Debates of Oct. 8th, 1998

Tobacco Act

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course the member does not have to respond. It is not question period. We do not get responses in question period anyway, quite frankly.

The member made a point that climate change would do this and that. Is the climate change she is anticipating global warming or global cooling? The sources are pretty evenly matched on that issue. They do not know whether the climate change is likely to be global warming or global cooling. I asked her to cite just one solid reference, one source for this information.

As we asked this in question period dozens of times and during the debate on Kyoto before and after Canada took its position. Again, she has refused to give even one reference. I guess that shows where this debate is going.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was not listening. As I said, I am more than happy to drown the hon. member in paper. There is one very good source, the Canadian Institute of Children's Health. There is not just a single source but a whole network of people working on children's health issues and environmental health issues and showing a link between those.

I would be more than happy to give the member hundreds of sources on this issue. I point something out to the member opposite. I said climate change. I know that for some members in this House this is a very difficult and complex issue to understand. Climate change means climate change. It means that in some parts of our country it will be cooler and in some parts of our country it will be a lot warmer and hotter. It is called climate change.

As the climate heats up out west, because the Reform Party refuses to acknowledge the fact of global climate change, it will find that its votes have all burned up.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, she really does not know which way this climate change is going. I certainly acknowledge the climate will change, it has changed throughout history. I have no problem acknowledging that at all nor do I believe any member of the Reform Party would have any problem acknowledging that.

We know that is happening and will continue to happen. What is important is to get some good evidence as to man's impact. I welcome very seriously her offer to send some good documentation that this is happening.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I believe you would find consent to defer the recorded division on second reading of Bill C-42 to the expiry of Government Orders on Tuesday, October 20.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Extradition Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-40, an act respecting extradition, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and to amend and repeal other acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-40.

The bill overhauls extradition laws in Canada and creates a modern, effective system for extradition appropriate for the 21st century. It will help us to better meet our international commitments and ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for criminals seeking to avoid justice.

The Extradition Act, which is of general application, and the Fugitive Offenders Act, which applies to the extradition process between Commonwealth countries referred to as rendition, both date from the late 1800s.

Aside from amendments to the extradition appeal process enacted in 1992, these statutes have remained essentially unchanged from the last century.

Extradition laws as they now stand cause serious problems, as we are unable to turn over criminals to countries with which we do not have extradition agreements or treaties; to entities other than a state, such as United Nations tribunals for war crimes; or to countries where extradition treaties are in force but where an outdated list of offences does not include modern offences like drug trafficking, money laundering and computer crimes.

The current extradition process places onerous evidentiary requirements on foreign states and the legislation does not set out clear and adequate procedural and human rights safeguards for persons whose extradition is being sought.

Given the increasing ease of international travel, the advancement of technology and the global economy, major crime and criminals are no longer local in nature.

Transnational crime and criminals are now the norm, not the exception. Canada's laws must be modernized in recognition of that reality.

We have seen in the last few years a number of cases where Canada's extradition laws have not been sufficient to enable Canada to fulfill its international obligation and expeditiously extradite fugitives to other countries in order to face justice. The problem has been most acute in respect of countries of a different legal tradition such as those in Europe.

In the case of a number of requests from countries other than the United States extradition proceedings cannot be instituted. In other instances states are so discouraged by the different hurdles imposed by our current extradition law that they do not even initiate an extradition request. The primary problem is that the current legislation mandates that the foreign states submit evidence in support of their request in a form which meets the complicated requirements of Canadian evidentiary rules.

For countries which do not have a common law system, and for which concepts such as hearsay are unknown, this requirement makes the preparation of a request for extradition a tremendously difficult task, and in some instances an impossible one. Even with countries with a similar legal tradition such as the United States, we have heard on numerous occasions how difficult it is to obtain extradition from Canada. In the context of our other common law jurisdictions such as Great Britain and Australia, Canada's system is viewed as one fraught with difficulties due to the antiquity of our legislation.

With global crime becoming a significant concern at home and internationally, we know that the deficiencies in our legislation will continue to be questioned. Within the G-7 P-8 forum for example, states have been requested to modernize their extradition laws in order to be responsive to the challenges of today's transnational crimes and criminals. All the fora which have considered the serious problem of transnational organized crime have identified extradition as a critical tool to combat this growing threat to world order. In the P-8, the United Nation and within the Commonwealth there have been calls for countries to put in place a comprehensive, effective and modern process for extradition.

In light of Canada's antiquated extradition laws and the magnitude of the changes necessary to modernize our current process for extradition, an entirely new proposed extradition act was drafted, amalgamating and substantially adding to the provisions of the current Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act.

An important feature of this bill is that it will allow for extradition not just to states but to the United Nations war crimes tribunal and any future entities of this nature, including the proposed international criminal court, the statute for which was recently adopted by the United Nations diplomatic conference in Rome.

This bill will enable us to fulfill our international obligations to comply with the United Nations security council resolution establishing the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. According to these resolutions we have to provide assistance and surrender fugitives to the tribunals if so requested.

As our law now stands, we could be in breach of our obligations as members of the United Nations if persons sought by either tribunal were located in Canada and we were not able to extradite.

In addition to allowing for extradition to the international criminal courts or tribunals, Bill C-40 will apply to all requests for extradition made to Canada. Unlike our current limited extradition regime, the new scheme allows for extradition on the basis of bilateral and multilateral treaties, or where the state or entity making the request is designated as an extradition partner in a schedule to the bill.

It also permits the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade to enter into a specific agreement for extradition with any state or entity on a case by case basis.

The bill will also apply to all requests for extradition made by Canada to a foreign state.

I would like to emphasize three particular aspects of the bill, as they mark the most significant step toward modernizing our extradition procedures.

As I said, one of the worst problems with the current extradition process in Canada has to do with the complexity of the evidentiary requirements imposed on foreign countries filing requests for extradition with Canada.

For many countries, especially those with a legal tradition different from ours, it is extremely difficult to collect all the extradition documents required under Canadian rules of evidence.

Under the new bill the legal standard for extradition would be retained. That is, a Canadian judge will still have to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before her or him of the conduct underlying the request for extradition which, if it occurred in Canada, would justify a trial for a criminal offence. Lawyers like to refer to this as the prima facie test.

What would be modified is the form of evidence that could be presented to the extradition judge. This approach addresses the current difficult evidentiary requirement for first person affidavits devoid of hearsay, which is the main problem encountered by states requesting extradition from Canada.

Experience tells us that it is already extremely difficult for states to meet the prima facie case standard through the use of first person affidavits in relation to certain types of modern day crime; for example, complicated fraud. With the increasing complexity of transborder and international crime, it will be more so in the future.

As I have said earlier, under the current system some countries simply decide not to seek the extradition of fugitives because they cannot comply with our current legal requirements. Those fugitives, therefore, remain at large in our communities.

Under the new legislation the judge would admit into evidence documentation contained in a record of the case. The record would contain evidence gathered according to the rules and procedures followed in the requesting state. It may contain a summary of the evidence available prepared by the appropriate foreign judge or official. The evidence may not be in the form of an affidavit and may be unsworn. The objective is to accept the evidence in the form used by the foreign state, provided it is sufficient according to a Canadian extradition judge to demonstrate criminal conduct under Canadian law and to require a trial in the requesting state.

This record of the case would be certified by appropriate authorities in the requesting state and accompanied by certain assurances in relation to issues such as the availability of the evidence, its sufficiency for prosecution purposes or its accuracy.

The notion of a record of the case is consistent with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on hearsay in which the supreme court abandoned the strict formalism of the hearsay rule to adopt a more flexible standard based on necessity and circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.

In some respects, therefore, the existent evidentiary requirements for a Canadian extradition hearing are more formalistic and onerous than those for a Canadian trial.

Following a careful consideration of other options, we concluded that the record of the case should be available to all foreign states irrespective of their legal system. The minister believes that the “record of the case for all states option” is the best compromise between the present impractical evidentiary requirements and the absence of any judicial assessment of the evidence, as is presently the procedure followed in Australia and the United Kingdom in respect of its European partners.

With this option the legal test would not change. What would change, however, is the form in which that evidence would be acceptable in a Canadian court.

Bill C-40 also includes a number of improvements and safeguards.

First, when he submits an extradition request so that the person sought can be tried, the competent prosecutor will have to certify in Canada that the summarized evidence is available for the trial and is sufficient, in a common law system for example, for prosecution purposes in that country.

Second, the person sought will receive a summary of the case rather than just affidavits on particular elements. These will provide a clearer picture in our opinion of the evidence supporting the request.

Third, the Minister of Justice may decline to issue an authority to proceed with an extradition hearing if the minister is not satisfied with the content of the record.

Finally, as noted above, the extradition judge will order committal of the person into custody to await surrender only if evidence would justify committal for trial in Canada if the offence was committed here in Canada.

This brings me to the second important feature of this reform. The extradition law, as it currently stands, does not provide for a code of procedure. If one were to consult the Extradition Act or the Fugitive Offenders Act, one would be hard pressed to understand how proceedings commence, whether the fugitive is entitled to bail, how someone is to be arrested, how one can waive proceedings, whether temporary surrender is possible, et cetera. In other words, there is a clear need to spell out the procedure.

It is important at a time when transborder crime is becoming more prevalent to have an extradition process which is effective on a practical level.

At the same time, it is equally important that the process be a clear one and that the written statute detail the nature of that process and the protections accorded to those who are the subject of extradition proceedings. We simply cannot afford to be in the position where we will be criticized by Canadians for having let the country become a haven for criminals by not evolving with our times. Yet we must also produce a reform which addresses the basic procedural requirements needed for a fair extradition process in Canada.

Let me briefly go through the main procedural features included in the extradition law reform. The first point, which is clearly related to the evidentiary requirements that I just spoke about, concerns the respective roles of the courts and the executive branch in extradition cases.

The current two-track system will be maintained. The judicial track will continue to ensure that the underlying conduct would be criminal in Canada and there is a case against the person.

The Minister of Justice, on the other hand, will have the responsibility for assessing the foreign legal system to ensure that human rights are respected and a fair trial will be provided in the requesting state.

The bill outlines the mandatory and discretionary grounds for the refusal of surrender by the minister, such as political offence, lack of jurisdiction, death penalty, humanitarian considerations, previous acquittal or conviction and trial in absentia.

However, the Minister of Justice will continue to have discretion to decide in each particular case whether or not to seek assurances from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out.

It should be noted that under no circumstances shall the minister make a surrender order if he or she is satisfied that the surrender would be unjust or oppressive or that extradition has been sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of race, religion, sex or other similar grounds.

Where a person could face prosecution or punishment because of a prohibited ground of discrimination, the clause we chose was directly taken from the United Nations model treaty on extradition. The UN treaty provides greater protection than exists in most bilateral treaties.

However, I am aware that the list of grounds could be considered under-inclusive and, as a result, the minister is asking the committee to analyse this clause in particular.

Overall, the safeguards referred to in the legislation are provided in addition to any protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the person sought may have.

As well, the decisions to be made by the extradition judge or by the Minister of Justice will be subject to appeal or review by provincial courts of appeal.

Finally, the proposed legislation also seeks to harmonize the extradition and refugee processes, as conflict may arise when someone subject to an extradition request makes a claim for refugee status.

Thus, Bill C-40 modifies the Extradition Act and the Immigration Act in order to avoid duplication of decision making and to limit delay in the extradition process. The legislation also provides a means for consultation between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in such matters.

More specifically, the Immigration Act would be modified to provide that if extradition proceedings have been initiated for an offence punishable in Canada by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or more and that person has claimed refugee status, a hearing by the convention refugee determination division of the Immigration and Refugee Board shall not be commenced or shall be adjourned until a final decision on extradition is rendered.

If the decision is made not to extradite the person, the convention refugee determination division hearing may commence or resume.

If the person is committed for extradition by an extradition judge and ordered surrendered by the Minister of Justice, the order of surrender is deemed to be a decision by the CRDD that the person is not a convention refugee because of the evidentiary grounds presented in the extradition case of a serious non-political offence.

This is in keeping with the exclusion on grounds of serious non-political crimes provided by article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention to which Canada is bound.

I cannot end my overview of Bill C-40 without mentioning the important modifications to the Criminal Code, the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Canada Evidence Act which allow for the use of video and audio-link technology to gather evidence and provide testimony from witnesses in Canada or abroad.

Although these modifications will contribute to a more efficient extradition process in specific cases, their aim is much broader as they will allow the use of such technology in criminal and other proceedings as well.

In an age of amazing technological development it is critical that our laws and justice system are flexible enough to permit the use of that technology where possible, appropriate and beneficial to proceedings.

When globalization of new technologies is expanding the reach of organized crime we must ensure that our justice system also uses new technologies to capture and prosecute criminals. Where witnesses cannot be brought before the court because they are outside Canada or they are in another part of Canada and circumstances preclude their attendance, the use of video or audio-link technology is a much better alternative than the written statement or the taking of evidence by a foreign court.

I believe that these modifications represent a major, possibly revolutionary, change in testimonial evidence which takes into account modern day realities and the rights of the accused.

The bill provides that, in respect of video and audio-link evidence from Canada to a foreign state, the laws relating to evidence and procedure of a foreign state would apply as though the person testifying in Canada was physically before the court outside Canada, but only if the evidence would not disclose information otherwise protected by the Canadian law of non-disclosure of information or privilege.

However, the bill also provides that the Canadian law relating to contempt of court, perjury and contradictory evidence would apply to these persons, parties or witnesses, whether they are testifying from Canada to a foreign state or from outside Canada to Canada.

In the case of evidence given by the video or audio-link in Canada by a witness elsewhere in Canada, the bill amends the Criminal Code so that the court could order that such evidence be provided by such means if it is appropriate considering all the circumstances.

The court shall receive evidence given by video-link by a witness outside of Canada unless one of the parties satisfies the court that the reception of such testimony would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice in this country. The court may receive evidence given by audio links from a witness outside Canada, if it would be appropriate considering all the circumstances.

In conclusion, I wish to once again stress the importance of that legislation for Canada and its partners. It brings about a comprehensive review of Canada's extradition provisions, so as to provide law enforcement authorities and prosecutors with the tools they need to co-operate with other states and entities, in order to counteract the threat of transborder crime and ensure that Canada never becomes a haven for fugitives.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-40. It is noble to modernize the Extradition Act and in fact is long overdue.

Canada's current policies are outdated, slow and complex. As a consequence we have members of genocidal regimes, killers and illegals by the thousands in Canada living off Canadian society. We do not know how many or where they are. Maybe Bill C-40 will not be of much use until we devise a more efficient screening and monitoring system for illegal refugees in Canada.

Reform supports extraditing these individuals to face international criminal courts like Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals. We believe in justice. These tribunals and the concept of an international court with independent powers to prosecute war criminals is a 50 year dream and is laudable. The process to establish such a court has been a very difficult road. Canada can take some solace in knowing that it has played such a pivotal role in getting members to the table in the last minute negotiations and in the hesitancy of some.

The new international criminal court will have power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, including genocide, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.

Canada is one of the 119 signatories to this historic event. By the Canadian government's own admission Canada has been a refuge for war criminals and former members of genocidal regimes. Due to our ineffectual immigration screening, removal and enforcement system the problem is out of hand. Now at least if we can find these illegals we have somewhere to send them.

The solicitor general keeps promising a crackdown on Canadian organizations that are fronts for foreign terrorists. He says that this is a serious problem. The auditor general agrees and says that Canada has been negligent in dealing with it. We all respect what the auditor general says because it is his group that is independent and tells us what is going on in the government of the day, no matter who it is.

It is not comforting to hear the solicitor general say that Canada had become a haven for every known terrorist group in the world. It is a sobering thought and it is about time we did something about it. I repeat that because it is not too often the solicitor general of any government would say that. He said that Canada had become a haven for every known terrorist group in the world. The bill is a small part of solving some of that problem.

We not only have terrorists groups in Canada. We have some 324 modern day war criminals and another 62 suspected war criminals in Canada. Those are the ones we know about. We have among us death squad members, torturers, individuals accused of genocide and officials from corrupt regimes in Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Rwanda and El Salvador, a virtual cornucopia of the world's worst.

That is a pathetic statement about the pathetic immigration system in Canada. We would not be here today debating Bill C-40 if we had an immigration system that really worked. Our immigration system has played the refugee game with these individuals for too long. War criminals are not refugees just because they arrive at the border and say that they are refugees. They are war criminals and we have to take a very tough stand on that issue.

Bill C-40 changes a 120 year old law. There are not too many members who will ever get to debate a bill that old in the House. The present statute allows Canada to extradite criminal suspects to other countries but not to the tribunal set up by the United Nations to prosecute war criminals from the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Bill C-40 will now allow Canada to send suspects to a permanent international court. For years Canada pressed for such courts but ironically our law would not allow us to extradite the suspects.

Bill C-40 will modernize extradition proceedings by allowing extradition to face international criminal court like Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals, by broadening the grounds for extradition but removing the list of indictable offences and replacing it with the requirements that the conduct be an offence in both countries, and by permitting the temporary surrender of a convict who is serving time in Canada to another state to face trial there. Is it not interesting that they use the phrase “the temporary surrender of a convict who is serving time” to somewhere else to face a trial there? I will discuss that later.

Bill C-40 will modernize extradition proceedings by permitting the use of video and audio technology to conduct hearings. It is nice to know we are getting into the modern age. It will link the extradition and refugee appeals process where a person has sought to avoid extradition by claiming to be a refugee. The law had to be changed to save Canada from the embarrassment it is facing on this issue.

The Reform Party is not without its reservations regarding some elements of Bill C-40 despite what it purports to do. Bill C-40 is meant to streamline the extradition process by rolling two existing bills, the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1882 and the Extradition Act of 1877, into one bill.

Will the system be less complex? We do not know that. These two old bills have not worked and now we have one new bill. Will it be less complex? Will it allow Canadians to know that the people arrested for these offences can be extradited, tried somewhere else and removed from Canada in a very expeditious manner?

The clause in Bill C-40 which would effectively broaden the grounds for extradition by abandoning what is known as the list approach to offences is a welcome change. The current system, which only allows for extradition of the criminal when the act is part of an official list, is outdated and cumbersome. The list of offences varies from country to country.

Under Bill C-40 an extraditable offence will be a crime in both countries. This will not just happen. I sense a lot of co-ordination will have to take place to get the system working properly.

Bill C-40 will ease the rules that dictate the sort of evidence that must be presented by a nation seeking the extradition of an alleged offender. Canada has been criticized in the past for its narrow approach to what can be used as evidence. This is new territory. In fact it is a quantum change. I suspect much preparatory work will have to be done.

Bill C-40 will allow the flexibility to deal on a case by case basis with extradition requests where no treaty is in place.

Getting back to the two war crimes tribunals established in The Hague and in Tanzania, this is the first time in 50 years since Nuremberg that the world community has acted to create an international jurisdiction to hold individuals responsible for international crimes.

In the Rwanda situation alone 32 people indicted by the tribunal are facing charges for the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 people during a three month rampage in 1994.

As I said before, there are some concerns with the bill. Bill C-40, despite removing many layers of appeals in the extradition process, involved courts to minister, to refugee board, back to minister and then back to court. It would be naive to believe that Bill C-40 makes extradition immediate.

Delays have always favoured the accused because witnesses die. The supreme court in the Askov case asked that trials be held within a six month period to ensure that justice be done. That does not happen very often. Six months is a very short period of time for most of these cases. As Justice Gibson of the federal court ruled, Canada cannot deport people without a fair and just assessment of whether they would face the risk of torture if returned.

What this means to me is court challenges and charter defences right up to the supreme court. Bill C-40 will be tested. Is it watertight? We have to produce bills in the House that can meet the test of the supreme court. We cannot be using the supreme court as a judge of what the people who were elected to govern Canada should be doing. I am afraid the bill does not meet that test. The supreme court may have asked for hearings within a six month period, but as we all know extradition routinely takes many years.

Let me talk about charter appeals and provide four examples of delay and why I am fearful Bill C-40 will not conclude this charter madness. Charter appeals on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment allow multiple appeals as highlighted by the following: Rafay and Burns. Murder was committed in 1994 by this pair. The case will be heard in the supreme court in November. The B.C. Court of Appeal found that the minister had to refuse extradition because they faced execution for bludgeoning Rafay's parents to death.

Pierino and Miachael Divito are Mafia figures wanted in the U.S. for conspiracy to import 300 kilos of cocaine. It goes to court because of a much harsher drug sentence handed out in the U.S. Their lawyers vow that they will go all the way to the supreme court. Why are they going to the Supreme Court? They do not want to be tried in the United States because they will go to jail for a long time. They want to stay in Canada. Does this law solve that problem? I do not think it does.

Salavatore Cazzetta, leader of the Rock Machine biker gang, wanted in the U.S. for drug trafficking charges, was delayed extradition for four years with arguments taken all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Michael Gwynne, a fugitive serving a 120 year sentence, was apprehended in 1993. He has argued his case for five years all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. In short, Bill C-40 does nothing to preclude these types of appeals.

I would like to read from a July 29, 1997 article by Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail . It has to do with the Rafay case and what he calls charter madness. I believe this article represents what an overwhelming majority of Canadians think. He wrote:

On July 12, 1994, the parents of Atif Rafay were bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat at their home in Bellevue, Wash. Local police suspected the murderers were Atif Rafay and a friend, Glen Burns. Lacking enough evidence, however, the police asked for and received undercover co-operation from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, since the two suspects lived in Canada and were Canadian citizens.

Courtesy of the undercover operation, Atif and Glen admitted they had killed Mr. Rafay's parents for life insurance and the value of the parents' home. These admissions were voluntary.

Case closed. But hold on. We live in the Age of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which gives the ruling of judges greater impact on criminal law than anything done by a mere minister of justice or group of parliamentarians.

Now, in the Rafay-Burns case, the B.C. Court of Appeal relied on the Charter to block the extradition of the two men wanted for murder in the United States.

Why? It was because Canada had abolished the death penalty. He continued:

Were the two men found guilty in Washington and put to death, as that state's laws allow, then their charter rights would be violated, including the one that any Canadian citizen is allowed to return home.

Canada, of course, always waxes indignant when the United States or any other country tries to impose its laws on others. Nothing gets Canadians to sit more upright on their white charger of morality than denouncing the “extraterritorial” application of U.S. laws. But if Canadian laws, as in this charter case, are being applied in an extraterritorial sense, that is, our charter must protect even those accused of first degree murder, then everything is fine because we just have to believe our sense of justice is superior to that of the Americans.

If these had been U.S. citizens, the extraditions would have proceeded.

But because the two are Canadians and therefore entitled, in the opinion of the court, to the full protection of the charter wherever they are, including for acts possibly committed in another country, they cannot be extradited.

This is charter madness, of which plenty is going around. When foreigners travel in this country, they obey Canadian laws and pay the penalty if they break them. They may not like our penalties, they may think their system of justice back home is superior, but that's one of the risks people take when travelling, let alone committing first degree murder.

Similarly, when Canadians are on U.S. soil, U.S. laws apply. If we break those laws and flee back across the border to escape punishment, an extradition treaty properly clicks into place so that Canada is not a “safe haven” for criminals of whatever nationality, Canadian or otherwise. That we might not favour capital punishment (and I don't) doesn't mean we impose our sense of what is right for Canadian citizens accused of first degree murder somewhere where the death penalty applies. But of course, in the age of the charter, this sort of common sense, community protecting sort of reasoning is out the window of judicial policy making.

That story alone should let us know there is a serious problem.

I have heard debates in this House over the last couple of weeks that sometimes members on this side do not listen to what the public wants. There is a quote on the gun control bill, why do you not listen to what the public wants. In this case, 85% of Canadians would vote for capital punishment if there was a referendum.

Yet we have two young people who murdered one of the fellow's parents in a terrible crime and should have to face that penalty. But here they are sitting in a Canadian jail at Canadian expense just because of where they were born.

None of us would respect that. None of us expect that we can run across the border, rob a bank and head back home because perhaps our laws are better. That is what is happening with our laws in this country. That is why we are becoming one of the biggest import-export areas for drugs in the world. Our sentences are too weak and one cannot be extradited if caught.

This bill is not going solve those problems. We are going to have a lot of interesting times in committee asking questions of those who drafted this bill to see if it really gets to where it has to get. The people in the House right here get to make the laws, not those people sitting a couple of blocks away in the supreme court.

I have another objection to Bill C-40. The bill preserves the minister's discretion in cases. This is part of the delay problem. It injects the minister into a judicial process. It is wrong and we will not support that aspect of the bill. This should not be the minister's role. This is a judicial role, an independent role.

We cannot have any tinge of political interference when it comes to extradition for criminal offences. The minister should have no discretion to seek assurances on sentences, period. What it does is it imposes standards which necessarily vary from one minister to the next, or from one country to the next.

The role of the court should be simple in these extradition cases. The conduct complained of is a crime in Canada, a very simple rule. The person sought is in fact the person accused. Again it is very simple. There is a valid extradition treaty. The bottom line is that the severity of the punishment in the other country should be irrelevant.

I have another concern. Extradition is costly. I have some questions about the mechanics and the logistics of Bill C-40. We have called a number of government departments and have read the bill very thoroughly ourselves. These questions are not answered in the bill.

Who pays for the transportation of a criminal to the War Crimes Tribunal or the International Court? Who pays any related costs? Who pays for legal counsel for the accused in charter cases? And we know they are all going to go to the max, to the supreme court. Who pays for the legal defence before the tribunal? It had better not be Canada that is on the hook. Why should we pay to get rid of someone wanted by someone else?

It is not unlike the process right now. When someone comes to this country and says the word refugee at the border, we accept them. We pay their health costs and their legal costs, all the way for every court they go to. We know the majority of these people are just trying to jump the queue which is not acceptable to most Canadians. To an overwhelming majority of Canadians that is just not acceptable.

Bill C-40 may improve some things but it is not perfect. We will be exploring many more details of this bill in the committee and seeking answers to the questions I posed in my opening remarks today.

We look forward to working with members on this side and the other side in the committee to get, after 120 years sitting on the books of Canada, a bill that will work, that will please Canadians and a bill in which the will of Canadians cannot be changed by a small number of people up the street from the House of Commons. We want to make sure this bill is airtight so that it does the job and works for all Canadians.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of this legislation, and in fact the bill itself, since, as it was mentioned, it updates a century old act. Who knows, Mr. Speaker, you might reach that age too.

Before getting into the thick of things, I would like, with your permission, to wish a happy 20th birthday to an employee of the House of Commons who works in the West Block, and who is at our service every day. That young person is Jude-Étienne Blanchette. I would ask the members of this House to join me in wishing him a happy birthday.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I also wish much success to a new clerk of the House of Commons, Nancy Hall, with whom I had the pleasure of working in the subcommittee on HIV and AIDS.

Let us now turn our attention to Bill C-40. This is an important piece of legislation, because extradition must be viewed with two realities in mind. The first one is of course the movement of people between countries. We are well aware that one of the reasons for this bill is that 100 years ago, the means of communication were not what they are now.

We must remember that, 100 years ago, people traveled by train. A hundred years ago, there was no Internet. A hundred years ago, the whole issue of telemarketing did not exist. A hundred years ago, the burning issues were railroads and electrical energy. Those were the days of Sigmund Freud, with whose name people will be familiar. I myself am an admirer of Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, a man who left his mark.

A hundred years later, we realize that the question of population flows—the word itself suggests mobility—is connected with crime. There are all sorts of new types of crime one must think about.

Before going into Bill C-40 in detail, let us think about money laundering alone. If any one member in this House has raised this matter, it is the very one who speaks to you now, because money laundering is connected with the most troubling threat, the parallel economy. If I asked you to bet on the figures involved in money laundering, I am sure you could not hit on the figure.

That is why I will promptly provide you with that figure: somewhere in the order of $20 billion involved in money laundering. Not a figure to be sneezed at.

The merit of the bill lies in its desire to bring the legislation up to date, to simplify it. For this reason, it must be understood right off the bat that, in reality, two pieces of legislation are involved when we are discussing Bill C-40: the Extradition Act, for there is such a piece of legislation, and the Fugitive Offenders Act.

Until very recently, Canada was not in a position to honour its obligations on the international level. The parliamentary secretary has said so, eloquently moreover, and I must congratulate her on this. She reminded us that this hundred-year-old legislation was completely unsuited to the realities of modern extradition.

We are seeing an international consciousness, in which the Bloc Quebecois is playing a large role, and an increasing interest in the concept of international tribunals. As we speak, there are 97 conflicts going on in the world. Amazingly, of this number, 94 are intra-state, meaning that they do not extend beyond a country's borders.

In such conflicts, there are people who commit crimes and leave their own country for another, hence the need for extradition legislation.

I have forgotten to mention the two lawyers who briefed me. I am thinking of Mr. Lemire, and of Mr. Roy. I wish to thank them. I think they are seated nearby. I thank them for the serious and professional manner in which they shared their knowledge with me. I cannot claim to have attained their level of expertise, but I did my best.

The bill we are discussing, Bill C-40, will combine two statutes. It will amend the principle of extradition, producing a completely modern bill.

In times gone by, extradition was associated with a list of offences for which an individual was sought, here and in other countries. This posed a problem because there were certain acts that were considered offences in Canada, that were not necessarily viewed that way in other countries.

Nowadays, I understand that, with this bill, there is less interest in maintaining lists, which necessitated legislative amendment to make the changes; we are now going with the legal concept of comparable offences. The offence we are talking about must carry with it a sentence of a minimum of two years. I think we will find this flexibility very useful in the future.

Another very important aspect of the bill is that it clarifies the roles of the department, that is, the minister, and the various courts. We are talking about a regular court of law here, if my notions of law are correct. This in fact was one of the exam questions when I was interested in such things. The difference between a court of law and an administrative tribunal—I imagine all my colleagues could slip me the answer, but I am going to continue with my own theory—is that a court of law does not administer a specific law, but responds to a set of laws.

As my example of an administrative tribunal, I cite the Régie du logement and the CSSTs. The Immigration and Refugee Board is an administrative tribunal, which administers a law, and therefore may develop a certain specialization.

It establishes a division of labour, a specialization under which the law establishes very specific and defined roles for the judges whose prime responsibility will be to ensure that an offence against Canada has truly occurred.

They will also have to assess the evidence, and that is extremely important. As you know, justice is not served if the evidence cannot be objectively, intelligently and impartially assessed.

Then there is the Department of Justice. Our fine and attractive Minister of Justice will, under all circumstances, have to make a decision on the extradition process. She will have to ratify—I say ratify, but members will understand that in each case that is submitted to her—

I was surprised to learn of the level of intimacy in the process. I thought it was automatic, until Mr. Lemire and Mr. Roy told me otherwise. In a way this is reassuring, because it means that political authority is more than just political authority.

The human authority must take a look at the extradition issue. Why? First, to make sure that when a state asks for the extradition of an individual who is guilty of an offence both in Canada and in his country of origin, his extradition will not expose that individual to abuse or to violations of his rights as a human being.

I was very pleased to learn during a briefing that a provision of the bill specifically provides that when human rights are violated, when the individual committed a punishable offence that carries a two-year jail term, and when it is feared that the individual will be discriminated against for motives that are prohibited under the Canadian law and charter, then the minister can reject the request for extradition.

We are, referring to possible violations based on political beliefs or marital status. One's sexual orientation is not included in the legislation, but I know we can count on the parliamentary secretary to agree to an amendment that the Bloc Quebecois will table in committee.

The minister will have the option, when she is concerned about the conditions surrounding the extradition of an individual detained in Canada, to oppose such extradition.

Again, the great merit of this bill is, of course, that it updates a century old act that was rarely amended, but it is also that it targets the new forms of crime.

Crime is a national reality, but it is also an international one. This is something that reaches across borders. In fact, until recently, and I am not sure it is not still the case to some extent, Canada was considered a haven for organized crime.

Mr. Speaker, you know—not from personal experience but from what you heard—how organized crime works. There are usually three phases. I had this explained to me at the time when I was taking a special interest in this issue.

In 1995, the late Daniel Desrochers, a 13-year old boy, was the innocent victim of a car bombing a few feet away from my constituency office in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. This incident reminded us of the battle going on in the underworld, especially between two biker gangs, namely the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machines, for control over the drug market. Following this incident, many of my fellows citizens and I felt the urge to find out more about organized crime.

I then came to realize that it is not only a national but also an international phenomenon.

I also came to realize that organized crime works in stages or phases. The first stage consists in taking control over a territory. That makes sense. Members of criminal organization need a place to operate. These places meet very specific criteria.

There is no organized crime to speak of in the third world. There is a lot of corruption of course. There are drug traffickers, and several countries come to mind. But organized crime as we know it in Canada and Quebec is only possible in a country of plenty.

There are a number of prerequisites for organized crime to flourish. First, this requires a state with a highly complex legal system. We already know how many people hold that the charter of rights adopted in 1982, without the consent of Quebec, constitutes a hindrance in the battle against organized crime, because in a bureaucratized state with a highly complex legal system there are fundamental guarantees, over and above sections 7 through 14 of the charter, which slow down the judiciary process.

Of course, like my colleagues on the other side of the House, we in the Bloc Quebecois would not like to go back to a time when there were no judiciary guarantees and a person could fall victim to wrongful acts by the judiciary without much hope of redress.

A brief aside: some of my colleagues, militants from way back, who lived through the 1970 October Crisis, when habeas corpus was suspended, know what it is to live with discretionary imprisonment, hateful as that is, and other judiciary abuses. This is why it is so important to have judiciary guarantees in a constitutional state.

Now, back to the bread and butter of the issue, or perhaps I should speak instead of sheep and lambs, to please the hon. member for Louis-Hébert. Our thanks to her, incidentally, for the excellent lamb she offered us this morning. I wish our Liberal colleagues could have been there too. It brought our thoughts back to the battle this hon. member has been waging, along with some of her colleagues, for instance the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. The excellent lamb served reminds us of the Department of Agriculture's need to review its policy on scrapie.

That said, back to organized crime. Organized crime runs in stages, and this is a national reality. With cross-border trade, the figure of $20 million laundered has become an international reality.

The first stage of organized crime is gaining control over a territory, and the second, almost inevitably, is money laundering. I do not wish to go too far off-topic, but what does it take to convince this government—

I would like the parliamentary secretary to look up and take note when I ask her to work very hard within her caucus to convince the Minister of Justice—a woman who is generally easy to get along with, except when she is speaking about constitutional law and can get carried away—to take $1,000 bank notes out of circulation, because it leads directly to money laundering.

If we were to do a little informal survey of our colleagues, of those in the gallery, of listeners, and ask how many of them had a $1,000 bill on them, with the notable exception of yourself, Mr. Speaker, there would be very few. That is why the $1,000 bank note lends itself to money laundering. Canada is the only country to have this denomination.

The first phase, therefore, is taking over an area. The second is money laundering. The third, and most important, is the phase which, according to a certain number of analysts, Canada is well into, in which the underworld invests in legal and illegal activities. This is a cause for concern.

It is a cause for concern because, without strong legislation, and of course Bill C-40 is a step in the right direction, legal and illegal activities can cover quite a range.

For example, the underworld is now investing in luxury items such as jewels and fur coats, and, we have to be honest, casinos. And of course, the drug culture provides it with its main source of income.

Crime is a very real concern. Just recently, perhaps a year and a half ago, I believe we passed an extremely memorable milestone, providing our society with more weapons for the battle we must wage against those on the other side of the law. That milestone was the passage of legislation on gangs, and I believe I made a modest contribution to this.

Of course, it will always be the government that gets credit for its enactment, but I believe that, without the political pressure brought to bear and the arguments made daily by myself and my Bloc Quebecois colleagues from Montreal and other regions, there would not have been such early awareness of the necessity of legislation against organized crime. That legislation created a new criminal offence, and provided both police forces and judges with additional tools.

For those who may have just joined us, Bill C-40 is a bill which combines two existing laws with the intent of bringing the extradition process into the present day. not only bringing it into the present day, but also simplifying it, by not only listing the criminal offences but also including the concept of offences punishable in both states.

As we know, Canada has extradition agreements with 49 states, as well as being a signatory of eight multilateral conventions. If there should happen not to be a treaty with the states concerned, it will be possible to proceed on a case-specific base and the law will allow extradition without a treaty, using the process of a designation or agreement specific to a particular case.

Another quite interesting clause in the bill concerns the Immigration and Refugee Board, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Immigration, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

It may happen within the extradition process that the person involved is also claiming political refugee status. We know how the refugee status determination process works. It is a pretty rotten, petty and patronage-ridden system, in my opinion. Essentially, however, how it works is that it allows a person from another country to come into Canadian territory and apply for political refugee status under the Geneva Convention, asking for asylum in Canada.

Generally, it is because we have reasons to believe that, in his or her country of origin, the person could be persecuted on the basis of political or religious beliefs. It is also increasingly frequent to grant refugee status to people because we fear for their physical integrity and are concerned that they might suffer some kind of reprisals because of their sexual orientation.

Since Canada is a signatory to the Geneva convention, refugee status is determined by first accepting a person into the country. An officer meets the person, who fills out a personal information card. The officer then determines if there is a credible basis for the claim.

If so, the person is allowed to continue the process. The file is then referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, more specifically to the Convention Refugee Determination Division. The board makes decisions. It makes its decisions through an accelerated process, or with two board members being present.

We hope, of course, that the process will change. It must change, if only because, on average, it takes three years to reach a decision. This is rather unbelievable, considering that if a person comes here as a political refugee, it is because that person is in trouble. The process should be a lot faster than it is.

What happens when a decision takes a long time, when it takes three years? As the member for Jonquière pointed out, people get used to being here. They learn the language, they find a job, they develop relationships with their neighbours and they become part of our society.

Sometimes, after having been here two or three years and having integrated themselves to the Canadian society, they are told they are not recognized as political refugees. They must then leave the country. Some will argue there are ways to appeal the decision. It is true, particularly through the federal court. But in reality, the decisions made by the Immigration and Refugee Board are very rarely overturned at the appeal level.

The process is somewhat inefficient, but with Bill C-40, it will be possible to consider that a decision made by the justice department on refugee status determination will also apply for the purposes of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Some may construe this as interference. I for one think it is a sensible approach and that it makes sense, for the sake of consistency, that a decision made by the justice department on refugee status determination be binding and apply to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I hope that we will dispose quickly of Bill C-40, which is not a very controversial bill. I heard our colleagues from the Reform Party express a number of grievances, and there is nothing wrong with that. They probably had more to do with the cost of implementing the legislation. This is a concern—I was about to say an obsession—but I personally believe that the real challenge, as events will show, should lead us to consider and thoroughly review the Immigration Act. We can agree that twho here is work to be done in that area.

Yesterday, the Minister of Immigration, a woman always perfectly in control of her faculties, who is not prone to anger and verbal abuse and always speaks in a soft voice whether the moment is grave and solemn or festive, told us “We will be tabling legislation shortly”.

That is not enough. We must know when legislation will be tabled. It is especially important since the Trempe commission, masterfully presided by the former deputy minister of immigration in Quebec, concluded in its report that the immigration system did not make any sense. If there is one priority we must raise as members of parliament, that is it.

The Trempe report asked that a distinction be made between people who come here as immigrants, who chose Quebec or Canada often on the basis of professional skills, and those who come here because of hardship due to the international situation or to problems inherent to their country of origin and seek political asylum. The Trempe report suggested that a distinction be made and that a protection agency be established.

There is a problem that must be mentioned, that I think people should be aware of. I am sure the parliamentary secretary knows what I am referring to. The Immigration and Refugee Board is a patronage haven.

I could give examples. I do not know whether it parliamentary to do so? I will take a chance. There is Mrs. Robic, the former Minister of Immigration for Quebec, for instance. That is a good appointment, because she was the Minister of Immigration. She was a Liberal, of course, but nobody is perfect.

There were other appointments to this Immigration and Refugee Board, including the president of Alliance Quebec. We are hearing a lot about Alliance Quebec. The shock waves can surly be felt all the way out in Edmonton. He was appointed. Is there anyone that can say to the House that the former president of Alliance Quebec was familiar with international law? Was he interested in immigration? Of course not. That has nothing to do with his ability to learn. I would agree, but could we not leave patronage behind, and follow the example of the Parti Quebecois, which will have an objective procedure and where the candidates chosen will be career public servants?

That was what the Trempe report called for. It recommended that there be a process whereby people with an interest in immigration law and international law and who would make it their career would be appointed to the public service, by competition. Is there anything nobler than a career in the public service of one's country?

This is the direction that should be taken. For my part, as a member of parliament, I hope that we move rapidly to adopt such a process. Let me say right off that the government will be able to rely on the enthusiastic, not to say ardent, support of the opposition, particularly yours truly.

Those are my comments. I will conclude by saying that we will support the general philosophy behind the bill, as well as its economic impact. Certainly, there will be a few amendments, because we have a dual objective. First, we want to attain sovereignty, as everyone knows, but our more immediate goal is to improve government. That is what the opposition is all about. It is arduous work, with no end in sight. We will work in committee to improve the bill. We will move a few amendments but, on the whole, this is a worthy bill that we will support.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus and address Bill C-40 at second reading. On behalf of our justice critic, the member for Sydney—Victoria, I would like to announce that our caucus is supportive of Bill C-40. We are pleased to see many of the changes being introduced in terms of trying to harmonize a piece of legislation that was spread out over many other pieces of legislation in the past which made it very cumbersome and complicated.

I do not have nearly as much to say about this as the previous speaker from the Bloc. This is not my area of expertise. I will stick to the very limited, narrow subject matter here, the proposed legislation.

The legislation is intended to bring our extradition procedures more in line and closer to those of other countries to prevent Canada from becoming some kind of safe haven for international criminals, those who do not benefit our country. We want the international co-operation and the tools at our disposal to send these people where justice will be served.

One of the major problems with the current legislation, as pointed out by the parliamentary secretary, is the difficulty for Canada to meet its international obligations in any kind of an international criminal court or tribunal. It is ironic that Canada has been one of the most outspoken countries in trying to create such an international court and to oblige people to serve or to attend that international court, but under the current system we cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body. Obviously that is a limitation that needs to be corrected.

We feel that Bill C-40 is necessary and beneficial because the current legislation does not deal with things like the newer high tech crimes and is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activity, for instance the drug trade, organized and transborder crimes. The increased mobility of individuals makes the need for effective extradition relations with other countries more important than it ever has been in the past.

When we look at the two acts that covered extradition in the past, the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act, both were enacted in the 1800s, 1877 and 1882. That kind of legislation is even older than my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore and obviously needs to be revisited, updated, reviewed and amended. We are glad to see Bill C-40 coming in to do that.

The NDP caucus is in support of measures to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for fugitives, as I mentioned. We are in favour of enhanced human rights protections and safeguards for persons who are the subject of an extradition request. I believe Bill C-40 will further enhance those human rights issues associated with the extradition.

The NDP caucus is in favour of provisions for extradition of persons to international tribunals and courts, as mentioned. We feel that is one of the big benefits. Obviously we are in favour of modernizing the act to deal with high tech and organized crime.

One of the things we have reservations and concerns about is with the changes being proposed that would permit the admissibility of a broader range of types of evidence in cases of extradition hearings. We have some serious reservations and concerns with the powers to exclude certain persons from extraditions hearings. We believe Bill C-40 will augment the ability to exclude certain types.

The non-publication of evidence provisions has been dealt with in Bill C-40. We have some serious concerns about that. Most fundamentally, the NDP has a very grave concern that safeguards regarding the imposition of the death penalty are not really made binding. We have not really ever addressed whether Canada is going to promote or allow the extradition of criminals to places where they could stand and be executed where the death penalty still exists. We do not believe Bill C-40 has really addressed that adequately and that is one of the serious reservations we have.

I would like to add a small anecdotal piece of information. I do not know a great deal about the legislation and the history of extradition, but I know in my own riding of one case that I have been working on at great length trying to get a woman extradited to the United States so that she can stand trial for the murder of her husband, a Canadian citizen and a member of the Canadian military who was murdered in Florida. The grand jury of the United States stood for eight minutes before indicting this person that there are probable grounds for this person's standing trial. I can attest to how frustrating it is to try to get a person extradited from this country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

When next this bill is before parliament, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have approximately 15 minutes.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.