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.