Chuck Cadman

[Justice, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the cancer is spreading. We now have reports of another case being delayed in Alberta, the minister's home province.

I am sure the minister is familiar with the Askov ruling on the charter right to a speedy trial. Last year in B.C. a convicted child molester was set free on Askov. The attorney general's ministry in B.C. is extremely concerned about this issue.

Will the minister ensure British Columbians and all Canadians that when the cases that are now in limbo finally do get to court they will not be thrown out due to lengthy delays?

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, from the perspective of victims' rights, we are dealing here primarily with young children. They need to have somebody to speak for them because normally they cannot speak for themselves. As the member mentioned, it takes years for some of these children to talk about it. Some never do. Certainly the healing has to start as soon as possible with young children. For some, unfortunately, the trauma lasts a lifetime.

As I said in my speech, this transcends politics. We have to approach this issue from the perspective of all of us being parents, all of us being grandparents and all of us having children in our lives. These young people who are involved and who are victimized by this require and need our protection. They are not able to speak for themselves. It is up to us to do it for them.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if I were at the other end of that telephone line my response would be very unparliamentary.

There is really no argument here. These children are put through such degradation in order to provide this kind of material to people who have such a fetish. For them to argue that we should reduce the age of consent is a whole other issue. Many people, especially those in my part of the country, have been arguing that we should raise the age of consent to deal with child prostitution.

Again, the only comment I could make would probably be unparliamentary, so I will not make it in response to that question.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of child pornography.

A recent case decision in my home province of British Columbia has attracted considerable attention. It has also produced predictable outrage from Canadians from every part of the country.

For the record, I wrote to the Minister of Justice on January 21, mere days after the ruling, suggesting that she not wait for the appellate court but to get amending legislation before parliament as quickly as possible.

Some speakers to today's official opposition supply day motion may not have had time to review the specific case which has caused such a concern. I will take a couple of moments to briefly outline the situation.

The case is still before the courts. The accused was facing four charges relating to child pornography: two charges of being in possession for the purpose of distribution or sale and two charges for being in simple possession.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia only dismissed the two charges of simple possession. As such that is essentially the only issue under appeal. The accused still faces his remaining charges and they are scheduled for this month. On the issue of the two charges of simple possession, I will briefly highlight the essential elements of this debate.

As has often been stated, tough cases make tough law. Others might state that bad cases make bad law. In the case at issue the crown conceded that section 163.1(4), possession of child pornography, violated the guarantee of freedom of expression set out in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The only real argument before the Supreme Court of British Columbia was whether the violation of section 2(b) was saved by section 1 of the charter, that is, that the infringement is a reasonable limit prescribed by law which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Of course the reason for all the hullabaloo over this case and the cause of why today we are debating this issue is that the justice of the B.C. supreme court decided that the possession of child pornography law was not a reasonable violation of the right to freedom of expression in that instance.

With the greatest of respect to the particular justice of the B.C. supreme court, I would have to disagree with his position, but that is beside the point. The problem has been presented and we have to address it.

The Minister of Justice has taken the position that she will just join the province in the appeal. That is not good enough. The Minister of Justice has a second title. She is the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. She has already made public statements indicating her preparedness to act within her role as Attorney General of Canada. She plans to join the attempt to uphold the constitutionality of section 163.1(4) and this is as it should be.

As the attorney general she is responsible for safeguarding the interests of the crown within existing laws. Part of that duty is the protection of our laws. In all fairness the minister is doing that.

Her other role is to consider and address the legality of government legislation, and I would suggest that in that area she is abdicating her responsibility.

I have great difficulty with the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia justice, but it really does not matter how anyone interprets or views that case. The issue is that now we are confronted with a serious problem. What can be done to ensure that the laws against the possession of child pornography are able to withstand a charter challenge based on the rights to privacy and freedom of expression?

With respect, I belief the basic definition of child pornography within the Criminal Code is too broad. A number of comments from the legal profession have also raised this interpretation.

An example of this is the definition which appears at section 163.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states:

Any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 years that would be an offence under this act...

There are a number of questions concerning that part of the definition. Why does it say any written material? What advocates or counsels? Why a person under the age of 18? Does the inclusion of 17 year olds detract from our attempts to protect children? How does the written material have to correlate with the sexual activity of a child?

By allowing a child to read Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence, does that meet this definition if that child is encouraged by the writing to end up having sexual activity with an adult who provided the writing?

These are all difficulties to be reviewed and analyzed in interpreting our present law.

With respect, even if we are able to overturn the B.C. supreme court case at some court of appeal level, these problems can still resurface to once again shake the system.

That is why on January 21 I wrote to the minister to encourage her to immediately bring amending legislation for the sake of the safety of our children. We must protect our next generation from these predators; from the degradation, the pain and suffering they endure from being objectified and used to provide adult sexual gratification or fantasy.

I understand that on January 26 approximately 70 members of the Liberal backbench also urged her to introduce strong child pornography legislation and I appreciate the Liberal support for my proposal. I understand that the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam was among them. I am sure the folks back home will be watching at 5.30 this evening.

Obviously, so far the minister appears to only pay attention to the cabinet or the Prime Minister. When this case first gained attention the minister stated that she would wait until the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada before she would become involved. It was only when the public outrage spread to her ministerial colleagues that she was forced to change her mind and join in the appeal before the B.C. court of appeal.

Perhaps after today she can be persuaded to change her mind again and decide to introduce the necessary legislation. I would hope so.

Another reason for the minister to show leadership in this matter is the state of flux within our justice system until the matter is resolved in months or, more realistically, in years by our courts. The minister is well aware that there are approximately 40 possession cases before the courts of British Columbia that are in limbo. She is also aware that the courts are already dismissing charges as a result of the present ruling. I cited one such case from my own constituency in my letter to her. She is likely aware that other provinces will have a number of similar situations.

Pedophile websites on the Internet are alive with suggestions that their clientele target British Columbia.

I also note the comments from various police agencies and customs offices. They have admitted to confusion. They are looking for help, but there has been no guidance from the minister. I can just imagine the hesitation of our enforcement personnel to investigate or proceed with charges due to the almost certain likelihood that they will eventually be thrown out of court. I can also imagine our crown prosecutors being most hesitant to proceed with possession charges.

I just read this morning that the crown is seeking to postpone one case in Delta, B.C. I am sure that as we speak many defence lawyers are boning up on their Askov arguments, should these cases ever eventually proceed through our courts. For those unfamiliar with Askov, it is the supreme court ruling that deals with the length of time to trial. We already have a child molester who walked free in British Columbia because it took 17 months to get him to court.

Unfortunately we do not see a lot of leadership here. The government merely chooses to react. The Liberal mantra of “Don't worry; be happy” resonates through this Chamber again.

To summarize, we have a court case stating that an individual's right to personal privacy and enjoyment of freedom to personally express private interest in the possession of child pornography must be protected. The judge stated at paragraph 50 of his decision:

In my opinion, the detrimental effects substantially outweigh the salutary effects. The intrusion into freedom of expression and the right to privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition.

Privacy is one thing, but reasonable intrusions or exceptions to absolute privacy is another.

I will refer to some comments made by law professor Kathleen Mahoney who is an expert in child pornography cases. She refers to the psychological and physical trauma to the victims as being profound. She states:

The nature of a good portion of child pornography requires the rape of a child, ranging from six months of age to 15 or 16 years of age. These children are shown drugged, in pain often, and there have been babies submitted to sexual acts with adults. The damage does not end when the filming stops. Every time (the pornography) is shown, that child is injured in its dignity, its reputation, its identity. The harm is multiplied several times. The child is offended against time and time again.

It is our duty as parliamentarians to help and protect these victims, the most vulnerable members of our society. As parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, this is not a time for politics. It is a time for doing what is right for Canada's children.

[Young Offenders, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Saskatoon two 17 year olds with a combined record of 60 offences were convicted for a brutal home invasion. Sixty prior offences.

The minister's proposals talk of doing something about serious repeat offenders. That is the problem. Talk, talk, talk and more talk. These two will be back on the street within an unsuspecting public within two years. Sixty prior offences and all we get is talk. Again, where is the legislation?

[Young Offenders, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I came here one and a half years ago in part to work for new young offender legislation. The minister said then that it was among her top priorities. She promised it for last spring. Then it was the fall. Now we are about to go home for Christmas and still there is nothing. How dare she tell Canadians that this is her top priority.

Where is the legislation? What is the problem? If the minister cannot produce it, perhaps the Prime Minister can find somebody who will.

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-219. I know that justice issues are very important to my colleague from Wild Rose. This bill is simple. It is not rocket science. A person stealing a vehicle to rob a bank will be subject to a third offence of stealing a vehicle to commit another crime. That third offence will get an automatic one-year sentence added to the sentence for other offences.

We have already heard government members speak in opposition to this legislation. That is most unfortunate, but not really surprising. Once again this government sings the tune that it is in favour of safer streets and more secure communities, but when it gets down to the short strokes it typically fails to dance the dance and continues to maintain the status quo. Government members are quick to cite support from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police when they happen to be on the same page, but they invariably ignore these same chiefs when additional protections are sought. As mentioned by the member for Wild Rose, the chiefs themselves initially proposed this change to our law.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice claims that Canadians are already well served by common law principles of sentencing and current legislation.

Going back to my initial example, yes, there is an offence for stealing a motor vehicle and, yes, there is an offence for robbing a bank and, yes, a judge considers both the theft and the robbery at sentencing. However, we all know that multiple convictions virtually always draw concurrent sentences.

Bill C-219 impresses upon those judges that they are to proceed as always by imposing an appropriate sentence, but that they are then to add another year to the total. As part of their function they are to consider the wishes and instructions of parliament which, if it supports this bill, will serve notice to both potential offenders and the courts that the representatives of the people are seriously concerned with the theft of motor vehicles to commit other offences and we have decided to pronounce additional condemnation.

I will point out some of the justification for this proposal. According to Statistics Canada, some 178,580 vehicles were stolen in 1996. The rate of vehicle theft has been increasing for eight consecutive years, nearly doubling since 1988. In 1995-96 the cost of stolen vehicles and their components amounted to $600 million. That is $600 million a year for vehicle theft.

Both the solicitor general and the justice minister have received strong messages to introduce policy to reduce auto theft. The problem is not just with auto as in car theft; there has been a large increase in the number of trucks stolen in recent years given the tremendous increase in popularity of minivans and sport utility vehicles.

These statistics reveal the nature of the problem of auto theft in Canada. Of course not all stolen vehicles are subsequently involved in other crime. This legislation addresses the problem of the more professional criminal, those who steal a vehicle and then continue on to other criminal activities. Surely these individuals deserve extra attention.

One thing I have learned here is this government's resistance to change. It is most often quite content with the status quo. It only moves on crises. Another is its apparent policy of not permitting any individual member of this place to succeed in bringing forth change. As a member of the committee on justice and human rights, I continue to see this government through ministers and parliamentary secretaries being unwilling to support private member initiatives, especially those of the opposition. We can only hope that members of the government backbench will see the wisdom of Bill C-219.

Opposition to the bill appears to be based solely on the reliance on present laws to properly address the problem. If the present laws are doing the job, then why do we have this epidemic of motor vehicle theft? Why do we have a proliferation of anti-theft devices for vehicles? Why are manufacturers installing satellite tracking systems in many new vehicles? Why, when we walk on virtually any urban street in Canada, do we see a variety of locking bars on steering wheels or little red lights flickering on the dashboard indicating that an alarm system is armed?

The same holds true for vehicles parked on residential driveways and even private garages. Why, when we unwittingly brush against a car in a crowded parking lot, do we run the risk of setting off a chorus of sirens, whistles and klaxons? Obviously the present laws and the present judicial discretion concerning sentencing are not working.

I agree with the Progressive Conservative House leader who said that it would toughen the criminal sanctions for those individuals who use a stolen vehicle to assist in the commission of their criminal act.

In many instances the government has gone out of its way to protect the rights of criminals. It has been much slower to protect the security of the public. We all recognize the tax burden on citizens. We may not be so clear as to how, through increases in crime, citizens are expending an ever increasing proportion of steadily shrinking disposable income on protection devices.

I have already mentioned anti-threat devices on motor vehicles. Home security alarms are just another example of costs to citizens which can be equated to taxes because the expenditures are brought about by the government's failure to provide sufficient protection for properties.

The member for Wild Rose through his private member's bill is at least proposing a method to attempt to protect Canadians from not only motor vehicle theft, but in some cases serious injury or even death. He is merely asking for a consecutive sentence for those professional criminals who steal a vehicle in order to commit another crime. Surely this is a laudable and long overdue initiative. Surely its passage will cause some criminals to have second thoughts about stealing a vehicle to use in other crimes. Surely the sentence imposed through this proposal will act as a deterrent to others.

As I speak of this legislation I cannot help but compare it to another private member's bill which is presently before the justice committee. I refer to Bill C-251, which seeks to impose consecutive sentencing on those convicted of multiple murders or sexual assaults. We know that the vast majority of Canadians are in support of this initiative. I would seriously believe they would also be in support of consecutive sentencing for those who steal a motor vehicle in order to commit another crime. It only makes sense.

As the member for Wild Rose is fond of saying “We need more common sense in this place”. We need to impress upon those who consider making a career of crime that we intend to deal most seriously with their multiple offences.

Here are some numbers from my home city of Surrey, British Columbia. Corporal Greg Roche of the Surrey RCMP auto theft division provided me with statistics for January 1 to October 31 of this year. During that period 3,161 cars were stolen, 823 trucks, 75 motorcycles, and 62 other vehicles such as all terrain vehicles. That is a total of 4,121 stolen vehicles. If we exclude the motorcycles and others, we still have 3,984 cars and trucks in 309 days, or an average of nearly 13 vehicles each day. That is about one stolen vehicle for every 80 residents of Surrey.

About two years ago I was playing in a hockey tournament. My wife and I left the arena around midnight, about a half hour before my daughter left with a friend. Turning a corner, we saw a blaze of flashing emergency lights about five blocks ahead. The road was cordoned off two blocks from the scene but we could see a horrendous car wreck. My heart leaped into my throat because this was the route my daughter would have taken home. After an anxious few minutes spent taking a detour, we turned on to our street and saw her friend's car in our driveway.

The next morning I learned that police had called off a pursuit and parked their vehicles at the side of the road intending to stop a stolen vehicle headed their way. The thief sped past them with his lights out, laughing and flipping them the finger. He blew through a red light and T-boned a small car which was catapulted across the intersection and through a fence. A middle aged woman on her way home from a church meeting died on impact.

That was two blocks from my home and could just as easily have been my daughter and her friend. They had just pulled into the driveway when they heard the impact. The offender, in his early twenties, was well known to police for a long history of auto thefts and other crimes.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-219 and address just one facet of a problem that is epidemic and, in cases such as I have just described, tragic.

[Nunavut Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-57.

This legislation comes down to the creation of the Nunavut court of justice, a single level of court to handle all trials in this new territory. Instead of two levels of court as we have in the rest of the country, Nunavut will have this single court. This is required because of the small population of approximately 26,000 spread over such a vast territory with only about 25 settlements. This only makes sense.

Three superior court judges are to be appointed. These individuals will be tasked with all matters. While it is unfortunate to have these highly expensive and qualified judges being assigned the responsibility over all types of cases regardless of importance, there appears to be little alternative. It does not make sense to transport a federal level judge and a territorial level judge to each community when one judge could come in a deal with all cases available for adjudication. We all understand that most of these communities are isolated and remote. Judges are not available except from centralized and more populated areas.

The bill amends a number of other pieces of Canadian law but these are mere consequential changes. A number of our acts use procedures or terminology which must be altered to recognize the new territory of Nunavut, the Nunavut court of justice and the single level of court.

My Reform colleagues and I have expressed our very serious concerns over the methods used to select our superior court judges. We have expressed our opposition to the recent pay increases granted to judges in Bill C-37 at a time when Canadian families are under intense financial pressures. We also expressed concerns surrounding the creation of this new territory and its untold costs. However, those issues are not relevant to this debate.

Nunavut is a reality. As I have said, this legislation is highly practical for that reality. All citizens of Canada are entitled to an efficient court system.

If the Nunavut court of justice model proves successful, and I am sure we all hope that it does, perhaps we will see it replicated in other remote, sparsely populated parts of this vast country we call Canada. That would be up to the provincial or territorial governments concerned.

There has been some opposition expressed to this legislation as it is currently worded, most notably by the Dene of northern Manitoba whose traditional territories extend into Nunavut. It is my hope that fair and just minded peopled, both north and south of 60, will work together toward a solution agreeable to all.

The Reform Party will be supporting the legislation. It makes the most practical sense both for Canadians and for the people of this new territory to be known as Nunavut.

I extend to the people of our newest territory our best wishes and look at the legislation as a step toward further self-determination. We wish them all the best toward seeing their dream realized.

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of a man who was facing over 100 years in jail because of a number of white collar crimes.

Under section 44(1) of the legislation the minister may determine that a surrender order will be unjust or oppressive because we in Canada do not have such lengthy sentencing practices. This is a case from the United States. It does not involve capital punishment, but it does involve the potential for a minister to practise imposing political opinion on foreign jurisdictions, and again this is wrong.

If we as a country have a disagreement with the methods of punishment of other countries, then perhaps we should not enter into agreements with them on the extradition process. We should not agree to extradite and then dictate to them how we wish them to punish their criminals. We certainly would not like to see the shoe on the other foot. We would not like to see other countries order us to punish our criminals in a certain manner prior to their release on extradition back to Canada. In fact we would probably not put up with it. We should not attempt to impose those same restrictions on other countries.

I have a few more comments about the minister having the executive power to refuse to make a surrender order. There has been much talk about this legislation modernizing the extradition process. There had been many complaints about our present system being too slow and too complex.

Bill C-40 is intended to make the process more efficient and effective. However, we still have the problem of the sections under the reasons for refusal which start at page 17 of the bill, the involvement of the minister to in effect veto the actions of our courts.

We have already seen the present minister recognize her inefficiency and ineffectiveness with our own section 690 Criminal Code applications. It sometimes takes years for her to decide whether an injustice has occurred within our own judicial process. She is looking for some way to offload her responsibilities.

We have already seen how the minister can make an extradition surrender order only to have that decision appealed to our superior court. It will have taken years merely to ultimately decide whether or not to return two alleged murderers to the United States. Our bureaucratic system is doing little to bring closure to the families of the victims of that crime. It is doing very little to put that matter to rest within that particular community.

The legislation leaves much to be desired. It leaves far too much discretion or power with the minister. We have seen prime examples of the minister being unable to properly deal with decisions under our section 690 applications in our present extradition process. The legislation will not change that difficulty.

The government has made up its mind that it is better to appear to do something rather than to actually do it right. As a member of the official opposition all I can do is point out weaknesses and hope that at some point the government will listen and start to do what is right for Canadians rather than continue to act solely for political reasons.

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-40, the Extradition Act.

This so-called modernization of our extradition laws is an attempt to make it tougher for accused criminals to use Canada as a refuge from justice systems of other countries and international court.

Our extradition laws have been around for approximately 120 years but we have been powerless to send fugitives to such adjudicators as the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda.

For a few years now we have provided the services of one of our judges, Madam Justice Louise Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal, as chief prosecutor. We have never been able to fulfil our obligations to help bring suspected war criminals to justice. I suppose we should not be surprised, as Canada's record is totally abysmal when it comes to war crimes prosecutions. It is an indication of this government's misplaced priorities when this place debated Bill C-42 in 1996 in order to change our laws to permit Madam Justice Arbour to legally work for war crimes tribunals yet it is only now that we are attempting to ensure that Canada can legally work toward the aims of those same tribunals.

It is most fortunate that we have Madam Justice Arbour over there. It appears she may have had something to do with rectifying this government's failure to have proper procedures in place. It was she who commented: “There was a terrible void in Canadian legislation. I think having a structure in place will avoid what otherwise would have been a terribly embarrassing situation for a country like Canada”.

Only the government and its spin doctors have the nerve to promote and support international bodies such as war crimes tribunals but remain powerless to send fugitives before them.

We were restricted to extradition only to other countries, only when bilateral agreements were signed and only for specified and limited offences.

To be fair, other countries found themselves in a similar position but they enacted laws long before this. Once again this government is slow and out of sync with the rest of the world.

Even federal officials believe there are more than three hundred modern day war criminals in Canada. They believe we are a refuge for death squad members, torturers and officials from corrupt and murderous regimes from countries such as Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Rwanda and El Salvador.

We have usually been quick off the mark to provide humanitarian aid to most of these strife ridden parts of the world, and that is certainly a good and admirable effort. But to permit Canada to become a haven for war criminals is a sad indictment against each and every one of us.

There is a provision in the bill which is welcome news. It is my understanding that where an extradition order is issued for a person who has filed a refugee claim, that person will be declared ineligible for refugee status and the extradition will proceed. In other words, the extradition order will override the refugee claim. What this does is prevent those facing extradition from filing bogus refugee claims which, as we all know, can take years to sort out due to many levels of appeal available to claimants.

This provision of Bill C-40 will make the extradition process more efficient and less prone to abuse. The extradition judge will consider the refugee claim in the context of the extradition order.

Of course the minister has the final say, but more on that later. Regretfully this provision applies only in cases where the offence for which extradition is requested is subject to at least 10 years in prison under Canadian law.

That is regrettable because we have enough problems dealing with our own criminal element. We should not be providing any more loopholes that allow those who come to Canada from elsewhere to abuse our system.

I will now move on to a few of the specific concerns I have with this legislation. I am concerned about the cost and the delays. Once again this government appears to have gone out of its way to create a make work project for the legal industry.

There will be ample opportunity for our lawyers to spend hours and hours presenting legal arguments. Our charter of rights and freedoms and the requirements for a judge to be satisfied that the alleged conduct meets the test that would justify a committal for trial in Canada will see to that. As we all know, it is the taxpayer who often ends up having to pay for many of these lawyers.

Our own war crimes trials have shown how difficult it is to establish sufficient evidence to hold a trial in Canada. They also show how inefficient our system becomes when dealing with foreign and historical evidence. This legislation does little to address these difficulties.

I am concerned about the parts of the legislation that permit the minister to interfere. Costs and delays are present here as well. Even after the extradition hearing and all its costs and delays and even after the judge decides to issue an order of committal to await surrender, the minister may decide to refuse to make the surrender order.

After the whole matter finally comes to some form of decision, the minister can refuse to permit extradition. Why would we spend thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands, only to have the whole process wasted because the minister decides to pursue a political road?

Section 44 of the bill provides the minister with three reasons for refusal. The first is if the minister is satisfied surrender would be unjust or oppressive. I fail to see why the minister is left with this decision. Surely the judge at the extradition hearing could make this determination upon presentation of evidence. This is a case where we have the political and the executive process getting mixed up with what should be a judicial procedure.

Similarly with the second reason, the minister shall refuse to make a surrender order if the request for extradition is made for prosecuting or punishing by reason of race, religion nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour, political opinion, sex, sexual orientation, age, mental of physical disability or status or that the person's position may be prejudiced for any of those reasons.

The minister again becomes involved in what should be a judicial procedure. Canadian courts make decisions on these listed forms of discrimination in one way or another every day. Evidence is presented and our judges determine whether a case of discrimination and therefore unfairness is made out. Why do we have to take this power away from the judges and give it to the minister? Why is the political process interfering?

The third reason the minister can refuse to make a surrender order is if the minister is satisfied that the conduct for which the extradition has been requested is punishable by death under the laws of the extradition partner. With this third reason the minister has some discretion, as the wording of the section states that the minister may refuse. For the first two reasons the wording is the minister shall refuse.

With respect, this third reason is nothing more than meddling in matters in which we should not be involved. All countries do not have the same laws. They do not have the same cultures and they do not have the same form of political process. We should not be trying to tell other countries that we will refuse to return their accused because we disagree with their method of punishment. Who are we to disagree with the laws as set out in foreign jurisdiction often through democratic means?

I will cite a couple of examples as to the problems of meddling in or refusing to accept the laws of other countries. Without providing names, there is a case presently before our courts where we are refusing to release two accused murderers to the United States. The particular state has the option of imposing the death penalty should these individuals be convicted. Our refusal really comes down to a disagreement over whether Canadian rules of justice which dictate there is to be no capital punishment are right as opposed to the laws of other jurisdictions which believe that capital punishment is an appropriate option as punishment for murder.

I make little comment on the issue of capital punishment here because I am limited in my time and that is a debate for another time. I also make little comment about the fact that the majority of Canadians also hold the view that most murders should be punishable by death. We all know the Liberals are responsible for the removal of capital punishment. They are now trying to dictate their views to all the countries of the world, and this is wrong.

In another case, which I will again not name as it is before the courts, we have discovered in our midst an individual in his late sixties who is facing over 100 years in jail because of a number of white collar crimes. He has already been convicted and sentenced. Under the provisions of Bill C-40 an extradition hearing may well determine that this individual should be committed for extradition. This will likely become a costly and extended procedure. But the minister still holds the ultimate power. Under section 44(1) of this legislation the minister may determine that a surrender order will be unjust or oppressive because we in Canada do not have such lengthy sentencing practices. Again, this is a case from the United States.