Lorne Nystrom

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-33, the international transfer of offenders act, before the House today at second reading stage. I support the bill in principle at second reading, but we will have questions at committee stage.

As I was saying, I agree with the principle of the bill, but questions about this will be raised in committee.

Bill C-33 would allow Canada to implement treaties and administrative arrangements with other countries around the world for the international transfer of offenders. The purpose of the bill is to allow Canadians who are convicted abroad to serve their sentences in this country. If there is a conviction for some offence abroad and it makes more sense to serve the sentence in this country, it certainly makes that possible.

By allowing the offenders to serve their sentences in Canada the public's interest is also served because offenders are generally released into the community in accordance with the overall Canadian rehabilitation strategy, rather than simply having the offenders arrive in this country at the end of their sentences without any checks in terms of their reintegration.

If someone is in this country, incarcerated and then released, they are released in terms of the release strategy in Canada rather than just arriving at an airport or a bus depot from another country and walking onto the street. In principle it makes sense to support the bill before the House today.

The bill would permit Canadian offenders facing incarceration in foreign prisons in unfamiliar and difficult situations to serve their sentences in Canada. This function is crucial where the foreign states do not accommodate Canadian standards of rights and rehabilitation. There are many countries in the world that do not have the same kinds of rights that we have in this country, or the same kind of program of rehabilitation. That is one of the factors in the bill.

Foreign states with which Canada does have a transfer agreement may likewise take advantage of the bill to have their nationals that are incarcerated in Canada transferred back to their home country. It is very much a reciprocal agreement where offenders from a foreign country are arrested, convicted and incarcerated in Canada and transferred back to that foreign country. It is a reciprocal arrangement that makes sense.

The provisions of the bill would apply to criminal offenders, including young offenders and mentally incompetent offenders. Consent to be transferred must be given by the offender, by the foreign state, and Canada. There is a three way agreement here that the offender must consent to be transferred. Canada must consent to the transfer and the foreign state also must consent to the transfer before it happens.

The bill and the consent is governed by the Solicitor General of Canada. The Solicitor General was the person who kicked off the debate in the House here today.

Some of the positive things about the bill deal with the integrity and values of the Canadian justice and correctional system. It is our values and it is our integrity that is on the line in terms of the transferring of offenders back to Canada. Those values would prevail because the offender is coming back into our own country.

Foreign nations often have different standards in their prison systems that may be considered a violation of rights here in Canada, or that do nothing to rehabilitate the offender. The bill would give Canada custody of Canadian offenders abroad and make Canada responsible for the enforcement of our own values. Again, it is in accordance with Canadian standards, customs, laws, and values in terms of a prisoner being transferred from country X to Canada.

In terms of the bill before the House today, I would like to make a few proposals. First of all, I wish to comment on its applicability to young offenders. The provisions of the bill should include the transfer of young offenders who are on probation and the transfer of mentally challenged offenders.

Canada must ensure that young offenders receive a chance to salvage their futures and that those who are mentally unfit be cared for properly. This is best done with the Canadian rehabilitation program targeted at specific categories of offenders, which may not even be available in other countries.

I know the whole issue of young offenders and the Young Offenders Act is a controversial one. Canada has a program of rehabilitation and a program of integration back into our country. Hopefully, all young offenders could be rehabilitated back into society and pick up a skill, trade, or a profession and make a contribution to our country. That is often not the case in other countries. This is another positive possibility that would come out of the bill that is before the House today.

Another thing deals with disclosure of information. The international transfer of offenders act provisions would require the proper authorities to inform offenders of any international transfer treaty between Canada and a foreign state. Offenders would have the right to serve their sentences in their country's jurisdiction. The requirement is needed to ensure that Canadians receive full knowledge of their rights. Offenders who are in custody would have the right to know that there is an international treaty between our country and another country and that they have the right to make an application to serve the remaining of their sentence in Canada if they wish. Of course, the flip side of the coin is if they do not wish to come back that is their right to do so as well.

The other issue pertains to consent of transfer. This requirement would allow foreign offenders in Canada to withdraw their consent to transfer at any time before the physical transfer takes place, not just immediately, but it would allow offenders to change their mind part way through the process.

Foreign offenders who face hardships and prejudice or persecution as a result of returning home to serve their sentence ought to be allowed to refuse a transfer. If prisoners in a foreign country do not want to be transferred back to Canada, then foreign nationals who are convicted and incarcerated in this country would have the same right to refuse a transfer back to their country where their citizenship is held and their nationality is held.

Justice Canada does not accept the rights violations or unduly harsh prison sentences for its own citizens in foreign nations and we must grant foreign nationals the right to refuse transfer back home where such dangers do exist particularly where there is a radical difference in the sentence for the same crime. If the punishment is radically different in a certain country than Canada then of course prisoners should have the right to refuse or have the right not to go back to serve their sentence in their own country.

I recommend that the House support the bill. I believe there is a humanitarian spirit to the bill as tabled today that should be applauded. These proposals permit Canadian offenders abroad to be transported back to Canada where they can be detained and rehabilitated in accordance with the standards and principles of Canadian justice. I think that is a right that Canadian citizens should be able to exercise. The checks and balances are in place if the Government of Canada agrees through the Solicitor General and the country where they are now held also agrees under the details of this particular treaty.

Since the bill is based on treaty negotiations its benefits are mutual. The treaty negotiations and administrative arrangements contemplated by the bill would give equal protection and advantage to Canada and the foreign state alike. This reciprocity has the added benefit of enhancing certainty and good faith in international relations and negotiations. The reciprocity in the bill before us today would create a situation of equality between our country and other countries that are signatories to the particular treaty.

Bill C-33 has some grey areas that require some clarification or improvements, but ultimately this proposal should receive the support as it is an important instrument for the protection of human rights in Canada and Canadian standards of punishment in jurisdictions beyond our control.

I do have questions in some areas of the bill or what may be referred to as grey areas and they include two or three different issues that I want to put on the record today. The general purpose of the international transfer of offenders act is humanitarian, but its language considers much less than its purpose would suggest. For instance, the factors which the minister shall consider in accepting Canadian offenders focus on the relationships between the offender and Canada, such as whether the offender has a social or family tie to the country, but does not consider the threat the foreign state or its prison system may present to the Canadian offender.

I would be much more concerned for example, about the offender receiving a caning in Singapore than I would be about how many family members he or she may have in this country. The caning in Singapore is the kind of punishment we do not have in our country.

I remember a few years ago there was a member of the reform party who was endorsing the idea of caning but I think it was certainly a small--

[Finance, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Yesterday an American court ruled that Visa and MasterCard owed their cardholders some $800 million U.S. for hiding surcharges on foreign exchange transactions. We have checked and the same hidden surcharges gouge Canadian cardholders too. The surcharge is usually between 1.5% and 1.8%.

I believe it is time the Liberals stood up to these credit card companies against their hidden charges. Will the minister today stand and say that what these companies are doing is wrong, and tell us what he will do about it?

[Right Hon. Prime Minister, April 8th, 2003]

I do not know whether that explains things or not, but that is when I first met the future Prime Minister of Canada.

I really got to know him very well when he became minister of justice and I was the NDP constitutional critic in 1980 during the patriation of the Constitution. That is when I got to know him and Eddie Goldenberg, of course, very well.

I can say that the Prime Minister is someone who as a politician was really underrated by many people in the country. I remember back in 1989-90 when he was called yesterday's man. Of course that was proven wrong by the people of this country, three times since that day.

He has a good sense of the country. He has a very good, folksy sense of humour. He can be very partisan. He can be very political. He can also be very personal and very friendly on the personal side.

The Prime Minister and I belong to a very special club in the House of Commons: We are the only two MPs in the House of Commons to be sued by Conrad Black. I remember the day after it happened. My phone rang and it was the Prime Minister on the phone to commiserate. He can be very personal.

He is also very straightforward and very direct and sometimes, I would say, a little bit of a one man show. I looked up some research the other day and I found a comment by the Prime Minister from a press conference in 1989 which summarizes his style, a style I hear about time and time again from Liberal backbenchers. He said:

One of the moments that gave me the greatest pleasure was flying over the beautiful fjords... on Baffin Island. I was like a kid. I'd been there a few times before and had to tell everybody on the plane, “Look, look, you have to see this.” I sat down next to my wife and I said, “You love it, eh?” She said it was beautiful. I said, “I will make it a national park for you.”

On Monday I went to my office and I consulted with the Minister of Indian Affairs, who was me. Then I consulted with the Minister of Northern Affairs, who was me. I then consulted with the Minister of Parks, who was me. And I took my pen, signed an agreement, and created a national park.

Liberal MPs, including the member from Sarnia and the member for LaSalle—Émard, tell me that the Prime Minister is a bit more democratic than he was in those days.

Sometimes it is confusing to know where he stands. He has his unique way of saying things. It is confusing not only for the opposition, but also confusing for his Liberal colleagues.

He was elected member of Parliament twelve times, and Prime Minister of Canada three times; was the Deputy Prime Minister of our country; served as a minister ten times; was the Leader of the Opposition; and served as parliamentary secretary twice.

I say in conclusion that I could not help but notice on the weekend that the Prime Minister is interested in a new career. I saw photos of him with the rocker Avril Lavigne. The rumour I hear from the Langevin Block is that he is soon going to be teaming up with his old friend Herb Gray. They are going to create a brand new band called “The Granddaddies of Rock and Roll”.

Congratulations to the Prime Minister of Canada, to his wife Aline and to his family on his 40 years as a member of Parliament in Canada.

[Right Hon. Prime Minister, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister. He was first elected 40 years ago today, when he defeated a Social Credit candidate in a riding in the Mauricie region.

We would have to say that 40 years in politics is really quite a milestone. I first met the Prime Minister back in 1968. I am not sure if he will remember. We were running some kind of a mini-marathon outside the House of Commons. I remember that he fell on his head. He had a big bump on his head.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I too wish to say a few words on the opposition motion before the House today. If the motion were votable, I would be in support of the motion before the House today. I will be voting tonight in opposition to the additional money for the gun registration bill, as proposed by the member of the Canadian Alliance.

My main concern is public safety, which has to be the main concern. The debate is how we achieve the maximum amount of public safety. Our party has a very long and proud record of supporting gun control bills in the House of Commons.

I was first elected in 1968. I and my party have supported many gun control bills over the years, including restrictions on long guns, the firearms acquisitions certificates, the fact that people have to be checked out before they can get an FAC and issues of that sort. We have party policy in support of gun control. What we do not have in the NDP, and I want to make this very clear, is we have no position as a party on the gun registry bill.

I would like to give a little history about where the NDP has stood. I was not a member in 1995 when this bill came before the House of Commons. I was a member of the House of Commons in 1968. In 1993 I took a four year sabbatical, thanks to my voters, and came back in 1997. They made the wise decision. I learned an awful lot from that sabbatical. One thing I learned was to listen to my people. That is why I take this position now on Bill C-68.

When we go back to Bill C-68, at that time there were nine members from the New Democratic Party. The leader of the party, Audrey McLaughlin, and eight of the nine members voted in opposition to Bill C-68. One member voted in favour of Bill C-68, my friend from Burnaby—Douglas, who has taken a very principled and consistent position on this issue over time, and I commend him for that.

The first time I had a chance to vote on the provisions concerning Bill C-68 was in 1998. We had an opposition day motion before the House of Commons on Bill C-68. At that time 11 members of the NDP caucus voted in opposition to Bill C-68 and 9 members of the caucus, including the members for Vancouver East and Burnaby--Douglas, voted in favour of the provisions of Bill C-68.

At the provincial level, there has been opposition to Bill C-68 from the Manitoba NDP government, the Saskatchewan NDP government and from the Yukon territorial government. In fact the Saskatchewan NDP government is part of the court action to try to stop the federal government from going ahead with Bill C-68, the bill to register guns.

Today, the Saskatchewan NDP government, which is the most progressive, social democratic government over the last 50 to 60 years anywhere in North America, does not co-operate in the prosecutions of people violating the gun registry bill. I support the position my provincial government has taken.

That is a little history about the NDP on this issue.

What I want to do today is to point out, like my House leader from Vancouver East, that in our caucus we come from different perspectives and different points of view. We respect each other's points of view. We come from principled positions, and the member for Burnaby--Douglas has certainly taken a very consistent principled position and I respect him for that. I would do the same thing on the other side of the issue, reflecting what I think is right and reflecting what my constituents certainly tell me is their position.

In a democratic Parliament we should have more opportunities to speak our minds and speak on behalf of our constituents in terms of for what they elect us to come here. There is too often in our parliamentary system a throttling of, in essence, free speech by members on all sides of the House. It is the kind of parliamentary reform we should be looking at in getting a true reflection of the Canadian public.

The registration bill, Bill C-68, is not about gun control. We favour gun control. It is about the registration of firearms. In my opinion, and the opinion of people I represent, the registration of firearms simply does not work in reducing the number of illegal weapons in the country or in reducing the number of murders in the country. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. If it does not work, we can spend the money much better elsewhere to make our streets safer and to have public safety in our country.

Handguns have been restricted and registered for a number of years in Canada, yet Statistics Canada tells us that over 75% of the people in this country who commit homicides with a handgun do not register them. They have unregistered guns. When we talk to the ordinary police on the street and ordinary people around the country, it is hard to believe that if one registers a firearm one is going to deter any kind of crime in Canada.

Most crime falls into three categories. There is organized crime. I do not think we are going to see people who are involved in organized crime registering a gun. There are crimes of passion, the fit of the moment. Whether a gun is registered or not, if someone is deranged or is motivated to commit a crime of passion, that crime is mostly likely going to occur. The other way that a lot of people die from firearms in this country is suicide, and again I do not see what the deterrent would be to have people actually register guns.

The other point I want to make is extremely important to me. I grew up with first nations people. Our farm near Wynyard, Saskatchewan was right on the Day Star First Nation and one mile from the Kawacatoose First Nation. I went to school all my life with first nations people and support very strongly their treaty rights and their right to self-government. I can tell the House that the opposition to the gun registry among first nations people is very strong. Today the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is challenging the legality of Bill C-68 in the courts. I support that challenge. I hope our first nations people win. I support our first nations people. In my opinion, it is a violation of their treaty rights and their hunting rights, which are actually enshrined in our Constitution. They should be protected for the first nations people of our country.

I have in my riding 12 first nations, 10 others and the two Indian bands that I have already referred to. I also have many thousands of urban aboriginal first nations and Métis people. I have Métis people in the rural part of my riding. I stand with those Métis people in their opposition to the registration of firearms as a violation of their rights and privileges.

Those are some reasons why if this were a votable motion I would be voting in favour of the motion, let alone the feedback that we get from our constituents. I remember running into an 80 year old grandmother over Christmas who registered her 13 guns. She kept one, she said, because she used to shoot racoons and badgers from her back porch when she lived on the farm. She was annoyed that she had to register these guns. She felt that it was a violation of her rights, but she did it anyway because most Canadian citizens, of course, are very law-abiding.

I want to make one last point, which is the cost of this program. I have been in Parliament since 1968 except for my four year sabbatical and I can honestly say that I have never seen such a financial boondoggle of mismanagement in my life. It is something that is absolutely incredible. A program that the minister of justice of the day said would cost $2 million is now going to cost more than $1 billion. When the Canadian public thinks about that, it can think of so many better ways to spend that $1 billion.

In Saskatchewan, a $60,000 firearms safety program was cancelled because of the lack of money, yet the Liberals will shovel millions and millions of dollars to their friends in Groupaction and other groups and consultants right across the country.

I was reading in one of the newspapers that a consultant was billing the government for $1,000 a day 365 days a year in terms of the gun registry program. With that kind of financial boondoggle, there is no way under the sun that I can vote to add another $59 million or $68 million for the registry, not when we have this public squandering of money. I appeal to the government to come to its senses in terms of this financial waste and financial mismanagement.

Let us just think what could be done with that money: more hospitals, help for children living in poverty, affordable housing, public safety, and police officers on the streets. Two Regina police officers were in my office this morning and they told me that we need more officers on the street. With that, I ask members of the House to support the motion before the House today even though it is not votable.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the Alliance believed in some semblance of law and order. What he is saying here is that George Bush is a policeman of the world. What George Bush thinks is wrong, he attacks. Where does he go next, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Libya? Where does he go next?

We need the United Nations because it is an international body. What George Bush has done is violate international law. He has committed a wrong. Henry Kissinger and international law experts have said that. If the Alliance does not support the rule of law, if it believes in violation of international law, then it should answer to the Canadian people.

The last point is that people in Alliance ridings oppose this war. The Alliance is supposed to represent the grassroots of Canada and yet it stands up against its own people. I say shame on the Alliance.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could start off by quoting myself. This is what I have said publicly about Saddam Hussein.

Let me make it clear that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous thug and a brutal dictator. He is guilty of human rights abuses and atrocities against his own citizens. He rules the people of Iraq through fear and intimidation. He is a war criminal worthy only of our utter contempt. That is my position on Saddam Hussein.

However a couple of wrongs do not make it right. What has happened is there is a clear violation of international law by George Bush. Henry Kissinger who was the national security adviser to President Nixon, another Republican president, who is a right winger, a Republican, has said that what is happening today is an illegal war, it is a violation of international law. That is what George Bush is doing and that is what Tony Blair is doing.

Either we believe in the rule of law or we do not. The Alliance Party talks a lot about law and order, yet it is ready here to flaunt international law. Where do we stop?

It is Iraq today. There are many other countries that have dictators. In fact the majority of the world is run by dictators. Some of them are also thugs. Where do we go next? Is it North Korea? Is it Saudi Arabia? Is it Iran? Is it Libya? Where do we go next?

I remind my friend across the way that the Americans started off by supporting Saddam Hussein. It was Ronald Reagan who made sure some of the chemicals that were used in Iraq in terms of chemical warfare were allowed to be sold to Saddam Hussein. The Americans support many of the despots, dictators and thugs around the world. The list goes on and on.

I am so surprised that my friend from Calgary who is an intelligent man is so gullible to be sucked into this belief that George Bush is right on this one. He is wrong. He is violating international law. It is an illegal war. Tony Blair is wrong. If Tony Blair did not back George Bush, Bush would not have the legitimacy in the United States to conduct this war.

What is happening here is immoral, it is illegal and it is wrong. People, from Cronkite to Schwarzkopf to the Pope to most of the churches in the world, agree with that position.

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot have it both ways. If we are not involved in this war, why are we then escorting the ships of war and why do we have military personnel on an exchange program in George Bush's war? Since we are involved because of these issues, why have privy councillors in the opposition not been fully briefed on these two specific issues, among others, in the war?

[Iraq, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the government is as follows. During the gulf war in 1991, then NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin was named a member of the Privy Council so she could be briefed on Canada's involvement in the war. As one of only two members of the opposition who is a privy councillor, I ask the government why have I not yet been briefed on Canada's involvement in this war?

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Nonsense? There are 15 million people in Iraq who are surviving because of food from the United Nations. There are people now in Basra who are suffering because of the lack of food and the lack of water.

There are these moralizers on the other side who are taking a stand against the Pope and against the churches, against all the Christian values in the world. These moralizers on the other side are taking a stand against all kinds of reasonable people. In fact even Henry Kissinger, that famous Republican, has said that this war is illegal, that this war is a violation of international law. He was the chief Republican adviser to the president of the United States for a long time. Yet these Neanderthals get up in the House and say to commit young Canadian men and women into the theatre of war. I find that absolutely disgusting.

Then they try to distort the position of certain political parties. I had it reported to me that the foreign affairs critic for the Alliance made a comment that the CCF was against World War II just because one person, the leader of the party, J.S. Woodsworth, who was a pacifist like Gandhi, was the only member of the House of Commons who got up and voted against the war. I remember Tommy Douglas saying to me that Woodsworth had difficulty reading notes and he would pass him his notes to make his speech at that time as he stated his position. The CCF caucus and council took a strong stand in terms of committing our country to war. I had an uncle who was killed in Normandy in that war.

There is a kind of distortion and misinformation that goes on by the Alliance. I find that to be absolutely offensive from the party across the way.

The global public opinion is overwhelmingly against what George Bush and Tony Blair are doing in Iraq. People in our country are opposed to what they are doing in Iraq. There have been large demonstrations weekend after weekend. They are growing in number right around the world. I am very proud to be part of that movement. We will do whatever we can to make sure that does not happen.

We could go to any riding in this country and we would find that people are increasingly opposed to this illegal war by George Bush, this illegal action, a violation of the United Nations.

I wish the people in the Alliance Party would take this seriously. Here they are condoning something that violates international law. The so-called party of law and order. The so-called party of grassroots Canadians. The so-called party of Christian values in the House of Commons. This is what the Alliance is doing. People should be aware exactly where that party stands, in opposition to what it said historically. I say that already there are innocent civilians who are dying.

I am probably one of the few members in the House of Commons who has been in a war zone and has seen people die. When I was 22 years old, in 1960, I volunteered to go into the Biafran civil war. I spent a week inside the war zone. I saw people dying of starvation. I saw little kids who were dying of starvation. I saw people who were shot, who were wounded and whose limbs were blown off because of bombs.

I was driving a small convoy of cars late one night near a little airstrip when we were caught in a bombing raid. I saw the terror and the fear and I know the terror and the fear when bombs are dropping beside us. When the bombs started to drop we jumped out of the cars and dived into the jungle brush. People all around were crying. Some people were saying the rosary. People were praying. People were terrified. That is what is happening in Iraq today.

I saw kids in big feeding centres at sunrise in the Biafran jungle who were dying of kwashiorkor, the protein deficiency disease. I saw kids who died because of a lack of food. Food supplies were cut off because of a war that was being carried on. This is what is happening in Iraq today. To have a political party in our country advocate being part of that theatre of war, being part of that suffering that is going on, I find absolutely disgusting.

I do not think many people realize the suffering that goes on. I remember being there, hearing little kids cry, seeing people terrified and seeing people who were walking skeletons. I remember someone coming out of the bush in Biafra carrying a little child who was barely alive and who was basically a skeleton because of a lack of food and water.

I remember going up to the front after dark one night in that war to see what happened. I saw the terror on the Biafran side when they fired into the jungle because they heard the noise of machine gun fire on the other side. We took back with us in a jeep that night a wounded soldier who had bullets in his hands and arms that had come from the other side.

This is what happens in a war. People do not seem to realize that. It is not like sitting at home and watching some kind of video game on CNN. These things are bloody awful. We saw yesterday the American prisoners of war who were taken by the Iraqis. We saw how awful that was. We saw how awful it was to see the Americans, with Iraqi prisoners of war behind barbed wire, kneeling down with machine guns pointed at them. This is the reality of war.

Here we have the Alliance across the way once again ignoring their constituents, ignoring the Canadian people, ignoring public opinion, ignoring what the churches are saying, ignoring what international law experts are saying and ignoring what the United Nations are saying. I say thank God for Jacques Chirac. Thank God for France, Germany, Scandinavia and for the majority of people in this country, the majority of people in this world, who have taken a very strong stand against an immoral war. Yet we have the Alliance taking the exact opposite position.

Jacques Chirac and France represent global public opinion. Chancellor Schroeder in Germany represents public opinion. The Scandinavian countries represent public opinion. The Dutch and the Belgians represent public opinion in the world and also in their countries. This is what this war is really all about.

I wanted to say to the House today that I am pleased that our country is not involved but I am concerned that we do have some people on an exchange program who are now in the theatre of war. I believe those people should be pulled out of that exchange at this time. I am also concerned that we have Canadian ships escorting ships of war. I believe they should be pulled out of the region as well.

A time comes when we have to stand up for what is right, for being on the side of international law, not on the side of someone who is violating international law. We have to stand up for people in our constituencies, stand up for the people in this country and stand up for global public opinion. Being on the same side as Norman Schwarzkopf, Henry Kissinger, the Pope, the World Council of Churches and public opinion is not a bad thing. I am proud that I stand with all those folks.