Once again, we see how politics are playing a disproportionate role in how Ottawa treats Canadians who get into trouble overseas.
As revealed by Postmedia News last week, at least nine Canadians serving time for crimes committed abroad have active cases before the Federal Court challenging the federal government’s decision to deny them transfer to Canada to finish their sentences.
Many of them are drug dealers jailed in the United States.
The report noted approvals for transfers have plunged since the Conservatives took power in 2006, something the government is happy to trumpet when people like Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, declares through tired rhetoric that “the previous Liberal government put criminals first.
We put public safety first.”
Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with the government making decisions in the interests of protecting the public, particularly when the issue involves concerns over organized crime should drug offenders return to Canada.
But the problem is the wide latitude the legislation authorizing prisoner transfers grants the minister. Toews can reject requests, for example, on the basis of the vague notion that someone is a threat to public safety.
While such concerns are legitimate, the government could declare virtually anyone convicted of a crime to be a threat to the public on some level.
At the same time, denying transfers runs counter to the goal of reducing risks by rehabilitating and supervising people here rather than having them return to Canada after living in what are often harsh conditions in foreign prisons for years.
In addition, people who come back still remain in jail or at least the corrections system for the duration of their sentences. So even if they’re a threat, it’s not as if they’re free on return.
In Edmonton, the family of Perry King battled for years against former public safety minister Stockwell Day’s rejection of his transfer request. Convicted in Cuba of having sex with two girls, one aged 15 and the other 16, Day decided he was a threat, presumably given King’s conviction of a crime involving minors.
But at the time, the age of consent in Canada was 14, which means King’s actions wouldn’t constitute a crime here. So it’s not difficult to see that politics were playing a role in Day’s denial.
What’s needed, then, are more detailed provisions for approving or rejecting a transfer so people can see that the government is basing its decisions on consistent and specific legal criteria rather than political optics.
Of course, that’s not likely in the government’s interests. This is the same administration that played politics with the Omar Khadr matter and has applied different standards to cases of Canadians stranded overseas, including Suaad Hagi Mohamud, Bashir Makhtal, and Abousfian Abdelrazik.
Sometimes, the government helps; other times, it abandons Canadians in trouble. That’s unfortunate and unfair.
As revealed by Postmedia News last week, at least nine Canadians serving time for crimes committed abroad have active cases before the Federal Court challenging the federal government’s decision to deny them transfer to Canada to finish their sentences.
Many of them are drug dealers jailed in the United States.
The report noted approvals for transfers have plunged since the Conservatives took power in 2006, something the government is happy to trumpet when people like Chris McCluskey, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, declares through tired rhetoric that “the previous Liberal government put criminals first.
We put public safety first.”
Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with the government making decisions in the interests of protecting the public, particularly when the issue involves concerns over organized crime should drug offenders return to Canada.
But the problem is the wide latitude the legislation authorizing prisoner transfers grants the minister. Toews can reject requests, for example, on the basis of the vague notion that someone is a threat to public safety.
While such concerns are legitimate, the government could declare virtually anyone convicted of a crime to be a threat to the public on some level.
At the same time, denying transfers runs counter to the goal of reducing risks by rehabilitating and supervising people here rather than having them return to Canada after living in what are often harsh conditions in foreign prisons for years.
In addition, people who come back still remain in jail or at least the corrections system for the duration of their sentences. So even if they’re a threat, it’s not as if they’re free on return.
In Edmonton, the family of Perry King battled for years against former public safety minister Stockwell Day’s rejection of his transfer request. Convicted in Cuba of having sex with two girls, one aged 15 and the other 16, Day decided he was a threat, presumably given King’s conviction of a crime involving minors.
But at the time, the age of consent in Canada was 14, which means King’s actions wouldn’t constitute a crime here. So it’s not difficult to see that politics were playing a role in Day’s denial.
What’s needed, then, are more detailed provisions for approving or rejecting a transfer so people can see that the government is basing its decisions on consistent and specific legal criteria rather than political optics.
Of course, that’s not likely in the government’s interests. This is the same administration that played politics with the Omar Khadr matter and has applied different standards to cases of Canadians stranded overseas, including Suaad Hagi Mohamud, Bashir Makhtal, and Abousfian Abdelrazik.
Sometimes, the government helps; other times, it abandons Canadians in trouble. That’s unfortunate and unfair.
- Glenn Kauth
