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.