And is it the same as LIB-6?
I think it's the same thing, Mr. Chair. With regard to any other relevant factor, again, the minister would have to expand on what the factors were, as would the officials who make those recommendations to the minister. They would have some basis on which there would be other relevant factors, and we sit here today, I'm not sure if we know going forward what those would be, to list them, but they may be, in many respects, things that we haven't considered.
Sometimes my friends opposite talk about “no victims in Canada” if the offence happened in another country. Well, that's not really true. I know that the officials and many others know of situations...and one in particular, where there weren't deemed to be victims in Canada because the offence occurred in a foreign country. The individual came back here and there were victims in Canada, but charges hadn't been laid in respect to what the individual wanted to come back here for.
Those are the other relevant factors, or factors amongst some of them that should be considered. It's no different, with all due respect, in regard to individuals convicted of pedophilia in other countries. Although they may be convicted there and charges may not have been laid in Canada, there are many victims in Canada as a result of convictions for pedophilia offences that have occurred in Thailand, or the United States, or Great Britain.
I can understand what they were thinking when they suggested we take that out, but there are other factors that should really be taken into account. I think that, by and large, if my colleagues on the opposite side thought about it deeply, they would also look at it and say, “There may be factors that we haven't thought of that the officials would consider”.
They could consider them. It doesn't mean that they would then suggest to the minister that the individual not be transferred back to Canada, but at least they could address those issues in their comments to the minister. The minister could very well look at them and say: “I agree that it's appropriate. You've considered them. I also agree that they're not a factor that is going to change my decision on the individual coming back, based on the information you provided.” But to take it out, I think it creates something far more concrete--and maybe even a ruling against somebody coming back.
But more importantly, it's a protection for victims who are in Canada and may not be victims of that particular crime. The pedophilia one is one that certainly comes to mind, I think for all of us, because it is such an international issue, with Canadians being sex tourists around the world. But we also know that we have Canadians incarcerated for it, as we have individuals from other countries incarcerated for pedophilia here. The victims aren't only in Canada; they aren't only in one country.
I think it's one of those things...if we're going to argue strongly about one thing, it's that one there that should remain in the bill for the purpose of giving the officials the opportunity to make those comments to the minister.
