Public Safety Committee on Nov. 15th, 2010

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay. Good.

Mr. Calarco, in the document you provided, I could be wrong, but the only part I thought I saw where a victim came up was at the very end, when you were answering some of the proposals that would currently be within the minister's mandate.

From a victim's perspective, do you think it's fair that we're more concerned about the offender's rehabilitation than we are about what a victim may say? I know you may go back to section 6 and use that, but do you think the victim should have a little bit of say in this matter?

[Paul Calarco]

Well, sir, if I could refer you, in the English version, to page 5 of our submission, specifically in the middle paragraph, it says, “Where an offender is transferred back to Canada to serve a sentence, authorities will also know whether that person requires continued intervention or monitoring by the state after sentence expiry”; that paragraph deals with victims. Note 14 specifically refers to peace bonds. We also put in the submission that victims will be able to have some input into the situation.

For example, where a person is under the parole authorities or about to be considered by them, the parole authorities can contact the victim of the offence, which would be especially important in a domestic situation, and the victim of the offence could say he wanted reintegration with that person or that he wanted nothing to do with that person, that he felt he was still in danger from that person and required continued protection. That is certainly part of our presentation to you, and it is very much a part of the Bar Association's position.

[John Conroy]

What if the victim is in the other country where the offence occurred?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Not necessarily. Theoretically they could be in two countries, right?

[John Conroy]

But if these offences are committed in another country, do we have a case in which the victim is in Canada? I don't know of one. The drug offences, I suppose—

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I can assure you it's certainly plausible that there could be victims in both countries, and it wouldn't take a whole lot of common sense to see that coming in straightforwardly. Pedophiles would be a great example.

I was talking to a victim of crime today and I asked her what her thoughts were on this bill. I mentioned the fact that the safety of any person in Canada who is a victim would be taken into consideration, the safety of any member of the offender's family, the case of an offender who has been convicted of an offence against the family member, the safety of a child, and she thought those were all great suggestions, and that the minister has the ability to determine whether or not a convicted felon in another country has the ability to come back to this country based on some of these points. She thought that was a great piece to have in there, so the minister could have a chance to stand up to the victims.

Is there anything, Mr. Calarco, that you would have against the minister standing up for the victims?

[Paul Calarco]

Obviously I wasn't there in your conversation with the person, but what every victim would have to also know is that the offender has the constitutional right to come back. Would you rather have this person come back to Canada, and whatever they have done to you prior to offending in the other state...would you rather have them monitored by Canadian authorities? Would you rather have police forces know where they are, and would you rather have them subject to parole and court orders, or would you like them to come back and have no restrictions on them? That is the question you have to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We will now go to the Bloc.

Madam Mourani, five minutes, please.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to continue with the case of pedophiles and give an example that could very well be real.

Consider a pedophile who has never been caught in Canada and who ends up being caught for the first time in Thailand, the U.S. or some other country. If we do not bring that pedophile back, then he will re-enter Canada and Canadian authorities will not have any information on him. So he could continue assaulting children in Canada. Is that correct?

[John Conroy]

We might have a little bit of information, but we have no control over the person. What comes through to me is that the government seems to lack faith in the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board to protect victims and to protect other Canadian citizens. That's what their function is, and that's why we say that bringing them back, getting to know who they are, finding out who they are, determining their proclivities, having them get into sex offender treatment programs, which aren't offered if they're busted in Thailand or in the United States, surely that protects victims--not simply dumping somebody back with no restrictions.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Unless I am mistaken, you said earlier that these people would re-enter the country and we would not know anything more about them. We would have very little information.

What kind of information would we have on them if we did not bring them back?

[John Conroy]

It would be an initiative on the part of the government, presumably, to get in touch with the other country and find out whatever information they have, but certainly they're not going to show up at the border with all kinds of information. They'll be a Canadian citizen who can come back. And there's an international record, so you could go to the National Crime Intelligence...and see perhaps that there's the foreign record. If a police officer, in his vehicle, pulls up a CPIC check on somebody, it's not going to come up that the person was convicted as a pedophile in Thailand, for example.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

That would not come up? Okay. So that means we would lose the opportunity to obtain information on the person by not doing the transfer.

You mentioned the government taking the initiative to obtain information, but I have to say that I do not have much faith in the government's initiative. And that means we would not be very well off in terms of information.

[John Conroy]

Well, they should have a bill that maybe requires them to go and gather information or something, but that's not this bill. This bill precludes one from getting the information.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Now this is for all of you. Do you think this bill could be amended? Could it be improved, or should it just be thrown out altogether? Do we have no other choice but to vote against it? Can we salvage anything from it? I have my doubts, but perhaps we can; I want to hear your thoughts on it.

Mr. Waldman?

[Lorne Waldman]

I don't think this bill is amendable. I think it's a complete violation of section 6 and it can't be amended. Leaving aside section 6, I think the current bill already gives the minister too much discretion, and all we would do here is give him more.

[Paul Calarco]

On Mr. Waldman's constitutional point, simply on legislation drafting principles, I don't see how you can possibly amend this bill sufficiently to make it conform to our international obligations or to the Constitution.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

I have a question about the death penalty. As you know, we do not have the death penalty in Canada, but they do in the U.S., not everywhere, but in some states.

From your experience, would you say it is easy to transfer these prisoners? Is it possible? I think something needs to change—the death penalty needs to be commuted to a life sentence or something of that nature.

[John Conroy]

They're not eligible.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Not eligible? So if they are not eligible, you are basically saying that Canada contracts out the death penalty.

[John Conroy]

I'm assuming that if they're sentenced to death, they're going to remain in that country until that sentence is carried forward. Canada can't administer that sentence, so they're not eligible to come back under this act.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

So those people will be executed if they are sentenced to death.

[John Conroy]

Unless the other country commutes the sentence, that's right.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

So we are contracting out the death penalty to other countries?

[John Conroy]

Well, if the citizen commits the offence in the other country, they're subject to the laws of that country. In the death penalty situation, the act simply doesn't apply.