Debates of May 5th, 2003

International Transfer of Offenders Act

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-33 today I would like to suggest that when we look at the purpose of the bill, on its surface it appears difficult to oppose when one looks at its basic mandate, which is outlined in clause 3:

...to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

I might suggest that supporting this bill would not be a problem if in fact all it is designed to do is transfer Canadian citizens who are convicted in other countries and perhaps are serving their sentences in deplorable conditions. If that were all this bill is doing, and if it were clear on that, I think it would be easy to support. We all recognize that there are some fundamental principles of justice, such as the right to a fair trial and the right to humane treatment. These are things on which we agree. Of course when we talk about humane treatment we are referring to conditions that meet basic human rights.

It could be argued that in Canada we have treatment that far surpasses on the other side anything that could be even closely deemed as inhumane. As a matter of fact, one of the concerns we hear from Canadian citizens from coast to coast is the phrase club med type facilities, which many of our convicted criminals enjoy in this country. In Canada we do not have to be overly concerned at this stage about humane treatment; it is plentifully humane.

This bill is referring to the possibility that Canadians could be in a situation in another country where they are convicted of a crime but are in genuinely inhumane circumstances. Most Canadians, even though they want to see justice applied and want to see consequences for crime, do not want to see absolutely inhumane situations resulting.

If this were the only purpose of the bill and if that were clear, as I have said, I think support would be clear from this side of the House, but I would like to refer to some sections that raise questions. I for one will be watching the progress of the bill to see if these concerns can be remediated, along with concerns that others of my colleagues are raising and, as we have heard, members from the Bloc and other parties are raising.

Let us look specifically, for instance, at subclause 8(1), which states:

The consent of the three parties to a transfer--the offender, the foreign entity and Canada--is required.

This is fascinating. It states that there have to be three parties to consent to a convicted criminal being transferred and it names the three parties: the offender, the foreign entity and the Government of Canada. Once again we see that the Liberal government is concerned about the rights of convicted criminals, but there is no mention here about the rights of victims. There is no mention at all about victims who would have suffered at the hands of these criminals who are looking at the possibility of being transferred, and there is no mention about the safety of Canadians when these criminals are possibly transferred here.

That particular area is subclause 8(1). I would like to hear from the proponents of this bill about what they are doing, if anything, to acknowledge the rights of victims and to acknowledge the proper concern Canadians may have for their own security, depending on the severity of the crimes that were committed by those who committed them, the criminals themselves who are coming to Canada.

Let us look further at subclause 10(4), which again talks about the process as to whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian offender who is defined as a child “within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act”. We know that very recently, in just the last couple of days, we have seen the federal government do a radical shift in terms of our own young offenders here in Canada. The government had staked out a position, then there was a court case in Quebec, and now the government is saying it is going to radically change its position on this area of the determination of whether a young offender, based on the severity of his or her crime, should be moved into adult court.

Again, the prime consideration in this section reflects the consideration of the minister, the consideration of the relevant provincial authority and what would be in the “best interests of the child”, and the child could be a 16 year old or 17 year old. But again there is no mention of victims here. Once again this legislation appears, at least at face value, to be deficient in terms of recognizing the rights of victims. Again I will look for the proponents of the bill and the minister to suggest whether that is being reflected in the bill or whether there are going to be some changes that will accommodate our concern.

There is another example of this under clause 38. It states:

This Act applies in respect of all requests for transfer that are pending on the day that this section comes into force.

In case some of my colleagues across the way missed that I will repeat it. Under clause 38:

This act applies in respect of all requests for transfer that are pending on the day that this section comes into force.

In other words, this legislation is retroactive. Some of us have some serious concerns about retroactive legislation.

With the present legal environment in which we operate, there is a basic principle in law that citizens have some sense that they are operating under and could be judged under existing law. When retroactive legislation is contemplated, that ground begins to shift and it presents a certain amount of instability in the legal framework under which we all live. In my view there have to be very compelling reasons for that retroactivity.

Previously, the Canadian Alliance has asked for certain legislation to be retroactive and the government has balked at doing it. The government has said it could not be done because it would be retroactive.

I cite the sex offender registry. The Canadian Alliance has made it very clear that with the thousands of sex offenders who are out there right now, the registry being contemplated by the government will only register those who will be convicted from this day forward and says nothing about the potentially dangerous thousands who are out there right now. The government has said it cannot be done because it will be retroactive. Yet the legislation we are talking about today is retroactive.

The Canadian Alliance has also asked for some retroactivity with regard to the DNA data bank legislation. In resisting that, the government once again said it would be retroactive legislation and that it does not support retroactive legislation.

This seems to be a case of the government being selective. Sometimes it likes retroactive legislation and sometimes it does not.

I will be looking for the minister to make an equally compelling case here on the issue of retroactivity. Why would this be retroactive? What are the criteria? There should be some standard legislative norms that could be applied to legislation when one is trying to make the argument for or against retroactivity.

As I have already suggested, retroactivity is somewhat dangerous in terms of what it does to an existing framework. Therefore the criteria should be very clear. It should be predictable and understandable. It should be something which Canadians could look at and get a clear sense of the reasons for that retroactivity.

These are some of the reasons why I have concerns with the bill. Rather than denouncing it outright, because there are some principles in this legislation on which we agree, I hope that the minister and those with whom the minister works, will bring out either changes or things we may have missed in the legislation that would address these very real concerns of Canadians.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in support of the government's Bill C-33, the international transfer of offenders act. The primary objective of the bill is to modernize the Transfer of Offenders Act which was proclaimed in 1978. Everyone would agree that in this global environment the world has certainly changed since then and the time has now come to address the substantive issues which have developed during this period. Many of those developments have been alluded to by members on the opposite side.

The provisions introduced by the bill would ensure that Canada has a modern and comprehensive framework for negotiating the transfer of offenders which reflects international standards and allows for mutual cooperation in criminal justice.

In basic terms, the Transfer of Offenders Act provides for the implementation of treaties with other countries for the international transfer of offenders. These treaties allow Canadians convicted abroad to serve their sentences in Canada, and allows foreign nationals to return to their home countries for the same purpose.

One might well ask, as many members have, why these types of transfer agreements are required at all. After all, some might argue that time served in a foreign jail, far from friends and family and under harsh conditions, might serve as a deterrent to Canadians who might be contemplating crime abroad. Of what benefit is it to allow Canadians who have run afoul of the law in some foreign jurisdiction to return to Canada to serve the remainder of their sentence here?

The answer to this question lies in the humanitarian and public safety objectives of the Transfer of Offenders Act, objectives that will be retained and strengthened under Bill C-33. The links between humanitarian and public safety objectives are as important as they are clear. Canadian correctional policy recognizes that the vast majority of offenders will one day be released back into their respective communities. We have learned that the best way to ensure public safety is to prepare offenders for their ultimate release at the end of their incarceration. At the core of this process is the humane treatment of offenders.

We all recognize that Canadians sentenced abroad are often incarcerated under terribly harsh conditions without access to satisfactory environments that would give them a positive outlook to that period when they would be released back into society. These considerations affect not only Canadians sentenced abroad, but also their families and friends. Returning these offenders to Canada on humanitarian considerations also opens the door to improved opportunities for their rehabilitation and for protecting public safety. I want to reiterate that particular point.

The spirit behind the changes in Bill C-33 are in fact to increase public safety by rehabilitating those who have been incarcerated, and not accelerating their criminal tendencies. By that I mean also providing offenders access to rehabilitation opportunities that might otherwise not be available in a foreign jail. This includes being in close proximity to a supportive family and friendly environment as well as to prospective employers who are able to provide support during and following release. It also includes providing access to programs that have demonstrated to be effective in addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour.

Public safety is ensured by the requirement that all offenders transferred to Canada will be subject to supervision in the community following release. This would not be true, for example, if these same offenders were released directly from prison in a foreign jurisdiction. If that were the case, these offenders would simply and most probably be deported to Canada without any controls whatsoever and without the benefits of any rehabilitation programs. Would this be in the interests of Canadian society? I think not.

Let us make no mistake. The provisions of Bill C-33 do not mean that transferred offenders can somehow escape justice. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The treaties and the act ensure that the receiving state continues to enforce the sentence imposed by the sentencing state.

As I noted at the outset, the Transfer of Offenders Act came into effect in 1978, and until now, amendments have primarily been of a technical nature.

Part of providing Canadians with good governance requires that government laws and policies be reviewed and updated, as required, to reflect changing conditions. This holds true for the Transfer of Offenders Act.

Indeed, the government has undertaken extensive consideration and consultation with 91 private sector and government agencies for the purpose of determining what, if any, amendments were required. I am pleased to say that there was strong support for these provisions of the Transfer of Offenders Act.

The results of our consultation also pointed to the need for amendments in three broad categories. The proposals put forward in Bill C-33 fall into one of the following categories: those that would reflect traditional treaty principles; those that would close identified gaps in the Transfer of Offenders Act; and finally, those that would introduce efficiencies to the current practices.

Very briefly I would like to touch on the key points introduced by the reforms.

The purpose of the act and the principles that guide it are clearly stated. This helps to ensure consistency with other components of Canadian law, particularly the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The stated purpose of the new international transfer of offenders act is to contribute to the administration of justice and the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community by enabling offenders to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens or nationals.

Traditional international treaty obligations and principles considered to be legally essential are included. These include concepts such as the non-aggravation of the sentence by the receiving state, to which I have alluded earlier. It also includes principles that would give the offender access to processes consistent with natural justice and due process. A legally sound act is essential to ensure that the courts do not strike down the transfer process and that transferred offenders are not released into the community without appropriate controls.

Eligibility criteria to allow for the transfer of a broader range of Canadians who are currently not eligible are included in Bill C-33. As has been mentioned, young persons under probation, children and mentally disordered persons will become eligible for transfer under the provisions in this bill. This is fully consistent with the humanitarian objectives of the proposed legislation.

Clarification is included on the decision making provisions where provincial consent is required for the transfer of offenders on probation, provincial parole, provincial temporary absence and for those who, under a conditional sentence, are in an intermittent sentence.

Reforms are included to ensure consistent and equitable sentence calculation provisions for transferred offenders and to ensure the equitable treatment of transferred offenders when a pardon is granted or a conviction or sentence is set aside or modified.

Finally, provisions are added to allow negotiation of transfers on a case by case and ad hoc basis between Canada and states with which Canada has no treaty or jurisdictions, or territories that are not yet recognized as a state, or non-state entities such as Hong Kong or Macao. This last point is particularly significant in light of ongoing world developments.

These are some of the main elements of Bill C-33 that would be introduced.

Most states have recognized the importance of working together to prevent and respond to criminal conduct. Although this objective might seem to conflict with some aspects of the longstanding principle of territoriality, that is to say of not enforcing foreign laws, such cooperation actually protects the sovereignty of states by preventing offenders from escaping justice. In its absence, crime could be encouraged rather than suppressed.

The success of Canada's transfer of offenders scheme hinges on international cooperation. Bill C-33 would provide Canada with the legislative flexibility to cooperate with a broader range of countries and entities in matters of criminal justice.

As I have said before, this is the key to public protection. Enforcement of a foreign sentence in Canada ensures that offenders will be safely and gradually reintegrated into society by correctional authorities.

To sum up, the proposals introduced by Bill C-33 build on a very successful component of Canada's corrections policy, one that embraces fair and effective treatment of all offenders, including those sentenced abroad. The proposed reforms would demonstrate a strong commitment to humanitarian and public safety objectives. Moreover, the proposals demonstrate a continuing receptivity and responsiveness to changing international developments and a willingness to cooperate multilaterally with existing and new partners.

For these reasons, I ask members of the House for their support of Bill C-33.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in some respects I am going to make an extended comment, especially in view of the government member's glowing recount of the bill.

In general I suppose the bill could be seen as a housekeeping measure because we already have a law that does this. However this particular bill extends some of the terms of the existing law.

In that respect I am supportive of the general spirit of being able to repatriate Canadians who are sentenced abroad. I see there is reciprocation in the bill. It allows other foreign nationals to be reciprocated out of Canada to their jurisdictions. I have been involved in some of those cases as a former officer of the courts of British Columbia.

However I look at the definition of a Canadian offender on page 1. It states “and whose verdict and sentence may no longer be appealed”.

I can see in some foreign jurisdictions where the technicalities of law in those foreign countries the sentence or conviction could still be appealed. There may be no sunset clause like there is in Canada. Yet the offender has no financial ability or may not even be able to get counsel because he is seen as a religious pariah or whatever and by definition he is discounted from ever even applying to the law.

On page 2 it says a transfer is not available “unless the Canadian offender's conduct would have constituted a criminal offence”. I look at all the Islamic law where there is going to be great difficulty. We are going to have Canadians in jail yet coming to Canada there would be no such law at all.

These are some of the--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have to bow to the member's considerable experience in this area.

With respect to the first point relating to the definition of a foreign offender and that under the transfer there may be still a process in place under appeal, the member has alluded to the fact, and it should be self-evident, that the inability to have resources to defend under appeal is in fact a denial of natural justice.

I find it difficult to respond other than to say under the transfer and negotiation of the transfer that the appeals to some extent have to be over. It is at that point which I think the intent of the bill is to click in. As has been said before by members who are more knowledgeable about the bill than I, these are the kinds of issues that will have to be clarified during the next process.

With respect to the conflict with Islamic law or law that is of a different nature in other countries and how does one cross over, we often think that the separation of church and state in our own democratic evolution is something that all countries have experienced. We have only globally very quickly been made aware that fundamentalism as it relates to crossovers between judicial systems and government systems is not as clear as it is in our own tradition.

These are the kinds of issues on a humanitarian basis that we are attempting to universalize. The negotiation behind the transfer is to attempt to accommodate those kinds of issues.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I found the debate and the comments by the hon. member very interesting. I also found the question asked by the hon. member on the other side of the House to be quite interesting.

It is my understanding, from reading of the legislation, that one of the admissibility or eligibility criteria is that all forms of appeals that exist within whichever state the offender is incarcerated in have to be over. There are no further appeals allowed and it is at that point that the offender can apply voluntarily for a transfer.

I would like to ask the member if my reading of the bill is in fact correct, that in one way Bill C-33 actually improves things for the offenders who may be eligible in that it clarifies the issue of consent. It is my understanding that under the bill as it now stands the consent issue is not quite clear but under the new bill the individual who applies can withdraw his or her consent at any point that this--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding also is that while initially the consent must be given and must be given by the party to which the application is made, that, yes, during the process, the consent can be denied.

I would suggest it is really the application of due process and natural justice in that the person who has been convicted in a foreign country never has lost that right for due process in the eyes of Canada and under the terms and conditions of Bill C-33.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the intent or the spirit of the bill may be good, we find there are some contradictions, as pointed out by my colleague, or there are some vague ideas.

The hon. member mentioned reciprocity or repatriation of a Canadian citizen. I am a little concerned about that. I also am a little confused about a Canadian citizen versus a landed immigrant scenario.

Both the Liberal members who spoke on this bill talked about a Canadian citizen, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides protection to Canadian citizens as well as landed immigrants.

I would like to know what happens to the spouse of a Canadian citizen who could be a landed immigrant? An example of that is the case of Professor Bhullar who is on a death sentence in India. What happens in a situation like this where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to both the Canadian citizen as well as the spouse of the Canadian citizen or landed immigrant in that situation?

Could the hon. member clarify this issue for me?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the term repatriation of a Canadian citizen in fact is a contradiction in terms. I do not know how Canadian citizens can be repatriated in the sense that they are always Canadian citizens. The transfer in Bill C-33 suggests that their rights in a sense, under the spirit of the bill, can be brought back to Canada and implemented within such things as the charter, which has been mentioned by the hon. member.

With respect to the charter, and I certainly would bow to others who have more experience in the application and relevance of the charter in such circumstances, and the matter of whether the charter would be applicable to landed immigrants and onto spouses and so on, my understanding is that the charter applies in effect to even those who are not Canadian citizens, who are offshore. We recently had the seizing of Chinese illegals who had argued that the charter in some respects should apply to them, and with some merit. Our charter is much more universal and holistic in terms of its application.

To answer the member, my understanding would be that if the charter applies in such fashion, then it would be my opinion that the broader application of the charter would be applied such that it would in fact protect and address the issues that may be affected, as they relate to spouses and so on.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I can constructively add to the discussion on the bill by observing that, among other things, it is also clearly part of the government's anti-terrorism legislative package. That was not dealt with by the parliamentary secretary and I do not think it has been commented on so far in this debate. However the proof of the pudding, shall we say, is in the comparison that one can make between the Transfer of Offenders Act and Bill C-33 and the changes that one sees between the two pieces of legislation.

When I came to look at Bill C-33, my first question was why the government felt it had to reintroduce a completely new bill rather than simply amend the old. Clearly the reason is that the changes to the Transfer of Offenders Act, as expressed in Bill C-33, are very consequential and they have everything to do with September 11 and the changing climate with respect to the situation of terrorism in the world.

I draw the attention of the House to a new clause in Bill C-33, in paragraph 10, which reads:

In determining whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian offender, the Minister shall consider the following factors: (a) whether the offender’s return to Canada would constitute a threat to the security ofCanada;

That is new. Then a little further on in paragraph 10(2) we have similar wording but broader and in a different context. I will read paragraph 10(2)(a):

In determining whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian or foreign offender, the Minister shall consider the following factors: (a) whether, in the Minister’s opinion, the offender will, after the transfer, commit aterrorism offence or criminal organization offence within the meaning of section 2 of the Criminal Code;

We can see what is happening here. It is that Canada must realistically consider the prospect that a Canadian, travelling abroad on a Canadian passport may undertake a serious criminal offence, a terrorist offence, and that person may be captured in the country in question. We then have the question of whether that person should be transferred back to Canada or held in the country where that person was captured.

Coincidentally, we have a very pertinent case that occurred only just last week in Israel with the suicide bombing involving two young people who were travelling on British passports. All we have to do, in our imagination, is to change the British passports to Canadian passports and we can see the type of problem that the changes in the bill are trying to address.

There is also the other example with the war in Afghanistan. We had a situation there where captures were made involving a family which had come from Pakistan and settled in Canada. The family members had Canadian passports and were found to be involved in Afghanistan, fighting against the coalition, including Canadians who were attempting to deal with the terrorist regime in Afghanistan.

The problem is twofold. A Canadian was captured abroad, perhaps undertaking a suicide bombing, but was captured. If that person were returned to Canada, he could be deemed to be a security threat because he would be able to take advantage, under the legislation, of the early parole provisions. In other words, that Canadian national could be returned to Canada and released earlier than he would be in the country in which he was captured.

The other problem is that we could have a person who has Canadian citizenship and who might be discovered to be a major player in a terrorist organization abroad. I will extend it a little bit. The person may be a major player in an organization linked to some kind of ethnic conflict. We should not focus only on the Middle East because this could apply almost anywhere.

That person could be brought back to Canada and if he is brought back to Canada, again, there could be a security threat because that person may bring with him all the anger, concern and political problems. He may be in a Canadian jail but it could cause all kinds of difficulties in Canada.

I am thinking, for example, of the situation that occurred recently in Turkey where I think it was a Kurdish leader who was captured and returned to Turkey. One can imagine the situation if that person had Canadian citizenship, and it is quite possible. Dual citizens are all over the world and many of them have Canadian citizenship. There could be this very difficult situation where if that person asked and was returned to Canada, it could cause a major political and ethnic problem, even leading perhaps to violence. That all makes perfect sense and it is what Canada has to do in the context of international terrorism.

Canada is very proud of its open door policy and the way it invites people of all nationalities to come to Canada. We have an extremely, shall we say, forgiving criminal justice system. We have a very civil way in which we deal with one another, regardless of our particular backgrounds. We make no distinction between Canadians who are born here and Canadians who acquire citizenship.

However we have to recognize that can pose a serious problem in a world in which there is a major threat of terrorism. We do not want a situation where foreign nationals deliberately acquire a Canadian citizenship so they can return to their countries of national origin and engage in illegal acts fully in the belief they can eventually, if caught, return to Canada and enjoy the civility of the Canadian prison and Canadian attempts to return people to the community, rather than incarcerate them for a very long time. It is positive in that sense.

I think when this goes to committee, the committee has to look at it very carefully because the bill works in the opposite direction as well. Paragraph 10(2)(a), to which I referred, also makes it possible for the government to transfer a foreign national back to the host country if that foreign national has been convicted of an offence in Canada.

Now that raises some difficulty because we have to be concerned in Canada about people who are captured on Canadian territory. We like to think that the principles of Canadian justice would apply but we have to recognize there are other countries around the world that have much more severe criminal justice regimes. The temptation may be political where the Canadian police forces may capture a foreign national and because that foreign national is captured on perhaps some relatively minor crime in Canada but is suspected of major crimes in another country, that other country might seek to have that person transferred back to the foreign country.

Therefore we have a situation where if the other country suggests that person will return to the other country and commit a terrorist offence, we would have the additional problem that the minister has to have the opportunity to deny the transfer as well. The scenario is simply this. Canada captures someone. That someone is convicted of a fairly minor offence in Canada but the country in which that person has alternative citizenship seeks the return of that person to serve in a jail in that other country.

But what if that person is suspected internationally of being part of a terrorist organization? Suspected only, Mr. Speaker. Again, paragraph 10(2)(a) would permit the minister to deny that transfer if the minister--and it does not spell what criteria the minister would use--thinks that there is a possibility that person may be returned to that other country, and because he is a local hero in terms of the ethnic conflict that might be going on there, not just terrorism, ethnic conflict, might cause a problem, so the minister reserves the right to hold that person in Canada.

We can see how that fits into the anti-terrorism legislation. We have to persuade our allies that we are part of the war on terrorism and that our laws do not have significant loopholes that enable people to be transferred out of Canada and back into another jurisdiction in which they can cause considerable harm, not necessarily in that jurisdiction, but considerable harm in terms of international terrorism.

I would make another observation as well. Something else new is in clauses 31 and 32. This also relates to anti-terrorism, or a stricter regime for making sure that people who are a danger to world peace or peace in other countries do not get back or do get back. What happens here is that the idea of administrative return is introduced, where, if Canada does not have a treaty for the return of offenders with a particular country, a country can approach Canada, which does not have a treaty, and Canada has captured a person of that country's citizenship, we can do a deal that is outside of the treaty to arrange for the return of that person to the country has requested that return.

Again this is something that the committee has to look at very, very carefully, because we have to do our role in the war against terrorism and do our role in terms of maintaining international order and reducing international crime. We must be very careful that we do not pass legislation that would allow the government to be manipulated for reasons of foreign policy rather than reasons of security and justice.

I have to say that I have not had the time to examine this bill in the depth I would like, and quite frankly I do not think I have the skill, but I do call upon the committee that receives the bill to examine those two points very carefully, because Canada tries to strike a balance. I think that we have done extremely well in our anti-terrorism legislation and our new security legislation in that we addressed the problems of the new international threats with minimum damage to civil liberties. But it is this kind of legislation that is a relatively small bill that comes into the House without much fanfare, we just come upon it rather suddenly, and that is the type of legislation in which a flaw could occur that could, if not endanger civil liberties, erode or run contrary to how we see ourselves as Canadians, certainly as a people who are very conscious of the need for and our role in maintaining world security, but a nation also that tries very hard to make sure that we do not inadvertently give powers to the government that properly belong with Parliament or with the courts.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot. Having been a former provincial parole board officer, I take some study of a bill and look at exactly what it is trying to accomplish and wonder in fact if the conditional release program will be expanded upon, because it is only mentioned briefly in the parliamentary secretary's comments.

I also wanted to know whether the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot could expand on the available programs that a person repatriated to this country and put into the penal system would be subjected to, or whether he has given any thought to that, or whether in fact he would recommend that particular type of expansion of the programs available to the bill.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that area is not my particular expertise; I examined the bill primarily for its security provisions. But I will say that one other reason why the bill clearly needed to be a new bill rather than simply amendments to the former bill is that it deals in considerable depth with changes brought about as a result of the passage of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It would appear that with quite a few of the programs and sentencing and that kind of thing there is an attempt to make this legislation conform to the Youth Criminal Justice Act in the sense of bringing young offenders from foreign countries back to Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Do I have the consent of the House to see the clock as 6:30?

[Some hon. member]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight to address a very important concern with regard to the benefits belonging to spouses of veterans. Of course I should say the lack of benefits with regard to spouses of veterans.

In the House I raised a question to the minister with regard to the benefits of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit: that there was a promise made that was not fulfilled. Of course the hon. member who was the minister at the time and who is in the other House now worked very hard to bring dreams forward with regard to veterans in general and their spouses.

As a result of the things that were said, the reason we all agreed that this bill should be passed as quickly as possible was that it would provide much needed benefits to our veterans and the survivors of our veterans. This is all in line with regard to the Newfoundland Foresters who were overseas and the spouses of veterans of that unit and other units.

In speaking to many spouses of veterans, they have made it quite clear that a promise was made and not fulfilled. Now is the time for government to compensate the people of Newfoundland, the Foresters' veterans' spouses, and it is time for the government to act immediately to make sure that the spouses of veterans can continue their lives in a respectful manner.

I have received a fair number of calls from an 85 year old lady who is the spouse of a veteran. She is a widow. She is always calling and wondering when she is going to get the money that was promised to her. We are talking about an 85 year old lady who has done her job for the government and for Canada, for our country. Of course we do not look at what the spouses have done for veterans. All we look at is the fact that veterans played an important part in society when they fought to keep our country free, but of course when the veterans returned, the spouses played an enormous part in making sure that the husbands were healed and nourished and lived some type of normal life.

We know that war at that time was a very hard and cruel thing to be involved with, and it even took a very long time for benefits to go to the veterans. Of course thanks to the hon. member who is in the other place now, they have seen some benefits. Now it is time for the government to move forward with the promise that was made to the spouses of the Newfoundland Foresters unit that they would be compensated for their part in the war. The spouse's part in the war was to take care of her husband who came back and the government's part in the war was to ensure that their lives would continue in a reasonable manner.

Benefits are very low. If someone makes a certain dollar value, that person will not receive anything. As a result, there are a lot of veterans' wives out there right now who are struggling from day to day. I think it is very important for the government to ensure that the promise that was made be kept so that spouses can benefit and live normal lives and that a reasonable dollar value be given to them so they can ensure that they can live a suitable life until they pass on.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, after the second world war, there were limited benefits available but, in time, the troops had access to a wider range of benefits.

The Canadian program of benefits and services for veterans is considered one of the best, if not the best, in the world. This program is proof, not only of the current government's commitment, but of that of successive governments to the heroic men and women who risked their lives to protect our values and our way of life.

After the second world war, our country, in recognition, provided the necessary support and assistance to help several million veterans make the transition to civilian life. Civilian groups such as the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit and the Canadian corps of firefighters in the second world war, which had also served overseas in support of the war effort, had limited access to veterans' benefits.

Now, members of the Newfoundland forestry unit and their spouses have access to the same programs and services as our veterans and their spouses. They must obviously meet the eligibility criteria. This applies to veterans and civilians who have served overseas.

This provides the context for the question put by the hon. member to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, which is “Will the government deliver on the promise to provide benefits to the spouses of members of the Newfoundland overseas forestry unit?”

Although this question does not deal with specific benefits, I think that the hon. member is referring to survivors' benefits.

Veterans Affairs Canada pays disability benefits to veterans disabled in the course of duty. Upon their death, the surviving spouse may receive for a one-year period, the pension amount paid to the veteran at the time of death. After one year, survivor's benefits are automatically paid.

The department also pays an allowance to veterans and civilians who have served overseas; eligibility is determined according to service record, age, health, income and place of residence. This allowance is subject to an income assessment and serves as an income supplement up to a set amount.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member basically outlined some of the items that I was hoping to get into but four minutes goes pretty quickly. I will respond in saying that this is the problem: The government is allowing one year for benefits to be paid but these spouses need that money not only for one year but until the time that they move on to the other world. Why has the government allowed for one year only?

What are the spouses going to do? Are they going to sit back and go on welfare? No. We as a country have to make sure that these spouses of war veterans are taken care of until they pass on. Of course, the government, in my view and in the view of a lot of spouses, said that there was a promise made to extend benefits for longer than one year, and they are only being supplied for one year.

I say to the government members that it is time that this is revisited and the benefits should be there not only for one year but until the spouses expire and move on. They deserve more than just one year, because their husbands fought for a free country and they ended up getting a raw deal from governments in the past. It is time for this government to make it right.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would inform the hon. members that surviving spouses of members of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit will receive the benefits to which they are entitled under the existing legislation.

On February 10, the hon. member indicated that the government had promised that the eligibility criteria would be broadened to provide benefits to the spouses of members of the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit.

I would like to remind the House that under the existing legislation, spouses are entitled to programs and services such as disability pensions, veterans benefits or the Veterans Independence Program.

As hon. members probably know, veterans and their families have access to numerous programs and services. Many Canadians probably do not know that Veterans Affairs Canada provides some $1.38 billion a year in disability benefits to veterans, that is traditional war time veterans or younger former members of the Canadian forces.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to speak about gasoline prices.

On February 18, 2003, I asked a question of the Minister of Industry. I called upon him to get the Competition Bureau involved so that there would be a study of the behaviour of all companies involved in the gasoline industry during the first quarter of 2003, when prices began to skyrocket.

At that time, the minister's response to my second question was this:

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Standing Committee on Industry will be examining this issue. I am very pleased to know that the committee will be looking into this situation.

I recall that the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, had contributed to committee unanimity on an examination of the gasoline price issue. I must also point out that there was unanimity among all MPs on the committee.

Today we held the first hearings on this matter and met with the Competition Commissioner. He said in closing: “I have no evidence of collusion, nor do I have any formal evidence that it exists”.

But he also told me that there is a problem of transparency in this area. There have been some twenty studies over the past ten years on the gasoline sector and, each time, the public is not convinced that the conclusions have indeed been objective and realistic. The latest Conference Board study, in which we know the gas and oil companies were involved, lacked the necessary transparency.

Would the government be prepared to carry out an independent investigation that would be entrusted to some body along the lines of the International Trade Organization, an independent Canadian body equipped to carry out this type of study? Or is the minister, with all the time he has had to reflect on this matter, and with all the reported surpluses, the profits generated by the gas and oil companies over the first quarter of 2003, still not convinced today that he should exercise the authority he has under the law and ask the Competition Board to address this matter and carry out a very open investigation that will not stop with the obvious short-term evidence but will address the entire situation, or preferably instead opt for the independent study the Competition Commissioner expressed a desire for today?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to deal with the question raised on February 18, 2003, by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques regarding retail gasoline prices.

Our response on this topic is clear. We believe that a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace provides Canadian consumers with the best prices and encourages companies to innovate and offer new product choices.

As everyone knows, the Competition Bureau is an independent implementation organization responsible for administrating the Competition Act. The act contains criminal provisions that prohibit price fixing and price maintenance as well as civil provisions that deal with mergers and abusive behaviour by those in a dominant position among others.

All these provisions apply to gasoline and other petroleum products. If there are facts that indicate that prices are the result of an agreement between competitors, for example, proof of written communication between competitors, the Competition Bureau will take the appropriate measures. Representatives of the bureau will examine all information or proof that suggests possible anti-competitive behaviour regarding gasoline prices.

We also need to place this issue in the broader context. We must keep in mind that outside factors have had an influence on gasoline prices in Canadian markets: the war in Iraq, a political crisis in Venezuela that affected its oil production, a cold winter in northeastern North America and abnormally low reserves across the continent. All of these factors exerted pressure on the price of crude oil, which, as everyone knows, has an impact on the price of gas in Canada and around the world.

In the past, the Competition Bureau has conducted a number of reviews of domestic markets for petroleum products.

Since 1990, the Competition Bureau has conducted four major investigations into the petroleum products industry and has found no proof suggesting that periodic increases in prices are based on national or regional collusion to limit competition in the provision of oil products. It is important to note that each period of increased prices has been followed by a drop in prices to previous levels.

I can assure the hon. member that where the Competition Bureau finds that companies or individuals have engaged in anti-competitive conduct, it has no hesitation whatsoever to move quickly with appropriate action.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of competition. We agree that there must be a competitive market, but we want to get to the bottom of this, during the study in committee, to become familiar with the situation well and to answer the question on profit margins at the refining stage. Once again today, we did not get any answer. I hope that the meetings with oil companies will allow us to get some answers.

As for the evidence, it is important that all the people know that it is very difficult to show, which is why it is important for the minister to use his authority to ask for an investigation. Should he not, for the sake of transparency, even though he perceives that there is no collusion, ask the Competition Bureau to carry out this investigation to ensure that the public knows, once for all, whether or not there are behaviours that are unacceptable and that must be corrected and what type of solutions should be implemented?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that the Competition Bureau is a quasi-judicial tribunal. Therefore, it has a certain degree of autonomy and may, on its own, initiate investigations. The Bureau does not have to wait for an order from the minister to proceed.

The question is how can the Competition Bureau launch an investigation. It can do so in two ways. It can do so on its own initiative, because of prices, noting that something is not functioning properly and that it will investigate. It can also investigate if someone has tangible evidence. This evidence must be filed with the Competition Bureau and an investigation will certainly follow.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.)