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.