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.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
In fact, it's Mr. Davies' amendment that makes no sense. If we say “the offender's return to Canada after the transfer”, it's obvious that he will be scot-free and no one will be the wiser. I think we should leave it the way it is.
Bloc
Liberal
February 3rd, 2011 / 10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Except that it's not a point of order, it's a point of debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
This is to the amendment, not to the bill. You can't go back to the original bill.
It's a question of grammar? Well, we'll—
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. MacKenzie was speaking. Then Madame Mourani made a point of order, totally—
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
But just a moment, Mr. Chair, with all due respect. You began to.... If it's not a point of order, Mr. MacKenzie, who was speaking, is left in limbo—
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
—while other discussions are taking place, the mikes are not on, and you're told, “Well, just go ahead with your meeting, and we'll clear this up”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Nobody has said to just go ahead with their meeting, Mr. Norlock. Rather, I ruled that it was not a point of order.
I was listening to Madame Mourani to see if her point was a point of order on something Mr. MacKenzie had done or something that she felt was a technical point of order on the subamendment. Madame Mendes is trying her best to clarify to Madame Mourani so that Madame Mourani can understand the subamendment.
Mr. MacKenzie, you may continue.
Conservative
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Just so there's a broader understanding, I think this goes to Mr. Davies' point, and we well understand what he's talking about. At any given time, something in excess of 2,000 Canadians are incarcerated in prisons outside of Canada. The history is that something like 100 of them apply per year to come back to Canada, so on average there are 1,900--plus or minus--Canadians who complete their sentences in other jurisdictions without ever applying to come back here.
The argument is that we are better off to know about these. The other side of that argument would be that there are 1,900 we don't know about. We should pass legislation that everybody has to come back here, and I don't think anyone is in favour of that.
I just think that's a non-starter to this discussion, the fact that some of them do come back. Certainly, of the ones who do come back, they apply to come back. The vast majority have been granted approval to come back. It's a pretty high percentage that are granted approval to come back here. We shouldn't be talking about the very few that--
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
We shouldn't be only focused on the very few who have been turned down, which is minimal.
But again, I'm wondering.... We have the non-partisan officials here. Could they tell us what these amendments would in fact mean to the practical application of the legislation?
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Yes. On the statistical issue, Mr. Churney and Ms. Keryluk advise that Mr. MacKenzie's numbers are roughly the correct proportion in terms of our best estimate of the number of Canadians incarcerated abroad, because of course some Canadians don't make themselves known to officials. We have no way of finding out.
On the issue of the amendment about the test being while they are serving their sentence, the only thing I can offer there is that it is consistent with the Parole Board decision-making, for example. The law there specifically says that your judgment about the dangerousness does fall within a certain parameter. It's not an expectation to make a judgment about dangerousness far into the future. I think that's all I could say about that.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
There's just one other part of this. Canadians who hold dual citizenship are considered Canadian for this purpose. There may be people incarcerated in a country that is actually either their country of their choice or their homeland; they've gone there and committed offences. We have to be very clear that these aren't necessarily people who only hold Canadian citizenship or who are Canadian citizens; they may very well have dual citizenship.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Ms. Campbell, is that indeed the case, as Mr. MacKenzie has just said? With dual citizenship, does Canadian citizenship take priority in this legislation?
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
That has not been my experience. We do have a few cases annually of people with dual citizenship. It's a fairly small number. We look at the facts of the case. If they have dual citizenship, we look at where their ties are strongest, perhaps, as opposed to one citizenship trumping another. That has not been our experience in how we analyze those situations.
