Debates of Nov. 30th, 1998

Extradition Act

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 that is ordered this day shall be taken up immediately after the completion of Government Orders; that, during consideration of the said debate, the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests to propose motions requiring unanimous consent; and that, when no further member rises to speak or after four hours of consideration, whichever is earlier, the debate shall terminate and the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

In other words around 10.30 p.m. I wish to indicate as well that it is understood among members that members could share 20 minute slots in the customary way. I would like to offer this motion to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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 third time and passed.

Extradition Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-40, the extradition bill which establishes a comprehensive and modern scheme for extradition to and from Canada.

As Canada's existing extradition legislation dates from the late 1800s, the bill brings welcome and necessary revision to the law, a law appropriate for the 21st century. The bill establishes a scheme for extradition to and from Canada. It will permit extradition on the basis of bilateral or multilateral treaty and where the state or entity seeking extradition is designated as an extradition partner in the schedule to the act. It will also allow the ministers of foreign affairs and international trade to enter into a specific agreement to permit extradition in a particular case.

One very important feature of the expanded bases for extradition is that it will give Canada the capacity to extradite to existing war crimes tribunals as well as to any future international criminal court.

Bill C-40 deals with a pressing problem in extradition, the onerous evidentiary requirements imposed on those states which seek extradition from Canada. Currently states must submit evidence sufficient to meet a Canadian legal standard and in a form which is consistent with our complex evidentiary rules.

For countries of a different legal tradition such as many European states, and even countries with a similar system, this makes the preparation of a request for extradition a very onerous task and in some cases an impossible one.

Bill C-40 addresses this problem in a balanced way which recognizes the need for an efficient extradition process as well as adequate safeguards for the person who is sought for extradition.

Under the new legislation the legal standard for extradition will be retained. A Canadian judge will still have to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before her or him such that if the conduct underlying the request for extradition had occurred in Canada it would have justified committal for trial here. Lawyers like to refer to this as the prima facie test.

What would be modified is the type of evidence that could be presented to the extradition judge. This approach addresses the current difficult requirements 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 first person affidavit prima facie case standard in relation to certain types of modern crime, for example complicated frauds. With the increasing complexity of transborder and international crime it will likely be impossible in the future.

Under the current system some countries simply decide not to seek the extradition of fugitives because they cannot comply with our demands. Those fugitives therefore remain at large in our communities because of the legal impossibility of obtaining affidavits or the fact that it is practically impossible.

Under the new legislation the judge would admit into evidence documentation contained in a record of the case. 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 decisions 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 existing evidentiary requirements for a Canadian extradition hearing are more formalistic and onerous than those for a Canadian trial.

The “record of the case for all states” option is the best compromise between the fully fledged prima facie case with first person affidavits and not requiring any judicial assessment of the evidence as is presently the case in Australia and the United Kingdom, and in the latter case in respect of its European partners. With this option the legal test would not change. What would change is the form in which the evidence would be made available. This approach also offers greater certainty and equality in the treatment of the person sought for extradition, as well as better procedural safeguards.

First, as I mentioned, in submitting the record of the case in the case of a person sought for prosecution, the appropriate prosecuting authority will have to certify to Canada that the summarized evidence is available for trial and that it is in the case of our common law system, for example, sufficient to justify prosecution in that country.

Second, the person sought will receive enhanced disclosure as a summary of the entire case would be made as opposed to just affidavits on particular elements of it.

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

Finally, in accordance with the prima facie test the extradition judge will order committal of the person in custody to await surrender only if evidence would justify committal for trial in Canada if the offence was committed here.

We believe that with this very balanced approach to evidence Canada will be in a position to meet its international obligations and in a position to prevent this country from becoming a haven for those who would seek to escape justice.

Bill C-40 maintains a two step extradition scheme comprised of a judicial phase followed by an executive phase. In that framework the bill sets out a code of procedure applicable to the whole process.

The bill includes provisions on provisional arrest, bail, appeals and the extradition hearing itself. It also details the functions and powers of the extradition judge, the attorney general and the minister. Clarifying the procedure and the role of the authorities involved contributes to having a system that is efficient and fair.

Another important feature of the bill is that it sets out the mandatory and discretionary grounds for the refusal of surrender by the minister, such as a political offence, lack of jurisdiction, death penalty, humanitarian considerations, previous acquittal or previous conviction, and trial in absentia.

In all cases the minister will be required to refuse surrender where it would be unjust or oppressive or the prosecution or punishment is being pursued on a discriminatory basis, a matter on which I will elaborate further in a moment. These grounds of refusal provide an important safeguard for the person sought and they reflect modern extradition practice.

I note that 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 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.

The standing committee heard from several witnesses including the ministers of justice, foreign affairs and international trade; from Amnesty International; from representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees; and from the criminal lawyers association. The committee made some useful amendments to the bill, most of a technical nature. However one amendment of particular note relates to the reasons for the refusal of extradition.

When this matter was referred the committee was asked to give specific consideration to clause 44, which provides that the minister must deny extradition where she is satisfied that the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person whose extradition is requested on specific discriminatory grounds.

Initially the bill reflected the grounds which are found in the United Nations model treaty on extradition. After the discussion at committee those grounds have been expanded and clause 44(1)(b) refers to:

—by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.

The amended clause takes into account additional grounds of discrimination found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

I emphasize that as mentioned earlier, a very important aspect of Bill C-40 is that Canada will be in a position to extradite and provide evidentiary assistance to existing war crimes tribunals and a future international criminal court, such as the one the statute for which was adopted at Rome this summer.

Given the jurisdiction of such bodies over the most serious of crimes, it is imperative that Canada has in place instruments that permit us to lend full co-operation to the tribunals and the future court. Bill C-40 would give Canada that capacity.

Bill C-40 brings important and necessary change to Canada's extradition regime. At a time when transnational organized crime is an ever increasing menace, it is critically important that Canada has in place a modern and effective scheme for international co-operation in combating transnational crime. This proposed legislation on extradition is an important component of that scheme. It will help us to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for those who seek to escape justice.

I look forward to a constructive debate on this important piece of legislation. I certainly urge, after due consideration, all members of the House to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. We have spent a fair bit of time on it in committee and also had the pleasure of moving a number of amendments. The one my colleague just talked about was moved by the Reform Party to make this a better bill.

Extradition is vital to the justice system. Canadians must not be allowed to escape trial by fleeing to other countries. Canada must not be a haven for persons wanted for criminal action in other countries. The process must be fair and expeditious.

Changes in the legislation that advance these goals are welcome. They include the broadening of grounds for extradition by simply requiring that the conduct be a serious crime in both countries, permitting the use of video and audio technology for hearings, linking the refugee and extradition processes to determine faster whether the refugee claim is legitimate or bogus.

With regard to war crimes, the changes are long overdue. The United Nations established a Rwanda genocide tribunal in 1994 and the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal in 1993. The international criminal court is the new body to be created with an unclear mandate.

Canada, along with 119 other countries signed a treaty that will bring into force an international criminal court with the power to investigate, prosecute and indict and try persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.

It is clearly an international criminal court or tribunal with a definition of state or entity. Therefore extradition will be allowed. The treaty may be sound, although the United States has refused to sign. It should have been the subject of public hearings and a better debate in this parliament.

Much of the problem with the existing law is the layers of appeals: courts, to minister, to refugee board, back to the minister, and back to the courts. Delay is an advantage to the accused. They know witnesses will die or their memories will become less clear. This bill has done very little to speed up this process of delay by going back and forth.

That is why the supreme court insists under Askov that trials be held expeditiously. It suggested that six months was a reasonable standard, yet extradition proceedings routinely take many years. This bill does nothing to address the two main problems, charter appeals and ministerial discretion.

Charter appeals on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment allow for multiple appeals. In the second reading debate, I read a number of them. There is a file six inches thick of the appeals that have taken too long. The charter appeals in the supreme court have taken too long. They do not do justice to those of us in Canada and those of us who were seeking to extradite.

There is the Rafay and Burns case in British Columbia. A murder was committed in 1994. The case will be heard by the supreme court in November in Ottawa. The B.C. Court of Appeal found the minister had to refuse extradition because they faced execution for bludgeoning Rafay's parents to death. It should not be a question in this country whether we send them back or not.

Pierino and Michael Divito, Mafia figures, are wanted in the U.S.A. for conspiracy to import 300 kilos of cocaine. It goes to court because of much harsher drug sentences handed out in the U.S. The lawyer vows it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. They do not want to be sentenced in the United States. They want to be sentenced here because for their drug crimes they might get five years in Canada and they would probably get life in the United States because they are organized crime figures. They are part of the Mafia. Here in Canada we will treat them nicely and tell them they can get out after one-sixth of their sentence is served, one-third under a new bill which has passed.

Salvatore Cazzetta, leader of the Rock Machine biker gang is wanted in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges. His extradition has been delayed for four years with arguments taken all the way to the supreme court.

Michael Gwynne, a fugitive serving a 120 year sentence, was apprehended in 1993. He argued his case for five years all the way to the supreme court.

This bill does nothing to stop those kinds of appeals I have just mentioned.

The bill preserves the discretion of the minister which is part of the delay problem and injects the minister into the judicial process. The minister should have no discretion to seek assurances on sentence. She is trying to impose standards which necessarily vary from one minister to the next and in another country. We would not accept such interference in our judicial system. Jeffrey Simpson wrote a very good column in the Globe called “Charter Madness” on this issue.

The role of the court should be simple. Determine whether the conduct complained of is a crime in Canada. Protect us against dictators like Suharto trying to extradite democracy supporters. Determine that the person sought is in fact the person accused. Is he Ivan the Terrible? Make sure there is a valid treaty. The severity of the punishment in another country should be irrelevant to this bill, but the government is not prepared to change that.

We had a rigorous examination of this bill before committee. Witnesses expressed concerns with many sections of the bill. One of the more direct assertions of the concerns with this bill came from the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association. During second reading debate the Reform Party and I pointed out our concern with ministerial involvement in the extradition process.

On the one hand Canada enters into a noble and long overdue process to deal with extraditable individuals, like members of genocidal regimes, and we enter into an agreement with 119 signatories to set up international criminal courts, like those for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, which suggests a judicial process. On the other hand we allow the Minister of Justice to intercede and intervene in the process.

The Reform Party tried by way of amendments in committee to have clauses 3, 12, 15 and 16 changed to ensure an extraditable individual was actually extradited from Canada. We wanted “may be extradited” changed to “shall be extradited” to ensure the minister could not intercede. We were not successful. That remains our major overriding concern. We cannot support a bill that allows the minister discretion.

All the minister should be doing is receiving the extradition order and allowing the process to kick in. The minister should have no discretion. It would have been gratifying to have clause 38 of the bill simply read that the minister was to receive a copy of the order, period.

The Reform Party is not pleased with clauses 40, 41, 42 and 43 of Bill C-40. We would have preferred, as we said in committee and moved amendments in that regard, to have the minister removed from the process.

In principle, the bill remains the same and we cannot support this intent. It insinuates a political nuance on a bill when we should be trying to make a strictly judicial matter. Clauses 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 are important safeguards in the bill, but they should not be exercised by the minister.

We were unsuccessful in committee in getting the changes we felt were required. However, we inserted some additional wording in clause 44 to ensure all safeguards possible were evident. We moved that the clause be amended to include “nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status”.

We put that amendment to the bill. It affects people's rights under the charter. We were amazed that in drafting the bill the government missed that. We got it with help from our research division and the criminal lawyers who helped us put some amendments to the bill.

Seven Reform amendments were accepted by the committee. It is wonderful we were on guard to do this. If we had not, this bill would probably be challenged in a number of areas in the Supreme Court of Canada, which would cost the Canadian taxpayer a lot of extra money. Most of the amendments we put were to deal with the charter and with where this bill would go. The bill was not drafted properly. By accepting the Reform amendments to this bill, that was admitted by the government people who drafted it.

We cannot support Bill C-40 as long as such clauses as clause 44(2) remain. What the punishment is in another country should be of no concern to us in Canada. It is the right of each country to say whether a crime is punishable by death. We should not be precluding extradition based on that. The Reform Party has grave concerns with clause 46 which has been called the Mandela clause.

We have had a good debate and a good committee on this bill. We won on seven of the amendments. The opposition is doing a good job for the people of Canada.

We will vote against this bill because we did not get all the things we wanted and to show protest in the area of separating the minister from the judicial section. We do not want to unduly delay voting on this bill so we can get a new extradition act in Canada. It is probably one of the longest bills on the record. It is one of two bills that we have been working with with for over 100 years. It is certainly time they were updated. We are very pleased to have made some amendments to this bill that will be good for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Standing Orders permit it, I would like to share my time with my colleague from Beauharnois-Salaberry, who also worked on this bill in committee.

During second reading we had the opportunity to indicate that we were in favour—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I should point out that unanimous consent is required for the House to proceed in this fashion.

The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has requested unanimous consent to split his time to two 20-minute portions with no questions, no comments. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for allowing us to proceed in this fashion.

We had the opportunity to indicate during second reading and in committee that we were in favour of the bill's intent and its underlying philosophy. This is a bill which will have two major impacts on the Extradition Act.

First, it will combine into a single piece of legislation the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act, which was some 100 years old and had not been substantially reviewed in years.

Second, the procedures for evidence have been changed. In the future, the admission into evidence of elements that would not have been admissible under Canadian law will be allowed under agreements between countries or specific agreements on the individuals concerned. For these reasons, we support a review of the Extradition Act.

We are reminded that the Extradition Act concerns people's mobility. It refers of course to the fact that people are increasingly mobile and there is more and more trade and movement between countries. That is why it is important to have the most up to date legislation possible.

One of the problems with the Extradition Act is that it did not take into account a new approach to international law, which did not go unnoticed by the hon. member for Chambly, who, as I said, is a distinguished jurist. The act did not allow Canada to turn an extradited person over to international tribunals.

In recent years, there has often been a consensus in this House to participate in various proceedings concerning international crime. The new version of the act will allow this.

There were obstacles preventing Canada from carrying out its international obligations to an international court or criminal tribunal. Obviously, as my colleagues know, Bill C-40 provides for a single system applying in all instances. But, as our colleagues who sit on the committee will remember, it was suggested in committee that there should be two separate systems of law.

I will let the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry explain his position on this. I think that, while he may have found it attractive, this idea did not fly in government circles. The government fears it might be discriminatory, and the charter may be used to call on the government to explain why something that is allowable under an agreement with another country is not covered by the same rules when dealing with an international tribunal.

I took the stand that a single plan was desirable, but I must point out, to be accurate, that we had representations in this regard in committee.

I was saying this legislation is 100 years old. May you reach that age too, Mr. Speaker. We must review this law, because we obviously do not have the same means of communications we had 100 years ago. We must also consider the whole notion of criminality.

If there is one member in this House concerned about criminality, it is the member speaking. I thank my colleagues for their reserved, but real enthusiasm.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Organized crime is an important matter. It is an unavoidable reality. As my colleague knows, the parallel economy fuelled by the activities of the underworld in certain communities has been estimated at some $200 million.

I have to say that organized crime advances in stages. The first stage involves controlling an area. The second is control in order to sell drugs. The third, and this is the one lying in wait for Canada in the opinion of those in the know, is investment in legal and illegal activities.

This is why a number of analysts claim that there is no sector organized crime has not infiltrated. It exists in a society because there is complicity and links with all those in positions of authority such as VIPs and lawyers.

This brings us to Bill C-40, which will allow speedier extradition and which will, in some cases, of course, involve people charged with underworld activities.

This may come as news but, 100 years ago, there was no such thing as telemarketing fraud. Now there is. This is a very contemporary example of criminal activity.

One hundred years ago, there was no such thing as theft of information via computer. Obviously, it did not exist. Can you, even for one moment, imagine Father Labelle with a Macintosh? It would be a complete anachronism. Now, we have telemarketing fraud, theft via computers and, of course, the fraudulent use of the Internet.

These are all reasons for reviewing the Extradition Act. At the beginning of my speech, I reminded members that the intention was to combine two statutes: the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Extradition Act and its application.

We also worked very hard as a political party in committee. I again thank my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, for his very valuable co-operation and assistance. As members know, he is trained in international and constitutional law and is familiar with these issues.

In the true spirit of team work, we divided up the work. I moved an amendment to clause 44 of the bill and it is to this aspect of the bill that I wish to draw my colleagues' attention.

The minister may refuse to comply with a request for extradition from a state listed in schedule II to the act as one of Canada's extradition partners, if the minister has reason to believe that the individual concerned would be the victim of abuse or discrimination. Clause 44 lists a number of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

I found this list to be extremely restrictive. We were right. We were right in proposing an amendment such as this one. This morning, I was quite pleased to read a letter addressed to the Minister of Justice by none other than the high commissioner for refugees.

That distinguished person wrote that she shared our concerns. I hope this will convince the House that we did work really hard to improve the bill. In her letter, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees draws the attention of parliamentarians to clause 44.

The letter reads in part as follows:

The UNHCR is not trying to prevent prosecution against refugees who may have committed criminal offences—

—but, rather, to ensure these people are not exposed to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, or because they belong to a specific social group.

Clause 44 of Bill C-40 provides crucial but insufficient protection. It does not specify that four of the five grounds for persecution listed in the definition of refugee proposed in the 1951 convention are not included in clause 44 of the bill.

As a responsible opposition party, we had a duty to improve the bill. We made no bones about that and we proposed an amendment which got 90% support from the Liberals.

We all know how this happens. There are always some government members who commit the sin of pride in that they refuse to admit that the opposition is right. They may admit it in part, but not entirely. In any case, our amendment was supported by 90% of members and we feel we improved the bill.

A number of issues were also raised. I mentioned earlier that we received representations from witnesses who would have preferred two distinct legal systems. I know that the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will discuss this. Other representations were also made.

On a typical Thursday, our committee heard a large number of criminal lawyers who were all very knowledgeable. These people came to tell us about an issue that will interest the hon. member for Chambly, because, as I said, he is a distinguished jurist.

They told us that, under this bill, it will be possible to accept hearsay evidence. As some of you know, I myself have an interest in law. I was taught that, from a legal point of view, hearsay evidence is not considered to be very solid evidence. Under the bill, whenever a request for extradition is made, there will have to be a certified record of the case, in which all the evidence will be deemed to have been included, and the country's legal authorities will have to certify that legal record, which will be used for the purpose of a trial. However, it will now be possible to accept hearsay evidence without having to make a solemn declaration.

Some lawyers were worried about this, the criminal law specialists, who are generally fairly unconcerned about such details. They sought to understand why the minister was heading in that direction.

In the parliamentary committee, we had a number of questions for the senior public servants, and were told that, in the current situation, under the existing law, it is extremely difficult, with a bilateral framework and the treaties that have been signed, to recognize certain elements of proof within the strict confines of the letter of Canadian law.

That was one element that convinced me. We will see how things develop, but I will say right off that one of the important components of the bill is the significant change relating to eligible evidence, since it will now be possible to admit certain elements of hearsay evidence.

Not only will the bill provide extradition mechanisms that have more clout bilaterally, through agreements with the states listed in the schedule to the bill, but specific agreements will also be possible. That is a question we raised in committee, because we asked ourselves “What will happen if we want to extradite an individual from or to a state with which there is no treaty, one not in the schedule?” We were given the assurance that it would be possible to have specific agreements by mutual consent.

There are, as we know, two main processes in this bill that must be kept in mind. There is the entire legal system, because when all is said and done, the process is going to start when an extradition judge has assessed the contents of a file and made recommendations as to whether or not extradition is necessary.

Second, the Minister of Justice has considerable power. When all is said and done, she is the one to decide whether or not the person whose extradition is being called for should or should not be extradited.

Some hon. members on the committee, the Reform members in particular, were worried about this. They said “But this is impossible. The process should be entirely judicial. No one other than the extradition judges or the justices of the peace ought to decide, on assessment of the evidence, whether the extradition process should be put in motion. The judges should be the only ones to decide.”

In the Bloc Quebecois we said that perhaps that was not wise, because, if we elect people and form governments and if there are members of Parliament, it is reasonable for the executive authority to be associated with the process and for the minister, in the end, to be able to refuse.

For example, what happens when a country known for its human rights violations wants to extradite someone and when the government knows that this person may well face terrible reprisals and that the reasons for the request are political only?

There have to be mechanisms somewhere in the bill to provide a counterbalance and there have to be guarantees that Canada will never be part of a process in which people who are extradited could ultimately face reprisals because of their political beliefs. That makes no sense.

We think there are guarantees in a bill such as this.

Political beliefs are sacrosanct. There is nothing more true. There is nothing more authentic in life than political beliefs.

Let me take a few seconds to invite my fellow Quebeckers to vote. I think members will agree—and I am sure the President of the Treasury Board will agree with my assessment—that it is important for people to exercise their right to vote today. Those who will represent us need a clear mandate. The polls are open until 8 p.m., unless otherwise indicated I close by saying that I have confidence, and that things should go well.

I would add that this bill also amends the Immigration Act. It will be possible, should anyone facing extradition also file an application for refugee status—these things are possible—where a decision is made under Bill C-40, and the individual is denied refugee status, the decision will be deemed to apply to the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This then is a positive bill and the Bloc Quebecois supports it. I know that my colleague will have more to say about this, but I would like to set the stage by saying that what we want as parliamentarians is for parliament to be involved in the decisions taken by the executive branch.

We were a little disappointed to see that, in the various extradition treaties—for instance, right now, Canada has bilateral agreements, reciprocal treaties, with 49 states—evidence existing in the other country may be allowed under Canadian law. We would like to see all extradition treaties, all bilateral treaties or, in cases in which an international tribunal is also involved, any criminal human rights tribunal, debated in the House.

We were rather surprised at the government's stubborn, not to say cavalier, refusal to consider such a debate. I and my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, an eminent jurist whom the Privy Council would do well to consult more often, introduced an amendment proposing that all treaties to be signed by Canada and another country be debated here in the House. Members can imagine our surprise when Liberal members vetoed this proposal.

Can anyone tell me why they did this? What reason can there be for not involving parliament in the negotiation of treaties and for not sharing related information?

That was one flaw. It was a great disappointment and showed how limited the democratic reflex was in members opposite.

That concludes my remarks. My colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, will step in with great eloquence.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to urge the voters in my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, which encompasses the two Quebec electoral districts of Beauharnois—Huntingdon and Salaberry—Soulanges, to exercise their right to vote. This is a great day for democracy in Quebec. It will no doubt be a great day for us. It is important that everyone exercise this right, as it is recognized as one of the most fundamental rights under our charters and major international conventions.

I therefore hope the Quebec premier's wish for record participation in this public consultation, which will decide what comes next in the history of Quebec and Canada, will come true. Like my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and my other colleagues in this place, I am confident.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for getting me involved in the work of the justice and human rights committee and allowing me to participate in committee proceedings on Bill C-40 I am profoundly interested in. The bill concerns extradition, extradition treaties entered into by Canada and multilateral conventions allowing criminals to be extradited for the purpose of administering both national and international criminal law.

This has been a calm debate. Parliamentarians from other parties, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and legal experts of some repute from the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs, who were on occasion able to provide the members with some appropriate information.

I would like to express my respect and admiration for Yvan Roy, a senior counsel at Justice, whose most worthwhile commentaries provided us with answers to many of our questions.

Sometimes, however, no answers were forthcoming or there was no follow-up on our proposals, even when we felt they would improve the bill and ensure that it could not be amended subsequently as the result of legal challenges or an event such as the passing of a treaty of Rome creating an international criminal court, which should have moved the committee members to give preference, as my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has suggested, to having two distinct approaches to extradition. That is my first comment on Bill C-40.

In our opinion, it would have been preferable to make the extradition system in keeping with multilateral or bilateral extradition treaties, to create a system specific to this area, and to differentiate it from cases not involving extradition per se, but rather the handing over of persons accused of international crimes to ad hoc tribunals such as the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia or for Rwanda.

Soon, I hope, after 60 states have ratified the treaty of Rome instituting an international criminal tribunal, that tribunal will have to be added to the list of tribunals to which individuals can be handed over when there is a desire to bring them to trial for international crimes.

It would have been desirable in my opinion, as it was in the opinion of a number of the lawyers and criminal lawyers who appeared before the committee, to establish a separate scheme. Despite the amendments sought by the Reformers, the government wanted to continue to permit ministerial discretion in this matter. Ministerial discretion should have been limited in the case of international criminal tribunals. Under the bill as it stands, the minister retains the same discretion as in the case of a foreign country requesting extradition.

In our opinion, the bill would have been improved had the government agreed to create two separate schemes. What concerns us is that, in the future, the government may have to return to parliament in order to set up a separate scheme, something that might have been prevented had the bill been amended as the Bloc Quebecois wished.

The second point I wish to raise regarding the bill concerns the treaties, their publication and their tabling. During the deliberations of the standing committee, we argued vigorously in favour of having extradition treaties—bilateral or multilateral—not only published, as the bill provides, but tabled in parliament.

This is all the more appropriate, in our opinion, because the bill that C-40 is intended to replace provided for the tabling of extradition treaties before both Houses of Parliament. This obligation is eliminated by C-40, thereby reducing the minimal transparency of the government in the area of international treaties.

Since the beginning of this parliament, every time they were given the opportunity, the members of the Bloc Quebecois—at least those who sit on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade—have asked the government to be more transparent on this issue, by agreeing to table before parliament not only treaties like the ones dealing with extradition and social security, but all treaties.

The government remains reluctant to adopt an approach which, as it happens, is the one used today by the parliaments of other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, and even the British parliament, all of which have agreed over the past few years to become more transparent by systematically tabling treaties before parliament.

The Bloc Quebecois is calling for this practice of tabling treaties before parliament to be reviewed and extended to all treaties. We would also like parliament to be involved in the conclusion of treaties and to approve such treaties before they are signed, so that the elected representatives of the people can have a say on the contents of treaties negotiated by the executive branch.

The reticence of the government and its Minister of Foreign Affairs in this matter is obvious; in debates on the implementation of international conventions like the convention on the elimination of antipersonnel mines or the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, they refused to promise that parliament would be consulted so it could approve such treaties before they are signed or ratified.

The Bloc Quebecois brought this issue up again and got some small consolation when the committee chair agreed to write to the chair of the standing committee on foreign affairs and to the minister, to ask that a debate take place on this issue. That sort of opened the door, albeit too narrowly, since it is an issue that deserves a comprehensive review, to make Canada's foreign policy more democratic, as the government pledged to do, and to involve parliament in the signing of treaties, which increasingly affect the daily lives of the citizens.

My third point regarding this bill has to do with the death penalty, since the bill includes a provision, namely clause 44(2), which provides that the minister may refuse to make a surrender order if the person is punishable by death in the other country. This should have been compulsory, since one should be consistent with one's convictions.

If Canada does not believe in the death penalty and feels it is a practice equivalent to torture or to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, it should make it compulsory for the minister not to extradite an individual if that person may be punishable by death in the country requesting his or her extradition.

Discretion is granted to the minister in clause 44(2), but we would have liked to add, in clause 40(3), another reference to the death penalty, since this is a clause dealing with the minister's power to seek assurances from the state requesting the extradition of a person. Surprisingly, the committee and its members, with the exception of one government member, supported us and agreed that reference be made to capital punishment in clause 40.

Even though this amendment is not included, it must be noted that, in certain extradition treaties, including the one between Canada and the United States, the minister is required to seek such assurances. This treaty, which is something of a model extradition treaty for Canada, should have been fully reflected in paragraph 3 of clause 40.

The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and myself cannot hide our disappointment that members voted against such an amendment, particularly as the Department of Justice officials and the parliamentary secretary seemed to have no objection to including such a reference to capital punishment in clause 40.

Fourth, I would point out, as did my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, that we were glad to have taken the initiative in extending the application of paragraph 44.(1)( b ) of Bill C-40, which sets out the reasons for which the Minister of Justice may refuse to make a surrender order. The original such list in Bill C-40 was based on the list in the UN's model treaty, which states are urged to examine when drawing up their own extradition treaties.

The list in this model treaty that was originally included in the bill was very incomplete, in our view. We tried to incorporate the grounds found in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the even more complete list of grounds in section 10 of Quebec's charter of rights and freedoms.

As a result of our initiative, the list was expanded to include language, colour and sexual orientation, with the government adding mental disability. The provision as it now stands is definitely more consistent with Canada's international obligations, and we are pleased that certain grounds have been added and that Quebec's charter served as an inspiration to federal law makers, which includes us until there is evidence to the contrary, in improving this clause.

These are constructive amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois to a bill that has the advantage of modernizing two long forgotten extradition laws, Canada having neglected to modernize its extradition legislation until now.

This bill would probably please a former supreme court justice, who recently retired, Mr. Justice La Forest, who wrote some great books on extradition law, which he wanted to make clearer and more simple. His wishes have been fulfilled to a certain extent in Bill C-40.

I will conclude by reminding members that Canada could use this bill, as well as the existing legislation, to request the extradition of a dictator who is now in the hands of the British justice system. As members know, I am referring to Augusto Pinochet, the former general, now a senator, a person who is still considered a dictator by many people, a person who is allegedly responsible for over 4,000 deaths and an even greater number of disappearances in Chile.

This bill, as well as the existing legislation, authorizes Canada to request the extradition of Mr. Pinochet to Canada, as was done recently by Spain, France, Switzerland and Belgium.

Like my colleagues—and I think they support me in this initiative—I believe we must insist even more strongly that the Minister of Justice follow the lead of her counterparts from European countries and request the extradition of General Pinochet from Great Britain. We must continue to put pressure on that country's government so that Mr. Pinochet cannot escape justice and can be brought before a national tribunal, whether it be in Spain, Belgium, France, Switzerland or even Canada, to answer for the crimes against humanity of which so many Chileans accuse him. Canada is in a position to do so.

I have already asked three questions in the House on this issue. I have yet to get an answer either from the Minister of Justice or from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. An answer would be nice and before the British Minister of the Interior makes his decision, it would be useful if the Government of Canada, through the minister, were to follow up on a request made by a Canadian woman from Montreal, who was tortured, in 1973, as many others were, and suffered physical injuries that she has described in an affidavit that proves the extent of the crimes that were committed and that cannot go unpunished.

We should see that the system meets its goal, which is to ensure that no crime, whether at the international or at the national level, go unpunished.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have the opportunity today to speak on 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.

First let me speak a bit about why we are here today even debating this bill. This legislation is before us today because Canada's current extradition policies are outdated, slow and complex.

Those are three characteristics that when we are dealing with justice issues we ought not to have. In fact, the situation should be just the opposite. Matters should be dealt with expeditiously, currently and in a simple, steadfast and straightforward way.

I am sure we all can think of many delays in the justice system where we see people are suffering grievances because, as we know, justice delayed is justice denied.

I am involved in a court matter I started around the spring of 1996. It is still lingering on. Here we are in December 1998. I am sure the matter will carry on well into the new year, perhaps even close to the millennium.

I am basically a man of patience. Fortunately I have the wherewithal to finance these legal proceedings. But I often think of the many people in our society who are not in as fortunate a position as I and what they must go through when they are undergoing legal proceedings that taken that long, when the time is dragging out and the matters go on indefinitely because of our justice system.

That is one of the reasons we are here today talking about the extradition policies. They have been and they are currently outdated, slow and complex.

The bill before the House combines the Fugitive Offenders Act and the existing Extradition Act to provide a single act to simplify the extradition process in Canada. Simplify is the key word.

The proposed legislation is intended to bring our extradition policies and procedures closer to those of other countries and to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for fugitives who want to avoid facing the justice system in countries where they commit crimes.

One of the major concerns with the current legislation is the difficulty for Canada to meet its international obligations to a international criminal court or tribunal such as the UN tribunal on international war crimes.

Canada cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body under the present legislation. We support being able to extradite individuals to face international courts like the Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals.

These tribunals and the concept of an international court with independent powers to prosecute war criminals have been years in the making and certainly need our support. An important feature of the bill is that it will allow extradition not just to states but to the United Nations war crimes tribunals and any future bodies of this nature, including the UN international criminal court. The bill will enable us to fulfil 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 as 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.

The NDP also supports measures to modernize the act and to deal with high tech and organized crime. The current legislation does not deal with the newer high tech crime and is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activity. Indeed we see a lot of that happening today. We know there is drug trade and organized crime taking place globally. It is not as if now things that happen in our community are isolated from the rest of the world. Quite often these crimes originate in another part of the world and come across to our borders.

There is increased mobility of individuals today. I saw a fine example of this increased mobility earlier. I was sitting in the opposition lobby and I looked up and there was the hon. government House leader standing there talking to some of our people. I put my head down, took another bite out of my meal and I looked up and there was the government House leader in the Chamber making a speech about an emergency debate tonight. In the blink of an eye he can be one place and then another place.

This is true for hon. members of this House and really right across our society. Globalization enables us to commute from one place to another very quickly. Therefore it is very important that our legislation and our laws be able to handle situations which involve this kind of increased mobility and flexibility of individuals across borders.

We in the NDP are also in favour of the enhanced human rights protections and safeguards for persons who are the subject of an extradition request. It is very important that we treat people who are going to come to our country, if they are subject to extradition, with the same degree of fairness and justice we accord to our own citizens. In Canada we have very good human rights legislation and I was happy to see that the bill was amended to include some of those human rights issues and to take those into consideration when dealing with extradition.

Section 44 of the act states the minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the minister is satisfied that the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person by reason of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status or that the person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.

In that section we have the same basic human rights covered that we have in our human rights legislation in Canada, in all provinces. We support this amendment. We feel it is very important to carry through that kind of consistency in terms of extradition matters.

At the same time, we are concerned that while there is considerable ministerial discretion in denying extradition, there are areas that are not as legally binding as we would like, as in the case of an extradition of an individual to a state that may impose the death penalty. This was mentioned by my hon. colleague from the Bloc. If we in Canada feel the death penalty is contrary to what we see as being humanistic treatment of fellow human beings, it is equally important to make sure the same principle carries through with respect to the people we are dealing with under possible extradition orders.

We would have some concerns about the discretionary power of the minister in that regard. We feel perhaps it would be better if it were mandatory. Nonetheless, it is a step forward to at least include that consideration.

The bill allows the Minister of Justice to grant an application for extradition if she has received assurances that the death penalty will not be considered. We would like to see stronger and more binding safeguards to prevent the imposition of the death penalty.

We have some concerns about the legislation. For example, the changes permitting the admissibility of evidence not normally accepted in Canada, such as hearsay evidence. This would weaken the burden of proof for foreign nations to extradite. We feel that there has to be a high standard maintained, so we are a bit concerned about that.

The powers to exclude persons from extradition hearings in certain circumstances, the non-publication of evidence provisions and safeguards against the imposition of the death penalty, as I have mentioned, have not been made binding, and there is a possible loophole resulting from the double criminality provision.

However, even with those concerns we are supportive of this legislation. We feel it is a good step forward. It is a measure that attempts to prevent Canada from becoming a safe haven for fugitives. It enhances the human rights protections and safeguards of persons who are subject to an extradition order. As well, there are provisions for the extradition of persons to international tribunals and courts.

The act is modernized to deal with high tech and organized crime. There are provisions for the protection of young offenders and provisions for consultation between the ministers of justice and immigration in relation to refugees. This is a very important feature. Far too often within government the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, or sometimes people take advantage of certain provisions under one department to avoid their responsibilities under another. This kind of co-operation and consultation between the ministers of justice and immigration will certainly expedite matters concerning extradition. It will make them more fair, just and appropriate.

With those remarks I will conclude. I would certainly urge members of the House to give support to this legislation, which is a good step forward.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate.

It is always a pleasure to participate in debates in this place, particularly with respect to such an important piece of legislation as Bill C-40.

This bill, as previously mentioned, will amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code, the Immigration Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It will also amend and repeal other acts as a consequence.

Again, I would like to highlight that it is my pleasure to participate in a debate on such a substantive piece of legislation sponsored by a government that has a well-earned reputation for a light legislative agenda. Moreover, the Minister of Justice and the solicitor general, both former and current, are well known for their great delay in responding to the call of Canadians to bring much needed law and order legislation.

In more simple and less partisan tones, this legislation will essentially merge a 100 year old Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act into the new and modernized Extradition Act. I share the belief of the parliamentary secretary that the objectives of this bill are certainly positive, beneficial and laudable.

Several events justify the revision and the update of the Extradition Act. Expediency is an important aspect of this legislation, as previously mentioned by my colleague in the New Democratic Party, just as there is a need, I would suggest, for speeding the immigration process, which is also an area of vital concern to this country.

Not only is the current legislation over 100 years old, it does not deal with modern criminality like telemarketing fraud and the use of the Internet to commit offences outside of our jurisdiction. Sadly, criminal activity is keeping pace, if not surpassing, the rate of change in society and technocrime is all too present in our modern world.

The present act is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activity such as the drug trade, organized crime and transborder crimes. As previously mentioned by other speakers, organized crime has reached a crisis level in this country. According to our own police and security officers there is a drastic need to intervene.

The Liberal government currently has the impression that Canada, particularly its ports, is open for business. There is an obvious need for legislation to stem the tide of crime.

The Extradition Act was last amended in 1991 by the former Progressive Conservative government. Bill C-31 considerably reduced delays in extradition cases. At that time groups within the law enforcement and security intelligence communities were already requesting a complete overhaul.

The former PC government also passed legislation known as the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, a bill which this House also seeks to amend under the legislation.

Our former government in its legislation, nonetheless, enabled Canada to co-operate more effectively with other countries in the investigation and prosecution of transnational and international crimes, such as acts of terrorism, drug smuggling and money laundering.

Sadly, the U.S. state department's most recent annual international report, the international narcotics control strategy report, listed Canada as currently being one of the more attractive locations to launder illegal cash. Under the Liberals our country falls into the same category as Brazil and the Cayman Islands when it comes to international crime.

There is certainly a need to talk less about fighting international crime or organized crime and a need for more action, something which I hope the new solicitor general will address in his annual ministerial statement on organized crime later this week. I know that all of us in opposition are anxiously awaiting that moment.

As previously mentioned, Bill C-40 proposes to merge the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act. The new act would allow Canada to meet its international obligations since it would allow extradition to international criminal courts and tribunals, including war crime tribunals. It is apparent of late that traditional impressions of war crimes have expanded and changed and there is a need for a strong international response.

A person would be extradited under this act if the act was committed outside of Canada, but it would also be considered a crime within Canada, commonly known as double criminality. There are some constitutional experts and lawyers who view this as potentially problematic in this country when it comes to judicial interpretation.

There are requirements for some interpretation of evidence to become more flexible. This would also bring Canadian extradition procedures and practices more in line with other countries. Granted, there must always be safeguards when it comes to the consideration of certain types of evidence, particularly hearsay evidence that is not certified or in some way sworn testimony.

The government, however, hopes that the new legislation will prevent fugitives from considering Canada as a safe haven to avoid facing the judicial system of their own country or the country of origin, where the crime was committed.

The new act also retains the Progressive Conservative amendments of Bill C-31 which were there to maintain the efficient extradition process.

Canadians have continually expressed concerns about Canada's extradition laws. They want to prevent this country from becoming a safe haven that would harbour criminals, criminals who arrive to avoid prosecution within their own countries.

Over the past number of years several high profile cases, such as the Ng, Kindler, Maersk Dubai and Narita Airport bombing cases, have become well known within the country and as well have highlighted and caused Canadians and our extradition partners on the international level to express concerns. These cases have also demonstrated the need to reform and modernize our extradition laws.

I was pleased to add my name to many who objected this summer to the scheduled deportation of former Maersk Dubai crew members in the province of Nova Scotia. New Brunswick Conservative Senator Erminie Cohen played a key role in soliciting support for these brave men and for that we should all thank and praise her.

Perhaps members who continually denigrate the upper chamber should take a page out of Senator Cohen's book and look beyond partisanship. She is one of many senators who work hard to raise issues which are sometimes given short shrift in the House of Commons.

One of the major concerns with the legislation is that Canada requires the countries requesting the extradition of a fugitive to submit their request according to a fairly narrow approach to what is acceptable evidence.

The rules of evidence are relaxed and hearsay evidence is relied upon heavily. Documents from foreign jurisdictions can be received for consideration at an extradition hearing. There is concern with respect to the certification of these documents and their acceptance carte blanche without the ability to cross-examine the subjects of the affidavits or documents.

Safeguards, however, would exist. There would be a great deal of discretion and emphasis placed on the minister to determine whether these documents are acceptable.

However, this creates some difficulty, especially for countries working within a civil law system where they rely on facts and accept a wider variety of forms of evidence which are permissible before the courts. There is a real potential for harm here and reprisals for wrongful convictions know no boundaries.

Other concerns include the difficulty for Canada to meet its international obligations with respect to international criminal courts or tribunals, as Canada cannot extradite a fugitive to such a body under the present regime. Over 100 years ago when extradition legislation was first adopted in Canada, many forms of telecommunications and other forms of communication did not exist, nor did airplanes, nor did the modern forms of transportation.

The current legislation is silent on newer crimes such as telemarketing fraud, theft of information by computer, the use of the Internet to commit an offence in another jurisdiction, and is not flexible enough to accommodate changes arising from the globalization of criminal activities. The increased levels of drug trading, organized crime and transborder crimes obviously come quickly to mind. However, this new legislation does move in that direction.

The increased mobility of individuals is a reality that did not exist but has to be kept in mind when anyone is drafting new legislation. It also highlights the need for effective extradition relations with our international partners. That has become crucial. The world is a smaller place, yet criminals have greater ability to access places where they can hide to escape justice. Following a comprehensive review and consultations with our many partners, we know that the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act require major changes to reflect today's procedures and practices.

The bill tabled by the Liberal government will provide a single act that will simplify the extradition process in this country. It will also simplify the process for our partners who wish to extradite a fugitive from Canada back to their country and, reciprocally, for Canada to bring fugitives back to our country. At the same time the bill will provide enhanced protection and safeguards for persons who are the subject of extradition requests, in essence raising the standard of protection.

The proposed legislation would make our extradition process more accessible to foreign states by bringing the extradition processes and practices closer to those of other countries. More important, it would prevent Canadians from being the subject of unfair requests for extradition.

One aspect of the legislation where there is neglect, and it is a common theme for this government, is the issue of funding. We have often seen in this term and in the previous one that the government has passed legislation without any comprehension of the costs that would be associated. The Liberal government has repeatedly talked tough on the issue of organized crime, yet we know from the auditor general's report that it slashed $74 million from the RCMP's organized crime unit in the last fiscal year. It is an apparent contradiction. The words do not appear to be followed by the act.

The Liberal government can no longer deny that the implementation costs of Bill C-68 are skyrocketing. Some estimate that by the time this cumbersome legislation is operating the cost will be in the range of $350 million. Some estimates have gone as high as $500 million.

We are discussing a very important piece of legislation, sponsored by the Minister of Justice, yet there remains a shortfall of $200 million for our national policing services. Since 1993 we know that CSIS has lost more than 20% of its overall employees. No matter how well intentioned this legislation or other pieces of legislation, the government has to recognize that law enforcement agencies need the resources to implement the law. I cannot for the life of me understand how the government expects its law enforcement agencies to do so otherwise.

There were a number of positive amendments proposed at the justice committee. I commend my colleagues for their participation at the committee. Some of the very common sense amendments to correct this legislation pointed out glaring examples of the need for review from a balanced perspective, a non-bias perspective, particularly when it comes to matters of justice.

The participation of criminal lawyers at the justice committee was very significant in the proposal of some of these changes. Some of the changes were implemented and brought forward by members of the opposition. I acknowledge the government's openness with respect to some of those amendments. Unfortunately, however, only some of the amendments were accepted.

My colleague in the Reform Party has highlighted much of their participation. In particular, there is one change that talked of the need to include a definition with respect to Bill C-40 in clause 44 which refers to:

—nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability or status—

This amendment was very important. Obviously it keeps the definition very much in line with other pieces of legislation, most importantly the charter. It is important to note that the Reform did not propose this exact amendment. In fact the sexual orientation definition was not part of its proposed amendment.

With respect to the amendments the government was amenable to them. It demonstrates the importance of having an opposition do its job, do its homework, be prepared to participate and bring forward useful and meaningful amendments.

One such amendment that has received some attention already in this debate was the increased discretion of the minister with respect to this piece of legislation. It refers to the minister herself or himself, depending on the individual and their ability to assess the situation and determine the appropriateness of the extradition itself. A very significant and subtle balance must exist between the appropriate political authority of the minister in deciding surrender orders or extradition orders and the minister's role in processing these orders.

Proposed amendments were voted down at the committee level which I think would go a long way to meeting that balance. There would be judicial review at some point or perhaps a panel of individuals who would therefore examine the factual scenario to decide the appropriateness of the extraditing country's request.

A higher level of diligence is now placed upon the minister under this piece of legislation. There are significant consequences for a wrongful extradition. There are significant consequences for Canadians in reverse to have to leave this country.

All efforts must therefore be made by the minister to make the significant inquiries to ensure that the request is legitimate and that the documentation which is forwarded is in line with the entire act. I hope that is the intention of the justice department.

It is somewhat contradictory to have the Department of Justice on the one hand limiting the minister's authority with respect to suggested changes to the final appeals process under section 690 of the Criminal Code, when on the other hand in this piece of legislation the department wants the minister to have expanded discretion in determining extradition and surrender orders.

There was another anomaly I wanted to mention which occurred at the justice committee. It was the participation of Kimberly Prost who served as senior counsel for the international assistance group, a key section of the justice department's department of extradition. As I understand it she had full participation in the drafting of at least parts of bill but she did not formally appear before the committee. Of course the government would know the reasons for that.

I am also concerned with the resulting charter implications. These implications were previously mentioned and highlighted by criminal lawyers who appeared before the committee. Particularly under Bill C-40 it is difficult to understand how we will apply the human rights standard adopted in the country under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite the flaws and despite the government's intransigence in accepting some of the opposition's amendments, the bill has significant weight and merit that are worthy of support.

Tabling of documents was another aspect that was mentioned and covered by previous speakers. Obviously this is no longer required under this piece of legislation as in other pieces of legislation. It is curious, however, and consistent with the government's approach of talking about transparency that when it comes to putting it into action there appears to be a different level of accountability.

As I previously mentioned, the bill will receive the support of the Conservative caucus. The bill is consistent with the prior Progressive Conservative government's activist approach to modernizing our extradition laws. Perhaps the Senate through its legal and constitutional affairs committee will be more even handed in considering amendments to Bill C-40.

In conclusion, on balance Bill C-40 has many positive measures that outweigh the drawbacks and it is legislation we feel is worth supporting.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-40, the new Extradition Act. As colleagues have pointed out today, this is a substantial rewrite of a century old piece of legislation. It is a good piece of work in my view. It modernizes, streamlines, properly codifies, and takes account of the charter and the many other things we like to see in new legislation. I congratulate the Minister of Justice for bringing the legislation forward.

It was not a recent exercise that created the bill. It is my understanding that this re-write of the Extradition Act has been on the agenda and work list of the Department of Justice for a number of years now, even going back to 1992-93 when the existing act was modified to streamline appeal procedures.

Colleagues have more than adequately outlined the many attributes of the new legislation. I wanted to bring the attention of my colleagues to three sections in the statutes for one reason. As we create laws and as we pass them in the House, we design them on a drawing board, run them through a computer and do our very best to create a statute that will work well and be in the interest of Canadians. We must all take account of the possibility that what we take from the drawing board and put out on the street may contain some things that do not always work well on the street. That is inevitable in any new piece of legislation. There are three areas I thought I would pass comment on, all the while being strongly in support of the legislation.

The first area involves the potential effect of the waiver of extradition concept referred to in section 72 on the section 96 adaptation to accommodate the provisions of the Immigration Act. In section 96 that accommodation essentially backs off the Immigration Act and accedes to the higher priority attached to the Extradition Act so that there will not be dual pieces of litigation at the same time.

The section 96 provision assumes that there are two outcomes of an extradition exercise. One is a discharge of the individual and the second would be an order for surrender of the individual. That is fine. In the order for surrender there is an override provision which is important to note. Where the offence for which the person is being sought for extradition is one that has a term of imprisonment in Canada of more than 10 years, the person would be deemed under the Immigration Act and the refugee procedures to have been found not to be a refugee. Colleagues in the committee and in the House have accepted that concept.

Although the person is deemed not to be a refugee before an order of surrender is executed, the Minister of Justice will review each case to look out for concerns that are already reflected in the refugee procedures and to protect individuals from extradition to jurisdictions where they might be subjected to the same types of difficulties defined in the international convention on refugees.

In any event those two outcomes under section 96 do not appear to take into account the waiver provisions of section 72. The section 96 immigration procedures do not appear to accommodate a person deciding to waive extradition. They do not appear to deal with it. It is arguably an element of unclear practicality which may be resolved practically in the processes that will be there. If there is any difficulty, I am sure a judge somewhere will have an opportunity to assist the parties in interpreting the provisions.

I point out a second area to the House. In the decisions that will be made by the Minister of Justice both prescribed formal and informal consultations will take place among the Minister of Justice who presides over Extradition Act procedures, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In consulting with those ministers in terms of a particular individual and a particular extradition there is envisaged a consultation and a transmittal of information either about the extraditing country, the individual or organizations in the other country.

It is not clearly visible on the face of our statute that such important information from the point of view of the individual involved in the extradition is made known to the individual. I am reflecting my sense of this as one MP who is voting for the legislation. In all respects information used by the Minister of Justice that is received from foreign affairs or immigration should be disclosed to the individual.

That principle would have to be subject to the occasional instance where significant national security or other security issues would need to be protected. However it is important to note that point. I am confident those who administer the statute will not be hiding the information used by the Minister of Justice in making decisions about extradition or not, surrender or not, under this statute. I suggest somewhat tongue in cheek that in a middle of an extradition hearing a citizen or other person should not be saddled with the need to make a freedom of information act application.

The third area concerns the concept of specific agreement in the statute. In the past countries have extradited based on an existing extradition treaty or extradition agreement between the two states. The bill if passed would provide for a specific agreement which is a one-off extradition agreement between country a and Canada. The only provision in that agreement would be something to the effect that country a wishes to extradite Mr. X and Canada agrees to accept this as an agreement to extradite, provided there are contained in that agreement the relatively minimal elements already set out in the Extradition Act.

That agreement will not be treated like an extradition agreement or treaty. It will not be published in The Canada Gazette . It will not have been published in the treaty series. It will not have been tabled in the House of Commons. It will not have otherwise seen the light of day. It will have received the signatures of both countries and it will name an individual.

My concern was that over time I would not not want the specific agreement to be used more greatly in numbers than the extradition treaties. I believe it should be seen as the exception to the rule. It appears to me from this statute that one could even enter into specific agreements to extradite a person while an extradition treaty existed. There does not appear to be any barrier to entering into a specific agreement to extradite a person even though there is another extradition treaty in existence between the two countries.

Why would one want to avoid the extradition treaty? I am not sure but the existing agreements governing general circumstances often become a little cumbersome or outdated and it is possible that officials in both countries will decide it is easier to set up a specific agreement and avoid the existing treaty. They will use form B, fill it out, send it over, get it signed and fill in the blank with the person's name and that will be our specific agreement, our extradition instrument for this person. Over time I do not know how that will evolve. It would be my hope that we would not have a proliferation of specific agreements but would continue to negotiate appropriate treaties and other agreements.

Those are the three areas I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. I did not feel they were substantial enough matters to suggest amendments to the House. I believe that with officials who administer the act, the processes that would be put into play by the new provisions will adequately allow for a fair evolution in relation to those three areas and that the new statute will serve Canadians and Canada's partners in criminal justice administration well perhaps for another century as the previous act did.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-40, the Extradition Act.

This so-called modernization of our extradition laws is an attempt to make it tougher for accused criminals to use Canada as a refuge from justice systems of other countries and international court.

Our extradition laws have been around for approximately 120 years but we have been powerless to send fugitives to such adjudicators as the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda.

For a few years now we have provided the services of one of our judges, Madam Justice Louise Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal, as chief prosecutor. We have never been able to fulfil our obligations to help bring suspected war criminals to justice. I suppose we should not be surprised, as Canada's record is totally abysmal when it comes to war crimes prosecutions. It is an indication of this government's misplaced priorities when this place debated Bill C-42 in 1996 in order to change our laws to permit Madam Justice Arbour to legally work for war crimes tribunals yet it is only now that we are attempting to ensure that Canada can legally work toward the aims of those same tribunals.

It is most fortunate that we have Madam Justice Arbour over there. It appears she may have had something to do with rectifying this government's failure to have proper procedures in place. It was she who commented: “There was a terrible void in Canadian legislation. I think having a structure in place will avoid what otherwise would have been a terribly embarrassing situation for a country like Canada”.

Only the government and its spin doctors have the nerve to promote and support international bodies such as war crimes tribunals but remain powerless to send fugitives before them.

We were restricted to extradition only to other countries, only when bilateral agreements were signed and only for specified and limited offences.

To be fair, other countries found themselves in a similar position but they enacted laws long before this. Once again this government is slow and out of sync with the rest of the world.

Even federal officials believe there are more than three hundred modern day war criminals in Canada. They believe we are a refuge for death squad members, torturers and officials from corrupt and murderous regimes from countries such as Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Rwanda and El Salvador.

We have usually been quick off the mark to provide humanitarian aid to most of these strife ridden parts of the world, and that is certainly a good and admirable effort. But to permit Canada to become a haven for war criminals is a sad indictment against each and every one of us.

There is a provision in the bill which is welcome news. It is my understanding that where an extradition order is issued for a person who has filed a refugee claim, that person will be declared ineligible for refugee status and the extradition will proceed. In other words, the extradition order will override the refugee claim. What this does is prevent those facing extradition from filing bogus refugee claims which, as we all know, can take years to sort out due to many levels of appeal available to claimants.

This provision of Bill C-40 will make the extradition process more efficient and less prone to abuse. The extradition judge will consider the refugee claim in the context of the extradition order.

Of course the minister has the final say, but more on that later. Regretfully this provision applies only in cases where the offence for which extradition is requested is subject to at least 10 years in prison under Canadian law.

That is regrettable because we have enough problems dealing with our own criminal element. We should not be providing any more loopholes that allow those who come to Canada from elsewhere to abuse our system.

I will now move on to a few of the specific concerns I have with this legislation. I am concerned about the cost and the delays. Once again this government appears to have gone out of its way to create a make work project for the legal industry.

There will be ample opportunity for our lawyers to spend hours and hours presenting legal arguments. Our charter of rights and freedoms and the requirements for a judge to be satisfied that the alleged conduct meets the test that would justify a committal for trial in Canada will see to that. As we all know, it is the taxpayer who often ends up having to pay for many of these lawyers.

Our own war crimes trials have shown how difficult it is to establish sufficient evidence to hold a trial in Canada. They also show how inefficient our system becomes when dealing with foreign and historical evidence. This legislation does little to address these difficulties.

I am concerned about the parts of the legislation that permit the minister to interfere. Costs and delays are present here as well. Even after the extradition hearing and all its costs and delays and even after the judge decides to issue an order of committal to await surrender, the minister may decide to refuse to make the surrender order.

After the whole matter finally comes to some form of decision, the minister can refuse to permit extradition. Why would we spend thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands, only to have the whole process wasted because the minister decides to pursue a political road?

Section 44 of the bill provides the minister with three reasons for refusal. The first is if the minister is satisfied surrender would be unjust or oppressive. I fail to see why the minister is left with this decision. Surely the judge at the extradition hearing could make this determination upon presentation of evidence. This is a case where we have the political and the executive process getting mixed up with what should be a judicial procedure.

Similarly with the second reason, the minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the request for extradition is made for prosecuting or punishing by reason of race, religion nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental of physical disability or status or that the person's position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.

The minister again becomes involved in what should be a judicial procedure. Canadian courts make decisions on these listed forms of discrimination in one way or another every day. Evidence is presented and our judges determine whether a case of discrimination and therefore unfairness is made out. Why do we have to take this power away from the judges and give it to the minister? Why is the political process interfering?

The third reason the minister can refuse to make a surrender order is if the minister is satisfied that the conduct for which the extradition has been requested is punishable by death under the laws of the extradition partner. With this third reason the minister has some discretion, as the wording of the section states that the minister may refuse. For the first two reasons the wording is the minister shall refuse.

With respect, this third reason is nothing more than meddling in matters in which we should not be involved. All countries do not have the same laws. They do not have the same cultures and they do not have the same form of political process. We should not be trying to tell other countries that we will refuse to return their accused because we disagree with their method of punishment. Who are we to disagree with the laws as set out in foreign jurisdiction often through democratic means?

I will cite a couple of examples as to the problems of meddling in or refusing to accept the laws of other countries. Without providing names, there is a case presently before our courts where we are refusing to release two accused murderers to the United States. The particular state has the option of imposing the death penalty should these individuals be convicted. Our refusal really comes down to a disagreement over whether Canadian rules of justice which dictate there is to be no capital punishment are right as opposed to the laws of other jurisdictions which believe that capital punishment is an appropriate option as punishment for murder.

I make little comment on the issue of capital punishment here because I am limited in my time and that is a debate for another time. I also make little comment about the fact that the majority of Canadians also hold the view that most murders should be punishable by death. We all know the Liberals are responsible for the removal of capital punishment. They are now trying to dictate their views to all the countries of the world, and this is wrong.

In another case, which I will again not name as it is before the courts, we have discovered in our midst an individual in his late sixties who is facing over 100 years in jail because of a number of white collar crimes. He has already been convicted and sentenced. Under the provisions of Bill C-40 an extradition hearing may well determine that this individual should be committed for extradition. This will likely become a costly and extended procedure. But the minister still holds the ultimate power. Under section 44(1) of this legislation the minister may determine that a surrender order will be unjust or oppressive because we in Canada do not have such lengthy sentencing practices. Again, this is a case from the United States.

[The Speaker]

The member still has 11 minutes in his speech. I do not want to rush him toward the end. He will have the floor at the end of question period when he will not be so pressed. We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Allelix Biopharmaceuticals Inc.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the key role played by a local firm in my riding in a world famous study of aging with veteran astronaut John Glenn during his recent space shuttle mission.

In a joint venture with the Canadian Space Agency, Allelix Biopharmaceuticals Inc., located in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, was directly involved in one of the mission's three osteoporosis experiments.

So it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate both Allelix and the Canadian Space Agency for jointly working on this valuable project.

Constable Laurie White

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today on her 29th birthday RCMP Constable Laurie White lies in a hospital bed in Vancouver.

On Friday afternoon Constable White, along with fellow officers from her detachment, attempted to serve a search warrant on a suspected sex offender in Kitimat, British Columbia. As they approached the suspect's residence he shot Constable White, badly injuring her. She was medivacced to Vancouver where surgeons worked for hours trying to save her badly injured leg, but sadly the damage was so great they were unable to do so.

When young men and women decide to make policing their vocation they know they may some day face serious injury or even worse in the performance of their duty. But that does not relieve the sting or the shock over the events of last Friday.

We are grateful every day that these police officers are there serving and protecting the public, putting their own safety at risk. We are shocked and truly saddened when we learn of an officer down in the line of duty.

We are proud of Constable White and I ask the House and all Canadians in extending our best wishes for her speedy recovery on this, her birthday.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

National Home Fire Safety Week

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, National Home Fire Safety Week runs from November 24 to 30. This week, sponsored by the Canada Safety Council, emphasizes the importance of smoke alarms in all Canadian Homes.

Most fatal fires start at night when the household is asleep. Since the fumes of a fire can send one into an even deeper sleep, it is extremely important to verify regularly that all smoke alarms are in working order.

Canadians are starting to learn that smoke alarms save lives. Most Canadian households now have at least one of these life saving units. It is important then, throughout the year and specifically during this week, that all Canadians take the opportunity to educate themselves about this very important matter. I urge everyone in Canada to remember the theme sentence for this week: “Are you sure your fire alarm works?”