Debates of May 5th, 2003

Question No. 183

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

While the Department of Finance has not undertaken analysis into the specific question raised, we do conduct regular ongoing monitoring of the performance of Canada’s banks. The department also keeps abreast of the economic literature examining consolidation issues in the financial services sector. In 2000 the department participated in an initiative involving the G-10 group of countries looking at many aspects of consolidation. The final report entitled “Consolidation in the Financial Sector” is available at www.bis.org. Building on that analysis, officials from the Department of Finance, the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, and the Bank of Italy released a paper in the Finance and Economics Discussion Series of the Federal Reserve Board of Washington entitled “Consolidation and Efficiency in the Financial Sector: A Review of the International Evidence”. The paper can be found at http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2002/200247/200247pap.pdf.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, an act to amend the National Defence Act (remuneration of military judges), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Defence Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise today on an issue of such importance to the men and women of our armed forces.

The legislation we debate here today has as its pith and substance the modernization of military justice. It is an attempt to better harmonize the rules of legal procedure that guide the administration of justice for the Canadian armed forces with the laws of Canada in their civilian application.

Perhaps the House will permit me this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the office of the Judge Advocate General, the guardians of justice in uniform. The JAG officers are a vital component of our armed forces and an important part of our military community. They are soldiers on the front lines of the law and in a field of practice that is often as hazardous as any endured by the infantry, the artillery and the armoured corps.

The men and women of the JAG office frequently are deployed to the most dangerous places on the globe, tasked with the mission of ensuring that justice is done. Bill C-35, hopefully, would help the JAG and military judges in all their important work.

The legislation has two distinct components, both of equal importance. On the one hand, the legislation seeks to better regulate the rate of pay for military judges. On the other hand, it clarifies the procedural and evidentiary rules regarding the taking of bodily samples. While these might seem to be areas of limited administrative importance, they are in fact issues of great constitutional importance.

Speaking to the first area of the legislation, that of regulating the rate of pay for military judges, the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated repeatedly that the remuneration of judges is a key component in preserving judicial independence.

The guiding principles of our Constitution require that we establish impartial courts for the proper administration of justice. This historic requirement has been given new life under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, it is section 11(d) of the charter that guarantees that any person charged with any offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

In light of this important constitutional principle, the courts have indicated repeatedly that to be truly independent of the executive and legislative branches of government, the judiciary should not appear to be dependent on them for proper pay and remuneration. To be certain, there must not even be the appearance that their decisions could be affected by changes to their rate of pay.

Given this explicit and important link between the remuneration of judges and the constitutional right to an independent judiciary, we in the House have a very serious and clear obligation to monitor any legislation that would seek to affect the rate of pay of judges. Given that this protection has been extended to all citizens, let it be especially so for the most courageous citizens in our country, the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.

That Bill C-35 seeks to ensure that changes to the Treasury Board guidelines have retroactive effect is therefore an important amendment. That the pay of judges, in this case military judges, is a matter of a formula and not the product of negotiations between branches of government is of clear and undeniable importance.

The bulk of the legislation, however, relates to an area of equal importance, and that is the proper legal authority for a peace officer to take samples of bodily substances

I know that I do not need to convince my colleagues here today of the importance of forensic science in the administration of justice in the 21st century. The vast potential of science has been an invaluable partner in the area of criminal investigation for more than a century but it is the constant advancements in the area of DNA analysis that has been the biggest boon to criminal investigation since the discovery of the fingerprint.

As in all areas, the evolution of science must walk side by side with the continued stability of our rights and freedoms. Given the tremendous weight given to DNA evidence in criminal procedures, it is vital that there is administrative fairness in both its collection and analysis.

Both sections 7 and 8 of the charter offer protections relevant to this discussion.

Clause 7 protects life, liberty and the security of the person. It ensures that any intrusion into the right of the person with respect to their body, a fact that includes bodily samples, is minimal and only in accordance with a proper legal authority.

Clause 8 protects against unreasonable search and seizure requiring that only a properly executed and lawful warrant can compel an accused to submit to a search or have his or her property seized.

Bill C-35 seeks to give greater clarity to the issue surrounding the taking of body samples. I believe that given the greater constitutional importance attached to it, we have an increased burden to put the bill under a legislative microscope. I have great confidence that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs will do so clause by clause, analyzing all the legislation.

I have spoken at length this afternoon about the important considerations that have been outlined by the courts of the country with respect to the proper application of the Charter. I know I do so at a time when some in our country, indeed many in the chamber, are concerned about the role of the judiciary in the development of the law. The debate is one of great importance and significance to all of Canada.

I believe that both sides and all parties in the House will agree that we have a special duty as lawmakers to ensure that the legislation we pass is not only lawful but also good law. We have here an important obligation to not only improve laws but to improve lives.

When we debate an amendment to existing legislation, we have a duty to ensure that we consider whether the lives of those affected will be improved as a result of our action. To that end, I hope we would all agree that our duty extends to ensure that we consider the potential legal ramifications of our actions in relation to decisions we have seen passed by the courts of this country.

I am the first to recognize that the administration of military justice is different than that of the administration of civilian justice. Those differences speak to the unparalleled importance of our military and its function in the world. They are a reflection of the commitment of our men and women in uniform who have made Canada.

If it can be said that they have a sworn duty to protect us, surely then we must say to them that we have a sworn duty to protect them.

Although the bill in the consideration of the House speaks to military justice, not military funding, it would be remiss of me today in my duties if I did not mention and declare a continuing need for better funding of our military.

Between the 1993-94 fiscal year and the 1998-99 fiscal year our military budget fell 22%, from $12 billion to $9.4 billion. In the same period the operational tempo of our armed forces, this is to say that the ratio of time spent on deployed missions, rose from 6% to 23%, an increase of almost 400%.

The funding gap has hurt our military. Members of the military are required to use equipment that is 30 to 40 years old. They are restricted in the amount of training they can received. They are limited in their potential, not by their courage, not by their compassion or not by the commitment of the personnel, but by the scarce resources at their disposal. We have let them down. The government has let them down.

We speak today about improving military justice but we should be talking about doing our military justice by ensuring that the members of the military have the tools and equipment necessary to do their jobs.

Some of the Liberals on the government benches, perhaps most noticeably those either currently or formerly part of the cabinet, have recently begun to call for better treatment of our military. The former finance minister has even called for an increase in military funding, notwithstanding that he was the one with the hand on the knife when the government made vicious cuts to the DND budget. Better treatment of our military should be a firm commitment, not a campaign promise.

In closing, if I had my way, we would spend a portion of each day debating how we can improve the conditions of our military and its personnel.

While Bill C-35 addresses important issues, it does not address all the important issues facing the Canadian armed forces. We have much work to do here before we rise and I hope that the rumours about leaving early are false, especially at a time when we are prepared to send so many of our men and women to serve in a dangerous and unstable part of the world. That of course is the height of hypocrisy.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this important issue, particularly because the west coast Pacific command is situated in my riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

Over the last 30-odd years we have seen a continual lack of support for our military. Bill C-35 bespeaks to a reform process that has to take place. The fact that the government put forth a bill to amend the National Defence Act, remuneration of military judges, which deals with that and another couple of minor issues, demonstrates the complete lack of support the government has for our military.

Why would the government spend its resources and its time and the public sector's time bringing a bill like this forward when we have massive problems in our military? We do not have the troops to do the job. The military does not have the equipment nor the support. We have a disconnected foreign policy and a defence policy. Having a congruent defence and foreign policy, having enough troops to do the job both domestically and internationally and giving them the support and tools to do the job are issues that the House should be debating. The fact that the government put forth this bill bespeaks to its complete neglect of our military over the 10 years it has been in power.

This is important on a broad range of issues because our ability to engage internationally, to fight for what we need as Canadians and to be the best that we can be economically is intimately entwined with our ability to engage with our partners in this globalized era. Our ability to engage with NATO and the United States and to do what we are supposed to do under the United Nations are all exceedingly important for the health, welfare and economic stability of Canada.

Time after time and time and after umpteen studies we have heard that Canada has been living off the coattails of our partners, be it the U.S. or our other partners in NATO. The Canadian public does not necessarily know this because our government has given it the flawed methodology that we are a great peacekeeping country and that we are contributing to our international commitments.

The reality is we are 19th in the world in peacekeeping if we look at the 22 most developed countries. We used to be number one. Back in the era of Prime Minister Pearson, our troops could be put in the theatre. They could be moved in short order to where they were required by the teams of which we were a part. We can no longer do that. We saw that in Afghanistan. We cannot even maintain 800 troops in the theatre for a period of six months. That is below our requirements.

The government has admitted that not only can we not meet our international requirements, but more sadly, we cannot meet our domestic requirements. If we had a domestic catastrophe, if we had a large terrorist attack, if we had an act of God as we have had in the past with floods and the ice storm, could we engage enough troops to meet those domestic problems? The answer is a tragic no.

Professor Andrew Cohen of the School of Journalism at Carleton University has just written a very eloquent book on what has happened to our relationship with the U.S. and the international community. He puts at the heart of this one major issue. He says that our underfunding and lack of response to our military needs has greatly undermined our ability to be a player at the international table. Our government continues to tell Canadians that we are a great middle power, that we have strong moral authority. At one time that was true, but since 1969 we have seen a gradual and inexorable decline in our ability to influence and a decline in our ability to advocate for Canada at the international table.

About two or three years ago, the head of NATO admonished Canada in Toronto for a lack of response. He said at that time that as Canadians we had to support our military here at home and play our role internationally. If we would not pay the piper, then we would be sitting around at the table as a second rate country and we would have to pick up the pieces after all was said and done.

Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that in previous speeches. He himself has acknowledged the need, as has our current defence minister. Why the lack of response? Documents have been put together by the Canadian Alliance. My colleague has put together a superb document on the deficits and needs in our defence forces, an eloquent specific plan of action, a call to arms, on exactly how we can fix the problems in our defence forces.

[An hon. member]

But there is no political will.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But there is no political will, as my colleague mentions. Despite umpteen numbers of studies, specific solutions are required for our fine men and women who work very hard to do a job but we do not see the political response.

It is really at the level of the Prime Minister's Office where we are not seeing that response. What a tragedy for our country when the Prime Minister's Office does not see that its lack of support for our military is eroding our ability to negotiate from a foreign policy standpoint. We suffer economically, not only in our north-south relations but also our east-west relations. This is not a fait accompli.

The other issue I want to talk about, and the government could have done this through Bill C-35, deals with a very important issue of quality of life of our men and women in uniform and their families. On one hand, the government gives our soldiers a wage. However it does not announce as colourfully to the public that it takes that money away with more in cuts to their PLD, which is their cost of living allowance, and it also raises their private married quarters rents. That, coupled with other cuts, makes our men and women in uniform worse off today than they were last year in terms of economics.

What kind of government sends troops abroad to fight for our country, to lay their lives on the line and then, while they set off abroad in their ships or planes, it guts the economic ability of soldiers to provide for themselves and their families at home? I have received many letters from families living in my constituency who wonder why the government is sending their husbands, fathers, wives and mothers abroad while it is taking money away from them. What kind of disingenuous government would on one hand give money to our soldiers, then take money away with both hands, leaving them all the poorer for it? The public does not understand that. What is more, what does that do to the morale of our armed forces? That cannot continue.

Many of us have said that the government must stop cutting the economics of our men and women in uniform. We should give more to them than they give to us. Our soldiers have given more to us over the years than we have given to them. It is not only a matter of economics; it is a matter of plain respect. We cannot disrespect our soldiers in this way.

Some have wondered why we do not become merely a peacekeeping nation. At the end of the day our military is there, at its most sharpest edge, to wage war. Our military must have the capability of waging war. Everything else falls from that. Peacekeeping and peacemaking is war by another name. We have to give our troops the capabilities to do that.

I ask the government, where do we go from here? First, right now our troop strength is about 56,000. Two decades ago it was 125,000. We were able to put people in the theatre. We need to increase our manpower to at least 80,000 to 85,000.

Second, we need the heavy lift capabilities to move our troops into the theatre. Without that we will see in the future what we have seen in the past, where we have to wait in line for our allies to give us the transportation mechanisms to get our troops in the field. What kind of nonsense is that?

Third, we have some critical issues. Everyone knows about the helicopters, but we also have problems with our CF-18s and indeed some of our ships, along with many of the basic tools and equipment for our army which are completely burnt out not only in combat materials but also in terms of personnel.

Those and a whole list of solutions that have been put forth by learned people in the military must be adhered to for the sake of our military and allies, and our place in the world. Some would argue that we should not have a military that kills people. At the end of the day we must always have that capability because that is what an army is all about.

The other thing we need to do is to consider having a nimble and lethal armed forces that can rapidly move around, like a rapid reaction force. That is what will be required in the future. Most wars now are not wars between countries. They are intra-country wars. They are not inter-country wars that took place early in the last century, like World War I and World War II.

Today we are seeing that most of the conflicts are within a nation state, whether it is Afghanistan, or indeed what we saw in Iraq, Somalia, et cetera. We must have the capabilities that will enable us to put our troops into that theatre to engage and integrate with our allies.

One of the other deficits we have is our ability to communicate with our allies. We are losing that capability rapidly and in fact we are behind the eight ball. Unless we meet those commitments to engage and communicate with our allies then we will not be part of the team. We will not be able to function in the multilateral objectives that we will have in the future.

Our other objective is to be relevant sitting next to the world's hegemony. There are things that the Americans do well military, but there are things that we do well military that they cannot do. Our objective will not only be to meet our domestic requirements, but to determine some niche areas where we can play an important role in having a multipurpose combat capable force which would engage and play roles with our allies in dealing with the many threats that we will see.

The terrorist threat that we have today will not be dealt with at the end of a gun. Part of it has to be that way but by and large terrorist threats that we see today would only be dealt with ultimately through issues that deal with the political and economic emancipation of countries that are ruled by despots and individuals that milk their countries dry at the expense of the people.

We have seen that happen in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. Despots rule these countries and the resources of those countries go into the hands of the people at the top at the expense of the people at the bottom. That creates a toxic syndrome where the people see no hope and are subject to the prey of manipulative individuals who will use religion, for example, as a tool to manipulate the group to do their bidding.

That is how al-Qaeda works. It preys on the disaffected, dispossessed, and hopeless in an effort to sway them to do its violent bidding. It uses that to encourage people to be suicide bombers, to create instability, and to wage war against the west.

However, the war between al-Qaeda and western targets is not primarily a war against the west. It is a war against moderate Islam. Al-Qaeda's objective is not to fight the United States. Al-Qaeda's objective is to remove moderate influences in countries which are primarily Islamic and to move those moderates out of the way, get rid of western influence in those countries, and turn those countries into fundamentalist Islamic states. Osama bin Laden wants to turn Saudi Arabia into a fundamentalist state.

The danger that we are seeing now is that Iraq could swing that way unless there is the active engagement of a multilateral approach to ensure that democracy and the people of Iraq have the choice to decide who their leaders will be. Those choices will not come from outside. The United States and the west will not decide who will lead the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq will choose who will lead them.

Only by doing that and ensuring that the new leadership in Iraq will share the resources of that country with the people of Iraq will we see the political emancipation of the people of Iraq, and that in and of itself will act as a bulwark against fundamentalism.

The biggest challenge right now in the Middle East, though, is not Iraq at all. It is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a kingdom that was created as a result of political machinations that occurred between the origins of the Wahabi sect and the House of Al-Saud. Those two groups came together and developed a blood pact. That pact created a very unstable situation in a country that actually could be very rich. The creation of that pact has ultimately led to a group of 5,000 or so princelings and their hangers-on who are milking the country of the oil resources that it has. Where has the wealth gone? It has gone into the pockets of those 5,000 and their hangers-on. Have the people seen the results of that wealth? No, they have not.

What we see is the creation and the turmoil that is bubbling over from within. The lack of political and economic power by the people of Saudi Arabia will boil over into a cataclysmic event that will see the removal of the house of Al-Saud. What we will see is the potential introduction of a very fundamentalist leadership that could well pose a threat to the west.

Egypt is also another country that is boiling underneath the surface. We do not normally see that because we assume that wonderful Egypt, with its pyramids, is an island of stability in a very unstable area. The reality is not so pretty. Underneath that surface are a large number of people who are disaffected and without hope. Educated people who had hope but who are now without hope. What that creates in Egypt is a people who are ripe for the predations of groups like al-Qaeda that will stimulate them to engage in unstable actions that will affect us.

We have a role that the United States perhaps does not. We can work with other countries and deal with them politically and economically. The political and economic emancipation of countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are critical to our own security as a country. As I said before, the threat of terrorism will not go away purely by the use of force. That threat will go underground and it will manifest itself in various ways, not the least of which is what we saw in 9/11.

We have seen something else that is very dangerous. I hope our government will deal with it because it is something that we fear. We fear weapons of mass destruction. But where is the greatest threat of weapons of mass destruction right now that has not been dealt with? Is it in North Korea? Iraq was a potential problem. Syria is a problem because it has weapons of mass destruction. But the biggest threat is actually in the loss of control of fissile materials in the former Soviet Union. That country had some 30,000 nukes. We know from the former Russian general Alexander Lebed that there were small suitcase nukes made. No one knows where they are. We know that there is an uncontrolled axis of evil that has been created due to the fissile materials. The ruthless Russian mafia and terrorist organizations want to get that fissile material.

Some believe that al-Qaeda already has them. The Russian mafia wants to get those fissile materials and sell them for huge profits. To their credit, the Russian police have blocked some of these efforts. More must be done. We must work with the United States, the Russian authorities, and with countries in the former USSR, including the CIS states, to deal with this problem and to actively hunt down, engage, and destroy the Russian mafia that is poisoning not only the former USSR but also countries in eastern European, including Bosnia where the Russian mafia is integrating itself and causing a huge problem.

I hope the government will listen to the constructive solutions that have come from members from all political parties and, for the sake of our military and country, employ them now.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gander—Grand Falls, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Gasoline Prices.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

International Transfer of Offenders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to speak to second reading and express my support and obviously that of the government for Bill C-33, the international transfer of offenders act. The primary objective of this proposed enactment is to repeal the existing legislation in this area and replace it with a new enhanced and modernized version that is more responsive to international developments.

Before I delve further into the details of the existing legislation and the bill before the House, I would like to elaborate on why I believe members on both sides of the House should take part in this debate. They should not hesitate to take part in this debate. They should familiarize themselves with the spirit and the subject matter of the bill. All Canadians are entitled to receive from their elected representatives the rational, sound and effective governance they deserve and expect, a matter of trust I am certain all members take seriously.

It is much less difficult to concentrate on the hot button issues of the day and contribute short sound bites and quick one liners. However good government involves a great deal more than that. One must be able to deal effectively with critical, pressing concerns that impact on a great number of Canadians, or concerns that have immense global significance, while at the same time ensuring that the numerous federal statutes and regulations are updated and modernized so they continue to meet their objectives. In that spirit, I thank hon. members for the scrutiny that will be given to this important bill.

Bill C-33 before us today is an excellent example of the everyday work of this Parliament. It is of great importance. Although it may not capture the daily headlines, the work of Parliament in this particular initiative is important and deserves the scrutiny of members on both sides of the House. It is one thread among many that form the fabric of laws that make this country a shining example of democracy and good government in which all Canadians can share pride.

In this vein, the right hon. Prime Minister in his response to the Speech from the Throne that opened the second session of the 37th Parliament stated the following:

This has been a government committed not to the big bang or the big show, but to continuous and enduring improvements, minimizing divisiveness and maximizing results, focused on the problems and priorities of Canadians, focused on the future, focused on the world.

Bill C-33 which is before us today improves and expands upon the principles contained in the original Transfer of Offenders Act, a statute that meets important public safety and humanitarian objectives, which are achieved through cooperation with other nations.

The act arose out of discussions at the United Nations involving many of our international partners, at which we agreed on the importance of providing a mechanism for the international transfer of offenders so that, for example, Canadians who are convicted in a foreign state may, under certain circumstances, serve their sentence in their home country of Canada.

The Transfer of Offenders Act accomplishes this by providing for the implementation of specific treaties which also set out the conditions under which a foreign national sentenced in Canada may be returned to his or her home country to serve his or her sentence. This ensures that foreign offenders who are convicted in Canada do not escape justice, which would be the case if they were merely deported from Canada upon conviction and sentencing.

Under the Transfer of Offenders Act, Canada has ratified treaties and conventions which allow transfers between us and over 40 countries, including among many others, the United States, Mexico, France and Egypt. The terms and conditions under which offenders are transferred are carefully negotiated such that serious offences are scrutinized without diluting sentencing. Comprehensive and effective legislation is vital in order to encourage other countries to sign treaties with us so that they can be used when the need arises.

The Transfer of Offenders Act, enacted in 1978, serves to achieve several commendable and worthy objectives. First of all, the act serves an important humanitarian role. There is absolutely no question that individuals who are found guilty of crimes in foreign countries should be liable to be punished according to the laws of that particular country. However, situations have arisen, as members in the House know, where a foreign sentence along with foreign standards of justice and commissions of confinement, may impose severe hardship on Canadians when applying even the most rigorous of standards.

This is not to say that foreign nations are intentionally singling out Canadians for harsh sentences or prison conditions. Much of the related hardships may be seen as a result of differences in language and culture which can result in Canadians being exposed to serious psychological stress caused by language isolation, an unfamiliar legal system, differences in lifestyle, health care, religion and diet.

One must consider the potential suffering and hardship that can be imposed on the family members and friends of Canadians imprisoned abroad, who themselves have not done anything wrong. It would be heartless to ignore their plight. As I am sure all members in the House know, the costs associated with travelling to visit their imprisoned loved one and obtaining legal representation for many Canadians who do have family members sentenced and imprisoned in foreign countries are prohibitive. As well, the families and friends of the offender often feel compelled to forward large amounts of money so that the offender can supplement his or her diet or health care and obtain other necessities.

As is the case with the offender, the situation of family and friends may also be exacerbated by unfamiliarity with the foreign legal system and other cultural and language factors. It is true that Canadian consular officials can help to alleviate some of these problems, but there are very real limits to the extent of the assistance that can be provided. The role of the consulate is generally restricted to seeing that the offender's rights under the local law are respected, providing a list of local lawyers and making efforts to facilitate family contact.

Another important objective of the current Transfer of Offenders Act is that of public safety. It contributes to the protection of the public in several significant ways. First of all, it allows Canadian offenders to serve their sentence in Canada, thus providing them with the opportunity to maintain valuable contact with family members. We all intuitively recognize that a good support system can play an important role in the rehabilitation of offenders and their eventual reintegration into society.

The statement of fact that I just made is supported by research which consistently demonstrates that offenders who have the benefit of a strong, supportive relationship with their families are less likely to become recidivists. Furthermore, safety is enhanced in Canada by the provision of rehabilitative and other programs and the gradual and controlled reintegration of returned offenders into society under supervision, elements that are not available to Canadian offenders in many foreign corrections systems.

This remains the case even when the country of detention is one in which the social milieu and conditions appear not to be highly dissimilar to those of Canada. Therefore, the international transfer of offenders contributes to the reduction of recidivism as well as reducing the hardships suffered by Canadians sentenced in other countries and their families.

Of course the government continues to encourage all citizens to observe Canadian laws and those of any country they may find themselves in, but that does not mean we can ignore the plight of our citizens sentenced abroad and their families.

In the many years since the Transfer of Offenders Act came into force, only minor technical amendments have been made to the act. The amendments which are proposed in Bill C-33 before us today meet several vital objectives. The changes address substantive issues that may have been raised over the intervening years and include adding several legally essential treaty obligations in principle, such as the non-aggravation of the sentence by the receiving state.

If a Canadian has been convicted and sentenced in a foreign state to serve out a sentence in prison and that Canadian, under this act, requests to come back to Canada, and the foreign country in which he or she is incarcerated agrees and Canada agrees, when that person comes back to Canada, the sentence cannot be aggravated. It cannot be increased. If for the same crime Canada has a more stringent sentence, the Canadian sentence would not be applied. It would be the foreign state sentence that would be applied.

One of the other substantive issues which is addressed in Bill C-33 is expanding the eligibility criteria to include Canadians who are not currently eligible for transfers, such as young persons on probation, children and mentally disordered persons. Under the existing Transfer of Offenders Act, these three categories of individuals or groups are not eligible to benefit from the transfer of offenders. Under Bill C-33 we would expand the eligibility criteria and they would be included in those groups admissible to take advantage of the transfer.

The provisions under Bill C-33 also clarify provisions in the Transfer of Offenders Act relating to the decision making process by such measures as requiring provincial consent for the transfer of offenders within provincial jurisdiction.

It would also align the sentence calculation provisions with other legislation to ensure the equitable treatment of transferred offenders and to ensure that Canada takes appropriate action when the foreign state grants relief in respect of the offender's foreign sentence.

Bill C-33 also adds provisions to enable the negotiation of administrative arrangements on a case by case or ad hoc basis, to extend the act's humanitarian objectives to offenders held in harsh conditions in foreign states with which Canada does not have a treaty or is negotiating but has not as yet concluded a treaty. It would also allow Canada to negotiate with foreign entities which are not as yet recognized as states to negotiate administrative agreements, not treaties.

For example, there are Canadians who are incarcerated in jurisdictions such Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Those are three places which Canada does not recognize as a state. Therefore those Canadians cannot be repatriated at this time because the current legislation does not authorize arrangements for the transfer of offenders to be negotiated with those jurisdictions.

Under Bill C-33 the Canadian government would be able to negotiate an administrative arrangement with jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, in order to make arrangements and allow for the transfer of Canadian offenders who are currently in those jurisdictions to come back to Canada, if they so wish, and for individual foreign nationals in Canada who wish to go back to those jurisdictions to return.

I would urge all hon. members to support the passage of Bill C-33. The proposed changes are necessary to ensure that the transfer of offenders regime is responsive to international developments, to allow Canada to meet international expectations and to ensure that it meets its valuable humanitarian and public safety objective.

Let me say once again that this initiative demonstrates the government's commitment to peace, order and good government by expressing Canadians' humanitarian ideals and by improving mechanisms that enhance public protection, which is and will continue to be the paramount consideration for the government.

Early last week I was approached by a member of my caucus, a Liberal MP, but it could have been an MP from any of the other political parties present in the House, who explained to me that one of his constituents had a family member who was presently incarcerated in a foreign state and who wanted to return to Canada.

Under the present Transfer of Offenders Act the family member is not eligible under the stated criteria.The member's constituent has already studied Bill C-33 and was pleased to see that under Bill C-33 his or her family member, I am not sure of the gender of the constituent, would be eligible. That particular constituent is looking forward to the debate in the House, to the legislation being sent to committee, to committee consultation and may in fact request to appear before the committee in order to support Bill C-33. Apparently the individual also has a couple of recommendations or suggestions to make.

However I think that highlights the point that Canadians do support the proposed international transfer of offenders act. I am sure that those Canadians who take a close look at Bill C-33 will be pleased with the proposed amendments that are contained in the bill.

I welcome debate on this from all sides of the House and I look forward to listening to what other members have to say about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me be upfront and admit that I am still studying the bill. I have not done much indepth study of the bill but I would like to ask the member a few preliminary questions.

I know the hon. member is a lawyer and that she looks at it from the legal perspective. We know the sad story of Mr. Bill Sampson from South Surrey--White Rock who is in Saudi Arabia awaiting a death sentence.

What would be the implications of the bill in a situation where a death sentence was passed in another country? In Canada we do not have that kind of sentence. If the bill were passed what impact would it have on people like Mr. Sampson in Saudi Arabia?

I understand from the member's assertions during her debate that reciprocity of this agreement should be there. As we do not recognize some states, how will this work? She did not make that very clear. If a Canadian were in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao or in another jurisdiction what would happen in that situation if the bill were passed? She did not clarify that.

What about the magnitude of the crime? A Canadian citizen visiting or living abroad could commit a small crime or a serious violent crime. It could be, hypothetically, for operating in a terrorist organization. What would be the implication of the proposed act in such a serious situation where the other jurisdiction would not allow the citizen to leave the country and be punished in Canada?

Those are some of the questions on which I would like to learn something from the member and from a different perspective.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the member's first example, of a Canadian being sentenced to death in a foreign state, as it stands now, if Canada has a treaty with that particular foreign state, which was negotiated under the International Transfer of Offenders Act, then it is the offender who must request the application of the transfer of offender. It is completely voluntary.

Obviously many Canadians who are incarcerated abroad have an interest in returning to Canada. The member pointed out that we do not have the death sentence. The member is quite correct. If the foreign state agreed to transfer the Canadian to Canada, the Canadian would not be put to death. Canadians would serve out their sentence under our legislation, and if it was first degree murder they would probably serve a life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years. However it is clear that we would not execute because we do not have the death penalty.

The point the member raised is very important. Since we do not have the death penalty, if a foreign national were convicted of an offence which, in our country, requires life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years, and that individual applied to be transferred to his or her country of origin that does have the death penalty, there would assurances that the death penalty would not be carried out.

As for the other example that was raised by the hon. member, the foreign jurisdictions that are not recognized foreign states, like Taiwan and Hong Kong, the Canadians who are currently or may be in the future sentenced and incarcerated to serve out a sentence in those jurisdictions, if they wish to serve out their sentence in Canada, Canada, under the proposed legislation, would be able to negotiate an administrative arrangement with those jurisdictions that would allow for that kind of transfer.

Under the current International Transfer of Offenders Act, we do not have the legal authority to negotiate anything with Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macao. Therefore, Canadians who find themselves in those jurisdictions that are not recognized as foreign states are basically up a creek unless the government of that particular jurisdiction decides to deport them and send them back to Canada, in which case we have a problem. Since they were not convicted in Canada we could not incarcerate them.

Under an administrative agreement, those individuals would be transferred under the administrative agreement and would serve out their sentence in Canada. They would be subject to our laws in terms of parole, rehabilitation programs, et cetera.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would direct the government member to page 3, subclause 5(1) which clearly states:

A transfer may not have the effect of increasing a sentence imposed by a foreign entity or of invalidating a guilty verdict rendered, or a sentence imposed....

Let me turn to page 13, subclause 30(1), which states:

A Canadian offender shall benefit from any compassionate measures--including a cancellation of their conviction or shortening of their sentence--taken by a foreign entity after the transfer.

This a direct contradiction in the bill. I do not see how we will get out of this one. I think that when foreign governments look at subclause 30(1) they will say that they will not participate because the bill is inconsistent.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member has pointed out that particular issue. I have to admit that I did not see that but I will take a close look at whether there is an inconsistency between the two subclauses. I am tempted to say that I do not think there is but I will not say that because, as I said, it did not fly in my face. I did not recognize an inconsistency but now that the member has pointed out what he believes to be an inconsistency, I will certainly direct my attention to those particular subclauses and examine them carefully. Once I have had a chance to examine those subclauses I would be more than pleased to discuss my views with the member outside the House, because obviously it will not be during this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I direct the member to page 2, subclause 4(3) where it talks about a young offender who would be subject to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. If they were in custody abroad they could be returned with their conduct that would not have constituted a criminal offence if it had occurred in Canada. However it is not the same for an adult. We have a complete difference between offences for young offenders and adults. In other words, we will bring our kids home regardless but it is a different standard for adults. Again, it is an inconsistency in the bill.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is that there are jurisdictions, foreign states, which treat their children in a completely different manner than Canada does. If there are differences that are highlighted in the legislation then I think these would be justified.

However I will look at those particular subclauses again and once I have had a chance to re-examine them I would be happy to discuss it with the member.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill now before the House is to replace the Transfer of Offenders Act, which has been in force for over 20 years. The basic objective of the solicitor general's proposal is still the same as the one pursued by the old act that would be replaced, with the exception that the list of countries with which the Canadian government has entered into agreements would be updated.

Thus, Canadians convicted abroad would still be allowed to come back here to serve their sentences and foreigners convicted in Canada would still be allowed to return to their country to serve their sentences.

The foundation of this bill is to set out how the transfer of offenders to Canadian correctional institutions would be done, while ensuring the compassionate nature of the process. It is important to mention at this point that the Bloc Quebecois supports such a measure.

The bill also deals with with the equivalency of foreign and Canadian sentences. In this regard, it will be interesting to follow the progress of this bill, particularly in light of the justice minister's decision, last week, not to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec concerning the new Youth Criminal Justice Act.

At this time I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois agrees in principle with Bill C-33. Nevertheless, this support should not be considered carte blanche for the government. As is customary, we reserve the right to present amendments to the bill in order to improve it.

As an example of a constructive amendment the Bloc might suggest, I give you the delicate issue of human rights and the unhealthy conditions in the prisons of certain countries. From this point of view, it seems obvious that we should repatriate criminals who otherwise would have to serve their sentences in inhumane conditions.

These transfers must be carried out in a spirit of collaboration with the states that are signatories of treaties and administrative agreements. It is essential to establish a quick, simple administrative framework for transferring criminals. The same would be true for foreign nationals serving a sentence in Canada.

Nevertheless, we have serious reservations when it comes to enforcing certain provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Despite the recent opinion of the Quebec Court of Appeal in this matter, the federal government has decided to go ahead and sentence young people of 14 and 15 as adults. This is a concrete example of our reservations with respect to this bill, and we intend to explore this further when the bill is examined in committee.

Thus, the bill proposes major changes in the current act, particularly with respect to simplifying the administration of justice, rehabilitation and social reintegration for criminals who are serving sentences in Canada or their countries of origin. It also clearly describes the conditions and implementation mechanisms. It is entirely commendable that the bill aims at simplifying administrative procedures and the Bloc Quebecois will support this principle.

It is also important to mention the provisions related to the notion of the consent of the foreign entities under the legislation. In addition to the eligibility criteria outlined in clauses 4 and 5, clause 8 clearly stipulates that the transfer requires the consent of the foreign entity, Canada and of the offender. Similarly, clause 9 states that certain rules will apply in terms of the consent of Quebec and the provinces. Accordingly, Quebec or the other provinces may and must express their consent before any steps are undertaken.

The minister responsible for implementing the act, the Solicitor General, is given a considerable amount of responsibility with respect to assessing the factors to ensure transfers are carried out properly. As such, several elements must be taken into consideration and recent events shed some very relevant light on this matter. One of these elements to be considered is the assessment of the threat to security that the transfer of a criminal to Canada may pose. The reverse seems to be the case when it comes to the—let us call it accelerated—extradition of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel to Germany. The government's actions must be guided by a multitude of factors, and in the case of foreigners who are found guilty in Canada, the minister must take into consideration the risks involved in their detention and future release when considering and assessing transfers.

In order to avoid the transfer procedure being used to shorten or even cancel sentences, the bill contains specific provisions to ensure the continuity of sentences imposed on offenders. Thus, the rule of law will be respected and will be sufficiently consistent with the criminal law of the countries involved.

The case of young offenders is also dealt with specifically in the wording of the bill. Specific provisions apply in the cases of the transfer of adolescents. In terms of these cases, the comments of certain experts could certainly shed some needed light, particularly given the recent judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

It is our hope that the Solicitor General, as minister responsible, will make the necessary changes to the bill to reflect the requirements of the charter, pursuant to the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal.

As I mentioned in my introduction, it is also important to raise the sensitive issue of human rights and the humanitarian considerations that we must keep in mind. These issues are so important that we find it curious, to say the least, that there is only one clause dedicated to the issue in the bill.

What are the purposes of such transfers? First, social reintegration. With the development of increasingly sophisticated means of communication and transportation, it becomes simpler to implement a new administrative framework for international transfers. Criminals also benefit from our increasingly open borders and the porosity of our various systems, and we therefore congratulate the government on developing modern methods in response to these specific issues.

Rehabilitation is as important an issue as reintegration, and both are at the core of this bill.

Criminals are also transferred for humanitarian considerations. The countries involved will take into consideration communication difficulties related to language, the alienating effect of cultural differences and local customs, as well as the lack of contact with family. We can therefore deduce that repatriation of criminals has a certain interest both for offenders and governments.

The second objective relates to sovereign equality. Another issue relating to the transfer procedure consists in respecting the rights of states. There is a recognized principle that the sovereign equality of states must take precedence. Moreover, article 2 of the United Nations charter stipulates that the organization is based upon the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. This is, moreover, the reason why the agreement of the countries involved is required by this bill and the transfer also requires the agreement of the offender.

The Council of Europe adopted its Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons in 1983 at Strasbourg, a place where I have lived, you will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker.

Certain parallels might be drawn between the Council of Europe convention and the bill before us here. First, there is the need for collaboration between the states and the necessity to facilitate the social reintegration of offenders.

It is also important to point out that the convention rigorously respects the national law of each member country. Article 13 of the convention states that the sentencing state alone shall have the right to decide on any application for review of the judgment. Thus, the humanitarian aspect is clear in the provisions and the explanatory passages of the convention.

Let us also talk about mental disorders. Several provisions of the current bill are related to procedures concerning the transfer of people declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorders. We will have to pay particular attention to this part of the bill to ensure that these provisions reflect as best as possible the sensitive nature of the sentences handed out to these particular criminals.

The Bloc Quebecois still has some reservations concerning the bill, particularly about clause 18, which says:

A Canadian offender is deemed to be serving an adult sentence within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act if (a) the Canadian offender was, at the time the offence was committed, from 14 to 17 years old; and (b) their sentence is longer than the maximum youth sentence that could have been imposed under that Act for an equivalent offence.

We believe that it is very likely that 14- or 15-year-old youths would receive far too heavy sentences compared to the ones that they would have received in Canada.

I repeat that the Court of Appeal of Quebec gave its opinion in the case of the Government of Quebec's order regarding the reference concerning Bill C-7 on the youth criminal justice system. During the hearing of this case, Quebec's Attorney General said that the breaches of freedom and psychological welfare that result from criminal charges against a minor are exacerbated by the system that presumes subjecting youth to adult sentencing. This procedure would violate the presumption of innocence, guaranteed under paragraph 11( d ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental principle that is protected by section 7.

Paragraph 11( d ) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the rightto be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Quebec's Attorney General also argued that:

The procedures involved would be similar to those used in declaring someone a dangerous offender, in that they cause similar harm.

The attorney went on to say:

The Youth Criminal Justice Act would therefore violate the freedom and safety of adolescents, which contravenes the principles of fundamental justice in that it does not specifically require that the factors the court must weigh when determining whether an adolescent should be subject to adult sentencing must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

This refers to subsection 73(1) of the act.

The Attorney General of Canada argued that:

The new legislation, which is an exception to the adult criminal system, is in line with an approach that balances the interests of society and those of adolescents in such a way as to make the taking into account of the specific situation of adolescents a major consideration.

In response to the question raised by the Attorney General of Quebec, whether the elements set out are indeed principles of fundamental justice, the five judges of Quebec's Court of Appeal agreed that they were.

On page 63 of this opinion, we read the following:

The expression “fundamental justice” in the context of section 7 is not limited to rules of procedure, but includes substantial principles. This means that to withstand charter scrutiny, any psychological security violation must be fundamentally warranted not only procedurally but also in relation to the objective, in accordance with the basic tenets of our legal system.

The Quebec Court of Appeal judges added that there is a wide consensus about these elements because of the essential role they play in the Canadian legal system. Their vital importance has been recognized ever since the very first legislation on the subject-matter. Over time, the details were worked out to meet the particular situation and needs of adolescents more and more specifically.

In the decision in R. v. M. (S.H.) (1989), 2 S.C.R., on page 446, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé wrote:

[This brief legislative history of] the provisions of the Young Offenders Act amply demonstrates that for nearly one hundred years Parliament has committed itself to the separate treatment and rehabilitation of young persons involved in the criminal process. The underlying philosophy has been from the beginning that it is in society's interest to assist young offenders “to strengthen their better instincts”. An attempt is made through the legislation to “prevent these juveniles from becoming prospective criminals and to assist them to become law-abiding citizens”.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to ignore this legacy and expertise by doing away with the Young Offenders Act and replacing it with a piece of legislation that is pretty shaky in terms of its wording, as demonstrated by the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and questionable where its rehabilitation objectives are concerned.

As the members are aware, the Bloc Quebecois took a clear stand against this new legislation, which disregards nearly 100 years of history and practice, and opens the door to challenges, and the Court of Appeal of Quebec recently proved us right. We have continued to be vocal opponents of this poorly worded legislation whose sole purpose was to clumsily reassure the public.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeal stated:

Although the presumption may be set aside and the court may retain greater discretionary powers with respect to the appropriateness of imposing such a sentence rather than an adult sentence, it is no less true that the legislator has clearly indicated in sections 62 and 72 that the usual sentence applicable to designated offences is that imposed on adults guilty of the same offences.

It also sends a clear message to the population as a whole that, in general, adolescents are dangerous criminals if they are 14 years of age or older when they commit certain offences. In other words, applying adult sentences has the effect of stigmatizing the adolescent guilty of a designated offence.

Bloc Quebecois members have spoken many times on Bill C-7, the young offenders legislation, questioning its real purpose. We have questioned the relevance of the purpose of this legislation. It was surprising to find that the government really thought it could deal with juvenile crime by giving the public a false sense of security, when the real issue was to lower the crime rate among young people.

At the time, Bill C-7 had its objectives backwards. The government had completely forgotten whom this bill was for. Should we rehabilitate young offenders or should we give an illusion of protection to society, based on the leveling of the enforcement of the adult legislation?

However, if we consider clause 18 of Bill C-33 that we are discussing, the same questions remain.

The Quebec Court of Appeal has provided several responses that, it must be said, rankle the Liberal government. The Court of Appeal is categorical. The imposition of an adult sentence is not essential to achieving the goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

On page 69 of the opinion, the Court of Appeal judges analysed these provisions and concluded, and I quote:

—in this respect, clearly, the new legislation presumes that adult sentences be applied as a general rule. From now on, this legislation places upon minors the onus of demonstrating why an adult sentence should not be imposed. Supreme Court case law is however clear: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that, during sentencing the onus is on the Crown to establish beyond all reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence. Paragraph 724(3) (e) of the Criminal Code requires the prosecutor to establish, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of any aggravating fact or any previous conviction by the offender. Subsection 72(2) of the WCJA, therefore, violates the rights guaranteed under the section 7 of the Canadian Charter in that it places on the young offender the onus of proving the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the lack of a previous record at the time of the exemption, as well as the other factors listed in subsection 71(1). The onus should instead be placed on the prosecutor who wants the court to impose an adult sentence to show the fitness of such claims in terms of the factors set out in subsection 72(1), once a request has been made. The prosecutor should also have to prove the existence of facts justifying the imposition of an adult sentence. Once this has been done, the courts could decide whether to impose such a sentence on a young offender.

The judges added that even the presumption of this imposition, and I quote:

—is a violation of the right to freedom and the psychological freedom of adolescents, which does not conform to the principles of basic justice.

In conclusion, I will say that the Bloc Quebecois will obviously work very hard in committee to make sure our various concerns are dealt with and also that the recent opinion of the Quebec Court of Appeal on the Young Offenders Act is taken into consideration.

We support the bill in principle but we ask the government to be open. We want criminals to be returned, especially knowing what the conditions are in prisons in some countries. But such transfers must be done in a spirit of close cooperation between the states signatories to treaties and administrative agreements.

I thank you for your attention and I am looking forward to the committee review.