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.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
--but the point is that he has taken it back.
Go ahead, Mr. Norlock.
February 3rd, 2011 / 10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Anyways.... My train of thought is a little bit broken, but I think we can pick up. One of the good things about the Parliament of this country is that we have an eclectic mix of people from every walk of life, and I think that's the expectation of the founders of democracy.
But it is good that we have a significant number of lawyers, and it is appropriate and I think good that almost always, if not always, the Minister of Justice is a lawyer, and that most often, but not always, the Minister of Public Safety is a lawyer, because they deal in the law. One of the good things is that we have people who are independent of government and who are able to advise us. We have those experts here today. They are the people in whom I think the Canadian people's faith is well placed and whom I think as parliamentarians we often applaud and have just applauded, but we have not necessarily always agreed with the advice. That is our right. That's the way our system is.
I'm going to speak about who the victims are here. I speak to everyday Canadians. I won't go into the specific cases, but they see people who go abroad and commit serious, heinous crimes and then hear that the government is bringing them back to Canada to serve their time. I deal with people who struggle from day to day just to keep a roof over their head. They hear that it costs $100,000 to $120,000 a year to keep somebody in jail and they ask me why we have to pay for these people. They come home because most prisons in foreign countries are terrible places to be. Why do we have to have them come home, these people say, and why do I have to pay for them?
Quite frankly, I use some of the very good arguments that are there. In many cases, it is for rehabilitation. In many cases, it is for this, that, and the other thing. But it really doesn't resonate well with them. That's why I think it's important to allow the Minister of Public Safety, whether he is a Liberal or Conservative--whatever the party is that's in power--to have the ability, under certain constraints, to make those decisions.
Ultimately, and as we have just heard, very often, those decisions are appealed to our courts, and to our highest courts, whose job it is to put politicians in their place—ministers of the crown, if that is the case, and the Minister of Public Safety—and say, “You're wrong”. They'll keep appealing, and then the Supreme Court may say, “No, this person should be brought back to Canada”. And they will be.
I do understand that we should have an obligation to structure, to make sure the law is made in such a way that it best does the things it's supposed to do, so that we don't have to go through the very expensive legal processes that are available to people. I guess I'd just say that we need to be very careful.
We need to also let the Canadian people know that not every single person in a foreign jail wants to come home. I don't have the numbers, but I suspect that before this meeting is over we'll have some numbers. Probably fewer than 50% of Canadians who are incarcerated overseas want to come home. Of those who do want to come home, the Minister of Public Safety said no to probably fewer than 10%, probably fewer than 5%. Because this is a public meeting and hopefully Canadians will be made aware of the various arguments, we have to keep those statistics and those things in mind.
This is a very partisan place. I may get backhanded by some of my own friends here, but this is a very partisan place. Maybe we need to just have another coffee, take another drink of water, truly try to be less suspicious of each other, and just try to do what's right.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Norlock.
Mr. Holland...?
All right. Is there anyone else on this particular amendment brought forward by the NDP?
If not, are we ready for the question? Shall amendment NDP-2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
All right. That negates amendment LIB-1.
We'll now proceed to amendment LIB-2.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
It speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman. I think the arguments have been made in prior discussions. I'm not going to reiterate them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right.
Anyone else on LIB-2?
Obviously, if LIB-2 is adopted, NDP-3 will not proceed.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Actually, Mr. Chairman, that's not necessarily the case. They don't do the exact same thing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
But if LIB-2 is adopted, NDP-3 cannot be moved, according to what the legislative services tell me.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I think I can clear up the confusion. Both LIB-2 and NDP-3 remove “in the Minister's opinion”, but NDP-3 also adds the words “while they are serving their sentence”. I will reconsider my amendment when it happens, but they are not identical.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Maybe your better option would be to do a subamendment of the Liberal amendment. That's the other option.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
It can go either way. It doesn't matter to me. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, that may be the best bet.
Mr. Holland would then accept that as a friendly amendment.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Actually, I don't want to move the subamendment yet. I'd like Mr. Holland to—
Conservative
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I'd be happy to move it myself, if that's helpful, or if Mr. Davies is moving it, whatever works. I'm supportive of it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Unless, Mr. Holland, if you wanted to withdraw yours, then.... You have that choice.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
For the purposes of facilitating this, let's just consider it at the table. If we consider it, it's now before us, and then we just can move. I think that's probably the most expeditious course.
Conservative