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.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think I understand Madame Mourani's difficulty with this. I think she's right. I think I can clear this up. The problem with the amendment as we've drafted it is that there is a built-in redundancy. It's because we took language from proposed paragraph 10(1)(j) and put it in proposed paragraph 10(1)(b), which already has the phrase “return to Canada”.
My amendment says: “whether the offender's presence in Canada, after the transfer, while they're serving their sentence”. There is a redundancy. I think all we need to say to properly consider this amendment is that in proposed paragraph 10(1)(b) we would say: “whether, in the Minister's opinion, the offender's return to Canada, while they are serving their sentence”.
Conservative
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Yes: “offender's return to Canada, while they are serving their sentence...”. Because what I wanted to get at was to recommend “while they're serving their sentence”. I think that should be reflected in French and English, and then....
I thank Madame Mourani and Madame Mendes for that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm going to have our analyst read this out and see if that's indeed what we're doing, because we're now doing a subamendment to a subamendment, and it's getting a little convoluted.
Madame Mourani, thank you very much for bringing that up.
Go ahead, sir.
Mike MacPherson Procedural Clerk
Basically, what we started with was just “whether the”. What we're going to be doing with the subamendment is that instead of just replacing line one, we're actually going to be replacing lines one and two. It will read: “whether the offender's return to Canada while they are serving their sentence will endanger”.
And the French is: “le fait que le retour au Canada du délinquant pendant qu'il purge sa peine”.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Okay, but the translation I was given from English to French included the word “presence”, not “return”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's what we have written down here. Sometimes the interpretation is not what's in the text here, with all due respect to our great translators.
Now we have to vote on the subamendment...as amended?
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Can I just draw it to your attention that I had put myself on the list?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Oh, yes. I still have Madame Mendes, Madame Mourani, and Monsieur Godin.
Madame Mendes, you are first.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to come back to the dual citizenship issue. I say that the citizenship at birth prevails when an offence is committed in the country of origin. It's clear that if you were born a Colombian, you acquire Canadian nationality and then commit an offence in France, your Canadian nationality may be the one that will be deemed to take precedence. However, if you commit an offence in Columbia, it is your Colombian citizenship—your nationality at birth—that will take precedence.
I'm sorry, but this is a fact of law. If you commit a crime in your country of birth and you still hold citizenship, that's the citizenship that will be used, and you won't be able to claim Canadian citizenship because the prisons are better here.
Conservative
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also felt a little concerned about the whole issue of dual citizenship. Like Ms. Mendes, I have had a huge number of cases involving people with dual citizenship.
Let me finish, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
This is not specific to the subamendment. We want to keep the debate on the subamendment. We're getting way off. Go ahead, very quickly.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
As I was saying with respect to dual citizenship, I would like to be given specific cases where Canadian citizenship took precedence. When an offence is committed in the person's country of origin and, I could go even further and say, even if no offence is committed—here I'm referring to cases involving divorce or relations between the husband and wife—again it's the man who holds the dominant position in certain countries. Women can end up having their children taken away from them. This doesn't even have to do with actual offences; it has to do with civil rights. It's fundamental. Canadian citizens with dual citizenship are currently second-class citizens. They don't have the same rights as citizens born in Canada with a single citizenship.
Furthermore, children born in Canada of parents of a different origin may experience the same thing in their country of origin. This is serious, Mr. Chairman—very serious. I believe Canada has a duty to protect all its citizens, whether they are born in Canada, have another origin, or whether they came here from another country and were not born in Canada. Citizenship must be the same for everyone. There are no half-citizens.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Madame Mourani.
I'm going to go to Mr. Norlock and then Mr. Davies to conclude.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
I value very much the opinion of the folks from Public Safety. I can remember having a discussion with more than one minister. It had to do with citizenship. I was told outright that there are not two classes of Canadian citizen: there is only a Canadian citizen.
So if you hold citizenship in the Dominion of Canada, you are a Canadian citizen, with all the rights and privileges that come with that, neither more nor less. Would I be correct in your collective opinion or, if you like, in your personal opinion?
February 3rd, 2011 / 10:50 a.m.
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I can only speak from our experience in administering this act. If a person has dual citizenship, neither citizenship trumps the other. It is a question of analyzing the person's background in terms of where they have the most personal contacts or have lived most of their life. I have seen a Canadian who committed a crime in Canada, and who also had British citizenship, being transferred to the U.K. I have seen a Canadian who also had citizenship in an eastern European country, and who committed a crime in eastern Europe, becoming eligible for a transfer to Canada.
I'm speaking only of eligibility for transfer in that limited context. There's no exclusion of one citizenship for a person who has dual citizenship. If a person has Canadian citizenship, is living, for example, in the U.S., has committed a crime in the U.S., and wants to come back to Canada without ever having lived in Canada beyond his infant days, the act compels the minister to look at whether he has any real connection to Canada. It's not a question of citizenship. Their citizenship would allow them to be transferred here, but practically speaking, the question is whether they have a substantial connection to this country.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Ms. Campbell.
We'll hear from Mr. Davies and then we'll conclude unless there's somebody else that comes up. I'm reminded that debate on these amendments are unending. I cannot cut off the debate, but I can question relevance. I'm giving you a fair latitude in what we discuss on some of these issues, but I'll try to monitor that as well.
That's not a shot across the bow, Mr. Davies, because it's your turn to speak. Certainly that would never be the case.