8 Summit or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in the same way we treat such a conference held by a body created by a treaty, such as the United Nations itself.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, this proposal responds to a recommendation by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations to amend the definition of “international organization” to include within its scope, non-treaty based governmental international organizations.

However, let me clarify that this bill does not expand the level of privileges and immunities which the law provides for representatives of foreign states to international organizations, or to conferences of such organizations, in Canada.

[English]

That is neither the intention nor the function of the bill. In this vein, I would remind colleagues that in the follow-up to the tragic accident that took the life of Catherine MacLean and brought serious injury to Catherine Doré, my department adopted, some time ago, a strict new policy regime in respect of that small minority of foreign diplomats who might seek to abuse these provisions to skirt the law.

Madam Chair, I'd also like to point out that other key partners of Canada, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, have provisions in their law to grant privileges and immunities to non-treaty-based organizations such as that we propose in this bill.

The proposals in the bill will contribute to the broader goal of establishing Canada as an attractive host country for the offices of international organizations, which bring substantial benefit to our economy. A 1998 study by the Groupe Secor, commissioned by Montreal International, estimates the economic return of international organizations located in the city of Montreal alone to be at $184 million net for the year 1997.

• 1545

Madam Chair, I would also like to say a brief word concerning the proposal in this bill to clarify that the Order in Council for an international organization or meeting excludes the obligation to issue a minister's permit to allow entry to Canada of persons who fall within the inadmissible classes under the Immigration Act.

[Translation]

I assure the committee that international organizations and the meetings will be subject to the careful screening procedures already in place and that the regular consultation between the Department of Foreign Affairs, Citizenship and Immigration, CSIS and the RCMP will not be bypassed. An Order-in-Council for international organizations and their meetings provides for immunity from immigration restrictions, not from the immigration formalities.

[English]

Madam Chair, the amendment concerning the codification of police authority to provide the necessary security and protection to ensure the proper functioning at international events has also drawn some questions. Please make note that the bill simply clarifies existing police powers under common law. We've heard from some that the term “appropriate” in the legislative proposal is vague. Appropriate measures are those that are reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in several decisions. I would add that the proposal on police powers is not intended in any way to hinder lawful, peaceful protest, which must also remain a fundamental right within a free and democratic society. The bill provides a point of reference for the public, and that point is the RCMP.

In June 2002 Canada will be hosting the G-8 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta. In preparing for this event, we will need to take all necessary steps to protect our visiting world leaders and to ensure that this meeting can take place safely. In light of the recent events in Genoa, where precautionary security measures did not prevent the resulting tragic deaths, and in light of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, we have an obligation as a world player to ensure that Canada can successfully host these important international events.

Madam Chair, I urge the committee to keep in mind the intended objectives of the bill. It's been proposed in order to ensure Canada's success in hosting important international conferences such as the upcoming G-8.

[Translation]

It will ensure that we are able to bring our international guests here so that they can make a contribution to these meetings while being assured of their safety in Canada, just as we expect the same when we attend meetings overseas.

[English]

Finally, Bill C-35 enables Canada to comply with our international obligations and to advance Canada's foreign policy objectives without compromise to the safety and protection of Canadians.

Thank you very much. I'd be happy to take some questions. By the way, the director of our legal branch at Foreign Affairs, John Holmes, is with me to assist with some of the dense legal questions.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)): Thank you Minister, and welcome also to the officials with you.

We agreed this morning informally that we would do a five-minute round in order to keep within the time limit. I think we have just about 45 minutes before we go into the next section. So we'll start with you, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman and Minister. I hope you appreciate that I have much less time to ask questions than you did to complete the marathon on Sunday, sir, so I'll try to keep my questions direct.

We have learned that there are 76 cases of alleged criminal activity—of course, this can't necessarily be proven, because of the immunity provisions—76 cases in just the last five years involving diplomats, their families, mission staff, and so on, and more importantly, involving Canadians who've been victimized by the criminal activities of these folks who are above the law. Your government already extends diplomatic immunity more broadly than the Vienna Convention requires, for example, giving immunity to staff a number of our allies do not give immunity to, and your bill proposes to place hundreds, potentially thousands, of staff and foreign entrants coming for conventions and so on above our laws. This would include people who had links with terrorist organizations and people who at present may have direct links with terrorist organizations or terrorist affiliation themselves. This seems to me totally out of step with the security you, of course, are concerned about and all Canadians are concerned about. So I want to ask a direct question: was this bill drafted without September 11 in mind? Yes or no?

• 1550

Mr. John Manley: No.

Mr. Brian Pallister: This was drafted with September 11 in mind, sir?

Mr. John Manley: Let's take a couple of steps back, Mr. Pallister. What we're doing here is recognizing, first, that diplomatic immunity is necessarily a reciprocal basis upon which we all carry on our functions in other countries. Canada grants it, Canada benefits from it. We, of course, have a great deal of confidence in our own judicial processes and the rule of law in Canada. Regrettably, not all our representatives going abroad are placed in countries in which the rule of law and due process can be counted upon.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Sir, I don't mean to interrupt you, but you know the shortness of time I have. I'm not arguing against diplomatic immunity, sir, I'm just asking if the bill considered the September 11 events in its preparation. I'm just asking for a straight answer. I believe the minister gave me one; he said yes, it does take into account September 11, and I accept that.

Ten months ago, when a drunken Russian diplomat killed Catherine MacLean with his car, Canadian justice couldn't be brought to bear. Canadian justice meant nothing, it meant nothing to that diplomat, he was immune from Canadian justice, and you questioned why he had diplomatic immunity, because you said the responsibilities of his occupation weren't evident in his conduct that morning, and I would share your concern. But now your bill proposes to extend that same immunity to many other people and put them above the law. Essentially, it allows you to give them a special stay-out-of-jail-free card, even if they rape, or they steal, or they molest someone, or they murder someone. At a time when your government is taking away the rights of Canadians in the name of security, I find it incomprehensible that this bill would be juxtaposed with one that extends more rights to people who don't abide by Canadian law.

You said at that time you were committed to looking at this issue, and I don't see the evidence, sir, that you have. You committed yourself to posting reports of abuses of diplomatic immunity on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade website—there are not those reports. You committed yourself to posting quarterly reports—we have seen none. Currently, CSIS, Immigration, and the RCMP resources are all overstretched, as you know. This bill will simply add to that security backlog.

Let me go to my question.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Do you want to respond?

Mr. Brian Pallister: I would like a response. It seems to me, sir, that this bill was written by someone who did not pay any attention to the consequences of Catherine MacLean, her family, the hundreds of other Canadian victims.

Mr. John Manley: It's almost impossible to reduce that to a question.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Can I go to the question?

Mr. John Manley: Let's start with a few things. This puts nobody—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): You have less than half a minute for—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well, okay, let me just ask the minister—

Mr. John Manley: Madam Chair, I'm a patient person, but we've heard that bills take away Canadian rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights is not abrogated by any bills our government has presented. We've heard that we permit foreign diplomats to break the law, suggesting that somehow or other, as a daily occurrence, foreign diplomats are out there, according to Mr. Pallister, raping or stealing—

Mr. Brian Pallister: Seventy-six cases in the last five years.

Mr. John Manley: —or something else. This is absolutely ridiculous. Fewer than 1% of foreign diplomats commit any crimes.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Well, not in the least.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Time is up.

Mr. John Manley: Madam Chair, I'm a patient man, but a least give me a few seconds to respond to some of the outrageous statements he's making. We have not only obligations as a member of the G-8, but we have obligations as a member of the international community. Diplomatic immunity plays an essential role in that, as I was trying to explain earlier.

• 1555

Yes, I think all of us, in reaction to what happened to Catherine MacLean.... I remind Mr. Pallister that this is pretty close to home for me. He can pontificate about it and try to play politics if he wants to. When we look at what happened in January and consider the implications for Canada's foreign policy, I have to conclude this. The Vienna Convention exists for certain good reasons, and Canadian diplomats benefit from it. When the British went through this process a few years ago after the shooting of a British police officer outside the Libyan embassy, the conclusion was drawn that despite the fact that it seemed like an unlikely application of diplomatic immunity, it was covered by the Vienna Convention, and that it was not in Britain's interest to somehow try to seek to change the Vienna Convention accordingly.

What we did in response to the Knyazev case was articulate a very thorough and clear policy, which is now implemented. By the way, the Russian government has told me that the mirror image of that policy has been implemented by them in application to their diplomats abroad. In other words, one incident of drinking under the influence of alcohol, and they withdraw their people automatically, regardless of where they are in the world.

I think given the circumstances in which we found ourselves.... I wish we could bring back that day and not have it happen, but we can't do that. The door is firmly closed, but the horse is out of that particular barn. In the case of Catherine MacLean, it's a terrible loss. In the case of Catherine Doré, she may never fully regain the physical capacity she once had. But asking the international community to somehow change the Vienna Convention is not going to fix that. At the same time, we do need to move ahead, in a very modest way, I might add, to deal with the needs of international organizations that are not created by treaty, and it's as simple as that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you, Mr. Manley.

We will now go to Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Mr. John Manley: Good afternoon, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I would like to welcome you once more. Should we say: happy is he who, like Minister Manley, went on a good trip? We'll come back to this later on.

Mr. Minister, we voted for this bill on second reading despite several concerns. We received several answers, but there is one issue in particular which has raised our concern, especially in light of the testimony we heard. I am referring to section 5 of the bill, which contains three provisions increasing the powers of the RCMP.

The testimony we heard, in particular that of two law professors who appeared this morning and who, I believe, did not know each other before and who had been invited by different members of the committee, was conclusive. Those three provisions should not be included in the bill. I am referring to paragraphs 10.1(1), (2) and (3) of the bill, which deal with the powers of the RCMP. These three provisions should not be there. We were told that they were either superfluous or very incomplete.

Here is my question. Are you willing to acknowledge what many Liberal Party members have repeated over and over, which is that the bill is not necessary for the G-8 summit, as regards clause 5? As for the rest, that's different. If that is the case, if those three provisions are not necessary to ensure security, why include them when, in the opinion of the two lawyers who came before the committee, they are incomplete and extend beyond the scope of the RCMP Act, by providing powers which, in any case, are not included in the act and which relate to the power to impose a perimeter without including any other conditions? These provisions violate the rights and freedoms contained in the Canadian Charter and, in the case of Quebec, in the Quebec Charter.

• 1600

Based on the testimony we heard, if these provisions were to be included anywhere, it should be in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, where they would be in the proper context, instead of being the only three provisions dealing with the RCMP in this bill, which may cause them to be interpreted as giving the RCMP expanded powers.

But the real issue at hand is whether these provisions are even necessary. Everyone we asked said no. If they are not necessary, then it may truly be preferable to include them in another bill, which would, as far as we understand, give the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act a single underlying thrust. This bill is about 120 pages in length and would contain only three small provisions on the powers of the RCMP, giving rise to all sorts of problems.

Mr. John Manley: I believe that every time we codified common law, someone said that it was not completely necessary, but others replied that codifying legislation adds clarity in the form of written provisions which can then be defined within the context of a bill. It may not be necessary if you feel that common law in itself is complete, but codification can always add clarity.

As regards the bill and the issue of whether the provisions you mentioned should be included in this bill or in the RCMP Act, that is not really a matter of politics, but rather one of legislation. I feel it is appropriate because we feel it was necessary, given the context of international meetings, to clarify the role of the police.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: If you don't mind, I will give you an example. We do not have much time, but I would like you to read the testimony we heard this morning in its entirety.

Paragraph (3) of the bill says:

(3) The powers referred to in subsection (2) are set out for greater certainty and shall not be read as affecting the powers that peace officers possess at common law or by virtue of any federal or provincial act or regulation.

However, on the one hand, the case has been made before us that peace officers do not really know what their powers and duties are under common law. They have neither the time nor the resources to research the matter. The wording contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) clearly indicate that the RCMP have full latitude. There is no mandate for negotiation. No conditions are attached regarding perimeter control. There is mention of “in a manner that is reasonable”, but the lawyers we heard from said that... [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]... direction, the RCMP would be in a difficult position if its action were contested, even within the exercise of its powers, because in doing so the RCMP would infringe on the right of people to move freely about, the right to protest, the right of assembly and even the right of property, because erecting a perimeter may force business people and citizens out of the area.

The only problem we have is with those three silly provisions, if I may put it that way. And I am not the only one saying that, Mr. Manley. I listened with great interest to this morning's testimony and because of what I heard, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. John Manley: I still have not had the opportunity to read and study what was said this morning.

First, and perhaps Mr. Kennedy can add something in this regard, I do not think you can say that the RCMP has full latitude. The RCMP is not the only one involved. Every police force is involved and they must all coordinate their efforts.

Mr. Kennedy.

• 1605

[English]

Mr. Paul Kennedy (Senior Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, Policing and Security Branch, Solicitor General of Canada): I think I've heard this concern expressed before. Like the Minister, I haven't had the opportunity to read the submissions this morning, but on reflection, I was wondering if wording similar to what is found in subsection 6(2) of the Security Offences Act would be something worthy of consideration. In that legislation—I think I provided a copy to the committee following my last appearance—where the RCMP have this authority to facilitate the exercise of their duties, they would have an opportunity to enter into arrangements with the provincial and municipal governments to work out agreements, where appropriate, to facilitate the exercise of that duty. There is language there that deals with the Security Offences Act, and we have a number of agreements across the country with our provincial counterparts. That might be something you want to consider.

The exact wording that appears in that statute is:

To facilitate consultation and cooperation in relation to the carrying out of the duties assigned to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under subsection (1), the Solicitor General may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into arrangements with the government of a province concerning the responsibilities of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and members of the provincial and municipal police forces with respect to the performance of duties assigned to peace officers in relation to any offence referred to in section 2....

Here we could talk about any of the duties that are identified.

We just put that out as something for consideration. I don't know if that assists at all.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine): Thank you.

Next will be Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I'll try to be brief. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Manley. It's good to see you again, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. McCallum. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

I am not opposed to codification of police authority and taking the common law, the precedents that have been set through common law, case law, etc., that has circumscribed what the police powers are and what their primary responsibility and duty are. I have no problem with that, but I have two issues.

The first is whether or not the place to do that is in this particular legislation. The second is precisely what Mr. Kennedy just mentioned, that in other legislation, like the Security Offences Act, where we're talking about the RCMP's primary responsibility for ensuring the security of certain important persons, the Solicitor General has the authority, through Order in Council, to conclude certain agreements with the other police forces, because it does envisage the possibility, and the necessity in some cases, that other police forces have to be involved in exercising or implementing that authority. So I'd like to hear the minister, and possibly you, Mr. Kennedy, and you, Mr. McCallum, on this particular issue, whether or not this is the appropriate place to codify the police authorities and powers.

Before you address that, I would like to make one very brief comment. I do not agree that our police forces do not have the proper tools and resources in place to understand what their powers are under common law. I think it has been shown overwhelmingly that our police do understand what their authority is and do, in fact, carry out their authority within the prescription of the law and in respect of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is one codification of our rights. So I don't agree with my colleague Madame Lalonde, who seems to think our police officers don't have the necessary intelligence to carry their common duties out. I think they do.

• 1610

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I didn't say that.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Oh, yes.

[English]

Mr. John Manley: Much as I like to play lawyer, I'm not going to get into too deep a discussion about what the right statute is. From a policy point of view, what we're attempting to do here is provide clarity about the responsibility of the RCMP in the context of international conferences. That is something I see as desirable, in that it does relieve some questions about what the appropriate authority is and how it needs to be structured. We would anticipate, obviously, that in the context of any of those meetings, as suggested simply by the heading of clause 5 of the bill, the RCMP will take the necessary steps to ensure that there's adequate coordination with provincial or local police forces.

As to what statute it should go in, it makes sense that we cover it when we're dealing with diplomatic immunity for people participating in such conferences. But on the other hand, I think it's something that is really beyond my purview. It's not really a policy issue, it's a legislative drafting issue, as I said to Madame Lalonde. Perhaps Mr. Kennedy has a thought on that.

Mr. Paul Kennedy: You're quite right. The only thing is, there isn't really any master statute, like the RCMP Act, where all their powers are. By way of illustration, there are powers in the Firearms Act, the Criminal Records Act, the DNA Identification Act, the Witness Protection Program Act, the Young Offenders Act, the Northwest Territories Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the Security Offences Act. There are references there to powers to be exercised either by the commissioner of the RCMP or the RCMP.

So, as I say, you could put it in a number of places, and clearly one of them might be the RCMP Act, but this is the statute that is driving it. The Vienna Convention is the one that puts a positive obligation on the state to provide not just immunities, but positive protection for their physical well-being. For that reason, these powers are housed there. This is the vehicle that will drive those events. That's the rationale.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Welcome, minister. I'm sort of pinch-hitting today for my colleague Svend Robinson. Last time I was at a committee with the minister was prior to 1993; we were both members of the finance committee at that time.

I wanted to ask you a couple of very quick questions. The first one is, do you have anything new to add about the investigation in Russia, the prosecution that might be taking place with the person who was drunk at the time he hit Catherine MacLean?

Mr. John Manley: In accordance with Russian law, the investigators have returned to Canada in order to present the results of their investigation to the families of the victims. This is a necessary step, so that the victims' families and, in the case of Catherine Doré, the victim herself have an opportunity to review the case and to make comments on it before prosecution can begin. I can't forecast anything more about the prosecution itself. We've made it a very significant point of bilateral discussions with the Russians that we consider it very important. But of course, it's a matter for their equivalent of the Attorney General rather than their foreign affairs minister.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Are you satisfied that the process is going quickly enough in the context of the legal situation in Russia?

Mr. John Manley: I'm satisfied to the extent that I believe they have proceeded with the investigation without undue delay. I won't be quite satisfied until I see a case presented to the courts and a conviction rendered. As I said to my counterpart Mr. Ivanov the last time I saw him, I would still prefer that they waived diplomatic immunity and allowed Mr. Knyazev to be tried in Canada.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: My other question goes back to the powers under the bill we're looking at today, the role and the powers of the RCMP. I'd like to ask you about the conference coming up in Kananaskis. What extra power, in your opinion, does this give the RCMP, and what kinds of activities could they undertake in Kananaskis that they couldn't have undertaken before?

• 1615

Mr. John Manley: My understanding is that there are no additional powers, this is simply a codification of the existing law, and that they can't undertake anything they couldn't have undertaken before. I gather the committee may have heard some interesting testimony this morning. I look forward to taking a look at it.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It does list in clause 5 the things that are added. Under “Powers of the RCMP” in proposed subsection 10.1() we have:

...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.

It makes it very explicit in the bill, which wasn't the case before. It seems to me that there must be a purpose for putting that into the statutes. I'm not a lawyer like you, Mr. Minister, but if there's a felt need to make this explicit and put it in statute, there must be some reason for it, rather than just being poetic and waxing eloquent about some fine point.

Mr. John Manley: I haven't paid my errors and omissions insurance for a number of years, so I hesitate to describe myself as a lawyer too. As I said earlier, I think the point of codification is clarification. It then, rather than simply relying on the common law, gives a statutory basis for actions the police may take. I don't think there's anything in there that we have not seen the police do in the context of other international meetings. Certainly, I'm interested in knowing if the committee is troubled by any of the wording in specific terms, and I'd want to take that into account before the final text of the bill is voted upon.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: With the conference coming up in Kananaskis, it's certainly of interest to Canadians that it's happening right here in our own country. They want to know if we are changing the law in any substantive way.

It appears under this bill that a foreign diplomat who is wanted for a criminal offence, even a serious criminal offence, could attend a conference in our country, but if that person is wanted for a crime against humanity, they could not. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit more as to what kind of criminal offences a person could be charged with in another country and still receive immunity when coming to a conference in our country. Where do you draw the line? What criminal offence would be so severe that you couldn't get immunity to attend a conference in the country?

Mr. John Manley: As you can appreciate, this is a bit of a tricky area. In the absence of the ability to grant exceptions to people who may have criminal records, persons like Nelson Mandela, for example, might be excluded from attending such conferences in Canada. Many examples of that sort come to mind. At the same time, with respect to certain types of crimes, I guess what we try to do is rely on the vetting process we have in place to determine what kinds of offences would be considered. Also, given Canada's promotion of the Treaty of Rome and the creation of the International Criminal Court, we'd not be providing immunity from service of any warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, once it's created. It's within that treaty that the definition of crimes against humanity is given its detail.

The Chair: Colleagues, we've got two people on the list, Mr. Casey and Mr. Patry. We have six minutes before we move to the second session. I know we're anxious to hear about the minister's trip. Mr. Casey, I'd like to get Dr. Patry in as well, so please be brief.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC/DR): Thank you very much.

I saw you on television the other night in the Maritimes, and you certainly made us all proud.

A month ago the deputy minister was here and we talked about employment levels and the people who are going to provide the ability to implement the legislation we're talking about today. At that time he said, no doubt about it, we're losing some excellent people because they have the prospect of better compensation, and we need better compensation for them. I asked him about the people who are leaving and whether he had the budget to replace the people who are leaving, and he said, at the moment, we do not have that.

• 1620

Since then I've had the opportunity to visit three of our embassies, and I detected a real sense of urgency about employment levels and compensation levels, a frustration. I think at this time, when these are the people we perhaps need the most, it's important that we address this. I wondered what your comment would be on those remarks and what your action will be to fill those 600 empty positions.

Mr. John Manley: First, I would like to say again to the committee, as I have in the past when I've been here, I share many of the concerns that have been raised, particularly by members of the FS category in our department, with respect to their relative wage levels. It troubles me that we are losing people. According to the survey, which I'm sure you know about, that was produced for us recently, as many as 25% of our employees are considering leaving the foreign service. I think that this, over the long term, can have a serious impact on Canada's ability to play its role diplomatically in the world.

I need to continue to work on some of those issues with Treasury Board to try to address them. We are necessarily going through a thorough review of our own programming, not to mention our employee relations issues, to try to find some solutions within our existing resources for addressing the needs for salary and for filling some of these gaps. I don't consider it a trivial problem.

Mr. Bill Casey: The bill gives the primary responsibility to the RCMP for all intergovernmental conferences. Who is responsible now?

Mr. John Manley: The RCMP has the primary responsibility now, according to existing practice. Again, what we're doing here is putting into the statute language to make that evident and give us the ability then to point to a statutory authority. I don't believe you can think, at least in recent times, of an intergovernmental conference held in this country where the RCMP did not take the primary responsibility, but that was done as a matter of practice and not on the basis of any legislative authority. This is creating that legislative authority, together with the powers that are described in proposed subsection 10.1(2), which, again, codifies existing practice. It's really a clarification matter and creating the statutory basis upon which those powers are assumed.

[Translation]

The Chair: Doctor Patry, very quickly, please.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you very much. Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister.

My question also concerns clause 5, which deals with police powers. None of the witnesses the committee has heard from agree on this clause. It would seem that the vast powers given to the police under this legislation do not belong in the Foreign Missions And International Organizations Act, as this has nothing to do with the protection of diplomats by the RCMP.

Section 5 of this bill considerably extends police powers. One witness went so far as to say that the police powers granted under Bill C-35 were even more significant than those given to the police under Bill C-36, which is anti-terrorism legislation. One witness said that here. It seems to me that the discretionary power granted to the police will allow them to decide what action is necessary and reasonable under the circumstances.

My question is very simple. How can we monitor the use of discretionary powers by the police?

Mr. John Manley: Doctor Patry, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act foresees a process to oversee the RCMP's practices, and I believe that process still exists. The legislation anticipates a process which allows citizens to make complaints and to obtain results under such circumstances.

• 1625

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Minister, on another point, the RCMP would be able to create a security perimeter. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding: almost everyone agrees on the fact of having a security perimeter, but with guidelines.

There are no criteria nor guidelines set out in this bill. There is no period of time specified for the duration of the perimeter, before or after. There is nothing. It merely provides for a security perimeter. It could even be a virtual security perimeter.

Why are there no guidelines? Why are there no criteria? From my perspective, the bill is too vague, and I find that tiresome. It should be a little more specific regarding the security perimeter.

Mr. John Manley: It is not any less clear than what exists already. We know that police authorities are obliged to make decisions that are sometimes hard. They are well equipped to make these decisions. For example, we built a perimeter in Quebec, for the Summit. The decision was taken not by the government nor by the political authorities, but by the law enforcement authorities because they were the ones responsible for our visitors' security.

I don't know if it is possible to include specific criteria in legislation for planned conferences, without having specific information. This may be the desire of some witnesses, but I can tell you that there are no existing criteria in legislation that is presently in effect. These are decisions that must always be made by the authorities.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Minister, we have to move if we want to take advantage of hearing from you on your trip, but I'd just like to leave this thought with you.

I think it's fair to say that the evidence from the Solicitor General's department and others before the committee was very clear that this bill, as you said, codifies existing practice. I will tell you, however, this morning and in other evidence we had very strong testimony from legal experts, professors of constitutional and international law and others, who urged upon us the fact that the bill confers extended and extensive new powers on the RCMP that might be better controlled through revisions to the RCMP Act. I just draw that to your attention. You might want to have a look at that and reflect upon it. I think the members of the committee were all somewhat concerned by the evidence, which is conflicting on this point.

Mr. John Manley: I certainly intend to take into account the evidence. Obviously, as I said earlier, I haven't had a chance to review what was said this morning.

The Chair: I appreciate that, but I just wanted to draw it to your attention, sir.

Mr. John Manley: I also warn you that when I first went to work for Chief Justice Laskin, he looked at my transcript and said, your B in constitutional law bruises me, Mr. Manley. So I may need to look to other experts for their advice.

The Chair: The chief justice was always generous in the way he treated his students—I happen to have been one of them as well.

Minister, before you begin, I'd just like to thank you very much for your reply to the committee's report on the Quebec summit. I draw the attention of the members to the fact that the department has filed the government's response to our report on the Quebec summit.

Minister, I'd ask you to share with us the results of your trip to the Middle East and any thoughts about the present security situation.

Mr. John Manley: I was here last month for an appearance. A lot has happened since then in respect of legislative, diplomatic, regulatory, and military activity, which has been aimed at addressing the larger threat and the new security environment in which we live.

What I say today will be focusing quickly on three areas: domestic anti-terrorism efforts, with Canada-U.S. relations being looked at in that context, the status of the military campaign, and Canada's international engagement on terrorism.

I'd have to say also, having spent the last few days in and literally all over New York City, the relevance and vital importance of what we're doing has been brought sharply home. Our partners and friends in the United States, as well as Canadians, are counting on us, and I think it's impossible to understate the preoccupation with events. I say this not just with respect to Americans, I didn't talk to enough of them, but from talking to the employees in our consulate in New York City, I can say the stress they feel from the uncertainty of the environment in which they live is palpable. It's very difficult for them. I think we can take from that how anxious Americans are about their own security situation.

• 1630

And I would say that, whatever the effect of September 11, it has been multiplied for the ordinary person many-fold by the anthrax scare. Somehow or other, it seems omnipresent to many. In New York City, of course, there has been a recent death, the source of the anthrax she contracted being unknown.

So it is a country that is quite preoccupied, and we need to take that on board in considering what we do.

[Translation]

Since September 11, the government has mobilized the efforts of all federal departments to present a series of tangible, wide-ranging anti-terrorist measures.

Bill C-36 is one of the most comprehensive anti-terrorist action plans in the world. It allows the government to take extensive measures to freeze terrorist assets and to put in place means to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorist groups, and gives new investigative tools to law enforcement and national security protection agencies.

The government has also taken steps to tighten up border security and primary examination of refugee claims, to stop terrorists trying to enter Canada under false pretenses.

[English]

On September 28 UN Security Council resolution 1373 was a landmark resolution that calls on member states to act against terrorists and provides a clear blueprint for international action. Canada acted immediately to draw up new regulations enabling us to freeze the assets of persons associated with terrorist activities. As of November 1, this list has been updated twice and now includes over 30 entities and 200 individuals associated with terrorist activities. This package puts us at the forefront of states responding to the post-September 11 environment. Indeed, few governments have gone as far as Canada in addressing some of the new security challenges.

On Canada-U.S. cooperation and border management, let me say first that our relations with the United States have not been better in my memory. Cooperation between our governments, customs, and law enforcement agencies, is at an all-time high. I was in Washington on October 24, when I had an excellent meeting with the new director of Homeland Security, Governor Tom Ridge, who I briefed on Canada's program of legislation and new funding for our security agencies.

With respect to the situation at the border, I can report that while waiting times at the major crossings can still spike upward unpredictably, we're not seeing the delays of several hours or more that characterized the immediate post-September 11 period. However, this is not yet a “return to normal” situation. The assignment of extra personnel on both sides of the border, combined with a substantial reduction in traffic and passenger volumes, is alleviating the burden imposed by the added security measures. This cannot last forever. There's an urgent economic need to restore both commercial and non-commercial traffic flows to pre-September 11 levels.

I stressed this point while I was in Washington. I am pleased to report that Governor Ridge is very sensitive to our mutual economic concerns at the border. We agreed that we can do much to exploit technology for border security, and we discussed fresh ideas, such as pre-clearing legitimate commercial traffic as a means of restoring normal cross-border trade flows.

I will turn now quickly to the status of the campaign against terrorism, because I think a great deal has been accomplished in the last eight weeks. The United States has succeeded in putting together a comprehensive anti-terrorism coalition, including key Arab and Islamic countries. The Taliban has been isolated diplomatically and physically. Financial measures have been put in place to dry up terrorist funding in a great many states. Substantial military pressure has been brought to bear on Osama bin Laden, on the al-Qaeda network, and on the Taliban by a U.S.-led coalition, which includes Canada as the third-largest contributor.

• 1635

The parallel humanitarian effort remains fundamental to this campaign. Canada is gravely concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and the surrounding region. The international community has struggled during this time to meet the basic needs of ordinary Afghan civilians who have been neglected and abused over many years, not just recently, by their own rulers, the Taliban. Canada has contributed over $150 million in assistance to the Afghan people over the last 10 years, and now we have responded to the UN's international humanitarian appeal with an additional $16 million.

[Translation]

Canada has always recognized that this campaign would not be won by military means alone. This is why we are continuing to deploy efforts on the political and diplomatic fronts, so as to maximize the effectiveness of the coalition.

In particular, we believe that the coalition needs to be expanded well beyond the six members with a combat role. It is essential to have a truly global political coalition against terrorism.

My participation next week in the annual session of foreign affairs ministers at the United Nations General Assembly will be an important opportunity to strengthen the solidarity of the coalition. To that end, I intend to profit strategically from my bilateral meetings.

It will also be an opportunity to highlight the key role the United Nations can play in establishing an international legal framework against terrorism, a framework that ties in commitments on paper with serious enforcement mechanisms for international obligations.

[English]

Unity of purpose remains strong internationally across many organizations, regions, and fora. Within the G-8 work is ongoing on a package of concrete counter-terrorism measures. I'll be meeting with my G-8 counterparts in New York next week, at which time I expect we will be in a position to endorse a comprehensive G-8 action plan. We need to focus our attention on regional pressure points, including in South Asia and the Middle East, where support for the coalition remains delicate and where long-standing and profound divisions further complicate a already tenuous security situation.

As many of you know, I've just completed a tour of several Middle Eastern countries, visiting Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority, where my visits were intended to promote the widest possible support for the campaign against terrorism. During bilateral discussions I highlighted the seriousness Canada attaches to al-Qaeda's global reach. I stressed that the campaign is targeted against terrorist elements and is in no way a war against Islam. At every stop I emphasized in the strongest terms that terrorist acts are criminal acts, having no moral equivalency to existing grievances, which should seek political solutions.

I expressed concern to my hosts in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon about their support for organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. Terrorist acts, I believe, have set back the cause of Palestinian self-determination, especially the suicide bomb attacks and the recent assassination of Israel's tourism minister. With Israel and with the Palestinians, I urged once more that the two sides should forswear violence and return instead to negotiation, as the Mitchell commission report recommended last May. I asked Israel to withdraw from area A of the territories and the Palestinians to rein in the terrorists. These were not easy conversations to have. Dialogue with countries in this region, however, even when we disagree on fundamentals, is an essential component of this process.

• 1640

Ironically, this conflict, by widening the channels of diplomatic communications, presents us with an opportunity to address a number of entrenched international problems that have been at the root of much international instability. What sort of opportunities are there?

First, there is the dramatic shift in relations with Pakistan, which has positive implications for democratization and disarmament. There is a possibility for renewed Indian-Pakistani relations, and the potential for U.S. engagement in resolving the dispute over Kashmir. There is the forging of new partnerships, especially between the U.S. and Russia and the U.S. and China.

The current crisis also affords an opportunity to bring internationally mandated change in Afghanistan, which has been a hotbed of instability for decades. Canada is now engaging with allies at the UN and with players in the region on options for a post-Taliban government in Kabul, a system of governance that would be inclusive, multi-ethnic, and representative. This would be a first for Afghanistan.

These are some of the issues we'll be focusing on over the coming weeks and months. These will be busy days. In all this the safety and security of Canadians remains an absolutely top priority. Protecting Canadians, however, is a multifaceted and long-term task, requiring the combined resources of the federal government. This is likely to remain the case for quite some time.

These are challenging times, but I believe Canadians are up to the challenge, and I look forward to working with the committee as we continue this work.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.

I see we've got about 50 minutes. I've got about seven people on the list. If everybody keeps their questions to six minutes, we might be able to get a second round going.

So, Mr. Pallister, I'm going to try to hold everybody to six minutes in the first round.

Mr. Brian Pallister: First, I want to congratulate the minister on his efforts. I believe he has the best of intentions in this monumental effort he's undertaking in many respects, not just domestically, but internationally. And I know, as he does, that the steep roof in the Middle East and the difficulty of pleasing anyone, let alone everyone, is an ongoing challenge for him and for anyone who tries to advance the cause of peace in that region. So I encourage him and offer him my support in that respect.

I also want to share his view that there are opportunities in the midst of this post-September 11 dialogue, which is occurring on many fronts and perhaps did not exist before. I hope it is something we can play a significant role in, and so, for that reason, I again congratulate the minister on his efforts.

My comments—and I hope these will be taken as constructive suggestions—relate to the issue of Canada-U.S. relations in the context of these discussions. We have a difficult debate that we're part of now, typified, I think, by the issues to do with September 11 themselves, which is unfortunate, the blame that has been placed by some Americans, wrongly, on us for our responsibilities, and as a consequence of that blame, the denials that have been thrown back. The Prime Minister, of course, and the Solicitor General have repeatedly said there's no connection between Canada and the incidents of September 11 and the like. The reality is, of course, going to be determined over a longer period of time through investigative work that will be undertaken by agencies in both countries and elsewhere.

In a broader context, I think that's what most Canadians and most Americans are concerned about. There is a shared responsibility here. That shared responsibility is something the minister has spoken about, and spoken very effectively too. It's that shared concern for the future security of both our countries and others that we should be focusing on, not placing blame on who was or was not responsible for events of that specific day. If there is anything we can do, whether we were directly responsible or not, to prevent such things from happening in the future, of course, we should.

My concern is that in our denial of responsibility we somehow convey the impression to our American friends that we are in denial on other fronts, which we are not. The government has undertaken in numerous ways to respond to the events of September 11. Many of my colleagues on the government side and all of us feel it's a new world today, and we should be cognizant of those new realities.

• 1645

I was a little concerned, Minister—and again, it's media reports, and we all know how the media can take things out of context—when you were quoted as saying last year 50% more criminals were stopped trying to get into Canada from the United States than the other way around, and when you were quoted as saying almost half our refugee claimants are from the United States, and most of the guns used in crimes are imported illegally from the United States. When you're quoted as saying things like that, sir, I guess I use a marathon analogy. We have a long-term battle here, our two countries are in a marathon. This is going to take a long time, and we have to get in shape together. One of us saying the other isn't in shape isn't going to solve this problem, because we can't finish this marathon alone. We have to run it side by side. And so I express friendly concerns, sir, about entering into that kind of accusatory dialogue in the context of this discussion. You haven't done so until yesterday, as far as I know, and I hope you don't continue to do that.

Mr. John Manley: I'll certainly take your comments in the spirit in which I think they're offered. And I want to make it clear that—

The Chair: You won't run away from them, Minister, on this marathon analogy.

Mr. John Manley: Anyone here that wants to run a marathon with me is welcome to join me, just as long as they run slowly enough.

The important thing, I think, to build on is exactly the point you're making, Mr. Pallister. What we're concerned about here is our mutual security. I've been more than a little concerned about the reports that continue to circulate. As I said in the House, it's almost an urban legend now in the United States that at least two of the terrorists entered the United States from Canada. This, I think, arises from the fact that they seem to have connected to their flight from Portland, Maine, probably because security is a little lighter at Portland than it is at Boston, and therefore it was a good way to get to Boston.

We don't know that none of them was in Canada. What we repeatedly say is that there's no evidence any of them were. And I can tell you that in every meeting I've have, I've asked the question, do you have any new information that there is a Canadian connection here? No, we don't. Not that it's fundamentally relevant, because, as you say, it's not. There's no point in blaming. Lots of people are dead, so there's probably lots of blame to go around all over the place, if you want. That's not really the point. The point is, how do we build from here forward?

What I said yesterday should be seen in the context of dealing with the matter of what we want for our future at the border. I think we need to understand that we want to discriminate there between a well-functioning border, from the point of view of trade and commerce—and I'm sorry I'm taking a long time, using up his time, but I think this is important. Goods need to flow readily, quickly, and people about whom we have lots of information, who are frequent travellers, likewise need to travel quickly. We need to arrive with the United States at an understanding. What we need to do at the border is have a risk management concept that enables us both to consider what it is we need to stop at the border and focus our resources, which are always going to be limited, on that, rather than taking those limited resources and trying to spread them across everything, with the effect that we stop everything or slow everything down.

My point was only this, so that it can be understood properly in the context of the United States. Some in the United States seem to think there's a wave of terrorists coming in every truck across the Canadian border. I wanted to put an end to that notion, but also to say there are legitimate reasons for us both to look at safety at our borders. We have reasons, you have reasons as well. And that's why I also said we welcome the notion of increasing the resources the United States allocates to its Canadian border. We already have three times more people working at that border than they do. So increase the resources, and we'll make sure the real trade gets through, and we'll all have a better chance of catching the criminals and the terrorists.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Lalonde.

• 1650

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Manley, we don't have much time. I'm going to ask you a series of questions dealing more with your trip to the Middle East, on the conclusions that you drew from this trip and on the issues that you stressed, it being understood that there is always some discretion needed regarding the relationships that you have established with the leaders you met and that there are things that you will not discuss with us.

Having said that, you are aware and you have no doubt seen that in order to expand the coalition, the role of the United Nations is extremely important. Even for the Muslim or Arab countries, it would be easier to build a coalition, even a political one, if the United Nations was at the head of it.

You must have spoken of Iran's role in the preparations for peace. We must bear in mind that Iran never supported the Taliban, as opposed to Pakistan. They are neighbours and they are being called upon to open their borders whereas they already have more than 2 million refugees. But they must play a significant role in preparing what is to come.

You must also have heard talk of the weariness there, after the bombardments of this desperate country, a country that had already been destroyed before the American bombing even started, and for the need to move on to a new phase, particularly in light of the humanitarian needs. A solution must be found. There are the proposed corridors, and there are others, but a way must be found to dispatch humanitarian aid, and you must surely have heard about this.

There is one issue you may not have discussed, but I would like to hear your comments on it. It is the issue of women in Afghanistan. The idea that the Northern Alliance would be the main ally causes some difficulty for Afghan women, because the Northern Alliance has been known to act in ways that are unacceptable to women. Something must be planned in this regard.

And finally there's the issue of fragmentation bombs. It seems to me that it is up to the biggest partner in a coalition to say to their partner—and you do not have to agree with me here—that these bombs add nothing to the Americans' power, given the horrendously bad image or publicity that it brings them. It's unacceptable. These bombs, by their very nature, are like antipersonnel mines, without mentioning the fact that they are the same colour as the food rations.

Mr. Minister, I strung all my questions together, but—

Mr. John Manley: That is a lot of questions.

The Chair: That is true, but you must answer them in two minutes.

Mr. John Manley: In two minutes? That is almost impossible.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, not for you.

Mr. John Manley: All right, I will try to answer quickly.

I would say that we definitely favour as significant a role as possible for the UN in the current coalition, and perhaps particularly in the post-conflict situation in Afghanistan. We must remember that even Osama bin Laden recently recognized the role of the UN, because he said he would be targeting the UN and Kofi Annan himself. They are also bin Laden's enemies.

At the moment, the UN's role in the humanitarian effort is clearly essential. It can play a very necessary role with respect to corridors, for example, or other ways of helping civilians in Afghanistan and refugees. That is a crucial role for the UN at this time.

• 1655

As to the post-conflict situation, Mr. Brahimi is already trying to develop a program to cover that. This is a concern I discussed in Iran. The Iranians are very constructive about the governance of Afghanistan after the conflict. Like Canada, they want the UN to play a significant role. They are prepared to work on a six-plus- two formula—that is the six countries that border Afghanistan, plus Russia and the United States. That could be a constructive, positive suggestion, and I think we should accept it and promote it.

In the Muslim countries, there's definitely the issue of bombing fatigue. We all want this to be over as soon as possible, but we also know that we had to make as much progress as possible. I think we can say that progress has been made, but that it will take time. We had some experience with this during the Kosovo campaign, where it took 78 days of bombing before any change occurred. It may be even more difficult in Afghanistan because the military objectives there are more difficult.

So it will take time. The coalition, including the United States, is trying to minimize the impact of the bombing on civilians, but in light of the military objectives, such as enclaves that are difficult to find, it is not necessarily possible to determine the best ways of dealing with such problems. These are normal, military objectives.

Finally, I think that the situation of women in Afghanistan could not be worse than it is under the Taliban regime. I think the international community can play an important role in developing methods of governance after the war and in taking steps to improve, at the very least, the situation of women. The Taliban prevent girls from getting an education. It is terrible.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation, Minister Manley. I have just a couple of points.

Given that UN Security Council resolution 1373 applies to all member states of the United Nations, it will be interesting to see the submission of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Syria in 90 days showing the UN their compliance with all the measures to fight terrorism. That's just my comment, you don't have to make a response on that.

I want to go to some of the issues Mr. Pallister raised and the point you made about urban myths. I agree with you, there are urban myths that exist in the United States regarding the quality and the effectiveness of Canada's security, whether it be the borders or our intelligence, security, law enforcement, etc. And they are urban myths. I'd like to know, besides you, as our Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking directly with American counterparts, what our government is going to do towards overturning those urban myths that are now part of popular culture in the United States. It's one thing to talk to your counterpart, and he or she knows it's not accurate—the Americans right now are bringing the level of their security at the border up to our standard—but within the popular culture in the United States it's now been accepted that we're the ones who have been lax.

• 1700

So what, if anything, does this government intend on doing to create a new popular culture in the United States that is grounded in reality?

Mr. John Manley: First, let me say that under resolution 1373 that monitoring function is going to be extraordinarily important, and I think that's a key element of the resolution, one we welcomed. We'll submit our report well in advance of the deadline, and it will be an item of important international diplomacy to follow up with countries to ensure that they're filing their reports.

As to tackling the urban mythology, let's be clear here. When I referred to the urban mythology, I meant the notion that some of these terrorists on September 11 entered from Canada.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, but we all know the urban mythology in the States goes beyond that specific.

Mr. John Manley: Yes. There may well be people who think there are lots of terrorists entering from Canada, but I think Mr. Pallister made some important points. We must not be seen to somehow believe the world did not change on September 11, because it did. Whatever else we may be in a position to say about the adequacy of our security measures, our intelligence, our police capabilities, and our military, we have to now review it in light of the fact that we saw on September 11 an extraordinary attack on innocent people. It is capable of being repeated, and we have only begun to try to fathom the variety and the intensity of other sorts of attacks that could be launched. I think it's an important thing that we do, and I think we need to do it not simply with the U.S. administration, but also, and very importantly, with members of their Congress. By the way, parliamentarians have an important role to play in that, not just ministers.

We need to convey two things. One is that we are not a hotbed of terrorism. Every bushel of wheat going into the United States or truckload of softwood lumber doesn't contain a bevy of terrorists lurking underneath the piles. Furthermore, I made the remarks earlier about the sense of vulnerability you feel from people in New York, for example. If we fail to convey to our friends in the United States that we see this as being as grave a threat to them as they do, then we run the risk that they will see us as a threat.

So we have to balance those messages. We're not denying that there's a lot more to be done, because September 11 changed things, but I would feel a lot better if I were confident that all our interlocutors in the United States would remember that most of those 19 entered legally from countries other than Canada with valid documentation issued by U.S. authorities.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The problem is, I think, that a significant number of American legislators, because of their ignorance of the facts, do see us as being a threat to their security, precisely because they have not educated themselves, have not travelled outside the United States. When you see that a significant majority of legislators there actually don't have an American passport, have never had an American passport, it's worrisome.

• 1705

As Canadians and as a government we do need to reexamine our security measures in place, the resources we've devoted to them, but I'm worried that they already see us as a threat precisely because of these urban myths along the entire spectrum. When they attempted section 110 concerning foreigners coming into the United States and requiring visas, we were able to counter that, it died, but there's already talk among them about reviving that.

Mr. John Manley: I think one of the best things we can do is respond with a very comprehensive and thorough package of measures that gives them confidence that we are taking the threat seriously and that we're acting with sufficient speed to deal with it.

I was in one of the Senate office buildings when I went on October 24 to meet with Governor Ridge. I don't know how parliamentarians here would respond if anthrax were detected in these buildings. You have to understand how vulnerable people feel not knowing if the atmosphere they're breathing has somehow been infiltrated by a deadly substance. It is quite natural, in my opinion, for Americans to think, I want to live in a gated community, I want to keep those threats out.

It will require an extraordinary effort on our part to demonstrate that not only are we not a threat, we are an asset, our friendship, our neighbourliness, and our cross-border commerce are assets to them that they need to take into consideration in deciding how to deal with their own sense of vulnerability—and to cherish.

The Chair: Madam McDonough.

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I too want to applaud the minister for having the stamina to run in the New York marathon at a time when there are extraordinary demands on his energy.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like, if I could, to ask what might be described as five short snappers, perhaps one by one, in order to give the minister an opportunity to focus directly.

Mr. Minister, I was very pleased to hear you talk yesterday about how important it is that we win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan if we are truly to win the war against terrorism and if we are to succeed in tracking down and punishing the terrorist perpetrators who are suspected to be in their midst. In view of that, given that we are on notice that there are 7.5 million Afghanis who are at risk of starvation or freezing to death, given that your predecessor has expressed alarm that there are no serious initiatives being taken to deal with the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis, and given that there are UN workers on the ground in Afghanistan begging for a halt in the bombing to allow humanitarian aid to reach the Afghani people, can you speak to why that is not something we are duty bound to heed and support?

Mr. John Manley: First, the humanitarian problem will have to be a multifaceted effort, and I think we need to look to the UN as an organization to provide some guidance on what they think the best responses are.

There is obviously one easy way to stop the bombing, and that is for the Taliban to return Osama bin Laden, so that he can face justice. That would end the bombing immediately. It would open the flood gates of humanitarian assistance to the refugees and to other Afghanis. If that doesn't happen, I think we will have to work closely not just with the UN, but with other agencies, other NGOs, that are on the ground in the area, and we'll need to be increasingly creative about methods we have for delivery of humanitarian assistance. We have made aircraft available to the coalition, an Airbus and Hercules planes, which can be used in delivery of humanitarian assistance, and that's something Canada can probably provide effectively. All of those measures have to be considered as ways of dealing with it.

• 1710

Ms. Alexa McDonough: This is just a comment before I go to my second question. To say the answer to the question is, well, the Taliban should just give up the perpetrators and that will end it, is not to deal with the crisis, it's just to state the obvious, which doesn't get us to an answer.

I think everybody who knows and understands the geopolitics of what we're facing here and the political dynamics has pleaded that nobody do anything that will feed and reinforce the fiction that this is a holy war, that this is a religious crusade, that this is some kind of fight between Islam and Christianity. In view of how desperately important it is to make it clear to the world, particularly the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, that it is no such thing, why is it not also imperative for all those participating in the military coalition to give that clear signal by respecting a determination that during Ramadan under no circumstances will the bombing continue, which would also allow the humanitarian aid to reach the people who desperately it before they die or starve to death?

Mr. John Manley: I think the difficulty is that it really undermines achieving the objectives of the campaign, which have to be pursued aggressively while the opportunity is there to do so. Their success will accelerate delivering the humanitarian assistance that's needed. In the past we have seen wars between Muslim countries that have not been halted during Ramadan. I think the consultations that have been held by many with Muslim countries have not indicated that there is a great necessity to halt for religious reasons during the month of Ramadan. But most important, to do so would undermine the military objectives that need to be pursued while the enemy is on the defensive, without giving it the opportunity either to permit bin Laden to escape or to be able to resupply and re-equip, so that they're better entrenched and better able to resist in the future.

Ms. Alexa McDonough: Again, it just seems to me that there's a serious danger of winning some battles, but losing the real war, which is to make the world a safer place and rid it of terrorists, not create the conditions that will generate more terrorists and more fanatics and murderers in the world.

I'd like to reinforce the question raised by my colleague from the Bloc concerning the role of women. I'd like to ask quite specifically whether Canada is putting forward a strenuous argument for the inclusion of women in the negotiations among the many partners and interests to achieve a post-Taliban government. We're not just talking about expressing concern over the horrendous conditions for women, but really engaging in the building of a post-Taliban government the highly educated, extremely articulate women in Afghanistan, the ones who are there and those who are in exile, considering how much discrimination they have faced. Is Canada specifically arguing for the inclusion of women in the discussions and negotiations for building a post-Taliban government?

Mr. John Manley: Yes, and it's something I expect to have the opportunity to review with Mr. Brahimi next week during the general assembly. It's been a matter of importance to us for a number of years, the conditions that women are experiencing in Afghanistan. As you may know, it's also the subject of what I gather is quite a good movie featuring an Ottawa actress about the condition of women in Afghanistan, which was highlighted in yesterday's New York Times, right after the marathon report. I don't mean to trivialize the question. It's a very important issue for us, and it's one we will pursue in the role we have, which is really as an interlocutor with the UN, encouraging a UN role.

• 1715

The character of post-conflict governance in Afghanistan is something that needs a lot of work and a lot of discussion, as I said, in the six-plus-two context, as well as with the UN role. What we'll be looking for is something that creates an opportunity for all the Afghani people, which is something the UN ought to be driving for. That means inclusion of all the different ethnic groups in the governance structures.

Canada's role—and this is really getting a little bit ahead of ourselves—could parallel the kind of work we've done in Kosovo, where we have not been part of the military force that's been maintaining order since the conflict, but we have played an important role in governance institutions, municipal, police, and others.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I have three questions, Minister, and I'll put them all on the table for your consideration.

You spoke about Canada-United States cooperation as being at an all-time high. I know there is an elevated sense of concern about the northern border. Do you sense any concern about the southern border? Are there any plans to develop some trilateral arrangement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States? Where is that discussion, and what plans are there?

My second question has to do with the whole notion of strengthening solidarity and what you anticipate might happen as you go to the UN meeting of foreign ministers. Are those dramatic shifts, as you call them, on the agenda? And what do you perceive to be some of the shifts?

Finally, you talked about the widest possible support for the campaign against terrorism, and that was really the quest of your mission. What is your sense of the direction of the situation in the Middle East, the peace process? I noticed in reading the press here that there were various comments, some not very flattering. Maybe you could make some comments about them.

Mr. John Manley: They don't make my clipping service.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Could you talk about the sense you had as you shifted from one place to the next?

Mr. John Manley: On Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, I'll meet with my counterpart, Mr. Castañeda, in New York probably this weekend.

This really opens a different door, which I would like to go down for a second, and that is the whole question about perimeter. I tried to tackle this a bit in New York yesterday, because I think to some extent we've got ourselves into difficulty with language on this issue. One of the things I have reacted to in use of the perimeter language in the context of borders is the notion that somehow the Canada-U.S. border and the U.S.-Mexico border ought to be treated in the same breath. I don't think they should. I think the issues are quite different, the level of trade is quite different, the nature of the border is quite different, and the issues the U.S. deals with in its own immigration policy on the Mexican border are quite different from the issues it deals with on the northern border. While I see a lot of opportunity for trilateralism with the U.S. and Mexico in the context of NAFTA, I don't put the border issue into that same context, and that's one of the reasons, when people talk about a North American perimeter, I want a time out. If perimeter means things like NORAD, I'm a lot more comfortable with it, because we understand what we're talking about.

• 1720

So I would say on border issues trilateral's probably not going to work that well. On other issues there's a lot of scope for us to build.

There is a trilateral border issue that Canada can pursue, though, with not Mexico, but with Europe. Many of the people arriving in North America about whom we need to obtain additional information are coming by air from European points of origin. Cooperation with the United States on examination of documents prior to people's coming to Canada is an objective we ought to pursue. It does relate to perimeter, if you want to use that word—you can call it circumference or whatever you like. That kind of cooperation, I think, could be pursued trilaterally.

On the UN meeting and the dramatic shifts, one of the things, I think, to watch very closely in the next couple of weeks is the important meeting that's coming in Crawford between President Bush and President Putin. The entire atmoshere of international relations since September 11 needs to be seen in the context of the terrorist threat. If you like, it's a threat that is shared by states that have in past times been in conflict with one another, but can share experience as victims of terrorism.

That was certainly a recurring theme in my Middle Eastern visits. The Iranians say, we've been victims of terrorism too, that's why we were so quick to condemn the attacks on New York and Washington. The Syrians feel the same. So I think, in building a coalition, it's not merely on a theoretical level, it's also because we're dealing with countries of very different strategic interests whose immediate interest is a shared one, how to tackle the terrorist threat.

The willingness of the Russians, for example, to engage with the United States in some of these issues is an example of those very significant shifts that are in the process of occurring. I think there have been positive signs with respect to U.S.-China relations since the September 11 attacks. I think we're only beginning to see the process of building a greater harmony in the context of the broader Middle East and the relationships there.

With respect to the campaign against terrorism and some of the comments, there's no doubt that there were times in the last week when I felt like a skunk at a garden party. The issue that some of my hosts have has a very simple message, which is that states should not support groups that use violence, especially against civilian targets, as a means of achieving political objectives. It's simply not accepted in some of those countries if you put it in the context of specific groups they see as being groups that attempt to liberate or to fight occupation.

Well, I don't think the victims of terrorism are interested in making that discrimination. My message in each case was, if we're going to fight against terrorism, we really do need you to use whatever influence you have with some of these groups to stop the acts of violence. That's true whether it's Syria or Beirut. I happened to come through Syria right before Tony Blair. The Syrians didn't particularly give me a hard time with media reports, but you might have read some from Beirut, which were rather coincident with Tony Blair's joint press conference in Damascus, in which President Assad clearly did not agree with receiving exactly the same message as I was there to deliver. So our messages were in harmony.

There is no way you can go into Israel and the Palestinian area and satisfy everybody on both sides. They have fundamentally divergent views. Canada tries to pursue, and has done since the 1940s, a fair-minded policy based on international law and on resolutions of the the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly, and that doesn't always please everybody. I'm sorry some people are going to disagree from time to time with the positions we take, but I think they're right. I think they've stood the test of time, and that's why I'm quite content to continue to promote them and push them.

• 1725

There is no resolution possible to what is an ongoing open wound on the world in the Middle East without the parties sitting at the negotiating table and working it out between them. That's going to require that they stop the violence and that they talk rather than shoot. That was the message I was sent to deliver and delivered on behalf of Canada, one I think most of us believe in.

The Chair: Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Most of the concentration right now is on the military effort to try to bring the perpetrators of September 11 to justice. But we've really learned a lesson that a small group of people can attack us and do tremendous damage. It strikes me that at some point we have to start looking beyond the military. Are we going to have a strategy against hate and anger in other parts of the world towards our civilization or our approach to civilization, or are we going to have a constant police force, a military battle going on all the time against people? Are we going to redirect resources to foreign aid more than we have in the past? It's a fundamental decision we're going to have to make, because small groups of people now can attack us, we are vulnerable, it doesn't take armies any more.

I think Canada is 17th on the list of 22 for foreign aid. I just wondered whether there is a debate in cabinet now about Canada reviewing this policy, and is there a debate with other countries? While you're discussing the military actions, is there a debate, and are we looking beyond the military to how we can address the hate and anger that caused all this?

Mr. John Manley: I think we've demonstrated, both in our past work in the Middle East and in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, that we have the capacity to offer support in things like education, educational materials, as part of our ODA programming. I think we are fairly uniquely positioned in the world to contribute some of that, because we're recognized as having a society that's based on accommodating differences and showing mutual respect for different cultures. But the point you make applies in very stark terms to the Middle East where there are plenty of examples of incitement of hatred, in the media, sometimes in school texts, sometimes in political speeches. A moderating influence needs to be brought. I think that's partly a product of ODA, but it's also a product of diplomacy.

Mr. Bill Casey: The world is now going to spend hundreds of billions, trillions maybe, of dollars on this effort. We've already probably lost that in business, the costs of the military action, and the costs of reconstruction of Afghanistan when it comes. You just have to ask yourself whether it would have been better to invest that money in a different way over the last few years. Is that debate at all there, or are we just still focused on the military action?

Mr. John Manley: I don't think at this point in time it's productive to go back and say, is there a logical explanation for why 19 young men fly planes into buildings that could have been addressed with a different set of policy options in the years past? I don't think these are reasonable people we're dealing with. I don't think they're operating with the same set of assumptions we would have in normal debate. They've taken extraordinary measures to do dramatic acts that are unspeakably horrible to most sensible people in the world, which puts them in a different category.

• 1730

I think we should not overlook the importance of dealing with, as I described them a moment ago, these open wounds on the Earth's surface, conflict that hasn't been resolved, horrendous problems of poverty, lack of opportunity, lack of economic development. But we should be careful not to confuse the need to deal with those issues with some kind of justification—and I know you're not suggesting this—of the acts that occurred on September 11. They are simply not in the same category, and we must denounce and repel the acts of terrorism at the same time as we act in compassion and out of human necessity to deal with these wounds that are causing so much hardship for so many people.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, you've been generous with your time. I think your recent visit to several countries in the Middle East provided ample evidence that Canada is seriously engaged in these international issues stemming from terrorism. I thank you for that as well.

I think you would agree with me that all of us would like to see the Taliban gone, but based on the many conversations you had during your recent visit, is it reasonable to believe that the Taliban can be driven out of power without serious military action on the ground?

Mr. John Manley: I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask that. I'm not a military expert. Even in countries where I heard some concern over the appearance of bombing an Islamic country, there is no sympathy for the Taliban, and there is a great deal of interest in the post-conflict governance in Afghanistan, and thereby support for the removal of the Taliban. So you might infer an expectation that the campaign will succeed. People are already engaging in what happens next. But I can't give you a military opinion on the campaign.

Mr. John Harvard: But I take it from you that even if the Taliban were gone, we—and when I say we, I'm talking about not just Canada, but the coalition—couldn't pack our bags and go home, that we're going to be in that part of the world, both in a military sense and in other senses, for a very long time.

Mr. John Manley: I don't think there's any question that some form of international force will be necessary after conflict to maintain order or that international efforts to support the building of infrastructure and the creation of governance and institutions is going to be essential. In many of those areas we have a role to play.

Mr. John Harvard: Let me ask you this, Mr. Minister. If the Taliban are gone, is it reasonable to believe they will be replaced by Afghan leaders who are willing to work with countries around the world to fight terrorism and to bring about the kind of stability I guess all of us would want to see in that country, which has been wartorn for so many years?

Mr. John Manley: If the international community takes the steps necessary to create a stable environment and economic opportunity for the people of Afghanistan, working with, as I say, probably some form of international force that will be necessary to maintain order, then yes, absolutely. What you have at the moment is essentially a renegade government in a failed state that has maintained its power through force and its economy through drugs. If we can replace it with something that provides civility, opportunity, and economic development, then I think that you can expect that the need to provide a haven for the Osama bin Ladens of the world is going to be gone.

Mr. John Harvard: From what you know about this so-called Northern Alliance, which seems to be the second most powerful group in Afghanistan—right now it doesn't match its power with the Taliban—do you think there are elements within it that can provide the kind of stable and responsible political leadership that Kabul needs?

• 1735

Mr. John Manley: I think it's going to be necessary to have international engagement with any of the groups or forces in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the history of that country suggests that there might be continuing conflict. If one of our objectives at the end is to provide stability and some hope for Afghani citizens, we will necessarily need to have international engagement. It's not simply a matter of replacing the Taliban with the Northern Alliance.

Mr. John Harvard: I guess my concern, Mr. Minister, is that somehow another Osama bin Laden will convince the Muslim world that this entire exercise of driving the Taliban out is really an attack not on the Taliban, not on Afghanistan, but on the Islamic world. Aren't we on a precipice here, where we have to be very careful? I think it was Ms. McDonough who suggested we can win the battle perhaps, but lose the war.

Mr. John Manley: I think that's exactly right. I think we need to be extraordinarily preoccupied with maintaining the positioning we have, that this is not a war against Islam, it's not a war directed at any particular group. It's important to remember that Canada and other members of the coalition invested effort and lives in the protection of the Muslim minority in Bosnia, that the last major operation by NATO was to protect the Muslim minority in Kosovo, that our efforts have been in the past directed at support for and aid to Muslim communities where they needed it. I think, quite frankly, this is a campaign in support of Muslim communities as well. I didn't meet anybody in my travels in the Middle East who was Muslim who believed that the Taliban, in any degree, represented the religion they believed in. I think that's an important message for us to keep getting out.

The test is going to be the demonstration of that commitment in the post-conflict era. That must be the case, I believe, even if we fail to find or establish the death of Osama bin Laden. Let him know that for as long as he lives, he will not be safe, he will be pursued relentlessly to the ends of the earth. But let us make sure that we look after the needs of the people who have been victimized, not only by him, but by this, as I say, renegade administration, which has sought to exploit its power by subjugating the people and by dealing in drugs to Iran and to western Europe.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. We're well over the 5:30 time to which you said you were able to stay. So I'm going to draw it to a close.

Thank you very much for taking the time to come to the committee. Thank you for the time and effort you put into your trip and trying to find a just solution to these extremely complex questions. I think all of us noticed, Minister, that you seemed to catch a fair degree of heck from both sides. So I think we took from that perhaps you were saying something that was appropriate in the circumstances. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. John Manley: Thank you.

The Chair: We're adjourned until 9 o'clock Thursday morning, colleagues.