Well, I think it's important to shift this debate into what I think we all agree with. I think everybody around this table agrees that we should have an International Transfer of Offenders Act.
I can speak for the New Democrats and say we also agree that when someone been convicted of a crime abroad, there should be a process for determining whether or not they are a suitable candidate to serve their sentence in Canada. In that regard, Mr. MacKenzie said he hadn't heard a word about victims, but I actually have spoken about victims in the debate. Even today, I opened up my comments by saying that proposed paragraph 10(1)(b), which sets forth three different criteria that should be considered when determining whether an applicant should be able to serve their time in Canada, specifically relates to whether or not transferring that person to a Canadian prison would have a dangerous impact on victims.
I think in some cases there could be victims in Canada. Most of the time I think victims would be abroad, but there could be victims in Canada as well, if someone is sentenced abroad. The New Democrats think that is a valid consideration to take into account, and if that person does constitute a threat to the safety of those victims, then on that, I have no problem with the minister turning down that application.
Really, the question before us is one of structure and how we get a fair process to answer that question. I agree with Ms. Campbell and stand corrected that it is the Minister of Public Safety who administers this bill. I respect that, but from a structural point of view it is, in the New Democrats' point of view, neither healthy nor desirable to have power concentrated in one person's subjective opinion.
I want to conclude by saying, again, that the basis of the New Democrats' position is that offenders who represent a threat to the security of Canada or a threat to other Canadian citizens, whether they're in prisons or outside prisons, and whether or not those people have any other factors that are listed in the act that would preclude them from being suitable candidates to serve their time in prison, should be precluded from being transferred. But what we must keep in mind, as I said earlier, is that a person who is convicted of a crime abroad, if they are released from prison, will come back to Canada.
I was moved by the evidence I heard, which was that when this happens, if they've served their time and we don't transfer them to Canada, we run the risk of having them come back into Canada without our knowing that they've actually been convicted abroad. We run the risk of having those people come back into our communities without our having any knowledge or information that they're there. They could be sex offenders. We wouldn't even know that. We also lose the ability to ensure that they have access to rehabilitation programs in prison. Last, we don't have any ability to put them under supervision in the community as part of their sentence.
All of those things add up to one thing: that not transferring offenders in many cases will make our communities less safe and more dangerous places. That's what is fuelling the New Democrats. There is no desire to gut any bill. There's a desire on the New Democrats' part to strengthen public safety, and also to make sure we have a fair, judicious approach that gives the minister the ability to make the appropriate decision, but also makes sure that it's administered in a fair and judicial manner.
The amendments that have been proposed by the government in this respect do two things, in the New Democrats' opinion: they make our communities less safe, and they replace a judicious, fair standard with one that is subjective and concentrates power in the hands of one person.