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
In deference to those words of wisdom, I just move the question.
February 3rd, 2011 / 10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right. Are we ready for the question on the subamendment as has already been read to you?
(Subamendment agreed to on division--[See Minutes of Proceedings])
Are you ready for the question on the amendment as amended?
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division--[See Minutes of Proceedings])
Those are completed.
We will now move to NDP-4, Mr. Davies. This is identical to LIB-3. If NDP-4 is disposed of, LIB-3 cannot be moved.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chairman, again, to speed this up, I'll say that I've already talked about this. ONce again, it simply removes “in the Minister's opinion”. I would urge the committee to support this for the same reason that has already been expressed very well by members on this side of the table.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right.
Is there further debate on NDP-4? If not, are we ready for the question?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
(Amendment agreed to on division)
All right. We'll go to NDP-5.
Mr. Davies, did you want to speak to NDP-5?
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Briefly, again, this is similar to the amendment that preceded the last one, which adds the words “after the transfer, while they are serving their sentence”. Again, at present, the proposed paragraph would suggest that when an application is received, the minister must consider whether the offender is likely to continue to engage in criminal activity after the transfer. Again, we want to direct the minister's mind to the time period of while they're serving their sentence.
Again, for reasons similar to those I've expressed before, if we think a person is going to come back to a Canadian prison and continue criminal activity in prison--it could be drug trafficking, drug use, violence against other inmates, or sexual assault--that's a valid reason not to approve the transfer. But if we think this person is going to engage in criminal activity after they've finished their sentence, once again I would argue that it is better for community safety for us to approve that transfer, because we want to know.
If we think a person's going to engage in criminal activity after they come back to Canada, it's far better for us to know that and to transfer them so that we know of their record, we can at least try to get them into programs in our prisons, and most importantly, we can put them under community supervision for at least a portion of their sentence or at least have an opportunity to put them under supervision while they're serving their sentence.
If we leave it the way it is and deny the transfer because the minister thinks the person will engage in criminal activity after they serve their sentence, then we're again letting someone come back into Canada whose record we may not know about. They'll be re-entering our communities, where the police and the community will not know that they have a criminal record, the organizations they apply to work at won't know, and a search may not reveal that. Also, there would be no opportunity for community supervision.
I argue for community safety. It's important that we focus the minister's mind, as we have done in proposed paragraph 10(1)(j), as the government has recognized, so that we focus our mind on when that person is serving their sentence.
Conservative
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I had a question, but I think Mr. Davies has answered it.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have another grammatical issue to raise. I don't understand what the word “les” is replacing in the French version. Perhaps someone could explain.
Bloc
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
In the bill, it says “criminelles” in the feminine.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It's added on to the wording of the existing bill, which makes it “criminelles”, plural. So in the act, is it in the singular and then this would turn it into the plural...?
Oh, it's a continuation of the word from the line before.
Is there any other debate?
Mr. MacKenzie.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I just wonder, again...I keep going back to the non-partisan officials. Could they give us an interpretation of what that might mean to the application of the act?
Director General, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I think it's really similar to the previous amendment that placed temporal parameters around the estimation of the criminal activity. All I can say again is that it would be consistent with parole decision-making, which places a temporal constraint around the time period.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
All right.
Are we ready for the question on amendment NDP-5?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
Amendment NDP-6 is identical to LIB-4. If NDP-6 is disposed of, LIB-4 cannot be moved. All in favour of NDP-6?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
All right. That gets rid of amendment LIB-4. I just like anything that gets rid of Liberal anything.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'm giving him the opportunity. I never want to diminish the opportunity Mr. Davies has to speak in this committee.
Conservative
