Evidence of meeting #39 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was person.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Lawyer, As an Individual
Absolutely. It's clearly designed to get around what the courts have done so far and to make it easier to deny, as I said in my opening remarks. Section 1 of the charter, though, will hopefully be the section that curtails these unreasonable limits.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
And once again, I have a difficult time understanding this, because what we're talking about is moving somebody from a prison in a foreign jurisdiction to a prison in Canada, where they will get rehabilitation.
I want to go to Mr. Lobb's example here, because he was talking about victims. The first point is that logically, if you're incarcerated in a foreign jurisdiction, the victims are in that foreign jurisdiction. We're not talking about Canadian victims. I must say, I don't even understand that. But let's assume for the moment that there are Canadian victims, and I'll give you an example from my constituency office from this past week, where there was a Canadian victim. The male who hurt her was incarcerated for something else in the United States. Her concern was his coming back to Canada. Because he was refused transfer, he was not transferred back; there was no record here, and there would be no record. He would just be brought to the border and released into the general population. There would be no rehabilitation, and because there was no form of sentence being carried out in Canada, there would be no parole, no controls, and we wouldn't know where this person was. There would be nothing.
She was coming to me and saying, “How could this be? How can there be no control over this person?” She was afraid, “What do I do?” The only thing I could say to her...well, actually, I won't say that, but the point is, the concern was that if there had been a transfer back, there would have been better protection for the victim who was in Canada. Does that not make more sense?
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
The reason these schemes exist, and the reason so many countries agree to these schemes, is because indeed they see it is to their advantage and to the advantage of their own population. Control over offenders indeed enhances the capacity to manage the risk they pose. That's the reason. It's not because they're bleeding heart liberals that so many countries decided to have these transfers of prisoners. The point was that it was a way to enhance public safety within their country. Accepting transfers allows you to control and to know the offender more and to protect the population better. That's the reason.
The problem here is that this may have been lost in the shuffle, this idea that indeed it's important to bring them back so they can control them. You can accept them for whatever reason, but it's important that they are accepted and come back here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Madam Des Rosiers.
We'll now go to Mr. MacKenzie, please.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the panel.
I think everyone on the panel except Ms. Williams is a lawyer? Fair enough. There are no judges?
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
So when you argue your case before the courts as to whether or not it's a charter case, there are other lawyers on the other side who will argue that it's within the context of the charter. Is that fair? That's our system, right? So if that decision comes down and the court decides that this fits within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then we have to find another way to fight it. That's just the way our system operates. Fair enough?
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
When I use the word “fight”, I mean to challenge the law, to go back to the courts on another challenge of either the charter or in some other manner.
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
So you're saying that the court says the law violates or doesn't violate?
Conservative
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
If the court decides that it doesn't violate section 6, then obviously there still are legal issues.
Conservative
Lawyer, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
There's still the Supreme Court of Canada, but ultimately that would be the final....
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Fair enough.
There are just a couple of other little things. I think everybody has indicated that this government has been just awful and hasn't done what previous governments have done. If I told you that in the last ten years, 709 Canadian offenders had been transferred back to Canada, that would be an average of 71 a year. Fair enough?
If I were to say to you that in the three full years of 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, there were 206 offenders transferred back to Canada, would you agree with me that we're right on the ten-year average?
General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Yes, I think there were only 32 in the first year, but things.... We have not said this. We have come here to talk about the amendment of the bill.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Okay, but what we heard was that the government has been all wrong in what it's been doing, so the extrapolation was that it would get even worse.
The other thing is if we have a huge number of offenders in foreign prisons, to fulfill what you're suggesting for the rehabilitation and all those things, would it not be better for Canada just to go and pluck them and bring them all back here? Do you know how many offenders are out there who are never going to apply? When my friend talks about the victim in his riding who wants the individual back, the best way for him to avoid that is to wait his time out, hope he gets transferred back into the country on a deportation, and doesn't get picked up, right?
Lawyer, As an Individual
I have clients who, one or two years before they would be deported from the U.S., will withdraw their consent because they know they can come back at deportation free and clear.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
But part of the point of this is that, yes, there may be those who would apply to come back, who would fit into our system and go through some programs, but there may be a larger number who are not interested in coming back. I don't know how justified what you're suggesting is, that we should bring them all back, because they don't all apply to come back.
Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
When you say there may be a larger number, with respect, that is simply speculation. We don't know what the numbers are. What we are suggesting to this committee is that this particular piece of legislation does not meet the goals the minister set out in the House. This is simply not helpful legislation. It doesn't meet its goals, and for that reason, as I was saying earlier, I don't see how this bill could be rewritten to conform to our international obligations or to the charter.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I think, Mr. Conroy, you may have indicated--or at least I got the impression, and maybe I got it wrong--that the courts have overturned most or all of the decisions.
Lawyer, As an Individual
No. I think there are only two or three they haven't overturned out of all the ones I've been involved in, and I'm thinking of two I wasn't involved in--DiVito and Grant were the...and Kosorov. Kosorov was an abandonment of Canada as a permanent residence. Those are the only three that upheld the minister's decision, and it was the second Grant case that was an uphold. In all of the other cases, starting with Van Vlymen and Getkate--and I could list them for you--the court overturned the minister's decision.