Bill C-35: Granting Diplomatic Immunity to State Terrorists
By Richard Sanders, Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade.

The Liberal government is quietly trying to pass a law that will extend
diplomatic immunity to include foreign officials in Canada, even if they
are known criminals or terrorists.  This is being done under the cover of
an innocuous-looking, so-called "housekeeping" measure called Bill C-35.
This bill, to amend the "Foreign Missions and International Organizations
Act," (1) was first debated in the House of Commons on October 5, 2001. (2)
 By protecting foreign government representatives from prosecution under
Canadian laws, Bill C-35 directly contradicts the so-called anti-terrorist
Bill C-36.

Bill C-35 will also serve to consolidate and extend the power of the RCMP
to thwart protests against foreign government officials who will soon be
given special immunity from Canadian laws.

During the House of Commons debate, Svend Robinson, the NDP Foreign Affairs
critic, speaking for his party, offered unequivocal opposition to Bill
C-35.  He pointed that: "the bill raises grave questions about the extent
to which we are prepared to not only codify existing police powers in law
but significantly enhance them. Many Canadians, including myself and my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, are concerned about the
growing criminalization of dissent in Canada. We have seen an alarming
trend toward giving more powers to the police. Bill C-35 is part of that
trend." (ibid.)

He also criticized the bill because it is "unacceptable to suggest that an
individual who is a government representative, part of a delegation to an
international conference, or for that matter a world leader, should not be
required to obey the law and submit to the same requirements with respect
to ministers' permits as anyone else." (ibid.)

During the same Commons debate, Canadian Alliance MP Gurmant Grewal,
critiqued the bill but indicated that his party would support the Bill if
amended.  He said that in the case of "a leader known to have committed
human rights abuses or supported terrorism, the government would have the
authority to admit him or her on political grounds, if they thought it
furthered Canadian interests....  This is giving the red carpet treatment
for potential terrorists, spies from other countries, criminals or even
brutal dictators."  (ibid.)

Francine Lalonde, the Bloc Quebecois spokesperson, and Progressive
Conservative MPs, Peter MacKay and Gary Lunn, offered their parties' strong
support for the passing of Bill C-35.

The Canadian government is creating laws to apprehend terrorists, even
suspected ones, unless they happen to be known terrorists working for
foreign governments, in which case the RCMP will protect them by
persecuting peaceful protesters.

One will recall that before the APEC conference in Vancouver, Foreign
Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy "apologised" to Indonesian Prime Minister
Ali Alatas for a campaign in Canada portraying Indonesia's brutal dictator
Suharto as a criminal on a Wanted Poster.  Axworthy said "It was outrageous
and excessive and not the way Canadians behaved." (3)  Axworthy later
assured Alatas that General Suharto that he would not suffer the indignity
of being in close proximity to any protests. (4) 

The RCMP's subsequent crack down on peaceful dissent at APEC led to the
Hughes report.  The excessive use of pepper spray and rubber bullets
against protesters at the FTAA meetings in Quebec further demonstrated that
the RCMP can treat Canadian protesters as criminals in order to protect
foreign officials, even those officials who preside over security forces
that systematically arrest, torture and even kill their own protesters back

Bill-35 will help to entrench such unjust contradictions into Canadian law.
 The Pinochet's of the world will soon be more confident than ever when
deciding whether to attend international events in Canada.  Bill C-35 will
allow them to feel secure during their visit here because they'll know that
Canadian law:
  1. exempts them from prosecution for their crimes and
  2. mandates the RCMP to protect them from protesters. 

Because they generally control their domestic security and legal systems
back home, the world's state terrorists have impunity from their own
countries' laws.  Bill C-35 will extend that immunity from prosecution
during visits to Canada.

Ironically, Bill C-35 is coming at a time when our government is very
publicly pushing Bill C-36, with all of its sweeping new powers that may
threaten the civil liberties of innocent Canadians.  While giving much
attention to this upcoming anti-terrorism law, the media has completely
ignored the other new law that may be used to offer protection to foreign
state terrorists during official visits. 

Our government knows very well that violent and undemocratic rulers, like
Pinochet and Suharto, are often Canada's best business partners.  Such
rulers create the social, economic, political and legal conditions in which
Canadian other foreign profiteers can thrive.  Therefore, it makes perfect
sense for these despots to be treated with great dignity during their
visits to our country.  Canadian business opportunities abroad rely heavily
on unrestricted access to cheap labour and natural resources.
Unfortunately, for Canadian companies, foreign workers do not always bow
gracefully while working as virtual slaves in factories, mines and other
Canadian-owned enterprises. 

Activists in those repressive regimes, who struggle to improve labour
rights, promote other human rights or protect their environment from
unscrupulous polluters, are often targets of persecution.  Many such
activists have been arrested, tortured and killed for the crime of
peacefully trying to improve their working and living conditions.  That's
fairly routine in many of the violent and repressive regimes that are armed
courtesy of Canadian military exporters and their friends in our Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.  Such countries include:
Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Morocco, Philippines, Thailand,
Turkey and Venezuela. (5)

It is no coincidence that Canada's anti-terrorist and pro-terrorist bills
are arriving at the same time.  With all of the hype about new security
powers designed to crack down on terrorism, there is a special need to
reassure the world's state terrorists that our government can be relied
upon to protect them during their visits to Canada.  The Canadian
government, like the governments of its allies, relies heavily on
repressive regimes to make the world safe and profitable for big business.
Canadian corporations have always reaped huge rewards by exploiting human
and natural resources in countries where violent military regimes rule.
Violent, undemocratic foreign leaders are often seen as our country's best
friends because they ensure "stability."  They do this by tightly
controlling unruly activist movements that are seeking more equitable and
just socio-economic conditions.  The tried and true method of making
extreme profits from foreign business operations is to ensure that the
governments in those countries keep close control over their dissidents.

Bill C-35 is what Canadian Alliance MP Gurmant Grewal, calls a "power grap"
by Canada Minister of Foreign Affairs because it gives him the power to
supercede the Minister of Immigration in order to allow foreign government
officials with criminal backgrounds, to enter Canada.  Once here, these
foreign representatives will be protected from embarrassing protests and
from prosecution.

Through Bill C-36, the Liberal government wants sweeping new powers to
undermine the civil liberties of Canadians, such as allowing security
forces greater ease in authorizing surveillance and the ability to carry
out preventative arrests against suspects.  Meanwhile, Bill C-35 means that
foreign government representatives will be granted immunity from Canadian
laws, including the anti-terrorist legislation.

The Liberals say that this new law will not supercede laws concerning
crimes against humanity and war crimes.  However, Bill C-35 would allow the
government to grant special protection to foreign government officials who
have committed any or all other crimes.  So, as long as their crimes fall
short of the most heinous international crimes against humanity and war
crimes, they'll be granted immunity in Canada.  Even this is not reassuring
considering Canada's long history of harbouring Nazi war criminals. 

The government's concern that Bill C-15 may be unpopular is demonstrated by
the very sneaky way in which they presented it to Parliament: 
  1. the government is pretending that the bill deals with innocuous,
mundane "housekeeping" matters,
  2. opposition MPs had only two and a half days to examine the bill before
the first debate in the House of Commons (Oct. 5),
  3. that first debate in the House was conveniently timed to occur on a
Friday when many MPs are not in attendance,
  4. no legislative summary or explanation was provided with the bill, and
  5. the government's briefing on the bill was unsubstantial.

The Liberals know that Bill C-35 would be very controversial law, if the
media were to expose it.  They know that it contradicts their foreign and
domestic policies, especially their anti-terrorism law, Bill-35.  They know
that the Canadian public has very little tolerance for the whole concept of
diplomatic immunity, which allows foreign representatives to drink, drive
and thereby cause the accidental deaths of Canadian citizens. 

The only known media references to Bill C-35, have focused on this angle,
i.e., the possibility that officials exempted under the new law may be
responsible for deaths or injuries as a result of drinking and driving. (6)

One would hope that Canadians would be even less tolerant of our
government's efforts to offer legal protection to foreign dignitaries who
have supported the torture, kidnapping and murder of innocent people.
However, because the mainstream media may never expose the broader dangers
and contradictions associated with Bill C-35, we may never know what the
Canadian public's attitude is towards granting diplomatic immunity to state


(1) BILL C-35, An Act to amend the Foreign Missions and International
Organizations Act 

(2) House of Commons Debate (October 5, 2001),
Text version:
PDF version:

(3) Memo Re: meeting between Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy and
Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas (July 30th, 1997)

(4) Lloyd Axworthy's letter to Minister Alatas (September 3rd, 1997)

(5) Press for Conversion!, issue #44, April 2001
Published by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade

(6) (a) Manley Moves to Boost Number Eligible for Diplomatic Immunity
FindLaw, Legal News and Commentary (Associated Press article, Nov. 1, 2001)
    (b) CBC Radio News, Nov. 6, 2001.