Rob Moore

[December 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as colleagues will know, this is the second time there has been a late show from the member on this issue. It is interesting members opposite have raised this issue with no mention of victims of crime. Our government brings forward legislation to address victims of crime and to protect society, we do not hear the members opposite talk about that.

We hear a lot of talk, and that is all it has been over the last 13 years, when it comes to human rights, but it was our government that provided the redress for the Chinese head tax. It was our government that addressed the hepatitis C issue. It is our government that is endeavouring to bring first nations under the Human Rights Act, which was denied under the previous government. It is our government that is in Afghanistan fighting for the rights that the members opposite purport to uphold. Yet we do not hear messages of support for the good work that our troops and personnel do in Afghanistan from members opposite. All we have heard, now twice, is this one issue.

The Minister of Justice has repeatedly said in the House that the government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty. In 1976 Canada abolished the death penalty in the Criminal Code.

The government also acknowledges that the legal systems of foreign jurisdictions may have differing views on this issue. Although the government recognizes the sovereign decision of each state to determine its own laws, this government continues to advocate for the full respect for international safeguards where the death penalty is still in use.

On November 15, the UN General Assembly voted for a resolution that called for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Canada supported this resolution. As members can see, Canada is taking a stand internationally against the use of the death penalty.

However, with respect to clemency, as the justice minister has said, our government will be dealing with the issue on a case by case basis. Potentially, if another country will only grant clemency on the basis of an offender being repatriated back home to Canada, we may have difficulty, as the hon. member should acknowledge, inasmuch as an offender who committed murder abroad could be eligible for parole in Canada and, subsequently, be free to live in our communities. That is not what Canadians want.

It is evidence from our ambitious justice agenda that our government's first priority is to protect Canadians. We would be abdicating that responsibility by the potential release of a murderer, particularly one who had committed not one but more murders. I am confident that Canadians do not want murderers free to roam our streets, especially if they have not served a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of their crime.

As the Minister of Justice has said in the House:

—this country and this government, in particular, has had an outstanding record with respect to human rights at home and abroad. I think it is a record for which all Canadians can be very proud.

We will continue to fight every day for Canadians and ensure that our families and our communities are safe.

[Justice, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know in the House, after years of Liberal inaction on tackling crime, on justice and on protecting Canadians, both personally and in property rights, our government has been moving very quickly and very aggressively to fix that.

I am pleased to report that last week in Montreal a charge was laid. As reported in the Globe and Mail, Douglas Frith, president of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, said that the fact that the charges had been laid in this case showed the legislation was working.

[Justice, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been clear on this issue. I should add that no government, especially the previous government, has stood for international human rights, as well as human rights here in Canada, more than our government.

The minister has said recently that on this specific issue, there has been an appeal filed. Due to that, we cannot have any further comment.

[Airbus, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making some really irresponsible accusations in our view. Our government and the Prime Minister have done the responsible thing. There is going to be an inquiry into this issue and we should let that take its course.

[Airbus, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, on this entire issue, the Ontario Court of Appeal has granted a stay of a surrender order. The issue is before the courts and it would be inappropriate to comment.

[Lobbyists, November 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see that the hon. member, when he is under the protection of the House, feels quite free to say things that he would never say outside the House.

This matter, as all of us in the House know or ought to know, is before the courts, and it would be inappropriate to comment.

[November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite incorrect. The government has done more to advance human rights in the last two years than the previous Liberal government did in thirteen years.

I will give one particular example of that. What is really ironic is we never hear members from the opposite side, members from the Liberal benches, mention victims of crime. We never hear them mention protection of society. We are doing that. It is what Canadians told us to do. They told us to act to protect Canadians. That is why we brought in justice legislation and that is why we will continue to stand up for the rights of Canadians, both here and abroad.

The Minister of Justice has been very clear on this issue. It will be considered on a case by case basis, but we will not repatriate, in this case, someone who has been convicted of multiple murders.

[November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have the opportunity to address this issue. The Minister of Justice has repeatedly stated in the House that the government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty.

In 1976 Canada abolished the death penalty from the Criminal Code, and continues to encourage countries around the world to do the same. However, the government acknowledges that the legal systems of foreign jurisdictions may have differing views on this issue.

Although the government recognizes the sovereign decision of each state to determine its own laws, the government also continues to advocate for the full respect for international safeguards where the death penalty is still in use. On November 15, the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution that called for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Canada supported that resolution and voted with the co-sponsors against efforts to undermine the purpose of the resolution.

As the House can see, Canada is taking a stand internationally on this issue.

With respect to clemency, as the Minister of Justice has said, our government will deal with the issue on a case by case basis. Potentially, if another country will only grant clemency on the basis of the offender being repatriated to Canada, we may have difficulty inasmuch as an offender who has committed murder abroad could potentially be eligible for parole in Canada and subsequently be free to live in our communities.

As is evident from our ambitious justice agenda, our government's first priority is to protect Canadians. We would be abdicating that responsibility by the potential release of a murderer, particularly one who has committed not one but multiple murders.

I am confident that Canadians do not want murderers free to roam our streets, especially if they have not served a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of their crime.

As the Minister of Justice has said in the House, “This country, and this government in particular, has an outstanding record with respect to human rights at home and abroad. It is a record for which all Canadians can be very proud”.

We will continue to fight for Canadians and ensure that our families are safe.

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we all heard today what the Minister of Justice had to say on this issue in response to questions. We heard today in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the testimony of a departmental official which clearly lays out the roles, responsibilities and powers of the minister in this regard, and I read that into the record tonight. I commend that to the hon. member for his review.

The hon. member says that he supports the process that this government has put in place. I would say that we should let that process take its course.

[November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, the hon. member for Mount Royal, in reference to the importance of Mr. Schreiber's testimony before the public inquiry, suggested that the minister had the power to hold the extradition and asked the minister to ensure that the key witness would be available to shed light on the issue.

The member from Mount Royal claimed that in addition to a discretionary power to hold the extradition, there was a supplementary agreement between Canada and Germany that expressly allows the minister to delay the extradition.

Today, in the justice and human rights committee, appearing with the justice minister on the supplementary estimates, a departmental official stated, and I would like to quote to clearly state for the record once again:

...when the act or the jurisprudence refers to a political discretion, they mean...it is no longer in the control of the courts but is in the hands of the minister. But the statute still plays a very big role, and the surrender order must be executed by the minister within 45 days of the judicial decision to commit the fugitive. There is no authority, under the treaty or the act, by which the minister can suspend the execution of that surrender order. If the surrender order is not executed, the fugitive is free to apply for a discharge and the extradition process fails.

There are two limited exceptions to that. The first is where the fugitive is facing outstanding criminal charges in Canada, or where there is an appeal with respect to the committal order.

There is some language being used in the media...with respect to a temporary surrender. That is true that there is a capacity to have a temporary surrender, but that is only where the fugitive is serving a sentence in Canada for a criminal offence.

That statement clearly describes the minister's powers with regard to the summoning of this witness.

Upon receiving the sworn affidavit, the Prime Minister moved immediately to appoint an independent third party to review the issue.

Dr. Johnston is currently in the process of establishing the parameters of the public inquiry. I think it prudent to wait until Dr. Johnston has clearly defined the full mandate of the public inquiry into this issue before commenting any further on this matter.