Evidence of meeting #51 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Holland now has moved the subamendment to add--
Oh, you can't amend your own amendment. That's right.
Can the Liberals...?
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Davies, then, will move his subamendment to include the words—we have to go over to his NDP-3—“while they're serving their sentence”.
Does anyone wish to speak to the subamendment of Mr. Davies?
Madame Mourani.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Should I not speak to it first, just so I can explain what it does?
10:30 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to raise one point with respect to the amendment.
10:30 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
I'm not sure if it's the same as NDP-3. There are sentences missing. All you added was “while they are serving their sentence”. But you also have to add “after the transfer”.
Mr. Davies, you have to add “after the transfer” to your amendment. If you say “while they are serving their sentence”, that could be outside Canada. Your amendment is incomplete. If you wanted to be consistent with NDP-3—
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Basically, Madame Mourani, what the subamendment will do is add a sentence to....
I mean, it's basically the same. It's the same as his whole amendment, because the Liberals have “whether the”, and then “the offender's presence in Canada, after the transfer, while they are serving their sentence, will endanger”. It adds that to it. So it becomes the same, but they're still using it as a Liberal amendment in his subamendment--
10:30 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Let me explain. What I understood was that Mr. Davies' amendment would only add “while they are serving their sentence”. Are you also adding the word “all”?
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
--adding all of it. Yes.
More comments...? Where were we?
Mr. Davies?
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you. I just wanted to explain my amendment. I'm looking forward to my colleagues' guidance on this.
I'll tell you what my reasoning was. Proposed paragraph 10(1)(b) is a paragraph that, if passed, would require...at the very least it's discretionary. But regardless of how we vote on that, it places the factor of whether an offender's return to Canada will endanger public safety, including the safety of any person who's a victim, the safety of any member of the offender's family--if they've been convicted of an offence against a family member--or the safety of any child in the case of an offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence involving a child....and the New Democrats are in favour of all those considerations.
What we were concerned about here is that if the minister is considering an application, the issue that we had was when is the threat...when is the minister's mind...what is the proper time period that the minister's mind is to be addressed to? If you look down at proposed paragraph (j), it says “the manner in which the offender will be supervised, after the transfer, while they are serving their sentence”, so there already are some factors in there that say what you have to think about, which is, if we transfer this person, we want you to think about what the impact will be when they are serving their sentence.
What I was thinking was that this is what you'd be thinking about if we transfer someone who's serving, let's say, a sentence for a sex assault in Minnesota. If we transfer them to Canada, we want to make sure that if we put that person in a Canadian prison they won't present a threat to victims, or to members of their own family, or to children, while they're in prison. The reason that this should be the time period that they address their mind to is because once they get....
If what we're asking the minister to do is to address their mind to whether they'll present a threat after they get out of prison, it seems nonsensical. Because if you don't transfer them and they come across the border from Minnesota after they serve their sentence, they still can present that threat. There's no difference. So what we thought would make the most sense is that we should direct the minister's attention to the time period that they're going to be in prison. Because it makes no difference after they serve their sentence. I'm sorry--I know this is a difficult thing to explain.
We just thought that because the minister is directed, in (j), to consider the effect on a time period while they're serving their sentence, if we don't put that language in up above it, then it would be presumed that the minister would be unclear on whether they are addressing their mind to whether that person presents a threat while they are in prison or after they get out.
Although I'm not opposed to having the minister consider that, I don't understand the impact of that, because if the minister says, “If I transfer that person to Canada, they serve their sentence here, and I think they're going to present a threat to a victim or a child or whatever after they get out of jail, so I'm not going to grant the transfer...”. Once again, that's nonsensical. Because if they don't grant the transfer, that person serves their sentence, comes across the border after the sentence, and we have no control over the person.
So I argue, in that case, that it's more important to have the person come to a Canadian prison so that we have a record of that person's conviction, we can make sure they have the appropriate programming in prison, and we can ensure there's the appropriate community supervision of that person after they get out of jail.
I think it's safer if we direct the minister's attention to “while” they're in prison, because I think we want that person to be on record and we want to know who they are, particularly if that person's offence involved a sex crime against a child.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Well, Mr. Chair, Mr. Norlock did raise the issue. Just so everyone understands, when we argue that it would be safer for Canadians to bring all these people back to Canada so that they can then certainly receive treatment here or be watched when they get here and so on.... Just so everybody understands, there are something in excess of 2,000 Canadians--
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order.
I'm sorry for interrupting, but I don't want to see the committee waste its time. I have one very important point to raise. Mr. Davies' amendment, in conjunction with Mr. Holland's amendment makes absolutely no sense in French. When you read the French—
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Madame Mourani, that's not necessarily a point of order on what Mr. MacKenzie said. That is more of a debate on the subamendment.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chairman, it doesn't work because if you leave it as is, we will be debating an amendment that is no good.
If you look at the wording, it will end up being: “[…] the offender's return to Canada […]”. That doesn't work. To add “after the transfer”, “while they are serving their sentence”, “will endanger public safety”, just doesn't make a proper sentence in French. It doesn't work.
Mr. Holland should have withdrawn his amendment so that we could debate Mr. Davies' amendment and make a subamendment to deal with the return. What we're adding here is: “the offender's return to Canada, after the transfer, while they are serving their sentence”.
