Madam Speaker, I agree that if a Canadian citizen commits a crime in another country he or she should pay the price imposed by that country and not by this country, a country that is well-known under this government for its bleeding heart approach to justice.
The former solicitor general's press release also stated that “society is best protected when offenders participate in correction programs in Canadian institutions and communities and when their release is supervised”.
I disagree. Society is best protected when offenders spend an adequate period of time incarcerated to prevent others from being harmed and for allowing rehabilitation to effectively occur.
The government is not concerned or interested in preventing Canadians from being harmed. It is not interested in putting in place adequate penalties that act as deterrents. It is not interested in restitution being made to victims.
The Liberal government is only concerned about treating offenders as poor, misguided persons who are somehow not responsible for the crimes regardless of how heinous or how terrible those crimes have been and how many victims they have left scarred, sometimes for life.
On the subject of victims I must point out that under clause 8 of Bill C-15 the consent of three parties is required for a transfer: the consent of the offender, the consent of the foreign country or entity and the consent of Canada. Nowhere in the bill do we see that the consent of the victim is required. In other words, if a child is raped in this country and a foreign entity requests the transfer of the offender, the victim and the victim's family have absolutely no say in the transfer and, therefore, no say in the parole assessment and decision, and they are not apprised of when the offender is released in the foreign country. I see no provisions for this in Bill C-15.
In 2003 the Department of Justice introduced the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime in which it states that the need for victims should be taken into account in the criminal justice system. Consequently, these needs should be taken into account in the decision of whether a transfer is or is not warranted.
Subclause 10(4), in reference to young offenders being transferred, clearly states:
In determining whether to consent to the transfer of a Canadian offender who is a child within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the primary consideration of the Minister and the relevant provincial authority is to be the best interests of the child.
In other words, if a 17 year old goes to a foreign country and rapes an 11 year old, for which the punishment in that country may be fairly substantial, the person would be transferred here and given the maximum of three years. What about the 11 year old victim? What is in the best interest of this victim? What is in the best interest of closure for the victim and closure for the victim's family? What is in the best interest of society or the best interest of our children who may become the next victim of this offender? Where is the consideration for public safety?
In closing I would like to point out another aspect of the bill that is, in my opinion, in question, and that is clause 38, transitional provision, which reads:
This Act applies in respect of all requests for transfer that are pending on the day that this section comes into force.
In other words, the bill would become retroactive. We will push the bill through and make it retroactive to effectively deal with all of those who are facing this kind of incarceration in other countries at the present time.
Why is it that when an act favours the offender, the one who has committed the crime, that it can be retroactive but when retroactivity does not favour the offender, such as in the sex offender registry or the DNA data bank, it is not retroactive?
We can draw some very conclusive reasons. The government is more concerned about the rights of the offender than it is about the victim. It is more concerned about the offender, the one who has caused sorrow and pain, than it is about the one whose family has been victimized.
We cannot support the bill for those reasons. It is unjustly unbalanced in favour of the offender over the victims and over the protection of society.