STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 23, 2001

• 0911

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we settle into our places?

On behalf of my co-chairman, Mr. Barsony, I'd like to welcome the members of the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—and particularly its subcommittee on relations with non-member countries—led by the distinguished chair, Terry Davis of the United Kingdom. Welcome.

Mr. Davis and his colleagues have been to Ottawa on several occasions now, I believe, and we've had many conferences together. We have had the opportunity to work together on many issues, in Strasbourg particularly, under the able direction of our parliamentary secretary, who has now ably disappeared—no she hasn't, she's here—Aileen Carroll.

I know you're going to give us a report, Terry, but I just want to draw to your attention, actually, that it might be of some interest to your colleagues to know that one of the people we met with when we were with you was Mr. Cem, who became foreign minister of Turkey subsequently, and whom we met when we were in Istanbul. We have done a report on the Caucasus and central Asia that is rather topical, given the present situation in Afghanistan. We have copies of that report for you and your colleagues, if you'd like to have it.

Last week, actually, we had a very interesting meeting with colleagues from the European Parliament. What I would suggest is that we follow the same format we did then, which is to be pretty informal. Terry, I understand you are going to start by offering an overview of a document that has recently been adopted by the Council of Europe dealing with terrorism and its challenges to democratic states. Then we will just open it to discussions amongst ourselves. I'll make a list of our members. I guess Andras will make a list of your members. We'll just try to get as much exchange as we can for the next few hours.

We have to keep an eye on the time because we have to leave here exactly at 12 o'clock. There will be a bus to take us to Montebello. We'll find out where the bus is going to be. I understand it's going to be down at the Confederation Building, but we'll let you know that. We can then talk about parliamentary control of international institutions this afternoon.

Thank you very much for coming. We're very pleased to welcome our colleagues from the Council of Europe. Terry, perhaps I could ask you if you would lead off with your paper—or would you prefer to introduce the members of your committee first?

Mr. Terry Davis (United Kingdom, Chair of the Political Affairs Committee, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): I think your co-chairman, perhaps, should introduce the Council of Europe people.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Right.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony (Hungary, Political Affairs Committee, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe)): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I feel myself honoured to be co-chair this morning, although this would be the right place for our chairman, Terry Davis. But this is a custom in the Council of Europe: if there are opportunities, the chairman leaves the chair for that particular session.

• 0915

That's one reason. Secondly, colleagues, I have a private issue to share with you. It is October 23, the 45th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising of 1956. I'm particularly honoured to chair this meeting in the House of Commons in Canada because Canada was the second-biggest recipient country of the Hungarian refugees leaving after the breakdown of the revolution in 1956. Therefore, I think although we politicians usually have some holidays as well, it is particularly a day of honour for me to be with you on this very special occasion. Once again, may I pay tribute to Canada on this special occasion.

Let me just introduce the members. Terry, who is a very experienced chair of the Political Affairs Committee, is leading the second delegation to Canada, if I'm not wrong. The first Canadian council of your parliamentary cooperative session was held under the auspices of the Economic Affairs Committee a couple of years ago when Terry was in the chair of the Economic Affairs Committee.

Mr. Bergquist is the chairman of the subcommittee with non-member countries. Although this is a formal meeting of the Political Affairs Committee, the activity, which is very delicate and very important for the Council of Europe—both for the assembly and its Political Affairs Committee—is led by Mr. Bergquist.

Other members are David Atkinson, a member of the House of Commons from the U.K.; Mr. Mutman, a member of the Turkish Grand Assembly; Mr. Andras Gross and Claude Frey, both from the federal parliament of Switzerland; Mr. Latchezar Toshev, representing the Bulgarian parliament here; Monsieur Jacques Baumel and Monsieur Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt, both representing the French Senate and parliament; Monsieur Georges Clerfayt, representing the Belgian parliamentarians here; Mrs. Vlasta Stepova, from my almost-neighbouring country, the Czech Republic; as well as Miroslava Nemcova, who is representing the same parliament.

I don't know whether I have to introduce those members of the Canadian Parliament who are regularly taking part in the business of the Council of Europe.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity. I think Terry is prepared to make his introductory remarks on the threat posed by terrorists.

Mr. Terry Davis: Thanks, Andras.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Perhaps I could just, for....

[Translation]

For those of you who would like to speak in French, simultaneous translation is available. Witnesses are free to address the committee in either English or French.

[English]

Terry.

Mr. Terry Davis: Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Thank you very much for your welcome and also the hospitality we have already received and are about to receive at lunchtime.

It's always a great pleasure to be here in Ottawa, for myself and my colleagues, as Andras Barsony has already explained. Can I also thank you very much for making available to us this very interesting report, which you'll understand—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): I'm sorry. I didn't want to interrupt you, but some federal parliamentarians were absent yesterday and have therefore not been introduced to our European colleagues.

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Yes, let me just introduce those members around the table. We have Mr. Casson, who is with the Canadian Alliance Party and from the west of Canada. We have Bill Casey, who is with the Progressive Conservative Party and from the east of Canada. We have Jean Augustine, who represents Grenada in the Canadian Parliament—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): —and a bit of Toronto as well, and who is with the Liberal Party. We have the Hon. Diane Marleau, who is from northern Ontario and from the Liberal party; Dr. Bernard Patry, of the Liberal Party, from Quebec: Madame Francine Lalonde, from the party in Quebec; Monsieur Pierre Paquette,

• 0920

[Translation]

also from the Bloc Québécois;

[English]

our parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development, Marlene Jennings, who is with us as well; and Aileen Carroll, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That's our delegation. My name is Bill Graham. I am the chairman of the foreign affairs committee.

Mr. Terry Davis: Actually, Chairman, we had the pleasure of seeing you in action yesterday afternoon—not least Marlene Jennings, our old friend. It's nice to renew these acquaintances again, and we certainly look forward to welcoming all of you to Strasbourg at some time in the future.

We've always found, Chairman, that the contribution from your Canadian colleagues has been very much appreciated in the Council of Europe assembly. I'm not surprised, because looking very quickly at this document about Canadian foreign policy objectives in the south Caucasus and central Asia, which I received as I came into the room today and to which you referred, there's obviously a great overlap of interest here. As I'm sure you know, Chairman, both Armenia and Azerbaijan joined the Council of Europe quite recently, and before that we admitted Georgia. So we have a great interest in developments in the south Caucasus, and I look forward to reading your report.

Today I've been charged with the task of describing the Council of Europe assembly's position on the terrorist threat to democracies. Can I say that we have produced here—and I believe it's been distributed to everybody around the table—a recent resolution and recommendations on this subject? It's headed “special version”. Don't let that mislead you. It's not special to Canada; it's specially for our visit to Canada. We took the opportunity to take the resolution, which was amended in the course of its proceedings through our assembly, and give you the full-blown, finally amended version attached to the appendices, which we thought might be of some interest to you as well.

It may be convenient for people, Chairman, if I go through very briefly some of the points in that resolution. Any discussion about terrorism—and any discussion, certainly, since the September 11 events—begins with what has, I fear, almost become a ritual condemnation of what happened, but none the less sincere for that. We all express our horror at what many of us saw happening on television at the World Trade Centre. Of course, we're very conscious that literally thousands of people—men, women, and children from many different countries, including Canadians and many Europeans—died in that terrible event.

But the important question is, what are we going to do about it? That is what this resolution at the Council of Europe assembly, adopted only two weeks after those events, sought to address.

Going through the main points, I draw your attention first of all to paragraph 4 of the resolution, which is really a key paragraph. It's short, but it's important, because it's the view of the Council of Europe assembly members that much of the language that has been used in many quarters—especially and understandably in the United States of America—is wrong.

We do not see this as a war and we reject the idea of revenge. For us what happened on September 11 was a crime—a terrible crime, but a crime nevertheless—and the answer to a crime is not revenge; it is justice. And that is very much the European point of view: that we want the people who committed this crime to be brought to justice. Of course, it's very important to do other things as well, but that quite rightly is where we begin our analysis of the situation and our prescription for answers.

So we talk about crime and justice, and that is why in paragraphs 5 and 8 of this resolution you will see that is exactly what we're talking about. In paragraph 5 we say very succinctly that the new International Criminal Court, which I think has unanimous support here in Canada in the Canadian Parliament, would be the most appropriate place in which to bring these people to justice.

• 0925

Of course, there are questions about the possibility of the International Criminal Court, questions about its remit and whether it can be extended to cover this situation, but we believe it's very important to emphasize, perhaps particularly to our American colleagues, that this is the proper place. It's very important to do everything we can to shore up and support the International Criminal Court.

So before we start talking about the possibility of some alternative tribunal, whether it's a special tribunal or some type of extended Hague tribunal, which was brought in for the terrible crimes committed in the Balkans, we believe it's very important to begin with a statement of principle, if you like, that the International Criminal Court is the most appropriate and best place in which the perpetrators, or suspected perpetrators, of this crime should be prosecuted.

We then make the point, in paragraph 9, that in our view it is very important that a long-term prevention of terrorism include a proper analysis and understanding of its causes. That's not to say that any grievances, social, political, or religious, can justify what happened, but we do believe, if we are to prevent such tragedies from being repeated in the future, that it's very important to understand the motivation and what led to these crimes in America.

To put it very bluntly, Mr. Chairman, to explain what happened is not to excuse it. It's not to say there is any justification, but we must try to understand what led to these perverted acts, and what perverted idealism or ideology resulted in the murder of more than 6,000 people. We shall not prevent future deaths unless we do try to understand what led to these crimes being committed.

We then go on to say, in paragraph 10, that it's very important to get an international definition of terrorism. Now, for us in the United Kingdom, that is nothing new. In several countries in Europe we have had direct, and in some cases personal, experiences of terrorism during the last 30, 40, and even 50 years. We already have definitions of terrorism in our domestic legislation.

In fact, for British people it's a surprise that, of the fifteen members of the European Union, only six have any definition of terrorism in their laws. The United Kingdom is one of the six. It's very significant that the others include Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Four of those five others, like the British, have had very recent experiences of terrorism taking place in their countries.

It's very important, we think, that there be an internationally accepted definition of terrorism if we are to treat international terrorism as an international crime. But this is a point to which I want to return in posing some future questions for us.

In paragraph 11 you will see that we also emphasize what I hope will be accepted by Canadian colleagues. It's absolutely essential that we do not allow our very strong feelings about what happened on September 11 to degenerate into some sort of witch hunt or discriminatory program against people of any particular ethnic or religious group. That cannot be emphasized too much.

I don't know whether you've had trouble like this in Canada, but I can assure you, in the United Kingdom and some other European countries we have had difficulties since September 11. We've had totally unprovoked attacks on mosques and on individual people who are, or are believed to be, Muslim. We reject totally that type of program. We had enough experience of that in Europe 70 years ago not to want to see that repeated.

We also emphasize, in paragraph 12, that the United Nations is a key organization to deal with the problem of terrorism. Some of us think that perhaps the United Nations should be given a greater role than simply passing a Security Council resolution in the immediate aftermath of September 11. The United Nations should be given a greater role dealing with the pursuit, and eventual bringing to justice, of the people suspected of this crime. That is probably an overwhelming European point of view.

In paragraph 13 we refer to something else that is important, in our view—namely, that it's essential to not only avoid discriminating against those of our citizens who are Muslim but also avoid letting this be used, in any way, as an opportunity to deal in an even more restricted way with refugees, asylum seekers, or simply ordinary immigrants. It's extremely important to avoid the hysteria, which is shown in some of our countries, including my own, about people from other countries, particularly those of other ethnic origins. We must avoid seeking some way to restrict entry to our country on the basis of ethnic discrimination.

• 0930

Again, we think it's an important aspect of the Council of Europe's values that we should not discriminate in that way. We make that point very strongly in paragraph 13.

That brings me to what has happened since this resolution was adopted. In retrospect, looking at the last few weeks—three weeks since our resolution happened, and five weeks since September 11—I think we need to move on.

The first question that faces us, both Europeans and Canadians, is the extent to which military action is justified, and whether military action against people other than the Taliban who are—in my view, rightly—accused of harbouring and protecting Osama bin Laden should become more extended military action. There are those people, those voices, and not only in the United States, who see this as an opportunity to settle the score with people like Saddam Hussein and others. I think that is a question we need to discuss between ourselves, very clearly, and come up with an answer.

My own view is that the military action should be restricted. I quite see that military action can be justified in terms of the pursuit of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but I certainly would not support extending it to military action against Iraq, or in Iraq, or against or in other countries. But clearly it is a question on which other people may disagree.

Another more immediate question is how long the bombing, or that particular aspect of the military action, should be continued. Again, I can see that there is justification for the bombing in the first place—for instance, to make it possible for American and other soldiers to go into Afghanistan on the ground—but I do wonder how much longer we should accept that there is going to be bombing in Afghanistan after those air defences have been eliminated, as they now have been eliminated.

There is no such thing, in my judgment, as a smart bomb, or a smart missile. We saw, only too tragically in the case of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and also before that in the Gulf War, how these so-called smart weapons go astray, or indeed are deliberately directed against mistaken targets.

I do think it's time for us to start to ask how much longer bombing is justified in Afghanistan, given that it will lead to the death of yet more innocent people who are not in the Taliban, who are not Osama bin Laden, and who are not part of his terrorist network.

The third question, which we shall have to face, I think, is what to do about the International Criminal Court, and whether its terms of reference can be extended. I know there are difficulties in amending the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, in which case we need to consider what other body should be established, or what other existing court should have its terms extended.

I say that because we do have a proliferation of courts in Europe at present. We not only have the civil court, or the European Court of Justice, but we also have our own European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, part of the Council of Europe, as you know. We also have the tribunal at the Hague. I begin to wonder just how many courts we can erect and establish, and whether it's cost-effective to keep establishing yet more courts to deal with specific issues. If the International Criminal Court is not going to be extended, then I think we need to extend such other things as the Hague tribunal. Again, that is a question on which colleagues may disagree.

I come now to what I think is an extremely important issue, and that is the definition of terrorism. Here I confess to a lot of misgivings. You see, in the European Union, they have now come up with a definition of terrorism. It's in a framework document they have adopted. I must say, I have some reservations about this European Union definition of terrorism. It says terrorism is an offence “intentionally committed by an individual or a group”—well, I can accept that—“against one or more countries”—yes—“their institutions or people (people refers to all persons, including minorities), with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of those countries” The offence can include “damage to state or government facilities...places of public use, and property (both private and public).”

• 0935

That seems to me to be a pretty wide definition.

Andras Barsony, in opening this meeting, referred to today as being the 45th anniversary of the uprising in Budapest. That strikes a chord in me because the week of those events in Hungary I was a very young student. I remember very clearly being one of a large group—my critics would say a mob—of young students who were attempting to break into the Russian embassy to express our view about what was happening to the students of Budapest.

I would certainly plead guilty to being one of a mob who undoubtedly committed damage to property. We certainly were trying to intimidate the Russians in our own little weak way and threaten them about what would happen if they did continue to kill the students of Budapest, on the streets of Budapest. It all does look to me a little bit like it depends on your point of view.

I also have some other experiences as a member of Parliament—some would say a too respectful member of Parliament. But I've seen anti-terrorist legislation in the United Kingdom be abused. We have had anti-terrorist legislation introduced—by a government of my own party, I might add, so I accept the responsibility, although I was not a member of Parliament at the time—in the wake of a terrorist outrage, the deliberate bombing of a public house, which killed a lot of young people in my own city of Birmingham 26 years ago. In the wake of that outrage, anti-terrorist legislation went through the British Parliament very quickly, and hasty legislation is often a mistake.

Fifteen years later I saw that legislation being abused when it was used by the local police to arrest Kashmiri people from my constituency who wanted to demonstrate peacefully—just demonstrate—against a visiting Indian minister. They were taken off the streets and held for 72 hours until the Indian minister had departed so that he should not have the embarrassment of British citizens of Kashmiri origin demonstrating against him.

I think there is a need to be very careful of the interference with civil liberties that can take place as a consequence, not as an intention, of anti-terrorist legislation.

If I may make a comment, Mr. Chairman—and I hope I will not offend Canadians—under what in the United Kingdom we call Chatham house rules, which means no Canadian must quote me in the Parliament or anywhere else, I was very interested yesterday sitting in the gallery watching your questions about whether or not a sunset clause was justified in your own legislation. I repeat, I do not wish to be quoted by any member of the opposition in Canada on this. But if I may say so, as a personal point of view with the experiences I've had, I did find Minister McLellan's explanation less than satisfactory—or less than persuasive or convincing—on this issue of a sunset clause.

I would be grateful if somebody—please not the parliamentary secretaries, I hope they will not feel they have a duty to do it—some Liberal member of the House of Commons in Canada could explain to me why the Canadian government is so reluctant to have a sunset clause.

The very legislation I described, which is abused in my own country, did have a sunset clause. It meant that every year we have to have a resolution in our own Parliament to renew it. It is quite a simple resolution but it leads to a debate—it leads to people being able to express their views and criticism, to criticize its abuse.

Eventually, after changing government back to the party—the Labour Party—that had originated the legislation, we dropped it and they decided not to renew it. My record was one of having voted against it both under Labour and Conservative governments. That's why I was very clear about it. But I cannot understand, really, why the Canadian ministers are so reluctant to put this idea of an annual or even three-year review automatic in Parliament.

I'd be very grateful if someone could explain that to me because it does seem to me to be very dangerous, especially given that I also plead guilty to—what was the phrase that the European Union...? Yes, I actually do want to “alter the political, economic, and social structure of my country and most of Europe”. So I'm particularly vulnerable under this sort of definition of terrorism. I much prefer the definition that was adopted by the Council of Europe assembly—

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Criticizing our ministers would add another reason for you being part of a terrorist—

Mr. Terry Davis: I'm not sure whether I'd get diplomatic immunity.

Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Don't worry, our legislation hasn't passed yet.

• 0940

Mr. Terry Davis: I'm reminded by Diane that it hasn't passed yet, and I plan to leave the country before it does. But we had a definition in our own discussions some years ago in the Council of Europe that was a much more restricted definition of terrorism and one that I think does bear some consideration internationally.

But I come now to what is perhaps the central issue. In the debate we had in the Council of Europe assembly three weeks ago, I and others resisted the suggestion, even though we had sympathy with the point, that we should draw the attention of Americans to what we regard is justified criticisms of American policies in many fields—the International Criminal Court itself, land mines, small weapons trade, global warming—quite apart from the other much more contentious international issues of the Middle East and elsewhere. Most of us felt it would be wrong at that moment to be seen as being critical, renewing our criticisms that we've expressed before of American policies.

When somebody is grieving because of a loss of a relative in a car accident, it's insensitive, to say the least, and not very effective to draw attention to any contributory cause of the road accident. But there comes a time when we are going to have to face those issues.

Andras Barsony, who is unable to take part in the discussion—I'm glad to say, because he would disagree with me to some extent on this I think—made the point several times during our discussions in Strasbourg that the people who are believed to have committed this crime were not the poor and the dispossessed and the wretched. They were people from safe, secure, middle class, and relatively wealthy families. But that ignores of course the point that they may have believed themselves to be acting on behalf of the people with the grievances in the world.

Sooner or later, and I think sooner, we must address that problem. We must begin to try to analyze and understand what it was that led people to kill, not only themselves, but so many other people.

Of course there are other lessons to be drawn as well, but I think that is a sufficiently long introduction, Mr. Chairman. Of course I'd be delighted to listen to the contributions and comments of colleagues both European and Canadian.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. I might just say that was a very excellent review.

I'll just take a first cut at your issue about the sunset clause. I think it's fair to say that the discussion within the Canadian Parliament has been around the issue of whether or not sunsetting of certain provisions of the bill or providing for a parliamentary review.... I think everybody has accepted that a parliamentary review is appropriate and that it would be a question as to whether or not a sunset would be more effective in dealing with the issue. That's where the debate is.

On our committee just recently we actually dealt with an issue of a parliamentary review. We had the Export Development Act before us and we recommended to the government, as a result of a review, that certain changes be made in the bill. So some changes were made as a result of that review done by our committee.

That's where the debate is. It's not that there would be no parliamentary scrutiny or coming back to certain sections of the bill, particularly the preventative detention and other more controversial sections, but rather what form should that take. There are partisans in all parties for both procedures, I think it would be fair to say.

The way we did this, as I said with our European colleagues, was I called upon several of our members if they had questions. We took two or three questions and then we allowed the chair to act as a gatekeeper and recognize various members of your delegation who could give their answers or approaches to those issues.

But I noticed, Mr. Atkinson, you signed that you wanted to speak. Did you actually want to make a follow-on comment to Mr. Davis'? Why don't you do that now and then we'll go to our members for questions.

Mr. David Atkinson (United Kingdom, Political Affairs Committee, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): I'm grateful to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): You get the rebuttal but you don't get a “surrebuttal”.

Mr. David Atkinson: No, I seek to follow up on Terry's excellent analysis of the reasons for the crimes that were committed on September 11 in order to come forward with some ideas to address them.

Mr. Chairman, one of the consequences of those dreadful events in September has been to isolate those areas of conflict in the world that are the causes of international terrorism, which our international leaders have reinforced their own determination to resolve. These are conflicts that have lasted a great many years: the Middle East, Kashmir, Chechnya, the Caucasus, Afghanistan itself, Western Sahara, the Tamils. These are all sources of international terrorism, and there are many more, to which no one—the United Nations, American presidents, shuttling diplomats, or indeed the entire international community—has come forward with solutions. All of the many attempts to try to resolve these conflicts have lacked one dimension, and that is the parliamentary dimension, which we believe, in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, based on our 52 years of experience, can sometimes come forward with solutions that have eluded our world leaders, our diplomats, and our bureaucrats.

• 0945

Mr. Graham, you've just referred to your committee's report on the Caucasus, which I don't think any of us knew about, and I think we would all like to have a copy of that report, because that's a situation we are seeking to address ourselves. In fact, our parliamentary political affairs committee has an initiative underway to try to come forward with solutions to the several ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus in support of the original initiative by our president, Lord Russell-Johnston, to seek to introduce a parliamentary dimension into the situation.

We have an initiative underway that seeks to produce a just solution in Chechnya by introducing a parliamentary dimension into that process.

Our colleague, Mr. Gross, is coming forward with what I'm sure will be an extremely valuable and comprehensive report on autonomous solutions that can resolve outstanding conflicts based on best practice.

Three years ago our assembly produced a realistic solution, some of us believe, to resolve the Palestine refugee situation, which as we know is one of the principal outstanding problems in the Middle East and the cause of international terrorism when conditions permit.

Our presidential committee on the Council of Europe is about to consider how the new African Union.... How many present know that the Organization of African Unity, which seeks to coordinate all the African states on that continent, has just been replaced by a new body, the African Union, with its own court of human rights, would you believe it, and a parliamentary dimension, its own assembly, would you believe it, upon which we in the Council of Europe, because of our experience in these matters, can seek to be helpful, to assist with our experience?

Our assembly is currently involved in seeking cooperation agreements with North African countries such as Algeria, Morocco, sources of that terrorism, and republics such as Kazakhstan, based on our standards of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

Terry has just referred to a number of other international issues upon which we in the council are seeking to come forward with solutions—land mines, global warming, the International Criminal Court, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, it is this parliamentary dimension that we believe should now be introduced into the work of the United Nations. We passed a resolution to that effect in our assembly last year. It is a message that I'm sure Terry Davis will be taking to the General Assembly of the UN in December.

This is one of the conclusions that I hope will arise from this very important joint meeting this morning, which we can agree today to jointly pursue: to introduce a parliamentary dimension into the work of the UN, which might contribute to solutions on outstanding conflicts and other problems, and which can also respond to the challenges of international terrorism that Terry Davis has just excellently outlined.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Thank you.

I believe the subject matter actually of our afternoon meeting is about parliamentary assemblies and international institutions.

Mr. David Atkinson: I cheated. I'm not going to be there, which is why I've introduced it now.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): This is very clever of you. It's called a preventive strike or whatever. It was quite well done.

I have two people on my list. I have Madame Carroll and Madame Jennings. Maybe I'll recognize both of them in that order. We'll get answers from that and then we can move on to the next group of questioners.

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Actually, Mr. Chair, I was indicating just a request for clarification to find out whether the British Chatham house rules extend to Canadian parliamentary secretaries.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Once I've had a ruling on that I'll join the debate.

• 0950

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): There's an element of extraterritoriality in that that you find offensive, do you? I think it's a courtesy. We'll extend Chatham rules as a courtesy to our guest. How would that be?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Sounds good.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): That way, if we accept it, it won't have to be extraterritorially imposed.

Marlene Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Davis, for your highly interesting and informative presentation.

I would like to discuss two or three points with you. I don't really have any questions, but rather comments that could give rise to some questions.

When it comes to defining terrorism, I think you've put your finger on a very important point. If the definition is too broad, then those wishing to express their opposition to a government policy or program or to government authorities could be labeled terrorists or tried in court for committing terrorists acts. I believe it's extremely important for nations, including Canada, to pay close attention to this issue.

As for my second point, I think the idea of broadening the jurisdiction of the international criminal court so that it is authorized to try alleged terrorists is a very interesting concept. However, even if states were to agree on this, it would take a great deal of negotiating and a lot of work before this came to pass. What's going to happen in the meantime? If we consider the September 11 attacks and the alleged terrorists, how are we going to go about capturing these individuals and bringing them to justice, given the lack of a forum in which to judge their actions?

My third point has to do with your comments about the anti- terrorism bill currently being debated in the House. You made a number of very interesting comments about certain provisions in the bill and about the ongoing debate.

Should the bill contain a provision requiring a statutory review of certain clauses in three years' time, as the government wishes, or should it include a sunset clause that would automatically apply to certain provisions after a set period of time? The government could always bring in a bill to amend these particular provisions. This is a very interesting question because fundamentally, it calls to mind the question: with whom should the burden to justify the need for these clauses rest?

As I understand it, a review assumes that the government has proven the need for these clauses, or for the bill as such. The onus is therefore on society to prove that the government hasn't made its case. If a sunset clause were included, society would be reassured that after a certain period of time, these clauses would be deemed to be no longer necessary. Then the government would have to prove that they should remain in the legislation.

I'd like to hear your views on these matters because in law, regardless of the field, there is a presumption as to where the burden of proof resides. Judging from how a particular clause or bill is drafted, it becomes clear with whom the burden of proof rests and which party can or must overturn this presumption of necessity.

• 0955

Therefore, I'd like to hear your views on these matters. I'd also like to hear from the other European parliamentarians since I believe they have something to contribute to the debate currently taken place in Canada's Parliament.

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Terry, we'll start with you, if you could respond to Ms. Jennings' observations or questions, and then we'll see if there's anybody else in the group who would like to respond. Then we have a couple of people who want to make other interventions.

Mr. Terry Davis: I'll put aside the question of definition because I think that is something on which I would like to hear comments from other people. But I would be grateful for an opportunity at the end to make some more comments myself, because I do have some comments on what Marlene said about a definition of terrorism.

If I can just tackle the other two points she mentioned, one was how one would bring these people to justice. I'm not quite sure what Marlene means by “how”, so let me just....

It seems to me there's quite a probability that one or more of these people will be arrested. I say that because although all the publicity is concentrated on Osama bin Laden, the Americans have published a list of 22 wanted men—I think they're all men. So it seems to be quite possible that one or two of those people will be found not in Afghanistan but somewhere else, in another country. It could be Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or further afield. So there's quite a strong possibility or probability that one or more of those 21 others will be found and arrested.

The question then arises, what will be done with them? I myself put this question—again I repeat, I ask you to treat this confidentially—in a private meeting of my party with our foreign secretary. I have to say his answer was not satisfactory to me. His view seems to be, if I understood him correctly, that of course such people would be handed over to the Americans, to be taken to the United States of America and put on trial there. He didn't want to answer my question about the implications of that if it was a state in which the death penalty applied.

The death penalty, as you know, Marlene, but other Canadians may not be as familiar, is a matter of central importance for all of us in the Council of Europe, from all countries in the Council of Europe. The death penalty is prohibited; it is prohibited now I think in all but one country in the whole of Europe. So we feel very, very strongly about that. That is to us the litmus test of whether people are, to use President Bush's words, “civilized”. So we have very strong feelings about that.

Much as I want the people responsible for this crime to be prosecuted and, if found guilty, sentenced, I reject the idea that they should be executed. I won't bore you with all the reasons. I know Canadians agree with us Europeans on this very important issue.

That is central, it seems to me. If we arrest one of these terrorists in the United Kingdom, which is always possible, are we going to send them to America—and I fear our government will automatically, no question—to a state in which the death penalty will be applied? I would not want that to happen. I would prefer, as I've made clear, and the Council of Europe assembly would prefer, such people to be prosecuted in an international court.

We have had some experience with this in the United Kingdom, of course, because of the American plane that was blown up over Scotland a few years ago, at a place called Lockerbie. More than 100 people died, including some people on the ground who were hit by the remains of the plane. In the end, in order to get a court hearing, we agreed that the two suspects from Libya should be tried in another country, but subject still to Scottish law. They were convicted and they have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment, not in our country but I think in the Netherlands.

So something like that is what I would hope would happen.

I would also say though that...well, I think I'll leave that point there because I think that deals with what happens next, if they are found.

On the sunset clause, personally, I find a review not good enough. I do not think a review is good enough. We've had reviews in several situations. We all speak from the perspective of our own experience in our own countries. I've seen reviews of British governments of both parties. The problem with a review is.... Certainly I would expect the British government to say, “Well, we have very good reasons for continuing this. We can't tell you what they are for security reasons, but trust us, we have very good reasons for wanting to continue with the present situation, so we're not going to touch it.”

• 1000

I think the burden of proof should be put on the government. The burden of proof should be to justify and to win a vote in Parliament. That's why I prefer what I think you mean by a sunset clause, meaning that Parliament must renew it—not to take another bill through Parliament, with a long, drawn out procedure. I'm not asking for that, but I do think it's reasonable to say that members of Parliament should stand up and be counted in a vote on whether they continue with that legislation. I took that view when I was in a minority—now I'm in a majority—in our own Parliament.

That's why I have great reservations about this word “review”, which seems to be bandied around in Canadian politics.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: If I may just add very briefly, I think you've touched the precise thing. If it's a review, then it presumes the necessity of the section or article, or if it's the entire legislation, that the need for it is ongoing. Therefore, the burden of showing that it is no longer required is on society. If on the other hand you have what we call a sunset clause, that means it's presumed that after that certain date it's no longer required, in which case it's then the government who bears the burden of reversing that presumption by saying, “No, we still require it; we need to renew it.” I think it's in those terms that debate on the issue should take place. Who should bear the burden?

Mr. Terry Davis: That's exactly my point, Marlene. I agree with you.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): I think before sunset we have something to do. So it's better to go back to the original problems.

I have two speakers on my list, Mrs. Stepova and then M. Baumel.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Baumel (France, Political Affairs Commission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): If I could say a few words... Oh! I'm sorry.

[English]

Mrs. Vlasta Stepova (Czech Republic, Political Affairs Committee, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Terry, we are both the oldest members of the political affairs committee—same year. We both remember the war, and they are not pleasant memories. They go with you all through your life. I remember the degree of sensitivity in Czech populations when the bombing of the former Republic of Yugoslavia started. We prayed every morning, “My God, do it, that it is over”. We all felt it was our duty as a member of NATO simply to continue. This is not just a similar situation. It is something worse. We will never forget the TV pictures of the apocalypse in New York and Washington.

The Council of Europe supported fully the actions of the anti-terrorist world coalition. We signed it; we keep it.

I have just two questions, which are very much connected to yesterday's discussion about rights and duties, about rights and responsibilities. How much are we responsible for the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan now? I think we are responsible. I can't guess if it is 90% or 99% of the innocent population, and their situation is worsening every day. It's not just the question of what to eat and if there is some water. The frost and winter will start. The children and handicapped people and ill people.... How much are we responsible and what can we do?

The second question that is very often in my mind is what we all shall do the first day after. Just believe the Taliban exist no more, but it is the first day after and there is a danger of civil war. Everything connected with the situation—is it our duty, our responsibility, to do something? Who will do it? The United Nations? What organization? It is not just to help to set up the government, the parliament, some normal conditions, but the economic situation, the humanitarian situation, the health situation, the political situation.

• 1005

We all know that after Yugoslavia, which can be compared, stability was disrupted. We all know now that it was a disaster. A lot of money was spent. Nobody knows where and how. This is much more serious.

So my question is, if we are responsible, if we feel the ideal of responsibility, what can we do? Thank you very much.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): Colleagues, with full respect to the challenge that was put on our table by Terry, I would ask all of us to concentrate, to ask each other's position, not to have this internal Council of Europe debate continuously among ourselves. We have a clear position. I think it would be much better to address each other—Canadians and Europeans—and vice versa.

[Translation]

Mr. Baumel.

Mr. Jacques Baumel: Thank you.

We could spend many hours and days discussing terrorism in its various forms, and how we can combat it without losing sight of justice and humanitarian considerations. However, I will confine myself to three specific comments.

First of all, most people are making a big mistake in believing that this war is a war on terrorism. In reality, we are face to face with religious crusade and a holy war. The Bin Laden terrorists are not at all the same as the IRA, the Corsican terrorists or other terrorist groups operating in certain European nations. These terrorists have been whipped into a frenzy by their skewered vision of Islam. Suicide bombers are prepared to sacrifice their lives and we haven't seen this with other types of terrorism. This is a holy war pitting 1.5 billion Muslims against a Western world that they have condemned.

Secondly, it is not a matter of waging war, but of making peace. The outcome of the attacks launched by the United States will probably be the same as in the Persian Gulf War against Iraq. Dead or alive, Bin Laden will become a hero, if not a god, or super Che Guevara, to thousands of Muslims. There are approximately 2,000 Algerian muslims in my city and children as young as 10 walk around with T-shirts bearing the image of Bin Laden. I'm talking about a city in France only six kilometres from Paris. Therefore, we shouldn't delude ourselves. We have entered a new world era.

The great writer André Malraux said that the 21st century would either be dominated by religion or it would not. There any need for me to remind you either of Mr. Huntington's quote about the conflict of civilizations. We have become embroiled in a holy war.

I'm afraid the outcome of this war will not be what the Americans are hoping for. Ramadan will soon be upon us. It will be extremely difficult to justify bombing raids and deaths of civilians during this period. If the attacks continue, this will only generate more opposition among many Muslim clerics.

It will soon be winter in Afghanistan. I quite familiar with this country, having visited it three times on different missions. If you think the Americans will be any more successful than the Russians, you are sadly mistaken.

• 1010

Afghanistan is a geographically diverse country consisting of numerous tribes. A political solution to this country's dilemma will be hard to come by. A strategic solution may be possible, but what of finding a political solution? How can we oust the Taliban? What of the Pashtuns who account for 45% of the country's population and who have ties to millions of Pashtuns in Pakistan? These ties are so strong that at one point during the Cold War, the USSR was seriously considering creating Pashtunstan to destroy Pakistan and open up a route to warmer waters... Afghanistan is quite different from the perception people have of the country and that's why we shouldn't trust the Northern Alliance for even one minute.

I knew Mr. Massoud. He was a very courageous and dignified man. However, he never enjoyed even a modicum of authority in Afghanistan. He represented a small minority of Tajiks, which meant that he could never ever gain acceptance as the leader of the government.

When I hear people talk about the Northern Alliance and General Dostam and about Uzbeks who are considered enemies of Afghanistan... There is no political solution to the problem. Perhaps that political solution lies with the old dethroned monarch who, despite his age, still represents one element of the population. The real political solution would be to reshape the Afghan state, taking into account its tribal diversity, religious differences and the weight of heredity and history.

As you know, Afghanistan was visited by Alexander. When I was in Afghanistan, I toured the ruins of the ancient capital of the Greek Alexander. Greek ceremonies still take place in some Afghan villages. We need to understand this before undertaking political studies or before judging the situation prematurely.

Secondly, I have to say that Afghanistan is not the real problem. Rather, the problem is how to face the future, since the events of September 11 marked the dawning of a new era. Nothing will ever be the same again after September 11. How can we imagine the future, given our materialistic, capitalist views, even in socialists countries, when we contrast this way of thinking with another one that serves as the driving force for billions of human beings?

It's all very complex.. We hear about deplorable conditions, but the fact is that Bin Laden is a billionaire. Cowardly Saudi billionaires who are guilty of many sins against Islam try to buy some peace of mind by bankrolling the worst terrorists of all with their billions from the oil patch. The terrorists are supplied by the billionaire sheiks of Saudi Arabia. That needs to be said. As you can see, the situation is not as clear-cut as one might think.

To my mind, the situation is grave indeed. We will probably win this war, bearing in mind that this is a very special type of conflict. We are battling invisible forces. Who can say whether or not a Bin Laden agent is only 500 metres away? A television station reported this morning that Bin Laden operatives are working in Montreal. There are imams and mosques in our capital cities as well as signs of fundamentalism and fanaticism. Nevertheless, we must not confound the Muslim religion with these efforts to twist the teachings of Islam. In so doing, we would be making a terrible mistake.

We have entered a new era the consequences of which will be devastating. America was already in the throes of a recession. Now the whole of the western world will be affected. Most airlines will face bankruptcy within the next two years. Hotels are half empty. Nations such as Turkey and Morocco that depend heavily on tourism for their livelihood will experience considerable hardship. I think we need to be aware of this state of affairs.

• 1015

Far be it for me to give you a course in geopolitical issues, but I think we need to start thinking outside the conventional political box and take a somewhat different approach to tackling this problem. What's even more outrageous is that we are witnessing a kind of artificial reconciliation between Mr. Bush, Mr. Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin. The latter is dressing up in imperial Chinese tunics, a ridiculous sight if ever there was one. These leaders parade like clowns on television, wearing their Chinese tunics, while millions of people are beset with anxiety and more still are dying. It's all really a ruse, though, because in order to get Putin on side, officials are prepared to sacrifice thousands of Chechens. And, in order to get China's backing, officials are prepared to abandon 20 million Chinese Muslims, as well as the Tibetan cause. We mustn't delude ourselves. These humanitarian campaigns will be pointless, because they will ultimately lead to the world's three superpowers forming an alliance against Bin Laden. All the while, however, these nations are themselves incapable of resolving civilization's major problems. Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): That was quite a speech.

The next scheduled speakers are Mr. Patry and Ms. Lalonde.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Following up on what was said earlier, I've read the resolution passed by your parliamentary assembly. You call for the adoption of a long-term preventive strategy, one that would take into account the socioeconomic, political and religious roots of terrorism.

I'd like to focus for a moment on the expression «religious roots«. Bearing in mind Mr. Baumel's comments, I would be interested in hearing your ideas and possible solutions because as I understand it, there seems to be a common denominator in all of this, one that traces it origins to Saudi Arabia. I'm referring to Wahhabism. The people who assassinated President Sadat 20 years ago were followers of this movement. The assassins who are spreading terror in Algeria and who are killing thousands upon thousands of people are not targeting Christians, but Muslims.

The United States is currently home to over 6 million Muslims. This is the fastest growing religious community. Eighty per cent of the mosques in the United States are financed by Saudi Arabia.

I have to wonder what will happen after Bin Laden. Now that strikes have been launched, we'll have to negotiate with someone. It's impossible to negotiate with a dead person. With whom then? Are we going to negotiate with Saudi Arabia?

I'm also curious as to how western nations, including Canada, can help Islam find a solution because as I see it, the problem lies within the Islamic world. I'd like to hear your comments on this subject.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): You have the floor, Ms. Lalonde, and then we'll come back to the European delegates.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say a few words about Canada's proposed anti-terrorist legislation. I would have liked to speak right after Ms. Jennings, but that wasn't possible.

One must understand that this bill was introduced in Parliament at a point in time where the broadest possible coalition must exist. Despite the extraordinary circumstances, some of the bill's provisions are totally unacceptable. My party would like some amendments to be brought in to correct these problems and would like to a see a time limit on certain clauses. Some of the provisions that we dislike could be revised. But the fact remains that despite the prevailing situation, we cannot accept some of these provisions. For instance, we disagree with the clause that would grant peace officers the power to carry out preventive arrests based on mere suspicions. Peace officers across the country would not need to obtain a warrant from a judge before carrying out preventive arrests. We've experienced situations in Quebec where... I'm not saying that this bill is the same as the War Measures Act, but on the subject of preventive arrests, I recall one ridiculous incident where a person was arrested because he owned several books on cubism. Authorities believed there was some connection with Cuba.

• 1020

Therefore, while we would like to see some measures revised, we would also like to see others removed completely from the bill. While they are ostensibly extraordinary measures designed for extraordinary circumstances, we find them unacceptable in the long term if we wish to continue living under a system that values rights and freedoms.

As for the other issue here...

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Are you certain, Ms. Lalonde, that the items been seized weren't pornographic drawings by Picasso?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Quite certain. That could also have happened, but the word “cubism” was the determining factor.

We seem to be powerless in the face of the other question. After reading as much as I could about these networks and about this extreme Islamic movement, I can only come to the conclusion that the war in fact began long ago. Back in the year 2000, the Security Council had already ordered the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden. Events began unfolding long before September 11.

While this may be true, the Western powers are not without some responsibility either. At the turn of the century, when the Arab world began to rise up, a number of Arabs became nationalists. Clearly, these nationalist, non-cleric Arabs were looking for a role to play. The western world preferred to see the power in the hands of conservative dictators, to safeguard the West's access to oil supplies.

I don't want to overly stress this point, but our hands aren't exactly clean either. Not that this provides us with additional solutions to the problem, but at least it shows that we shouldn't have been surprised by what happened. The fact remains that we are facing a difficult situation. I would like to believe that this was only an isolated incident and that everything will calm down, but unfortunately, I can't.

Nor do I believe that despite our best efforts to screen the public at large, we will ever get the upper hand on these cell members who are lying in wait to die and to kill for their cause. The confounding thing, as Mr. Patry pointed out, is that there will be no one left with whom to negotiate. In any event, Bin Laden isn't interested in negotiating anything. He claims kinship with Palestine and with the children of Iraq, but in reality, he has never given them much thought.

He is waging a war against the western world and its lifestyle. He dreams of a great caliphate under sharia rule. Has there been any concern about the growing number of world countries under sharia rule of law of and about the implications of this trend? We are not the ones who are going to find solutions to this problem. This is neither the forum, nor the time. However, there is no doubt that recent events have called into question international institutions, and I'm pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss the subject this afternoon. Extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures. We mustn't wait until we find ourselves in a situation similar to 1944 to have the courage to consider solutions that at the very least, do not fuel the hate of thousands of young people who are brought up to be prepared to die.

• 1025

Several weeks ago, I read in Jeune Afrique about a young protester in England who was chanting the following:

Jihad, now! We love death as much as we love life! And paradise will be ours.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): Thank you, Francine.

[English]

The next speaker is Mr. Toshev, and then Mr. Dreyfus-Schmidt.

Mr. Latchezar Toshev (Bulgaria, Political Affairs Committee, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to personally say we should probably think now also about a long-term policy for fighting against terrorism and address the reasons for the creation of such a social phenomenon as terrorism. I was challenged by the intervention made by Vlasta Stepova on our responsibilities toward this problem.

I would like to remind you that in 1999, the Council of Europe, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, adopted a special declaration and a program for education for democratic citizenship, based on the rights and responsibilities of the citizen. It would probably be useful to enlarge that.

At the assembly this year in Genoa, I decided to open this program also to Mediterranean non-European countries, which are also part of the so-called hot-spot areas in the world, like the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Middle East, to involve the people there in such a policy for education for democratic citizenship, which is an investment in the future of their society.

This is not just a problem of European society or western society, but also of societies in these problematic countries. It creates violence and terrorism, particularly in the Islamic countries. It's very difficult to introduce the principles of education for democratic citizenship in Islamic countries. That's probably why we need the help of special experts on how to introduce these principles in the Islamic world. I think this will lead, in the long term, to the stabilization of the areas concerned.

I would like to say that this is not an illusion because 50 years ago when the UN charter was adopted and the Council of Europe was created, the world looked very different than it does now. Over 50 years, the human rights principles changed our world. That's why I think we could pay attention to this opportunity to offer such a program and to find the necessary resources to implement such a program for these countries.

This will probably reflect positively in the long term on the problems of today's world. I think this should also be taken into account when we are debating the current situation.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): Thank you.

Next is Monsieur Dreyfus-Schmidt.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Dreyfus-Schmidt (France, Political Affairs Commission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): This is indeed an extremely difficult problem that we must discuss. Politicians, governments and parliaments have duty to analyse the situation and seek out solutions. The chasm between rich and poor in this world can only promote conflict, regardless of religious or non-religious beliefs.

• 1030

It's quite true, as Jacques Baumel was saying, that Bin Laden is a wealthy man and that Saudi Arabia is home to many billionaires. However, the fact remains that there is so much misery in the world, and not just in Muslim and African countries, that one has to wonder how this gap will ever be bridged and if people are prepared to make the effort or not. As I see it, that is the fundamental issue.

Jacques Baumel is a terrible pessimist, but I'm not saying that he's wrong. He may be right, although I hope not. I do, however, have a question for him. If his analysis of the situation is correct, where do we go from here?

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): Thank you. I have a third speaker on my list, M. Frey.

[Translation]

Go ahead.

Mr. Claude Frey (Switzerland, Political Affairs Commission of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Swiss members of Parliament have other occupations because this is not a full-time job for them. Among my various activities, I chair an institute that trains police officers, notably commanders. As chair, it so happened that I attended a seminar on anti-terrorism activities several years ago. Various representatives of different states proposed their own solutions, up until the time one Israeli representatives—all states were represented, including the United States and Canada - came to the podium. He proceeded quite simply to name one by one all of the states represented and informed them that at some point in their history, they had given in to terrorism. He stated that it was pointless to advance theories of any kind because as long as states give in, terrorism will win the day.

Having said this, are we caving in now? Without question, yes, we are. There is the danger of caving in by enacting laws... [Editor's note: inaudible]... which would have a disproportionate effect on curbing on freedoms. That's a given.

I was astonished to see the Capital in Washington evacuated because an anthrax scare. Evacuation is a standard procedure, but Congress was disrupted. That's a very serious development. All it took was one or two letters to brings the US Congress to a standstill. This is fraught with symbolism. I don't wish to intervene in a country's domestic affairs, but it is inconvenient, if not disproportionate to have anthrax dominate the television news every minute of the day. Comparisons are being drawn between the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the anthrax victims. I deplore the fact that some people have died from anthrax, but we're only talking about a few people.

If the terrorists were remarkably well organized on September 11, 2001, I fear that they could be better organized now to strike an even more effective blow. All they would need would be a few strategically placed letters to completely disrupt the so called free world. I'm amazed to see such panic set in on television, because it is entirely out of proportion with reality. In the process, the terrorist threat increases one hundred fold. Imagine if an anthrax-laced letter were discovered one day in Montreal's network of underground shops, and then another one the following day. Commercial operations would be totally paralyzed. You think the media would have acted a little more responsibly.

An analogy can be drawn with suicides. The press admits that they don't report on suicides to prevent a copycat effect. Given the gravity of the situation—and Mr. Baumel is right on this—perhaps we should try to heighten media awareness and encourage them not to act as a mouthpiece for terrorism.

• 1035

In light of the media coverage given to these recent events, perhaps there is some merit to this suggestion. The press needs to be made more aware so that it does not become an unsuspecting ally of terrorists. Maybe then terrorism would lose some of its effectiveness.

Thank you.

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Thank you. Merci.

I can't tell, Ms. Carroll, if you are on the list to speak or not. I have other people, so I just wanted to know.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: Okay.

I was just wondering when Mr. Davis is going to begin to respond.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): We'll leave that until the end. We have the Balkans as well, so if we ask Mr. Davis to wrap up his discussion at 10:50 a.m., we can move to the Balkans at 11 a.m. Would that be all right as a balance?

Ms. Aileen Carroll: That sounds great.

[Translation]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): In Mr. Paquette's case...

Ms. Francine Lalonde: On a point of privilege, are we going to break at all?

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): We hadn't planned to take a break.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: This would give us a chance to chat amongst ourselves, because we aren't going to be together for very long.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Fine then, we'll take a break, but I would still like to wrap up our meeting with the Balkan representatives before 12 noon. We'll have to see.

[English}

Before I give the floor to Mr. Paquette, I would just like to make an observation from a Canadian perspective, arising out of Terry's comments about the definition of terrorism in your resolution.

I used to teach public international law and always used the old canard that one man's freedom fighter was another man's terrorist. In terms of the international conventions, one has run across that. Obviously it has been an enormous problem trying to refine and define terrorism. As Mr. Baumel put extremely well, suddenly we're going to be sacrificing whole communities on the altar of getting cohesion around this notion. Whoever the Chinese don't like at the moment will be terrorists, and whoever the Russians don't like will become terrorists. We may be sowing the seeds for the next set of terrorist fanatics if we aren't careful about how we go about doing this.

I would just like to leave you with this thought. I'm sure there are many European countries like this, but in Canada we have a domestic political dimension to this that we must look at very carefully when we consider our own domestic legislation. We are a country of not only immigrants but also of many refugees.

I just came from my riding this morning. There are 6,000 Tamils in my riding. They are regarding this debate with a great deal of interest. If they or the people they've been supporting, in the belief that they are trying to alleviate an oppression under which they are living, are going to be put on a terrorist list, this is of considerable concern to them, and it's of concern to me.

Yesterday I had a couple of taxi drivers, in quick succession. An Eritrean taxi driver took me to one place. I went to a meeting and got out and had an Ethiopian tax driver take me to the next spot. When I started discussing these issues with them, I got two totally different perspectives on who was on what side of what, who was a terrorist and who wasn't. Everyone around this room who represents a riding will have similar issues, because we all have refugees.

M. Baumel put it very well when he talked about Paris. My daughter lives in Paris. I know exactly what you speak of. Certain people—maybe they're Algerian or from wherever—are wearing T-shirts with bin Laden on them because they have a different perspective.

How we are going to define terrorist when it becomes a political issue is extraordinary. I think the observation that this is a different type of terrorism because it is religiously based, and therefore not tied to political objectives, maybe takes us out of the concept of Basque freedom, Basque terrorism, the IRA, or something like that. But the fact is that every authority of any kind will consider whoever is seeking to disrupt that authority, if they ultimately resort to violence, as a terrorist.

• 1040

This is going to be an extremely agonizing debate for us, it seems to me, one that pushes us toward recognizing we have to deal with an immediate problem.

There is another problem we have to deal with in this country, which you don't have to deal with, at least those of you in Europe that are in the Schengen, and that is we have to look at this problem through the lens of access to the United States of America. You may or may not know that in the province of Ontario, where many of us in this room come from, something like 42% of the GDP is directly related to the automobile trade, 80% of which is exports to the United States. If that border closes, the prosperity of the province of Ontario, and frankly, the prosperity of the whole country, will be seriously threatened.

So what are we going to do about how we define terrorism and adopt anti-terrorism measures, in light of the fact that we have an economic integration relationship with the United States, but we do not have forms of institutions to manage that relationship the way you do in Europe, where you can have common parliaments, a common commission, accords, etc.? At least in Europe, now, you have a court of justice that applies the European convention on human rights, etc.

You have a whole host of mechanisms whereby you can come to common solutions to your problems, but between Canada and the United States there is no institutional framework in which to work this out, apart from the Prime Minister phoning the President, and us going down and lobbying our congressional friends.

I just want to leave those thoughts with you, our European colleagues. Those are my personal reflections on some of the complexities this particular problem gives rise to that we in Canada have to consider.

Madam Carroll wants to pop in, and then M. Paquette.

Ms. Aileen Carroll: I think you raise some very important issues that are particularly Canadian in focus. While Mr. Davis expressed some reservation about the responses given in the House from the Minister of Justice with regard to sunset clauses, I have a very high regard for the ability of our standing committees to function, perhaps because I was trained in Mr. Caccia's environment committee, but also because I have been a member of the justice committee, where the bill has gone to. Copies of it are in front of us now.

I do think the justice minister has been clear in that she expects the committee to consider much of what has been said in the House and have that be a part of the discussions in that committee. The witnesses who will come forward will represent many of the constituencies Bill Graham has mentioned.

In that regard, Bill, I was speaking as a member of a four-person symposium in Toronto on the international law aspects of this, and the Muslim lawyers association asked a question from the floor and then spoke to me after. They too, for instance, will come forward as witnesses on the bill with concerns relating to profiling and all of what we've heard before.

But in addition to what has been said, I think the words of the Prime Minister will also get into the mix in that he has made it very clear we will not be stampeded, we will not create a fortress of security, and we will very much not compromise who we are, which, as you said, he described as a nation of immigrants. It is no easy task, for sure.

Sunset clauses, I think, will be discussed in committee. From what I've read in the newspapers, it has created considerable debate in cabinet. I, for one, value very much the remarks Mr. Davis has made regarding sunset clauses, and also those of Marlene Jennings.

Thank you for that.

[Translation]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Frey's comments. I think we can all agree that this is an extremely complex situation and that in the short term, it won't be easy assessing all of the repercussions of the September 11 attacks. Obviously, we can't wait until we have a complete understanding of the situation before taking some kind of action.

As Mr. Dreyfus-Schmidt stated, politicians have a responsibility to seek out solutions, even if these are not totally satisfactory. We cannot be content to sit back and analyse the situation, to give in to fatalism and to let matters go. As Mr. Frey suggested, some of our policies and choices can be controlled, while others simply cannot be controlled at this time.

• 1045

Let's consider our situation. Canada may not have the same political weight as countries like China, Russia, Great Britain or France. We have more control over domestic affairs than we do over international matters. That's why I can't understand why Canada did not speak out more forcefully in support of not canceling the Commonwealth and Francophonie summits. Take, for example, the Francophonie Summit slated to be held in Beirut. By going ahead with the summit, I think we would have been sending out an extremely positive message, namely that the September 11 attacks did not sever the ties between certain Francophone nations in the western world and certain Arab nations.

I think we could have gone ahead with these conferences to demonstrate that democracy and international cooperation are strong despite recent tragic events. That's where I have to wonder. The WTO meeting is proceeding as scheduled. It's almost as if gatherings of a political nature are merely superficial, whereas the real business is carried out at economic summits. Given what I've just said, I'm convinced that the WTO will unfortunately go ahead as if nothing had happened, if only to serve as a springboard for accelerating the free trade process. And while we fully support this process, we are concerned that social, democratic and labour rights issues will be overlooked. A number of governments, including the Canadian government, will step back, arguing that many countries of the South are not interested in having political or social clauses included in trade agreements.

Generally speaking, most of these governments are made up of questionable democratic regimes. It is equally clear that we, as a wealthy nation, have a responsibility to lend official development assistance to these countries. On that score, I agree with Mr. Dreyfus-Schmidt.

From an economic standpoint, are we prepared to make the changes that we all feel must be made in the wake of the September 11 events? I seriously doubt that we are. I think we can all have a say in the debates that will take place in our respective parliaments.

In conclusion, I would like to comment briefly on Bill C-36. I visited several municipalities in my riding last week and I found that people were talking a great deal more about the dangers of Bill C-36 than about Bin Laden. They are worried, given their experiences during the 1970s. Investigations showed that the police were guilty in some instances of overstepping their authority, although different legislation was in place at the time. As Ms. Lalonde was saying, we need to be clear. The fact remains, however, that that's what people were talking about. As parliamentarians, we do exercise a certain amount of control and we can amend Bill C-36 to address some of the issues raised by Mr. Frey. I believe we have a duty to judge this bill based on how it deals with rights and freedoms. I think we have a job to do to promote democracy, a fragile asset that must be protected.

I'm very pleased that we had this opportunity to exchanges views. However, I do feel that I have a rather heavier burden to bear.

[English]

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): Thank you, Mr. Paquette. Before giving the floor to Terry, may I multiply the dilemmas he is facing in answering the question.

My first dilemma would be, why was it so easy to find Osama bin Laden and his allies when they were supported by the CIA, in the name of God, to fight the Soviet empire at that time, and why is it so difficult to find them now, when in the name of another god they are fighting against us?

The second dilemma is why this whole issue arose only after September 11, why the Tajik republic has been in a state of emergency for 10 years, and who is fighting the official power there? The Taliban, from the other side of the border. That was not an offence against the system of democracy.

• 1050

So we think really that democracy's threatened, it's physically threatened in our part of the world, or there is much more background to that.

The third dilemma is that we didn't destroy Saddam. Saddam is still alive. The system is working, although it's much more liked than several other allied Arab countries. But we restored the most feudalistic country, Kuwait, and we want to have a coalition with countries where human rights are not on the agenda.

It is very easy to talk about parliamentarianism, what is bringing us closer together. But if I pick up what Mr. Atkinson said, my question would be, would you expect a parliament where women have no seats, because women have no voting rights in a vast majority of those countries, and these could be our allies? The question is, the fundamental question for the Council of Europe and I think for all of us, when the single standard's available, then our values, freedom, rule of law, do they make a sanctuary, or is it just a pragmatic question that can be easily forgotten when it is not in the interest of a certain country or an entire part of the world?

This is related to the terrorists. Terry mentioned the European Union definition, and it is my last dilemma. Canada and some of the countries represented around this table are member countries of NATO as well. Since the formation of NATO, this is the first time article 5 was called, and that unanimously. All the 19 countries were agreed that article 5 is the right article at the moment. What is the consequence? Article 5 means we are attacked. What is the answer? Is it war? If it is war, are we in the war situation in all the 19 countries, or could we simply say, yes, it really is war on certain soil, but we are out of the context, and forget everything else?

I mention this as a dilemma. In a member country, when the state of emergency was called by the government because of the fear of terrorists, the parliamentary assembly and the ministers immediately reacted and called the relevant government to withdraw the state of emergency and to solve the problem with political means. That was only a state of emergency. Article 5 means there is war. If there is war, it must be a legal consequence, not simply giving the opportunity to shut down some mosques or other institutions. The question is whether the entire country is in a state of war, and not only the United States, but the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and those who are far from that. Are we far from that? What does it mean, state of war? What does it mean, article 5? What are the legal consequences?

Colleagues, these are questions that cannot be simply answered by saying, the actions are taking place in Afghanistan, but who the hell knows where Afghanistan is on the map?

Mr. Davis.

Mr. Terry Davis: As you've just said, Andras, you've added to my difficulties, which were bad enough before.

To begin with the questions Vlasta Stepova from the Czech Republic put to me, the first question she put was about the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. We are speaking privately, and I must tell you that one of the most difficult responses I've ever had from our Prime Minister was when this question was put to him in a private party meeting. I hope I'm not doing him an injustice, but his attitude seemed to be that they would have died anyway, that there was going to be a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan this winter whether there'd been bombing or not, so let's not be distracted by it. I tell you very bluntly, very clearly, that was my interpretation of what he said. I may be unfair to him, but I found that quite shocking.

• 1055

The second question put to me was what do we do the first day after the war and who will do it? I think that is the role of the United Nations. I absolutely can't see any alternative. The Americans will not be accepted in Afghanistan after what has happened if only because they will, accidentally perhaps, have killed people by bombing and there will be tremendous public feeling against them, and we have to recognize that. So they're not going to be in a position of kingmaker, or king-restorer, or government former, and it is going to need the United Nations to do it.

I would digress for a moment, if I may, Bill Graham, to say that I think it was David Atkinson who referred to the annual debate that we have at the United Nations General Assembly about the relationship between the United Nations and the Council of Europe. It's in December this year, but it usually takes place in October, and that's why we're here this week, actually. We had hoped to come on from the United Nations to be with you; instead we've come specially.

But I would actually encourage Canadian colleagues to press the Canadian government to include in your delegation, that is, the Canadian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly for the purpose of that debate, some members of your Parliament, because this is what we have done, and that's why in fact people like David Atkinson and myself, Andras Barsony and others, will be going to New York in order to take part in that debate. The government allows us to speak as parliamentarians in that debate and we are able therefore to speak with some knowledge in the Council of Europe. It would be tremendously helpful if the Canadians and Mexicans, from your very privileged position, would also join us in those debates in future. It's too late this year, as I said, but perhaps in future years.

To answer Vlasta's question, I hope very directly, I think the United Nations is the only body that will be acceptable internationally for undertaking that work. The reason why I say it is that those of us who went last year—and I can't remember, Vlasta, whether you were amongst us—were all I think tremendously impressed—I was anyway—by the ability of the United Nations officials. They were much better than I had believed before I went, even though I was a supporter of the United Nations before. I was very favourably impressed.

Now I'll come back to deal with Francine Lalonde's point. I don't want to be misunderstood about this sunset clause.

Francine Lalonde said some clauses in this bill—and I haven't had a chance to read it, I've only just seen a copy—should be reviewed and for some clauses we should have a deadline. I thought Prime Minister Chrétien was absolutely right when he said, as was reported in the newspapers I read over the weekend, who can tell what the security situation will be in three years' time? You can't.

If I've misinterpreted you, I apologize, but I think it would be wrong to set an absolute deadline and say that at the end of three years it expires. At the end of three years it should have a resolution to be renewed. And that's different. In other words, it should be the burden of proof, as Marlene said, but there should not be automatic death—if I can use that word in this context—of the powers. They should be subject to renewal by the Canadian Parliament, I would suggest. That was what we did in the United Kingdom. We did not say, it expires and you have to go through the whole process of a bill to become an act of Parliament again. That I think would be unreasonable.

I wanted to make that quite clear because I thought Prime Minister Chrétien was right in saying, who knows what it will be in three years' time? But the answer to that is to say, yes, of course we accept this, but it is why we should enable you to come before us with a resolution from the government to be voted on by Parliament to renew these powers.

The next point I wanted to make is about whether in fact we need new powers. I'll raise that question, which perhaps I should have raised at the beginning, because having done a little bit of research—I don't pretend to be an expert—with the help of the secretariat of the Council of Europe assembly I became increasingly concerned about the rush to pass measures. There's a pressure on us as democratic politicians and certainly as governments to be seen to be doing something. There's a problem. We must be seen to be doing it, and quickly, in response to the problem.

Sometimes the powers already exist. In fact the further I go back in research I find that a lot of powers already exist. Yes, they can be tidied up. Yes, we can have stricter banking laws and stricter laws about disclosure and transparency in banking to avoid the movement of criminal money, whether it's associated with terrorism or not, but basically a lot of the powers already existed. The problem, frankly, was not a lack of powers on September 11; it was a failure to use those powers. In particular, as we all recognize, it was a failure of the intelligence services. Many Americans criticize them for this failure to predict or to forecast what was going to happen.

So I do express some caution about all these extra powers, even though I'm sure all our governments and all of us are under a lot of pressure from our electors to be seen to be doing something.

• 1100

Bill, you said there was what you described as a canard of the terrorist or freedom fighter. Even though it's old, it's still true. Just as a lot of the old jokes are the best jokes, a lot of the old phrases are still valid phrases. Just because they've become clichés does not destroy their validity. It is a question of perception.

I speak as someone who grew up in a country that had an empire and had colonies. I remember being told Archbishop Makarios was a terrorist. Soon he became president of a democratic country. I remember being told that Jomo Kenyatta was a terrorist. He became president of an independent country, and a saintly figure I might add. That's applied to a lot of other places as well.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): I'm Irish, so I have a certain sensitivity to your observation.

Mr. Terry Davis: Without getting involved in that minefield, it's a situation where there is validity in it. There is a tendency to call your opponents, who may be armed, terrorists, when I would have seen them as freedom fighters in some cases.

I would have seen people who used violence in South Africa, where there was no alternative, in my view, there was no democracy, there was no way of expressing yourself through democratic procedures, as freedom fighters. I find it impossible to condemn people who resorted to violence there or in Mozambique, or Angola, or a lot of other countries.

So I think we do need to be careful. Of course, very significantly, I thought the Russians were amongst the first to declare their support for the war against terrorism, as it was called, because they have their own reasons, don't they, with Chechnya?

A very good example, one that's been mentioned by other people, I think David Atkinson and possibly others, in the course of the discussion, is Kashmir. As I often explain to my Kashmiri constituents, there's no justification for setting off a bomb and killing a lot of innocent people, whatever their origin, whether they're Indian, or Hindu, Sikh, or whatever. There's no justification for that. But I find it difficult to condemn people in that situation for taking up arms against the Indian army. I find it difficult to condemn all Palestinians for actions against the Israeli army, given what has been happening in recent months.

So I think it is a matter of perception. I think we do need to be very careful about this definition.

I turn now to Mr. Baumel's comments, which I thought were very interesting indeed. He knows much more about Muslims than the rest of us because of his long experience in dealing with the situation in Algeria.

My impression from talking to Muslims, and I have more than 10,000 Muslims living in my constituency, is that there's a great variety of views. But they tell me they do not agree that the actions of September 11 were in any sense an expression of Islam. They regard it as a perversion of Islam from their point of view. There will be some fundamentalists who agree. We have seen people not only wearing T-shirts, but we saw people in the Middle East who were rejoicing in what happened on September 11. So of course there'll be some people.

But as we all recognize, we must not as a result of that regard all people who are Muslim as being in that group. That is a problem, isn't it, just to distinguish?

Mr. Dreyfus-Schmidt and Mr. Patry both asked the same question, really, which is if you take this analysis of the strength of feeling among Muslims, what do we have to do? This I think is the big question and not one that we can keep simply posing without trying to put forward an answer.

On the question of bin Laden, by the way, my Muslim constituents have no time for bin Laden. It's not just because he's a multi-millionaire; he's not religious. He didn't suddenly find religion. Mr. bin Laden is a millionaire who made a lot of money out of building bases for Americans in Saudi Arabia, and who then turned his activities to Afghanistan. According to my Muslim friends, he thought he was promised by the CIA that he would become the boss of Saudi Arabia. That was what he wanted. That was his objective.

He wasn't religious. He wasn't concerned about the poor and wretched in the Palestinian refugee camps. He was concerned about power for himself and he feels he was betrayed by the Americans. He wasn't given what he was promised, not surprisingly. He looked forward to not just being a millionaire, but having the riches of the oil of Saudi Arabia. So they have no illusions about him.

By the way, Bill, when you say that Canada is a nation of immigrants, sometimes I think I ought to remind our Canadian friends that while I recognize the truth of what you say, some other European countries are full of immigrants as well.

I'm an immigrant. I'm a mixture. I'm of mixed origin. When I looked through my family I found there were an awful lot of different genes in my makeup, from Scandinavians, from French, and basically Welsh. So I'm a great mixture. I just say I'm English, because that covers it all. We're a mongrel race and we're proud of it.

• 1105

But it's also true that in France you only have to look at the names of French citizens to realize how much immigration has taken place over the years into France. The one thing they have in common is the language, it seems to me, but their names indicate origins from all sorts of other parts of Europe. I draw that to the attention of my Canadian friends.

I think there is one great danger, which hasn't been mentioned, and this is that we are in danger of exaggerating Osama bin Laden. It's not just a case of Osama bin Laden. He is exploiting the feelings in the Muslim world. He's exploiting feelings of frustration, feelings and grievances, feelings that they've not been treated fairly and justly. We're going to have to think politically about what we do to remove those feelings. I think we will have to start, as everybody says, with the Middle East. There will be other areas too.

I find it very important to remind Muslims that—and Canada was involved in it as well—the Canadians and many countries in Europe have engaged in two military actions in defence of Muslims, one in Bosnia and one in Kosovo. It was not about land, it was not about oil; it was in defence of people's human rights. That was protecting Muslims against Christians. They accept that, but you have to remind them. It is an indication I think of the strength of their feeling that they need to be reminded that we have gone to war, that on two recent occasions we've taken risks with our soldiers in order to protect the rights of Muslim people.

But I go back to it. The big risk I think is we're tending to think of bin Laden as if he's Blofeld. For those people who don't read the sort of trash I read, Blofeld is the evil master mind in the James Bond books. Blofeld is a millionaire; Blofeld has this network of paid people and actually holds the world to ransom because he captures an American nuclear weapon in one book. You've seen the films.

Osama bin Laden is not Blofeld. Osama bin Laden is using people; he's not employing people. Yes, he employs some people—he has his body guard. But he is using feelings of grievance, some of which at least may be justified. I think that's the answer to Mr. Patry's question. What we have to do is to face honestly those grievances, decide whether they're justified, and if they are justified, do something about them. It's not until we do this that we shall be seen.... Dropping food parcels over Afghanistan is not going to change the feelings of Muslim people who have grievances.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Thank you very much.

Terry, your last observation about having been engaged in defending Muslim communities against the Christian oppressor in the Balkans takes us to our next subject of discussion, which is the Balkans, precisely.

You've been, I gather, looking at admitting Macedonia to the Council of Europe, is it? Or your subcommittee is considering....

Mr. Terry Davis: Yes, we have been involved in Macedonia, but our presentation today I think is going to be about the Balkans more generally. I can't remember who it is who's doing the presentation.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): We didn't set this up, but are we assuming that you will go first and then the Canadians will come in afterwards, since you're more directly implicated there? Obviously, we have troops still in the Balkans. We have a real interest there.

Again, curiously enough, there was another domestic political consequence of what we were doing in that case. I had a lot of Serbian people in my riding who were pretty mad at me for what we were doing in terms of our intervention there. In modern politics, because of the patterns of people moving around, foreign policy issues get some pretty hot domestic reactions to them because of the nature of our populations.

I will suggest that your side goes first. I don't know who would want to speak on that issue of the Balkans. Then maybe we could come in with some observations of our members who have been there recently or who have some observations.

Mr. Terry Davis: I think Andras Barsony is going to call Mr. Frey.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Frey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the subject of Yugoslavia, thirteen months ago, on September 24, 2000, elections were held. This was the first concrete indication of a desire for change. Later, on October 5, a large crowd stormed Parliament, further evidence of this desire for change. Elections in Serbia on December 24, 2000 further confirmed that the winds of change were indeed blowing.

• 1110

Now, a full year later, is this resolve still as strong? Does the desire for change still burn as strongly? Most assuredly it does, but what has become ever more evident over the past year is the tenuous nature of the situation. The situation is tenuous on three different levels.

First, there is the federal issue. Is the federal republic comprised of Serbia and Montenegro, with a special status for Kosovo? What is happening on that front? On September 30 of this year, President Kostunica declared that Serbia would not be held hostage by factions within Montenegro, that a referendum would be inevitable if the problems of relations within the federation were to be resolved. The Vice-President of one of the coalition parties noted that if the federal state did not survive, then Serbia would have to declare itself an independent state and hold new elections.

Polling in Belgrade on the federal question shows that 29.8% of respondents believe a referendum could resolve the problem; 22.6% believe the opposite; 55.7% oppose secession; 29.8% support secession while 14.5% have no opinion. The outcome of the federal issue is tenuous at best, with secession from Montenegro a possibility. Right now, there is considerable confusion surrounding this issue.

Another problem area is dissension within the government coalition and the apparent rivalries between the President of the Federal Republic, Mr. Kostunica, and the Prime Minister of Serbia, Mr. Djindjic. As recently as September 23, President Kostunica made some rather startling pronouncements. This isn't going to help us to welcome Yugoslavia. Kostunica said that the situation in Serbia was actually worse than when Milosevic was in power. Reforms had not been implemented. Measures have yet to be taken in areas such as the administration of justice, information and post-secondary education. He also stated that the state and society were hindered by a rise in crime and that more than ever, the government was resorting to ruling by decree. He called for the rule of law to be established in the country and for an open democracy, this in a country that is mindful of its roots, borders and sense of self.

The President of the Federal Republic made this statement only recently. Needless to say, the Prime Minister of Serbia was not pleased with this criticism. He responded that it was not a matter of being subjugated by the success of business ventures, that performance could not be called into question, particularly not on a daily basis and in such a humiliating way.

Like Kostunica, the federal Prime Minister stated that very few, if any state reforms had been initiated and that little had been done to redefine relations between Serbia and Montenegro.

In short, to sum up their statements, much remains to be done in terms of bringing in legislation respecting the armed forces, the police, the judicial police, the penal code, post-secondary education, decentralization and elections. Moreover, very little progress has been made on the training front and in the fight against corruption.

Another tenuous point is the coalition comprised of 17 different parties. At least when one is in opposition, there is general motivation. When 17 different parties must work together to govern, it's more difficult and we're starting to see some problems emerge. We cannot discount the fragile nature of the coalition or of the fragile nature of the relations between the President of the federation and the Prime Minister of Serbia.

• 1115

Needless to say, the level of public confidence is quite low under the circumstances. Mr. Kostunica enjoys the higher popularity rating at 34.8 per cent. Prime Minister Djindjic's popularity stands at 9.3% in the polls, while the Deputy Prime Minister enjoys only a 3.2% popularity rating. Over 29% of those polled expressed a complete lack of confidence in any politician. Therefore, trust in the political system is eroding where only 13 months ago, people were singing its praises.

The third and final thorny problem is economic woes and social movements. Inflation is running at a little over 30 per cent. Each month, it increases by 1.4 per cent. However, it has been hovering at 31.1% since the beginning of the year. Hardest hit are food items, with prices rising by more than 3% every month.

The country has become the scene of labour unrest among postal, telecommunications and utilities workers, automobile plant workers, coal miners and media employees. According to the Minister of Finance, the salary of an electrical utilities worker is 230 euros, but according to the unions, the real figure is closer to 150 euros. Winter is approaching and the problems will continue to mount.

One economic problem is corruption, a worrisome global phenomenon. Consider the following troublesome statistic: 53 per cent of those polled said there was nothing unusual about getting problems resolved more quickly by resorting to bribes and corruption. For a significant segment of the population, this has become standard practice. Corruption is prevalent in the import- export business and in the government contracting sector. Corruption plays a part in the installation of telephone lines, in water supply and in the securing of customs documents. Corruption is said to be an even bigger problem in this country than in neighbouring states.

The situation has changed dramatically in 13 months. As such, the Council of Europe serves a useful purpose. Since the demand to join the Council is high, there is no question that there are clear benefits to membership. Given their desire to join the European Union as soon as possible, it's a matter of supporting those who want change, that is the people who expressed a desire for change 13 months ago, and of assisting them in the process. That's where I feel we will have an especially important role to play.

I've observed how the delegation from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Council of Europe, lead by Speaker Micunovic, a highly respected figure throughout the country, has made a good impression through its comments and has expressed a strong desire for change.

Therefore, we must support these individuals who want change if we want to stop the country from drifting helplessly. But as things now stand, we have good reason to be pessimistic. Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): You are certainly not expressing much optimism, Mr. Frey.

Would you care to comment on the prospect of peace in Macedonia?

Mr. Claude Frey: I think I will leave that to Terry Davis, or to the rapporteur, although he isn't here at this time. Since I'm not the rapporteur for Macedonia, I wouldn't want to comment on an area with which I am less familiar.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): I understand. You are an expert in corruption and bribes...

Mr. Claude Frey: I'm an expert in analysing a variety of tenuous situations, Mr. Chairman, in all sectors.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): I see.

• 1120

[English]

Terry, did anyone from the delegation want to comment? We're interested in Macedonia as well. Then we'll turn it over to any Canadians who want to make observations.

Mr. Terry Davis: Unfortunately, our rapporteur on Macedonia was not able to come with us because he is observing the elections in Kosovo. That's very important. He comes from the region, which is why he was able to do such a good job for us on Macedonia.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the situation in Macedonia changes so fast that anything you say today is likely to look silly tomorrow, so I'm very hesitant.

It's a classic situation where you have militants and moderates, just as you have in a trade union situation, if I can put it in industrial terms. You have people who perhaps want to go more quickly than others or have more extreme demands than others. The problem in Macedonia is to get the moderates from the two different groups together.

I am very conscious that at the Assembly of the Council of Europe we see only the moderates from both groups. We see the people who are reasonable. It was very significant that during the discussions we had in the Political Affairs Committee about the situation in Macedonia over a period of four or five months, we did eventually get them to sit together. It might seem to be a small thing, but we thought it was quite an achievement in that although they would disagree with each other, they were at least recognizing that they are Macedonians. That included the so-called Albanian representative in the Macedonian delegation. I think “cautious optimism” are probably the words I would use.

By the way, I think I must pay tribute. I'm very well aware that you have about 1,500 Canadian soldiers in Macedonia, which is a very welcome contribution.

I'm being passed a prompt. The invaluable secretary of our delegation has told me a way out of my dilemma, so I don't have to express an opinion at all, really. But my opinion is that the situation shows some positive signs and is much better than I would have feared six or eight months ago. I think in recent weeks it has improved.

I'm able to offer you two people who have been to Macedonia and can speak from personal experience from having visited it, and that is Mr. Toshev from Bulgaria and Mr. Gross from Switzerland. So I'm rapidly going to pass the parcel.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Do they want to add something?

Mr. Andreas Gross (Switzerland, Political Affairs Committee, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe): We have already discussed this in Strasbourg. I think the issue of Macedonia also has to be a matter of a self-critique of the Council of Europe. When it was on the eve of a civil war, it was not about oil or other big issues but about those issues the Council of Europe is most fond of working on, that is, human rights, minority rights, and the decentralization of powers, and, in the context of Canada and Switzerland, how two communities come together and live together in a common state.

What puzzled me most after discussions with a lot of people when we were there in July were two things: when you discussed the situation with the representatives of both communities, you never had the impression that they had lived for ten years in a common state. They spoke about each other as if they did not live in the same state. The second point was that too many in both communities, especially in the majority one, still think that war solves any problem. They spoke about war as if they had not lived close to a war for ten years.

It's puzzling for the Council of Europe especially, because one year ago we let them out of the monitoring procedure. You probably know that we have a monitoring procedure, which follows the realization of the obligation when a country becomes a member of the Council of Europe. The building of a common state with the interacting of the two communities so that they live in peace together in a common state was one of the biggest obligations.

When we overlooked it one and a half years ago now, we saw the tensions that one year afterwards brought the country close to civil war. I think we have to think about the criteria of monitoring, and we have to take this case as an example to think about what we could do better. Of course, when you don't have a representative of the Slavic majority in the country, they would say it was fallout from the Kosovo crisis and the interference of armed groups from Kosovo on the Albanian side that made the crisis.

• 1125

But this is perhaps only the last element. If the crisis had not been so profound, this interference would not have brought the whole country to the eve of a civil war. We have to see it in a deeper sense. I not only tried to do this in a monitoring procedure in the Council of Europe, but I also tried to do this in Switzerland because they also invest quite a lot of money and energy there.

This is perhaps something that could also interest Canada very much, namely that we failed in those very policies that make Canada and Switzerland proud in that they have managed to bring together communities in a common state. We don't yet know enough how to build nations of different communities, and Macedonia is just an example of that.

When they have already failed in Macedonia, it will be even more difficult in Bosnia, for instance. That's why it's so important to use this lesson as something we can learn in order to do better work in our own future.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): That's very helpful. Before I go to any Canadians, I myself was in Skopje a couple of years ago....

Oh, I'm sorry. We were going to go along.

Mr. Toshev.

Mr. Latchezar Toshev: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to add that it's good to pay tribute to the efforts of the President of Macedonia, Mr. Trajkovski. He is a very courageous man to stand up to fight for democracy and for a peaceful solution to the conflict despite the fact that in the beginning public opinion on both sides was against him. There are probably still very many frustrated people on both sides.

Finally, the Ohrid agreement will most probably be ratified by parliament as the last step, for the parliamentary procedure has several steps. The vote is the last step, and I hope this agreement will contribute very much to a lasting solution in Macedonia.

That's why I think we should try to express our appreciation of this, because sometimes the personalities hold key positions. A person such as the president holds a key position that might influence the development of the process, its improvement or its deterioration. That's why I'd like to pay tribute.

In Macedonia now there are two factors acting, and the first is of course the Albanian factor, which is also coming from abroad. The problem is that on the Macedonian-Yugoslavian border there is no government infrastructure. That's why the traffic, if it is possible to say so, is very heavy, yet there are no checkpoints because there is virtually no border. It's very difficult to find where the border is exactly. The border exists only on the map. Strengthening border control might also be helpful for getting the situation under control.

This would eliminate some of the illegal traffic of weapons, people, drugs, etc. Sources for the support of criminal activity would be restricted if there were some border infrastructure and border control. I think this should also be included in our recommendations, which will come later.

For the moment, I think the most important thing is the political solution. Everything is in the hands of parliamentarians, who feel frustrated because they were not involved in the negotiations that led to the Ohrid agreement. Hopefully, this solution will be put into effect in the near future.

Thank you.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): Thank you, Mr. Toshev.

Before going to the Canadian side, one has to mention what was already touched on by Mr. Toshev and Mr. Frey as well, the common background. Of course, it isn't about oil or big power, but one cannot forget that via Macedonia, via Kosovo, via Montenegro, these are the roads of the mainstream of arms trafficking, smuggling, drug trafficking, and tobacco trafficking from the south to the rest of Europe. It is not about oil but about who will control this business.

• 1130

In the three countries or provinces—two countries and Kosovo—there is a saying that almost 60% of the economy belongs to the grey market. In Montenegro it is even bigger; although it is part of the federal republic, the greater part of the existing economy belongs to the so-called grey market. There, you never know who is in charge, who is the owner, or who is in control. Of course, all income is beyond any kind of taxation.

Yes, there is a very important and very difficult political dimension, but one cannot forget the existing economic background of that. I think this is a kind of consequence of the fact that the international community is occupying Kosovo and has closed the borders of Kosovo. Macedonia has become the main battlefield among the groups that were ousted from Kosovo after the international community went in.

The situation is quite fragile, and we remember our debates during the April part-session, when the Political Affairs Committee raised several issues concerning how to change the constitution of the Republic of Macedonia. At that time the Macedonian members of the committee and of the assembly were very hesitant to accept those recommendations. They were, however, unanimously adopted, not only by the committee but by the assembly as well. They said—they did something, a part of internal business of the country—that they were doing their best and so on. They hadn't yet returned from Strasbourg when the crisis became as critical as we saw.

One should realize that, aside from the political background, there are some other circumstances that are very important and for which the local people are not responsible. Therefore, the responsibility of the international community is all the greater.

Bill.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): I don't know if any of our colleagues want to say anything. I'll just make a couple of comments.

I thought Mr. Gross's intervention was particularly resonant with Canadian values, if you like, and with many Canadian preoccupations. I recall that when I was in Skopje some years ago, it was very clear from talking to Albanian or Kosovar people within the political system that they felt that because of the nature of representation, their participation in the system was token. There was the whole issue of language, etc.

You're absolutely right. Canadians, Swiss, and people from other countries who are familiar with a federal state often have both a particular role and duty to bring to bear their experience to try to help others. Actually, the Prime Minister is going down to a conference on federalism in Mexico later in November to speak about it. Even our Mexican colleagues, with their Chiapas problems and things, are trying to look at ways where they can have a flexible form of federalism that can adapt to minority groups, languages, etc., in large and complex states.

I agree with you that the solution, certainly in the Balkans, lies largely in finding structures that enable democratically elected representatives from smaller groups.... But put them in a state large enough so there can at least be a viable economic unit. We see the Montenegro thing...I met Mr. Djukanovic in Istanbul when he was there at the time of the OSCE summit. That was the whole thing: we want out, but when we get out, what do we have? That's always a problem to discuss.

• 1135

I think as Canadians we are trying to be helpful there. I know we have an aid program. We have the troops.

The matter of troops takes us toward Bosnia and our troops there. Obviously, there is a limited timeframe in which we can maintain large numbers of troops in the region of the Balkans. We're very interested in the Balkans. We want to see it develop in an orderly way, but there are new demands being put on us because of the terrorism issue.

Some of you around the table may know there has been a debate in Canada, quite a ferocious debate, about our participation in the present campaign, largely because many people in the country feel we don't have the resources in our military. For budgetary reasons, it has been low on the priority list for a long time in Canada. Therefore, I think we can put a certain number of battalions overseas and supply them. That's it. It's a more limited number of troops than you would think. This is a serious question for us as to staying.

From my experience at Canada-U.S. parliamentary assemblies with my American colleagues, I've discussed these issues frequently. I chair a committee with Ben Gilman and other people in the foreign affairs committee down there. I would have thought their tolerance or patience for keeping a large number of American troops in the region, both for financial and other reasons, is coming to an end too.

This is something for, I guess, our European colleagues. I don't know whether the ESDP, or whatever it's called, is going to be able to step into the breech or not. Clearly, I would have thought the level of North American participation at a troop level in the Balkans, be it American or Canadian, is probably not going to be sustained at its present level for a long time. It's something we should consider.

I'm curious about the Council of Europe perspective. How much cooperation is there between the Council of Europe and the OSCE, both at the parliamentary assembly level and at the ministerial level? After all, there's an overlapping of issues. Both organizations are interested in human rights, the development of democratic institutions, etc.

I've talked to Lord Russell-Johnston from time to time, and Andras sits on both bodies. I was very active in the OSCE for some time, but I was never very familiar with the Council of Europe. We had a couple of meetings where we were trying to coordinate things.

Is there an ongoing attempt to coordinate what the two organizations do?

Mr. Terry Davis: You always give me the difficult ones.

Can I just say a few words, first of all, about Bosnia?

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Yes, sure.

Mr. Terry Davis: I'm always tempted to be flippant, actually, Bill. It gives me an aura of ferocity.

Bosnia is making a lot of progress. We voted in our committee in September to approve a recommendation that Bosnia-Herzegovina should become a member of the Council of Europe. We did not take that step lightly. It was after a lot of discussion and has taken a lot of time, at least a couple of years. During the two years I've been chairman of the political affairs committee, I can honestly say there has been tremendous progress in Bosnia.

Two years ago it was like Kissinger's classic remark about Europe not having one telephone number. They didn't have one telephone number for the authorities in Bosnia. At the Council of Europe, when we were trying to make arrangements for our rapporteur to visit Bosnia, it had to be done by talking to at least three, possibly four, separate people. In other words, they were not liaising, coordinating, or cooperating amongst themselves. It was very time-consuming.

The last obstacle, in a way, to Bosnia-Herzegovina has now passed, I'm glad to say. We had some symbols, four or five critical issues that had to be dealt with by the Bosnians themselves for us to approve their application. We told them so. The last, and most difficult perhaps, was done in August, when they agreed on an electoral law.

For months, every time they came to Strasbourg for an assembly, they would say they would do it the next week. Then they'd come back and say it would be the next week. It was always going to be the next week. In the end, they did do it and adopted an electoral law.

• 1140

We then, after a lot of discussion, agreed—I think there was only one abstention in the Political Affairs Committee—to approve their application. Then it goes to our Legal Affairs Committee, and they have been preparing some amendments to our recommendation, as they like to do; and then it would go before the full assembly in January, and I would predict that it will be approved there.

This actually gives a direct answer to your question, because given the progress they've made, there is a case for Canada and other countries to consider whether it is necessary to keep troops there. I do think that sometimes we don't see middle ways; it's troops or nothing. Perhaps what should be offered to the people of Bosnia is not a continuation of armed forces, but the provision of police officers. It may well be that we should not be sending the marines of Canada, we should be sending the Mounties.

This might be the way in which a contribution to stability could be made if we believe the risk of an internal war is less, but there's still a great problem, of course, of law and order. We ought to be thinking along those lines, not simply for the reason you mentioned, which is that the troops are needed elsewhere, but also in terms of making the most appropriate contribution to what they need.

On the—

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): If I might make an observation, we have about 50 police officers in the region at the moment. They're not all Mounties, by the way.

Mr. Terry Davis: I was being a bit flippant because I know—

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): They come from municipal police systems as well, paid for out of CIDA's budget, but we recruit them from the Toronto municipal police.... It's been an interesting program, but obviously it's nothing like sufficient to step into—

Mr. Terry Davis: Yes. I was being a bit flippant. From my observation of what I see on films, Mounties carry side arms; British policemen don't.

We have a lot of British police there as well. Of course it's not just a case of policing; it's more a case of training. However, perhaps a greater effort there would enable us to withdraw armed forces.

On the case of the OSCE, the cooperation is more spoken about than real. That's my very personal but frank opinion. There is some cooperation. The clearest example of cooperation comes from election observation, where many of us here, especially Andras Barsony, have been involved in observing elections in European countries where OSCE and the European Parliament and the Council of Europe assembly have all been doing it together. The OSCE does tend to have a pole position on it, especially through the work of parts of OSCE called ODEO, with which you are familiar, and also because OSCE put in longer-term observers, whereas we tend to send parliamentarians for a very short period.

But in the general fields there isn't much cooperation. There is a feeling in the Council of Europe assembly that the OSCE and the OSCE assembly are really trying to push the Council of Europe aside, and some of the developments in OSCE are unnecessary and duplicating. The extension of OSCE activity into fields of human rights, environment, economic affairs, frankly, is unnecessary.

There have been a number of extensions like this that actually came about because of the Russians and the Americans both agreeing, and that is a fact. It's because the Americans at OSCE push very hard with the Russians that you see this primacy given to OSCE. As you will remember, Bill, because I'm sure you were there at the last OSCE assembly, there were a couple of occasions when the Russians and the Americans were giving superior position to OSCE, rather than cooperation and collaboration. They were actually saying it was all OSCE, and on those two occasions the rest of us, including the Canadians, voted down the Russian and American delegations. It was quite unusual, in fact, for the two big blocs to be voted down in an unholy alliance.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): I'm going to turn it to Madame Lalonde for the last word from Canada, but before I do, from Canada's perspective of course we are full members of the OSCE, whereas we're only observers at the Council of Europe. So when a turf war takes place we're torn in our loyalties, but they may lean a bit more toward where we have actual voting rights and participation.

• 1145

But we have a very strong Council of Europe delegation, and in a funny way, in our House it seems to work. It's more the personalities involved and how keen they are than just the nature of the role, as defined in the institution.

Mr. Terry Davis: I think the formal positions of voting are irrelevant. The reason Canadians have so much influence on the council is not related to voting power, obviously; it's because of the persuasion of the arguments. In fact, votes in the Council of Europe, I say very frankly to you, are not very significant. The power of argument and debate usually wins a big majority for a particular point of view.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Interesting.

[Translation]

Have you anything further to add, Ms. Lalonde? We have to make our way down shortly.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I wouldn't want to overstep your authority, but I feel compelled to comment on this issue. I have attended two OSCE parliamentary assemblies and like everyone here present, I have often participated in the sessions of the Council of Europe. In my view, the Council of Europe is absolutely indispensable, because it is a Parliament.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE on the other hand... It is seeking an extension of its mandate. I don't know if there will be a mid-session assembly, but that's what I've been told.

The strength of the Council of Europe lies in its commissions which meet regularly and in the follow up initiatives taken by parliamentarians. When people come together under the auspices of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE a great deal of work can be accomplished. However, this assembly does not have the benefit of the experience of groups of parliamentarians who, despite certain pressures, can stand their ground while debating certain issues. In many instances, had it not been for the Council of Europe, inexplicable unanimity would have been achieved. Such was the case with Chechnya.

While I freely acknowledge that the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE does some interesting work, its expertise and experience in the field of human rights and major strategic issues is the vital component. I trust you agree with me on that score.

However, some work remains to be done because the OSCE tends to get involved in the same areas as the Council of Europe. The major difference is that the Americans do not sit on the Council. This issue certainly needs to be debated, because we cannot lose the Council of Europe.

The Chair: I cannot disagree with you, Ms. Lalonde.

[English]

Colleagues, I think we'll have to call this to an end.

On behalf of the Canadian delegation, I'd like to thank our European colleagues for sharing their expertise with us. We appreciate it very much. We've learned a great deal. It's been a very valuable exchange.

Before we adjourn, one last word to my co-chair.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Andras Barsony): On behalf of the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly delegation, I thank very warmly both Houses of Canadian Parliament. It was a pleasure and honour for us to be with you during these two days. I hope there will be a follow-up of this cooperation.

Thank you very much.

The Co-Chair (Mr. Bill Graham): Thank you.

We are adjourned.