Debates of Nov. 27th, 2007

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding everyone in this House, as I had just reminded everybody, that it was under the previous Liberal government that $25 billion was cut from transfers to the provinces for students.

We have pledged to modernize the delivery of Canada student loans. That is why budget 2007 launched a review of this program. We expect the results of this review and the proposed changes to be announced in budget 2008.

We are also continuing to help Canadians overcome barriers to getting the skills and education they require. Last year we gave foreign students studying in Canada the opportunity to work off campus to help finance their studies.

This is our government's record and it is clearly one that we are proud of and should be proud of. After 13 years of inaction, when tuition skyrocketed--and I was a student during that time--attendance stagnated and infrastructure crumbled, Canadians finally have a government that is doing more than just talking--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak further to the questions I put in the matter of extradition.

The Conservative government, to its credit, has established a full and public inquiry to look into allegations into the financial dealings between Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. It has appointed a distinguished scholar and lawyer, Professor David Johnston, to determine its terms of reference. Mr. Schreiber will be a principal witness for the inquiry. Indeed, the inquiry cannot proceed without him.

Accordingly, if the truth is to be pursued and the ends of justice served, Mr. Schreiber must be present as necessary to testify. For that to happen, the Minister of Justice must exercise his authority pursuant to the Extradition Act and postpone Mr. Schreiber's extradition to Germany.

I agree, as the Minister of Public Safety put it, that there are two public interests here. First, there is a public interest--I would say indeed requirement--for Mr. Schreiber to be present in Canada for the inquiry. Second, there is the interest--and I would say responsibility--to extradite Mr. Schreiber back to Germany pursuant to the extradition treaty.

But these two interests, indeed responsibilities, are not contradictory but rather complementary. Both can be discharged. The issue is one of sequencing rather than one of mutually exclusive options. Simply put, the minister must ensure that Mr. Schreiber is present so that the inquiry can proceed, and for that purpose he will have to postpone, not alter or cancel, the order of surrender. Second, he must ensure that the extradition order will appropriately be executed and Mr. Schreiber surrendered. This could be done through the postponement of the order.

What sometimes gets lost in the politicized atmosphere is the minister's broad superintending authority under the Extradition Act, and in particular as set forth under sections 41 and 42 of the act, to accomplish both these tasks.

Admittedly, the minister could surrender Mr. Schreiber and seek assurances from Germany that Mr. Schreiber could be examined, as some have suggested, via satellite, or that indeed he be returned to Canada to testify at the public inquiry. But we are not speaking here of a cameo appearance or a peripheral witness. We are speaking of the ongoing presence of a central witness whose presence is required not only for his own testimony but for cross-examination and for the attendance at the testimony of others, or, if need be, to reply, or re-examination sought.

Indeed, the minister's discretionary authority is not only one which he has a right to exercise under the Extradition Act but a duty to exercise, for Mr. Schreiber's presence in Canada may be necessary in four different contexts.

First, there is the public inquiry itself, which alone would suffice to require his presence. Second, there is a parliamentary hearing where his presence is required. Third, there is an investigative inquiry where his presence may be desirable. Finally, there is the appellate review process for which his presence is necessary.

I will close by saying that it is sometimes forgotten or not even known that there is a specific supplementary Canada-Germany extradition treaty where in article 20 of the Extradition Act it has been amended to provide for the postponement of surrender where a proceeding is in place here in Canada requiring that person's presence.

Indeed, if the amendment is read in conjunction with the minister's superintending authority under the Extradition Act, and in particular articles 40 to 42 of that act, and if we were to aggregate the multiple proceedings in which Mr. Schreiber's presence is required, the postponement of that surrender should be seen not just as being discretionary but indeed as being obligatory.

I would hope, therefore, that the Minister of Justice will exercise his authority pursuant to the Extradition Act, pursuant to the special supplementary treaty between Canada and Germany and having regard to all the circumstances at issue, and particularly the public inquiry, and that the Minister of Justice will postpone the surrender until such time as Mr. Schreiber's presence as a witness in the public inquiry is no longer required.

We are speaking here about timing--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on November 16, the hon. member for Mount Royal, in reference to the importance of Mr. Schreiber's testimony before the public inquiry, suggested that the minister had the power to hold the extradition and asked the minister to ensure that the key witness would be available to shed light on the issue.

The member from Mount Royal claimed that in addition to a discretionary power to hold the extradition, there was a supplementary agreement between Canada and Germany that expressly allows the minister to delay the extradition.

Today, in the justice and human rights committee, appearing with the justice minister on the supplementary estimates, a departmental official stated, and I would like to quote to clearly state for the record once again:

...when the act or the jurisprudence refers to a political discretion, they mean...it is no longer in the control of the courts but is in the hands of the minister. But the statute still plays a very big role, and the surrender order must be executed by the minister within 45 days of the judicial decision to commit the fugitive. There is no authority, under the treaty or the act, by which the minister can suspend the execution of that surrender order. If the surrender order is not executed, the fugitive is free to apply for a discharge and the extradition process fails.

There are two limited exceptions to that. The first is where the fugitive is facing outstanding criminal charges in Canada, or where there is an appeal with respect to the committal order.

There is some language being used in the media...with respect to a temporary surrender. That is true that there is a capacity to have a temporary surrender, but that is only where the fugitive is serving a sentence in Canada for a criminal offence.

That statement clearly describes the minister's powers with regard to the summoning of this witness.

Upon receiving the sworn affidavit, the Prime Minister moved immediately to appoint an independent third party to review the issue.

Dr. Johnston is currently in the process of establishing the parameters of the public inquiry. I think it prudent to wait until Dr. Johnston has clearly defined the full mandate of the public inquiry into this issue before commenting any further on this matter.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under section 42 of the Extradition Act it clearly states:

The Minister may amend a surrender order at any time before its execution.

It otherwise speaks for a period of 90 days after the date of a person's committal to await a surrender order, that the person be surrendered. In other words, there is a provision here for a postponement. One needs to look at the act and read it in the context of what the courts have said is a broad, discretionary, political power by the minister.

For that purpose, we support the public inquiry which has been established. We support the appointment of Dr. Johnston. We say that for the purposes of that public inquiry to proceed, so that truth can be pursued and that the ends of justice be served, the Minister of Justice should exercise that broad, discretionary, political authority, which, as he acknowledged today, he was prepared to see that Mr. Schreiber would testify.

We support that and we should do that which can be done in order to allow that purpose to be served.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we all heard today what the Minister of Justice had to say on this issue in response to questions. We heard today in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights the testimony of a departmental official which clearly lays out the roles, responsibilities and powers of the minister in this regard, and I read that into the record tonight. I commend that to the hon. member for his review.

The hon. member says that he supports the process that this government has put in place. I would say that we should let that process take its course.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6:36 p.m.)