Bill C-33 (Historical)

International Transfer of Offenders Act

An Act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences

International Transfer of Offenders Act

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address this bill in the House because it has some serious implications to some of the inequities that are created between Canada and the United States, and I want to go through those.

Bill C-33, an act to make an attempt to transfer inmates from prison in one country to another. I listened to a Liberal member across the way talk about the great things the government had done, particularly on the sex offender registry. I was the author of that registry three years ago and my party and I for two years in the House lobbied the other side to try to get a sex offender registry. There was absolutely zero appetite for it until the police, opposition, victims and every other group in the country basically forced it on the government. Now they are here today bragging how well they have done on the sex offender registry.

I want to tell the House that the people from British Columbia in Langley, Aldergrove and Abbotsford and in other areas are well aware of this. I really think it is degrading the way the government takes responsibility for these things when it is rammed down its throat.

However let us talk about the inequality of law between Canada and the United States. I want to relate it to the problems with transferring inmates.

The government is suggesting that we could take inmates from the United States and transfer them into Canada. If this happens, they would serve the lighter sentence in a Canadian prison. Basically we would have someone who is convicted of a sex offence in the United States. An agreement could be struck among the offender, Canada and the United States to transfer the sex offender across to our country because he was of Canadian nationality.

The first problem is the offender would get a lot more time in the United States than he would in Canada. He would get a lighter sentence automatically in Canada. Second, there are sex offender registries in every state in the United States on which this individual would be entered. Coming into Canada he would not be on a sex offender registry.

I do not understand the logic which comes across here other than this is entirely to the benefit of criminals and not victims. It is entirely to the benefit of criminals and not regular law-abiding citizens in Canada to bring a sex offender back into Canada, give him a lighter sentence, get him paroled and get him on the street with programs that are not compatible between Canada and the United States whilst incarcerated. Essentially a sex offender could come across into our country, not be on a registry, not be rehabilitated and get back out on the street. If that is what this country thinks we need, then I can only express my sincere disappointment once again on the problems associated with that.

Another case is the growing inequity between Canada and the United States and our drug laws. Canada is headed into a European model related to drugs. There is no question about that. The government already has started to endorse pilot projects for injection facilities for hard drugs, which is not acceptable to the vast majority of people in our country. Certainly there will be no support for that kind of process in my riding, in Walnut Grove, Abbotsford and Mount Lehman.

On one side of the international border we have a liberalized drug law based on a European model that is failing, not progressing.

Some Canadian who goes down to the United States and traffics cocaine or whatever could get 10 years. We make a deal to bring the trafficker back. In Canada that individual would likely get two years, maybe three at the most, but probably a fine, if we could find a judge who was not so Liberal that he would hand out a sentence.

What do we do? That individual who has trafficked cocaine to children in the United States, receives a 10 year sentence, moves back to Canada and gets out practically when he gets back into the country. I sincerely hope some thinking has gone about the legislation because these inequities certainly exist. In fact the legislation states that a Canadian offender is to serve only the shorter sentences.

There is a misguided idea that there is a compatible legal system within countries when there is not. This is because Liberals have been elected in the last three elections. We have a Liberal judicial system and Liberal courtrooms. We also have liberalized laws which are far different from most other countries. We are going to fail our people as a result of these transfers.

There is one other problem in this legislation, and it is under clause 38. It states, “This act applies in respect of all requests for transfer that are pending on the day that this section comes into force”. In other words, it is retroactive

I just do not get it. I do not understand why one piece of legislation, Bill C-33, the transfer of offenders legislation, is retroactive but the government does not have the wherewithal to make the sex offender registry retroactive. The sex offender registry is vastly more important than this legislation.

The sex offender registry, as I wrote it and the government adopted it, states that we will register all markings like tattoos, telephone numbers, addresses, all personal information of sex offenders. The government has to take all that information and ensure that it is updated by virtue of mandating individuals to complete the registration. If they do not update it voluntarily, then after a year if there have been changes and they are not reported, there will be some serious fines or possible imprisonment.

The problem is the government has said that all sex offenders in provincial or federal jurisdictions will not be on the register when it becomes law. That amounts to approximately 5,000 federal inmates and 5,000 provincial inmates, all sex offenders, none of whom will be on the registry on opening day because the government has not seen fit to make the registry retroactive.

I do not understand why an important piece of legislation like the sex registry, which is vital and valuable to the Canadian population, would not be made retroactive but this legislation, which is really not that important quite frankly, will be retroactive.

The implications on the sex offender registry are this. Sex offenders who are currently in prison and who have an extremely high recidivism rate could actually perpetrate yet another sex crime, get convicted, do their time in prison again before they would be put on the registry. That is one free sexual assault per every single sex offender held in prison today. That does not make any sense whatsoever. I can guarantee that the people I represent in Abbotsford, Langley and throughout the Fraser Valley cannot understand that either.

I will take this information back to my constituency and let them know. Yes, they will be upset and there will not be a Liberal elected there for decades I am sure. However the biggest problem is that because of the majority in the House of Commons this is the way it is going to be. I do not really think there is a Liberal across the way who can really justify the sex offender registry not being retroactive. I just do not believe in their own hearts they would comply with that.

The job is to challenge the members across the way to get into the justice committee and make that change without fear of reprisal from their government. I ask the members across the way to have the courage of their convictions because like the bill we are debating, some of the things we do in committee after they are assessed and evaluated are just as important as the tabling of the bill itself.

Therefore what have we got? We have a bill in front of us that is not as important as most bills and we have a bill in front of us with several serious flaws, not the least of which is the state of our prison system in Canada. I do not believe there is anyone in the House who is any more familiar with that than I am.

The fact of the matter is our prison system is not the most effective system. It is a liberal system but we have recidivism rates that are unacceptable. We have something labelled and identified called rehabilitation that does not work. We have more charges against guards than we do against the criminals themselves. Inmates have too much idle time in prison, not working if they do not want to work, not working for any amount of time that they put in. They are basically warehoused. This is not a productive system in my opinion.

Therefore we go to the United States or any other country and say, “Bring in an inmate and we will transfer him into our system”. Yes, he gets less time. Yes, he is idle. Yes, he is put out on the street and not rehabilitated. Yes, he has very likely been hooked on drugs. If he goes in clean in our prison, he comes out hooked on drugs.

I guess maybe the inmate who is in another country would like to come here because it is a soft touch. However I certainly do not think other countries would be all that willing to let inmates come into this country because they really would not serve the time properly.

The final point of this is that to make a transfer we need the consent apparently of the inmate, of the state that is receiving and the state that is sending but again the government did not include victims. Nowhere does the victim get any say whatsoever on this. Shame on the government. It is another piece of legislation that is not worth the paper on which it is written.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the introduction of the government's initiative to update the Transfer of Offenders Act.

As legislators, we receive requests based on public opinion and suggestions made by non-governmental organizations. The Youth Criminal Justice Act, which came into force on April 1, 2003, is an example of how an aging law is replaced, in this case, the Young Offenders Act, which was enacted in 1985.

We went beyond revision in that case and, after broad and thorough consultation and the good work of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, replaced the existing statute with a more up to date version of the legislation that reflects the current political and public will.

More recently, we have voted to send Bill C-23 to the parliamentary committee, from which it will emerge to better protect the young and most vulnerable Canadians from sexual predators by establishing a nationwide registry of those convicted of sexual offences.

Bill C-33 is before us now and it is also an important piece of necessary legislation that we can take pride in considering and helping to fashion into a final product that will become the law of the land. As the name implies, the force of this legislation will be felt far beyond Canadian borders. It provides the international community with another example of Canada's progressive criminal justice system, which combines the best aspects of correctional practice. Bill C-33 and the act it will replace do so by balancing the need for fair and humane treatment of offenders with the need to respect the systems and philosophies of other countries.

The proposed bill retains most of the objectives and principles of the Transfer of Offenders Act, which was enacted in 1978.

The new international Transfer of Offenders Act will continue to provide for the implementation of treaties with other countries for the international transfer of offenders. The purpose of the act and the treaties signed between Canada and foreign states is essentially humanitarian. They allow Canadians convicted and detained abroad in difficult conditions to serve their sentences at home and foreign nationals to return to their home countries.

In the case of returning Canadians, the treaties promote public protection, as offenders are allowed to serve their sentences in Canada and to be gradually released into the community. Otherwise they would simply be deported from the country where they were convicted of an offence, however serious, at the end of their sentences and would arrive in Canada with no controls on them.

At the same time, in all cases, the treaties respect the sentences imposed abroad. Countries that return offenders to Canada can be assured that the sentences handed down by their courts will be enforced by the Canadian system.

However, this is not an exercise in clemency as some of my hon. colleagues opposite seem to believe. Anyone who knows Canadian penitentiaries knows that they are not places where one would wish to spend a great deal of time, even as an observer or visitor.

Some foreign administrations provide prison conditions tougher than ours, but it would not be appropriate to list them here. Nevertheless, offenders who are returned to serve sentences in Canadian prisons are not coddled. Other countries are aware of that and accept the transfer conditions before returning the offender.

The Transfer of Offenders Act as it stands continues to serve useful purposes. We are here today to bring it into the present century. The world has changed and the style and content of international treaties must change to keep up. There are obvious changes brought about by the birth of new nations and the rebirth of others. There are also nations that have become independent of former allegiances, thereby growing more attuned to democracy and a concern for human rights. These countries have a need to express these transformations internationally.

There is no better way to bridge these cultural gaps than getting together to negotiate constructive treaties. We find out where the differences are, discuss them, and arrive at compromises. That is the essence of international cooperation. At the same time, we learn from each other and establish new bonds of international partnership.

In this respect, I would like to mention that the very first country with which Canada negotiated an offender transfer treaty was, of course, our friend and ally to the south, the United States of America. That 25-year-old treaty is only one example of the convergence of our American neighbours' programs and policies with ours.

Since the act's proclamation in 1978, only technical amendments have been made to it, although more substantive issues have been identified. These issues have been brought forward with a broad range of interested parties since the consultation document was released in 1997. The wide-ranging consultations identified what amendments would be advisable and necessary. This exercise has been followed by an exhaustive drafting exercise, during which expert officials have identified what changes are possible given Canadian and international law.

As the Solicitor General indicated, the central clauses of the amended act will set out the principles and objectives of the act. This may seem obvious in the context of drafting legislation, but a cursory perusal of existing legislation quickly reveals that it is not so.

There is an excellent example of statement of principles and objectives in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act enacted by Parliament in 1992. These clauses proved to be very useful to corrections professionals. Having force of law, they are not easily amended and, therefore, provide consistency in sentencing.

In these times of mission statements and organizational commitments, the importance of clear and consistent direction for those who must stick to the intent of established legislation to exercise the will of Parliament is easy to understand.

An equally modern aspect of these legislative proposals is that measure requiring a new level of information sharing between governmental authorities and offenders. Simply put, Canadian officials will be obligated to inform a foreign citizen under its jurisdiction of the existence and substance of an international transfer treaty between Canada and the country of citizenship, a function that our Department of Foreign Affairs carries out with regard to Canadians convicted abroad. While this duty is routinely discharged, the added force of law will formalize the practice to the satisfaction of those signing treaties with Canada.

Another new provision will allow a foreign offender detained in Canada to cancel his request for a transfer at any point in time. This significant change will address the rare cases where the situation in the offender's country of origin has taken a turn for the worse between the time when transfer was requested and the time when it is to take place.

The last specific point I will mention may prove to be very important. This entails the new provisions to extend certain aspects of the transfer of offenders scheme to nations that have not yet joined the family of countries that currently have treaties with Canada for the transfer of offenders. One can see that circumstances might arise where such an accommodation would be essential to the well-being of a Canadian incarcerated abroad.

There are other aspects of Bill C-33 to explore, but I will leave it up to my hon. colleagues and, in due course, to the standing parliamentary committee responsible for looking into these measures.

Naturally, I am prepared to take questions from my hon. colleagues on these proposals.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I was not in the House at the time, it was just what I read in the press. I do not always believe everything I read in the press, but certainly there were reports to that effect.

The bill should include the potential threat to an offender's well-being as a result of serving his or her sentence in a foreign state as a proper consideration for the minister to make.

Looking at the bill, which I only received a little while ago, clause 10(2)(a) allows the minister to refuse transfer of a foreign offender where in the minister's opinion the offender will commit a terrorist act or join organized crime. In other words, the minister is required to predict the future criminal activity of a foreign offender. This is a very difficult and maybe impossible standard to be held against or to act upon.

As is, the provision is quite broad in scope. It has the potential to be abused, especially where the foreign offender is the subject of political controversy or dissidence unless clearer criteria are established for the minister. According to the wording of Bill C-33, it would not be difficult to conceive of a situation where a foreign offender may be denied transfer because of some undefined notion of terrorism or organized crime where it would serve the interests of others than the public's.

These are areas that are very difficult to codify and put into law but the bill should be clear on this issue if possible. Either establish what criteria is to be met before the minister may deem the offender likely to commit terrorism or participate in organized crime, or insert a clause requiring the offender to be previously convicted or charged of terrorism offences or organized crime offences before the minister may proceed on such an assumption. I think those are two possible ways of doing this.

Bill C-33 should be supported for its humanitarian purpose, but we should not assume that the transfer of prisoners back to Canada necessarily results in more humane treatment. We should not allow the government to pat itself on the back too long because we still have problems in our own prison system. One only needs to think of the lack of correctional services facilities for women or for aboriginal people in our country to realize there is a great need for development of our own corrections system. Let us not lose sight of the forest for the trees; there is still more progress to be made. Bill C-33 is just a step in the right direction.

Those are a few of my thoughts on the bill. We support the bill in principle. We think it is going in the right direction. We think it is fair and balanced. It is not a wholesale transfer of prisoners from one jurisdiction to the other. It is not the prisoner making the decision by herself or himself whether or not there should be a transfer. The transfer only happens if Canada agrees to it through the office of the Solicitor General, if the foreign country agrees to it through its appropriate government spokespeople and if the prisoner himself or herself agrees.

I believe this is a step in the right direction. I look forward to seeing the bill in committee and talking about it in more detail.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-33, the international transfer of offenders act, before the House today at second reading stage. I support the bill in principle at second reading, but we will have questions at committee stage.

As I was saying, I agree with the principle of the bill, but questions about this will be raised in committee.

Bill C-33 would allow Canada to implement treaties and administrative arrangements with other countries around the world for the international transfer of offenders. The purpose of the bill is to allow Canadians who are convicted abroad to serve their sentences in this country. If there is a conviction for some offence abroad and it makes more sense to serve the sentence in this country, it certainly makes that possible.

By allowing the offenders to serve their sentences in Canada the public's interest is also served because offenders are generally released into the community in accordance with the overall Canadian rehabilitation strategy, rather than simply having the offenders arrive in this country at the end of their sentences without any checks in terms of their reintegration.

If someone is in this country, incarcerated and then released, they are released in terms of the release strategy in Canada rather than just arriving at an airport or a bus depot from another country and walking onto the street. In principle it makes sense to support the bill before the House today.

The bill would permit Canadian offenders facing incarceration in foreign prisons in unfamiliar and difficult situations to serve their sentences in Canada. This function is crucial where the foreign states do not accommodate Canadian standards of rights and rehabilitation. There are many countries in the world that do not have the same kinds of rights that we have in this country, or the same kind of program of rehabilitation. That is one of the factors in the bill.

Foreign states with which Canada does have a transfer agreement may likewise take advantage of the bill to have their nationals that are incarcerated in Canada transferred back to their home country. It is very much a reciprocal agreement where offenders from a foreign country are arrested, convicted and incarcerated in Canada and transferred back to that foreign country. It is a reciprocal arrangement that makes sense.

The provisions of the bill would apply to criminal offenders, including young offenders and mentally incompetent offenders. Consent to be transferred must be given by the offender, by the foreign state, and Canada. There is a three way agreement here that the offender must consent to be transferred. Canada must consent to the transfer and the foreign state also must consent to the transfer before it happens.

The bill and the consent is governed by the Solicitor General of Canada. The Solicitor General was the person who kicked off the debate in the House here today.

Some of the positive things about the bill deal with the integrity and values of the Canadian justice and correctional system. It is our values and it is our integrity that is on the line in terms of the transferring of offenders back to Canada. Those values would prevail because the offender is coming back into our own country.

Foreign nations often have different standards in their prison systems that may be considered a violation of rights here in Canada, or that do nothing to rehabilitate the offender. The bill would give Canada custody of Canadian offenders abroad and make Canada responsible for the enforcement of our own values. Again, it is in accordance with Canadian standards, customs, laws, and values in terms of a prisoner being transferred from country X to Canada.

In terms of the bill before the House today, I would like to make a few proposals. First of all, I wish to comment on its applicability to young offenders. The provisions of the bill should include the transfer of young offenders who are on probation and the transfer of mentally challenged offenders.

Canada must ensure that young offenders receive a chance to salvage their futures and that those who are mentally unfit be cared for properly. This is best done with the Canadian rehabilitation program targeted at specific categories of offenders, which may not even be available in other countries.

I know the whole issue of young offenders and the Young Offenders Act is a controversial one. Canada has a program of rehabilitation and a program of integration back into our country. Hopefully, all young offenders could be rehabilitated back into society and pick up a skill, trade, or a profession and make a contribution to our country. That is often not the case in other countries. This is another positive possibility that would come out of the bill that is before the House today.

Another thing deals with disclosure of information. The international transfer of offenders act provisions would require the proper authorities to inform offenders of any international transfer treaty between Canada and a foreign state. Offenders would have the right to serve their sentences in their country's jurisdiction. The requirement is needed to ensure that Canadians receive full knowledge of their rights. Offenders who are in custody would have the right to know that there is an international treaty between our country and another country and that they have the right to make an application to serve the remaining of their sentence in Canada if they wish. Of course, the flip side of the coin is if they do not wish to come back that is their right to do so as well.

The other issue pertains to consent of transfer. This requirement would allow foreign offenders in Canada to withdraw their consent to transfer at any time before the physical transfer takes place, not just immediately, but it would allow offenders to change their mind part way through the process.

Foreign offenders who face hardships and prejudice or persecution as a result of returning home to serve their sentence ought to be allowed to refuse a transfer. If prisoners in a foreign country do not want to be transferred back to Canada, then foreign nationals who are convicted and incarcerated in this country would have the same right to refuse a transfer back to their country where their citizenship is held and their nationality is held.

Justice Canada does not accept the rights violations or unduly harsh prison sentences for its own citizens in foreign nations and we must grant foreign nationals the right to refuse transfer back home where such dangers do exist particularly where there is a radical difference in the sentence for the same crime. If the punishment is radically different in a certain country than Canada then of course prisoners should have the right to refuse or have the right not to go back to serve their sentence in their own country.

I recommend that the House support the bill. I believe there is a humanitarian spirit to the bill as tabled today that should be applauded. These proposals permit Canadian offenders abroad to be transported back to Canada where they can be detained and rehabilitated in accordance with the standards and principles of Canadian justice. I think that is a right that Canadian citizens should be able to exercise. The checks and balances are in place if the Government of Canada agrees through the Solicitor General and the country where they are now held also agrees under the details of this particular treaty.

Since the bill is based on treaty negotiations its benefits are mutual. The treaty negotiations and administrative arrangements contemplated by the bill would give equal protection and advantage to Canada and the foreign state alike. This reciprocity has the added benefit of enhancing certainty and good faith in international relations and negotiations. The reciprocity in the bill before us today would create a situation of equality between our country and other countries that are signatories to the particular treaty.

Bill C-33 has some grey areas that require some clarification or improvements, but ultimately this proposal should receive the support as it is an important instrument for the protection of human rights in Canada and Canadian standards of punishment in jurisdictions beyond our control.

I do have questions in some areas of the bill or what may be referred to as grey areas and they include two or three different issues that I want to put on the record today. The general purpose of the international transfer of offenders act is humanitarian, but its language considers much less than its purpose would suggest. For instance, the factors which the minister shall consider in accepting Canadian offenders focus on the relationships between the offender and Canada, such as whether the offender has a social or family tie to the country, but does not consider the threat the foreign state or its prison system may present to the Canadian offender.

I would be much more concerned for example, about the offender receiving a caning in Singapore than I would be about how many family members he or she may have in this country. The caning in Singapore is the kind of punishment we do not have in our country.

I remember a few years ago there was a member of the reform party who was endorsing the idea of caning but I think it was certainly a small--

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

I was well aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but it was disrespectful to us.

Now, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-33, An Act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences. I am pleased to speak as the Bloc Quebecois critic on matters relating to the solicitor general.

We are in favour of this bill—in principle, and I emphasize “in principle”. The aim of the bill is to establish procedures for transferring offenders to Canadian correctional institutions for humanitarian purposes, and we agree with this.

Nevertheless, we have reservations when it comes to implementing the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Despite the recent opinions of the Quebec Court of Appeal in this matter, the federal government has decided to sentence young people of 14 and 15 as adults. I will take a closer look at this a little later in my speech.

Naturally, we are in favour of bringing criminal offenders back here, when one considers the prison conditions in some parts of this planet. These transfers, therefore, should take place in a spirit of close cooperation among the countries signatory to the treaties and administrative agreements. These transfers take place within a specific and comprehensive administrative framework. The guidelines for implementation are specified in the present bill.

A standard agreement would be set up, with a quick, simple administrative framework for transferring persons found guilty of criminal offences in a foreign country. The same would be true for foreign nationals in Canada.

The aim of the bill is to facilitate the transfer of foreign offenders to their country of origin, and Canadians imprisoned abroad back to Canada, in a quick and simple way.

Modern means of communication and transportation clearly make it easier to set up an efficient administrative framework in order to achieve the humanitarian objectives of this bill. As access to means of communication and transportation become easier, crime also becomes more international and that is why we must find transborder methods to meet these specific needs.

Increasingly, criminal policy refers to social reintegration as the key factor in offence resolution, and that is why it is increasingly necessary and essential to transfer offenders to achieve this goal.

There are also humanitarian considerations when transferring an offender. So, the parties will take into account communication difficulties resulting from linguistic barriers, alienation from culture and local customs and the lack of family contact. All these factors have a negative effect on offenders with regard to their sentence.

We can, therefore, conclude that repatriating offenders holds a certain interest for both offenders and the government, as well as for society.

Respect for the sovereign rights of states must take precedence. That is why the consent of the parties is required under the bill. Convicted offenders must also consent to being transferred. Bill C-33 is therefore solely a procedural instrument. Furthermore, much of the bill deals with the congruency of sentences handed down abroad and those handed down in Canada. The Council of Europe adopted its Convention on the Transfer of Convicted Persons, in 1983, in Strasbourg.

There are various parallels between the Council of Europe's convention and the bill before us. First, there is the need for states to collaborate and, second, the need to ensure the social reintegration of offenders. I should add that the convention fully respects the national laws of each member state.

In fact, article 13 of the convention states that the sentencing state alone shall have the right to decide on any application for review of the judgment.

Earlier I mentioned that the Bloc Quebecois has some concerns about certain provisions of the bill. I am thinking of clause 18, which stipulates:

A Canadian offender is deemed to be serving an adult sentence within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act if

(a) the Canadian offender was, at the time the offence was committed, from 14 to 17 years old; and

(b) their sentence is longer than the maximum youth sentence that could have been imposed under that Act for an equivalent offence.

We do not support this provision. We believe that the chances are high that 14- and 15-year old adolescents are serving sentences that are far too heavy.

I mentioned that the Court of Appeal of Quebec gave its opinion in the case of the Government of Quebec's order regarding the reference concerning Bill C-7 on the youth criminal justice system. According to Quebec's Attorney General, the breaches of freedom and psychological welfare that result from criminal charges against a minor are exacerbated by the system that presumes subjecting youth to adult sentencing.

This procedure violates that presumption of innocence, guaranteed under paragraph 11( d ) of the Charter and recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental principle that is protected by section 7.

Paragraph 11( d ) of the Charter establishes the right:

to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Quebec's Attorney General also argued that the procedures involved would be similar to those used in declaring someone a dangerous offender, in that they cause similar harm.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act therefore violates the freedom and safety of adolescents, which contravenes the principles of fundamental justice because it does not specifically require that the factors that the court must weigh when determining whether an adolescent should be subject to adult sentencing must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. This is found in subsection 73(1) of the act.

The Attorney General of Canada argued that the new legislation, which is an exception to the adult criminal system, is in line with an approach that balances the interests of society and those of adolescents in such a way as to make the taking into account of the specific situation of adolescents a major consideration. In response to the question raised by the Attorney General of Quebec, whether the elements set out are indeed principles of fundamental justice, the five judges of Quebec's Court of Appeal agreed that they were.

On page 63 of this opinion, we read that the expression fundamental justice in the context of section 7 is not limited to rules of procedure, but includes substantial principles. This means that to withstand Charter scrutiny any psychological security violation must be fundamentally warranted not only procedurally but also in relation to the objective, in accordance with the basic tenets of our legal system.

The Quebec Court of Appeal judges added that there is a wide consensus about these elements because of the essential role they play in the Canadian legal system. Their vital importance has been recognized ever since the very first legislation on the subject-matter. Over time, the details were worked out to meet the particular situation and needs of adolescents more and more specifically.

I also want to draw attention to what Justice L'Heureux-Dubé wrote in the 1989 Supreme Court decision in R. v. M. (S.H.), 2 S.C.R., on page 446:

[This brief legislative history of] the provisions of the Young Offenders Act amply demonstrates that for nearly one hundred years Parliament has committed itself to the separate treatment and rehabilitation of young persons involved in the criminal process.

I read further:

The underlying philosophy has been from the beginning that it is in society's interest to assist young offenders “to strengthen their better instincts”. An attempt is made through the legislation to “prevent these juveniles to become prospective criminals and to assist them to be law-abiding citizens”.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to ignore this legacy and expertise by doing away with the Young Offenders Act and replacing it with a piece of legislation that is pretty shaky in terms of its wording, as demonstrated by the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and questionable where its rehabilitation objectives are concerned.

The Bloc Quebecois took a clear stand against this new legislation, which disregards nearly 100 years of history and practice, and opens the door to challenges.

The Bloc Quebecois opposed the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Court of Appeal of Quebec recently proved us right. We will continue to be vocal opponents of this poorly worded legislation whose sole purpose was to clumsily reassure the public.

In the reference in question, the Court of Appeal of Quebec reviewed the provisions giving effect to the presumption of adult sentences for designated offences.

It is clear that the provisions of the new legislation on youth offenders broaden this assumption, in that it will now apply to adolescents aged 14 and 15. On page 67, the court said:

Although the presumption may be set aside and the court may retain greater discretionary powers with respect to the appropriateness of imposing such a sentence rather than an adult sentence, it is no less true that the legislator has clearly indicated in sections 62 and 72 that the usual sentence applicable to designated offences is that imposed on adults guilty of the same offences. It also sends a clear message to the population as a whole that, in general, adolescents are dangerous criminals if they are 14 years of age or older when they commit certain offences. In other words, applying adult sentences has the effect of stigmatizing the adolescent guilty of a designated offence.

I still remember my remarks on Bill C-7 on young offenders, when I wondered about the real purpose of the bill. I remember that I said the bill was clear on one issue, that Canada did not want young people any more, only adults.

They were presenting us with a bill that completely eliminated one segment of our population in order to comfort society and give it a false sense of security, by saying that there is no more juvenile delinquency, because it would be transformed into adult delinquency, much tougher and much more punitive.

I also asked myself why society was the intended target of this bill, when the true client group for the bill ought to have been young offenders. Did the government really believe that it could deal with juvenile crime by giving the public a false sense of security, when the real issue was to lower the crime rate among young people?

Bill C-7 had its objectives backwards. The government had completely forgotten whom this bill was for. Should we rehabilitate young offenders or should we give an illusion of protection to society by lowering the age at which adult law applies?

Now, in reading this bill, and clause 18 in particular, I realize that my questions are still valid.

The Quebec Court of Appeal has provided us with several responses that, it must be said, clearly rankle the Liberal government. The Court of Appeal was categorical. The imposition of an adult sentence is not essential to achieving the goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

On page 69 of the opinion, the Court of Appeal judges analyzed these provisions and concluded that, in this respect, clearly, the new legislation presumes that adult sentences be applied as a general rule. From now on, this legislation places upon minors the onus of demonstrating why an adult sentence should not be imposed.

The Quebec Court of Appeal added that Supreme Court case law is, however, clear. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that, during sentencing, the onus is on the Crown to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence. Paragraph 724(3)( e ) of the Criminal Code requires the prosecutor to establish, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of any aggravating fact or any previous conviction by the offender.

Subsection 72(2) of the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, therefore, violates the rights guaranteed under section 7 of the Canadian charter in that it places on the young offender the onus of proving the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the lack of a previous record at the time of the exemption, as well as the other factors listed in subsection 72(1).

The onus should instead be placed on the prosecutor who wants the court to impose an adult sentence to show the fitness of such claims in terms of the factors set out in subsection 72(1), once a request has been made. The prosecutor should also have to prove the existence of facts justifying the imposition of an adult sentence. Once this has been done, the courts could decide whether to impose such a sentence on a young offender.

The judges add that even the presumption of this imposition is a violation of the rights to freedom and the psychological freedom of adolescents, which does not conform to the principles of basic justice.

However, the problem posed by various provisions of Bill C-33, under debate, is that the 14-year-old or 15-year-old adolescent who has been sentenced abroad automatically falls under this imposition provision, no matter what the circumstances.

Not only does the adolescent fall under the adult sentencing system, he cannot even propose any evidence to the contrary that would limit application of this presumption.

Automatic application of this presumption is discriminatory in that it creates different categories of adolescents. Some will therefore feel the effects of the presumption, and will present evidence to the contrary, and others will not be able to do so, since they were convicted in another country.

There is one interesting point to which I would draw your attention. At the time of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the Government of Quebec followed the minimal rules for detention according to the rules adopted by the first United Nations Congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, held in Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council in Resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977.

Among the preliminary observationswe read:

The following rules are not intended to describe in detail a model system of penal institutions. They seek only, on the basis of the general consensus of contemporary thought and the essential elements of the most adequate systems of today, to set out what is generally accepted as being good principle and practice in the treatment of prisoners and the management of institutions.

As well:

In view of the great variety of legal, social, economic and geographical conditions of the world, it is evident that not all of the rules are capable of application in all places and at all times.

They should, however, serve to stimulate a constant endeavour to overcome practical difficulties in the way of their application, in the knowledge that they represent, as a whole, the minimum conditions which are accepted as suitable by the United Nations

I would also draw your attention to one specific rule which addresses the treatment for children, It is 5.2, which reads:

The category of young prisoners should include at least all young persons who come within the jurisdiction of juvenile courts. As a rule, such young persons should not be sentenced to imprisonment.

This in an international principle we are in the process of reshaping to suit ourselves, in order to be able to work around it. It is inconceivable that someone could not be aware that this was what was being done. We must not lose sight of the fact that we are all answerable to the public.

I would like to know how the Liberal government could justify such a discriminatory and harmful application of these provisions regarding adolescents, without feeling any public backlash.

We cannot pull the wool over the eyes of the public like this just to please the government. The impact is far too great to be ignored. I would therefore ask the government to review certain provisions of Bill C-33 to allow for a fair and equitable application for everyone, including adolescents aged 14 or 15.

We have an established principle here whereby everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Yet, this principle of equality before the law would not apply in the present case. How would sentencing be determined when some of the criteria are not admissible?

Members must carefully study all of the provisions contained in Bill C-33 in committee. The scope of some of these provisions is enormous and they must be paid careful attention, which is what we will do in committee.

As I mentioned at the outset, we support the humanitarian principle of this bill, and as I have just demonstrated, we need to make the necessary amendments to ensure it is applied fairly and equitably and that it respects the principles of fundamental justice set out in the charter.

A second aspect that concerns me is that of the availability of resources. Individuals must not be refused a transfer simply because the entity that will hold them does not have the money needed for transportation and to accommodate them in a correctional centre.

Like the firearms program, we believe that the federal government must make a clear funding commitment that is appropriate, so that Quebec and the provinces can act accordingly when it comes to carrying out transfers.

Not only does the presumption that we are denouncing not meet the requirements of fundamental justice, it has negative consequences when it comes to reintegration. Clearly all legislative provisions from now on must respect the requirements of the charter, both in their implementation and in setting goals.

We must not wait for the courts to correct this glaring shortcoming. The decision must be a legislative one, and it is up to us as parliamentarians to rectify the situation before it gets any worse. This is one aspect of the issue that we can discuss in more detail in committee.

The bill proposes substantial amendments to current legislation in that it clearly states in clause 3 that the first objective is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

Bill C-33 then lists the conditions of application and mechanisms of application for this worthwhile objective.

I have had occasion to handle requests from constituents in connection with this purely administrative operation. In each case, the motivation behind their requests was humanitarian, health-related, or harsh conditions of detention.

The fact that this bill is directed towards facilitating of this administrative procedure is totally desirable and the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting the guiding principle. I must reiterate that we plan to study this bill thoroughly in order to make the essential adjustments to bring it in line with charter requirements, in compliance with the recent Quebec Appeal Court opinion.

Clauses 4 and 5 list the criteria for eligibility to make a request for transfer.

We feel the consent requirement set out in clause 8 is essential to the smooth operation of this procedure if it is to respect the principles of fundamental justice.

It is clearly stipulated that the transfer requires the consent of the foreign entity, Canada and the offender. Clause 9 sets out the rules governing the consent of Quebec and the provinces. It is specifically stated that consent must be given before any transfer for which Quebec and the provinces will be responsible.

I am returning to the necessity of having sufficient financial and human resources to make this transfer procedure efficient and timely. We will be addressing this in committee but we hope the minister responsible will commit to eliminating that uncertainty before long.

The assessment criteria are set out in clause 10 of Bill C-33. It is up to the minister to assess the factors related to the transfer. The primary one is whether the offender's return would constitute a threat to the security of Canada. The minister will also take into consideration the offender's intentions of residence, and finally whether family ties are sufficiently strong to warrant granting the request for transfer.

If a foreigner has been found guilty of an offence in Canada, the minister must also take into account the likelihood of the offender's subsequently committing acts of terrorism.

Subclauses 3 and 4 of this clause address factors relating to assessing requests from young offenders.

Clause 11 stipulates that consent or refusal of consent must be justified. The minister is responsible, under clause 12, for ensuring that the consent was given voluntarily.

Clauses 13 to 15 deal with the continued enforcement of offenders' sentences, with the purpose of complying with the criminal law of foreign countries.

Clause 16 sets out conditions for probation and the related equivalency.

As for clauses 17 to 20, they deal more specifically with the terms and conditions for the transfer of young people. The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that special attention ought to be paid to these, as I demonstrated earlier in my presentation. Expert advice can certainly enlighten us, especially in the context of the opinion of the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

The Bloc Quebecois will be vigilant when these clauses are considered at committee stage. We hope the minister responsible will make the necessary changes to ensure these provisions reflect charter requirements.

Clauses 21 to 29 have a more technical and mathematical side, in the sense that they set out the criteria for determining equivalent sentences for Canadian nationals abroad who wish to serve their sentences in Canada.

I am quite amazed that only one clause in this bill addresses humanitarian considerations. I would have liked such considerations to be at the heart of this bill. Once again, I think that at committee we will be able to determine the full scope of this clause.

Clauses 31 to 36 deal with procedures for increasing the number of entities participating in these exchanges. The final clauses amend other acts affected by the bill's provisions.

There is one more aspect that ought to receive our full attention. A number of provisions in the present bill deal with implementation of the transfer procedures in cases where a person has been declared not criminally responsible because of mental disorder.

I took an active part in the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when it studied the Criminal Code provisions respecting such persons. The witnesses made it clear that these persons should receive particular attention in that their cases should be dealt with appropriately, and especially in a timely manner.

I believe that the provisions in the present bill ought to reflect the distinctive character of everything having to do with persons who have been declared not criminally responsible because of mental disorder.

I conclude by repeating our agreement in principle with this bill, especially with respect to the humanitarian motivation behind decisions to make a transfer.

However, I emphasize that the Bloc Quebecois will be closely following the work of the House and the committee, in order to ensure that there will be changes made in the provisions relating to adolescents.

These provisions must satisfy the requirements clearly set out by the Quebec Court of Appeal in its opinion on the reference concerning Bill C-7 on the youth criminal justice system.

As I mentioned earlier, offenders must be returned to Canada when the conditions in prisons in some parts of the planet are examined. These transfers must, therefore, be done in a spirit of close collaboration with the states that are signatories of administrative treaties and agreements.

In closing, I would remind the members that, according to the Quebec Court of Appeal, imposing adult sentencing is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the Youth Criminal Justice Act; for this reason, each provision of Bill C-33 must be carefully reviewed, which the committee will duly undertake to do.

The Bloc Quebecois will represent the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians, and especially the interests of our young people, during consideration in committee of Bill C-33.

We support the humanitarian principle behind this bill, but we have serious reservations about the specific applications of some of its provisions. We believe that the bill's humanitarian objective can be accomplished during consideration in committee, while protecting the rights of all individuals, in particular, obviously, of our young people.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-33 was just introduced yesterday. Therefore everyone can appreciate that with only approximately 24 hours since the time we received a copy of the legislation until now there has been very little opportunity for the official opposition, as well as all political parties on this side of the House, to properly analyze this bill.

Yesterday as we were leaving question period, I was given a packet from the Department of the Solicitor General with a new bill in it. By 5 o'clock we found out that today we would debate a bill brought forward in the House this afternoon. This move on the part of the government, this move to force debate on a piece of legislation that was only introduced yesterday is indicative of the inconsideration on and disrespect that the government has for every other political party in the House and indeed for Parliament itself.

It is also, in my opinion, completely and totally irresponsible of a government to bring forward a bill in this manner. If the government were in fact serious about having a meaningful second reading debate on the international transfer of offenders act, it would have allowed at least 48 hours for us to effectively digest the contents of this legislation that is before us here today. I understand the rationale for this inconsiderate and irresponsible move. I understand that the government is void of any other meaningful legislation. In other words, the agenda of the government is empty.

Quite obviously the government is in neutral, as the member for LaSalle—Émard publicly proclaimed yesterday. It is something that we have all recognized and understood here in the House, that there was very little the government had on the agenda, very little vision and very few ideas that want to move the government on but it is something that has come from its own frontbench this time.

The front runner in the Liberal leadership race stated, and I quote yesterday's front page of the Globe and Mail :

--in recent times, a kind of complacency, a certain amount of drift, has set in. We've lost some of the energy and enthusiasm that Canadians are looking for.

This leadership hopeful, after months of silence on his government's agenda and his own plans for moving this country forward, was chronicling the government's lack of achievement and lack of recent achievement. Pointing to Ottawa's strained relations with the United States administration over the war in Iraq, the lack of focus on waiting lists in the health care system, the outbreak of SARS and a minister who was all over the map on the SARS file, the member for LaSalle—Émard said that these areas require immediate federal attention.

While this member accuses his own government of inaction and suggests immediate action, he knows full well that the Prime Minister is not prepared to step aside any time soon to allow the next leader of that government to attempt to move a government into some type of immediate action. We know that immediate action is not possible with the leadership we have in this country at the present time.

The member for LaSalle—Émard knows full well that we will remain in limbo for at least another 10 months. The Prime Minister has firmly and repeatedly confirmed that he is not prepared to retire until February of 2004. Until that time, regardless of who becomes the next Liberal leader, the government will remain in neutral. Neutral, in my opinion, is descriptive of the government's position on a whole host of issues. Most recently, SARS is the prime example.

Canada has an obligation to prevent the global spread of SARS by screening people at airports and developing a diagnostic test for the illness. Canada has not implemented comprehensive airport screening despite WHO recommendations to do so. It does not look like Canada will be doing anything much in the near future as the health minister has failed to recognize the scope of what could become and what perhaps is an international health disaster.

While the Liberal member for Hamilton East, another Liberal leadership hopeful, is classifying SARS as an epidemic and a national emergency, her colleague, the Minister of Health, is calling her statements and other cabinet ministers' statements irresponsible.

Another example of the government remaining in neutral was its position against the regime of Saddam Hussein, a position that led to our country developing a reputation of fence sitters and caused the irreparable damage to Canada-United States relations as the Liberal government first failed to unequivocally pledge or deny Canada's support of the allied liberation of Iraq to rid the country of Saddam Hussein and his deathly dictatorship. Ultimately the government denied our closest allies, our largest trading partners, our neighbours and our friends our full support. It appeared that as the United States started the reconstruction of Iraq, Canada was not prepared to assist with the rebuilding of Iraq without another resolution from the United Nations.

The Prime Minister just announced today plans regarding Canada's post-war Iraq contribution, including offers of military transport, police and experts in reforming the courts and prisons. A contingent of RCMP, justice and corrections officials will go to Iraq. Although this announcement was only made today, last week the RCMP was contacting police departments across Canada to prepare for a peacekeeping mission in Iraq. Apparently, according to one RCMP staff sergeant, this move was a proactive measure in the event of a formal request.

While I fully recognize and appreciate that the RCMP has an international training and peacekeeping division that is designed to help train and reform police in other countries and do not question its deployment to Iraq, I do question how we can afford to send provincial and municipal police personnel to assist it.

As I have stated on numerous occasions in the House, police resources across the country have been sorely depleted. This point was well emphasized just last month by the Canadian Police Association that called upon the government to provide increased priority funding for local, provincial, national, federal and trans-jurisdictional policing responsibilities.

Well over a year ago the Canadian Police Association appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice regarding the anti-terrorism legislation. During its presentation it said:

--we have serious reservations about the capability of Canada’s police and law enforcement officials to meet the increased demands of anti-terrorism requirements and sustain important domestic policing and law enforcement responsibilities...

To date, the government has never meaningfully addressed the Canadian Police Association's concerns.

As the Canadian Police Association points out in its fact sheet, the 2002 federal budget allotted several millions of dollars in new spending for national security. However only $576 million, spread over not one year but six years, was dedicated funding allotted to the RCMP. This amounts to approximately $87 million per year. Translated into human resources it allows for the hiring of only 446 full time employees for the RCMP over the next six years. Need I remind the government of its slash and gouging in 1993 of the RCMP that resulted in the loss of 2,200 positions, a loss that has never been recouped despite years of protests and years of requests for increased funding.

Last year the commissioner of the RCMP openly admitted that 2,000 RCMP officers were withdrawn from other enforcement duties to respond to the terrorism crisis. These officers were taken from assignments previously considered to be priorities, such as fighting organized crime, dealing with the rampant drug problem in our country and providing frontline policing in Canadian communities. Many of these jobs were left unattended or in the commissioner's own words, these files were “put on the back burners” while the RCMP attempted to apprehend terrorist suspects potentially using Canada as a staging ground for attacks against our closest neighbour.

According to the Canadian Police Association, of the complement of approximately 15,000 RCMP officers, 9,000 are assigned to municipal and provincial contracting responsibilities. Of the remaining 6,000, 2,000, or one-third of that force, taken from other law enforcement responsibilities, were reassigned to the terrorism file. Minimally, 2,000 additional officers are needed to service the deficiencies that are being felt the hardest, those deficiencies at the community level.

Members can therefore appreciate our apprehension in supporting provincial and municipal police personnel who are seconded to Iraq while our country is already so under-resourced; a situation that jeopardizes the safety and security of average Canadians.

As stated earlier, the government has nothing on its legislative agenda and therefore the House is devoid of anything really meaningful to debate.

While the House has little work to do, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has more work than it can handle. It looks like we will only get busier as we will be assigned Bill C-32 and Bill C-33.

Exactly a year ago I introduced a motion in committee that was fully supported and yet we have not allotted any time to review the status and the recommended amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

More than two years ago the subcommittee on the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in accordance with its mandate, held public hearings in Ottawa and in many other parts of the country. As well, the subcommittee visited correctional facilities of all levels of security across Canada and attended parole hearings.

In May 2000 the subcommittee tabled its report entitled “A Work in Progress: The Corrections and Conditional Release Act”. In October 2000 the Solicitor General issued a response calling the subcommittee's report:

A welcome addition to the information, research and knowledge currently available regarding corrections and conditional release in Canada.

Furthermore, the former solicitor general said:

The Committee’s review has emphasized that the corrections and conditional release system can be further improved in some areas....

The former solicitor general recognized that:

The Report echoes the submissions and testimony of offenders, victims of crime, members of the bar, offender assisting agencies, police, Crown attorneys, academics and countless others who are actively involved in the criminal justice system on a daily basis.

He indicated that the government intended to take action on 46 of the committee's 53 recommendations.

To date, none of the committee's recommendations have been implemented and the former solicitor general and the current Solicitor General have failed to meet the commitment of implementing the recommendations that came out of their very own committee.

I therefore requested that the Solicitor General, the Correctional Service Canada commissioner, the correctional investigator and the parole board appear before the justice committee to provide a status report on what, if any, recommendations have been implemented and to defend the inaction of those recommendations yet to be implemented.

The rationale for that motion is twofold. First, I strongly believe that the CCRA should be amended as recommended to address growing concerns regarding the safety of Canadians.

Second, and perhaps most important, I introduced the motion because I am concerned that the government and the Solicitor General are effectively dismissing the valuable work of this subcommittee as, I believe, is the Solicitor General's department.

In December of last year, when questioning officials from the department during supplementary estimates regarding when action would be taken to amend the CCRA, their response was that they would take action when we they were ready to take action. This really begs the question of who exactly is running who.

It was clearly apparent that the department was running the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General was not in control and was not running his own department. If he had been, the recommendations of the subcommittee, which were endorsed by the Solicitor General two and a half years ago, would have implemented immediately.

In the process of not running his department effectively, the former solicitor general demonstrated his disrespect for the members of the justice committee, who in good faith conducted a thorough review of the CCRA and, based upon expert testimony, made recommendations for improving the safety of this nation and the public safety of Canadians.

The former solicitor general also demonstrated that public safety was not and had not been a priority, nor had victims' rights even been a consideration from that department.

The Solicitor General's first and main priority is the rights of the offenders. That is a sad commentary on where we are in the justice system and the correction system today, and in the vision they have for this country and for corrections.

In my opinion Bill C-33 is nothing more that an affirmation that the scales of justice are unfairly balanced in favour of the offender.

Under clause 3 of Bill C-33, which the Solicitor General tabled yesterday and wants the House to debate today, it reads:

The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

In his press release, the Solicitor General stated that the Transfer of Offenders Act was more than 20 years old, and that it only authorized the transfer of offenders between Canada and recognized states. Furthermore, he states “this bill is significant from a humanitarian perspective. Conditions of confinement in some countries impose severe hardship on Canadians”.

If in fact that is what Bill C-33 is all about, that is, ensuring that Canadians are not subjected to inhumane treatment, we on this side of the House could support the bill. If the fundamental principles were that we needed to be sure that humanitarian efforts were in place to ensure that our offenders in other countries are in proper living conditions, we could support it, but that is not the purpose of the bill. This is not, as members will note from the purposes of the proposed legislation, what it endeavours to achieve.

The legislation is not only about allowing Canadian citizens in other countries to serve their sentences in more humane prisons, and, in some cases, to serve time in Canada's club fed, resort style prisons. It is not about being humane. It is about taking offenders from other countries and lessening the sentences they received in other countries. This is more about uncomfortable prisons than it is about inhumane prisons. This is more about resort style prisons than it is about the inhumane penitentiaries and prisons that we see in other countries. This is about reducing the sentences imposed by another country.

It is not only about where and the conditions under which they will be incarcerated. It is about the length of term of sentence.

Clause 14 reads:

Subject to subsection 17(1) and section 18, if, at the time the Minister receives a request for the transfer of a Canadian offender, the sentence imposed by the foreign entity is longer than the maximum sentence provided for in Canadian law for the equivalent offence, the Canadian offender is to serve only the shorter sentence.

This is because under clause 13 it reads:

The enforcement of a Canadian offender's sentence is to be continued in accordance with the laws of Canada as if the offender had been convicted and their sentence imposed by a court in Canada.

We have only had 24 hours to review the legislation, 24 hours to digest the meat and potatoes of what is in the bill, but what it is saying is that a Canadian citizen can go to another country, commit a crime, for which there could be a much more substantial penalty, and be transferred back home here to serve a much lesser sentence.

What this could amount to, in many cases, is immunity for Canadian citizens, which, in my opinion, is missing the mark and absolutely wrong. If Canadian citizens commit a crime in another country they should pay the price imposed by that country, not this country.

Under this government we are a country that is well-known for its bleeding heart justice system. The Liberal government is again more concerned about the rights and well-being of offenders than it is about the victims and the scars left on not only the primary victims but on the families of those who have been victimized.

In the Solicitor General's press release he says:

Society is best protected when offenders participate in correctional programs in Canadian institutions and communities, and when their release is supervised.

The essence of a great deal of what the Auditor General had to say in her report that was brought down a month ago was that she was very troubled by the lack of adequate programming and adequate offender treatment in many of the institutions. I think she highlighted many of the women's institutions in our country.

On the one hand, the Auditor General is concerned about the lack of rehabilitative programming and, on the other hand, the government says that it needs to get them back to prisons and penitentiaries in this country so that it can go on with programming and get the right type of programming for rehabilitation and reintegration.

Rehabilitation has more to do with preparing them to go back into society than it does to pushing them back into society. We have the Auditor General speaking out in a report and saying that we are pushing the individuals through our system far too quickly, that they are going out onto the street and not having the proper programs, not having the rehabilitative work that they should have had while they were in the institutions, and then we have the Solicitor General coming back and saying that we need to bring them back from other countries so that our programs can prepare them for society. We have a great contradiction.

No society is best protected when the offenders spend an inadequate period of time incarcerated to prevent others from being harmed and for their own rehabilitation to effectively occur.

The government is not interested in preventing Canadians from being harmed. It is not interested in putting in place severe penalties that will act as deterrents. It is not interested in restitution being made to the victims. The Liberal government is only concerned about treating offenders as poor, misguided persons who are not responsible for their crimes regardless of how heinous they may be.

The philosophy of the government is clear. The philosophy of the government is that mankind is inherently good and that the environment is what shapes people, the environment and only the environment that they are placed in is what warps them and turns them into whether they are contributors or end up being offenders. The government believes that if we turn the prison system into a very positive experience for them, they will be prepared to go back out into society and be upstanding citizens.

We on this side of the House recognize that the recidivism rate, the rate of reoffending is very clear. Many of the individuals who enter our prisons and penitentiaries leave having been educated but unfortunately for Canadian society they have only been educated on how to become better prisoners. I know there are some who leave and go on to succeed and go on to live good lives and contribute to society and we applaud them, but they are few and far between.

On the subject of victims I must point out that under clause 8 of Bill C-33 the consent of three parties is required before a transfer takes place: first, the consent of the offender; second, the consent of our country, of our government, of our nation; and third, the consent of the jurisdiction, the state, the country in which the offence took place.

When we go through the bill that we were given just last night, there is no mention of the victim. There is no consideration in the bill of the family or the individual who has been victimized. In other words, when a child is raped in this country and a foreign entity requests the transfer of the offender, the victim and the victim's family have absolutely no say in the transfer and therefore have no say in the parole assessment and decision.

The victim and the victim's family are never apprised when the offender is released back into the jurisdiction or the country that has transferred the offender to it. I see no provision in Bill C-33 to address this oversight.

In fact, subclause 10(4) clearly states in reference to young offenders who are being transferred:

(4) In determining whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian offender who is a child within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the primary consideration of the Minister and the relevant provincial authority is to be the best interests of the child.

In other words, when a 17 year old boy goes to another country and he rapes an 11 or 12 year old for which the punishment in that country may be fairly substantial, he would be transferred here and given the maximum sentence of three years.

What about the young victim in the other country? What is in the best interests of the victim? What is in the best interests of society or the best interests of our children who may become the next victims of that offender?

There are few people on the government side who are questioning about a 12 year old being victimized in a rape. We know there are many countries where the sex trade of young people, children, is a tourist trade yet people question whether or not such a victim could ever exist. There are many who do exist, many whose lives have been scarred, many who may never see their lives repaired to the point where they can contribute to society.

Where is the consideration for public safety? Perhaps those questions will be answered in due time, as will other questions that we have regarding Bill C-33.

In closing, I would like to point out another aspect of the bill that is in question. That is clause 38 which deals with transitional provisions, which reads:

This act applies in respect of all requests for transfer that are pending on the day that this section comes into force.

I want to read into the record one more time, the transitional provision, the point in time when the bill comes into effect.

This act applies in respect of all requests for transfer that are pending on the day that this section comes into force.

In other words, we have before us again a bill that will be retroactive. We have a bill which says that if there is an offender in another country, if there is an offender who is incarcerated and who has applied for a transfer to Canada, that immediately when this bill becomes law, we will ensure that the individual who is in the system will receive consideration and will be brought back to this country if all the points in the legislation are met. It is retroactive.

Why is it that when an act favours offenders it can be retroactive but when it does not properly favour the offender, it cannot be retroactive? We have a sex offender registry. We have people who are in prison in Canada at this time many of whom have committed heinous sexual crimes against young children. After years of asking Parliament and the government to move on a national sex offender registry, the government came forward with a sex offender registry that basically will have no names on it. The registry will not be worth the paper it is written on. The registry will not be a tool or a resource for law enforcement. Why? Because the government will not make the legislation retroactive. It will not go back and put on the registry those offenders who have committed a crime already. We will have it from the day that the sex offender registry becomes law.

However, when we are talking about the offender in another country, the government says “No, we will make it retroactive, we will make every offender able to apply, they will be able to come back home”. We have seen it with other laws as well such as the DNA data bank. The government has made it very clear there will be no retroactivity when it comes to putting the DNA into the database so that our law enforcement agencies can adequately enforce and fight crime and uphold the law.

At first glance, we cannot support this bill as it is unjustly balanced in favour of the offenders over the victims.

I urge the government to consider as a guiding principle the protection of society, to consider as the guiding principle what is best in the long term for society. I urge the government to build within the law an act that would satisfy the victims, all those individuals whose lives have been scarred from crime. When that happens, I can assure the government that we will stand with it and we will support bills of that kind.

Bill C-33, like many others brought forward by the government, will do very little to satisfy the concerns of society in this country.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker,I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-33, the international transfer of offenders act. I am proud to sponsor the bill for a number of reasons, in particular because of the public safety and humanitarian objectives that the bill will further.

The current Transfer of Offenders Act came into force in 1978 following a United Nations meeting where member states agreed that international transfers were desirable because of increasingly greater mobility and the need for countries to cooperate on criminal justice matters.

The Transfer of Offenders Act authorizes the implementation of treaties between Canada and other countries, including multilateral conventions for international transfer of offenders. The Transfer of Offenders Act and the treaties serve essentially a humanitarian purpose. This is important. Imagine for a moment that a citizen of Canada is incarcerated in a country whose language and culture is foreign to him or her. Add to this an unfamiliar environment, a lack of contact with family and friends, food that is incompatible with the person's dietary requirements, unsatisfactory health and sanitary conditions and/or difficult conditions of incarceration.

It goes without saying that these factors increase the pains of imprisonment for offenders, and the hardships they face often translate into hardships for their families at home.

But there are other reasons for the legislation. The Transfer of Offenders Act serves an important public protection purpose. Offenders incarcerated in foreign states may be deprived of the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves in the absence of treatment programs in those countries, in the absence of a structured parole system, and in the absence of direct contact with family and friends in their home community. As a result, the chances of long term reintegration of these offenders, and ultimately of better public safety, are greatly reduced. This holds true even when offenders are incarcerated in a country with social standards and customs relatively similar to Canada's.

The Transfer of Offenders Act ensures that the offender does not escape justice. There is no free ride. When Canadian offenders are transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of the foreign sentence until warrant expiry, they arrive here under the supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada or of provincial correctional authorities who oversee their gradual and controlled reintegration into society. I think we can all agree that this is far better than simply deporting offenders back to Canada at the end of their sentence without any controls or supervision.

There is no doubt that most states wish to cooperate with one another on matters of criminal justice. All states attempt to deter prohibited conduct through the enforcement of criminal laws and penalties. Modern technology and global travel have led to increased opportunities for the commission of crimes in countries other than one's own. Therefore, states have a common interest in cooperating to prevent and respond to criminal conduct. This actually protects the sovereignty of states by preventing offenders from escaping justice, and this is exactly what the transfer of offenders scheme allows states to do.

Every year, about 85 Canadians are transferred to Canada under a treaty or a multilateral convention for the transfer of offenders. Since 1978, only technical amendments have been made to the Transfer of Offenders Act. Since then, more substantive issues have been identified. Policy issues relating to international transfers have expanded due to Canada's greater experience with treaties and legislative amendments brought about by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992, Bill C-41 on sentencing in 1995, and Bill C-45 on sentence calculation reform in 1996.

As a result, my department consulted with 91 private sector and government agencies and then conducted a comprehensive review of the Transfer of Offenders Act. This resulted in proposals to amend the legislation that would reflect traditional international treaty principles, close identified gaps, ensure consistency with other legislative provisions, and improve efficiencies.

In recent years, statements of purpose and principles have been added to federal legislation for several reasons: to provide a clear indication of the intent of the legislation; to ensure parliamentary endorsement of the approach and policy behind legislation; and to aid in the interpretation of provisions.

Bill C-33 would do exactly that. It would specify that the purpose of the new international Transfer of Offenders Act is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling them to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

Over the years, Canada has promoted key principles to guide international transfers of offenders, and in particular, the notion of the offender's voluntary consent to the transfer. This notion is based on the traditional humanitarian objectives of treaties. The prospects for an offender's successful institutional adjustment, rehabilitation, and community reintegration would likely be compromised if an offender were forced to transfer against his or her will. Foreign states may also be less inclined to approve a transfer on humanitarian grounds if the offender has not willingly consented. This is why Bill C-33 would reflect this important principle.

The bill also contains the important principle that offenders are to be informed in advance of the terms and manner in which their sentences will be completed in Canada. It would also require that a foreign offender requesting a transfer to his or her home country be provided with information from that foreign state about how the sentence is to be served in that state. This would ensure that the offender's consent to the transfer is truly informed.

The current Transfer of Offenders Act makes provisions for the transfer to Canada of young offenders committed to custody, but not for young offenders on probation. This is inconsistent with the provisions which allow for the transfer of adult offenders both on probation and in custody. Bill C-33 would close this gap by providing for the transfer of young offenders on probation in the new act. Moreover, there is no provision in the current act that allows for the transfer of Canadian children. Bill C-33 would close that gap as well by providing for the transfer to Canada of children less than 12 years of age. The bill also specifies that children transferred to Canada would not be detained by reason of the foreign sentence. They would be dealt with in accordance with the law of the receiving province or territory. By widening the net, so to speak, the bill would further the humanitarian objective of the act.

The current act provides that Canada may enter into a treaty, international agreement, arrangement or convention only with recognized foreign states. The dissolution of the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia highlights the problem of dealing with territories or jurisdictions not yet recognized as foreign states. Several years may pass before the jurisdictions are formally recognized as foreign states. In the meantime, Canada cannot enter into a treaty with them. Canadians incarcerated in these jurisdictions and offenders from these foreign entities do not have access to the international transfer process. There may also be instances where a treaty does not exist between Canada and a foreign state or where one has been negotiated but ratification is still years away.

However there are compelling reasons to return an offender to the home country such as harsh conditions of detention. Moreover, some foreign states may be less inclined to consider a formal arrangement with Canada but willing to negotiate less formal arrangements for the transfer of offenders on a case by case basis.

To provide access to international transfers in such circumstances, Bill C-33 would authorize the negotiation of administrative arrangements with a foreign state or a non-state entity. This would make the legislation more responsive to international developments. It would also allow Canada to bring its citizens home but always under the supervision of Canadian correctional authorities to oversee the offenders' gradual and safe reintegration.

The development of transfer agreements is beneficial to most offenders. To date, a limited number of states are bound by treaties and conventions on the transfer of offenders but the numbers are increasing and this is highly desirable. The main drive toward the international transfers of offenders is humanitarian. Serving a sentence in a foreign state increases its severity. An offender in this situation is likely deprived of contact with family and of the opportunity to reintegrate into society. This is not in the interests of the offender, the family or indeed the community.

Enforcement of a foreign sentence by the receiving state benefits the offender and both states involved. Objections to the effect that the enforcement of foreign sentences will infringe Canada's national integrity or that the foreign sentence will be improperly enforced in Canada are unfounded. These objections are fuelled by fear of the unknown rather than by informed policy reasons. The government and hon. members of the House should not allow such objections to stand in the way of the humanitarian effort that underlines Bill C-33.

Canada's Transfer of Offenders Act and associated treaties and conventions has been successful in achieving their goal and continue to be a permanent feature of the international relations between our country and many others. The progress made in this area is considerable. Since 1978, approximately 1,000 Canadians have been brought to Canada and more than 100 foreign offenders have been returned to their country of citizenship. The numbers are not large but that is because the notion of transfer of offenders is still relatively new and much is still being learned.

Let me say in closing that there is a clear need for legislative flexibility in Canada to further the humanitarian objective of transfers. There is a clear need for international cooperation in matters of criminal justice and there is a clear need for public protection with the safe and gradual reintegration of offenders into society.

Bill C-33 would respond to those needs by incorporating traditional international treaty principles, closing identified gaps and ensuring consistency with other legislative provisions. Bill C-33 would further contribute to these objectives by expanding the class of offenders who may be transferred and of jurisdictions with which Canada could enter into transfer arrangements.

For all these reasons, I urge the hon. members of the House to support Bill C-33 and see it through to completion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)