July 2The Harper government has denied an Alberta man’s bid for a transfer from a U.S. jail to a Canadian prison on the grounds that he may one day commit a crime … Van Loan has signed a rejection letter saying that because Curtis’s role was a “money man” and “transporter” in the drug conspiracy, he has “already taken several steps down the road towards involvement in a criminal organization offence. Given the nature of the applicant’s acts, I believe that he may, after the transfer, commit a criminal organization offence.”

August 13When Peter Van Loan denied Brent James Curtis a transfer from a U.S. jail to a Canadian prison in May, the public security minister said he believed the one-time elite hockey player would return only to stoop to organized crime — a belief that is at odds with his own staff’s review of the case, federal documents reveal. In fact, an assessment that tapped security and intelligence agencies concluded Curtis, 28, would likely not commit a crime if transferred.



  1. As I said in the previous thread, this is a philosophical issue. There's no pretence of race involved. The government doesn't believe it's their job to help those that screw up elsewhere, regardless of their citizenship. Of course the big difference in this case is we're talking about convicted criminals.

    • Really? What about Brenda Martin?

      • What about her? The government did nothing for months. Took a ton of pressure to go and get her back. They dropped the ball badly on that case as well.

  2. Well there goes the racism theories. Incompetence it is!

    • Phew! For a minute there it almost seemed like the Government knew what they were doing.

    • It can be both, you know. Racism/chauvinism/bigotry aren't exactly sophisticated.

      • There's a reason why only anonymous blog commenters have been tossing around cheap accusations of racism.

        • Thank you Mr. Reasoning

          • You're welcome, Mr. Smith.

  3. Criminals commit crimes. Van Loan was correct in thinking Curtis might return to life of crime because that's often what happens.

    • It's so simple!

    • "Van Loan was correct in thinking Curtis might return to life of crime because that's often what happens. "

      Yet another observation from a, no doubt rigorous, review of the research on this matter.

      • He's right. There has never, ever been anybody who got out of jail and didn't re-offend. In fact, intent to re-offend was a mandatory condition on parole under Liberal Governments.

    • Sort of like the CONs resorting to simplistic, scientific-renouncing faith-based decisionmaking? That appears to what happens…

  4. Following your logic, would Van Loan actively prevent Conrad Black from returning to Canada?

  5. He's right. There has never, ever been anybody who got out of jail and didn't re-offend.

  6. That poor, poor man. He was caught trafficking a million bucks of cocaine in the United States, and now he has to face the possibility of two more years in (gasp!) US prison. Let's transfer this poor soul to Canadian prison, so he can watch cable TV and become rehabilitated.

    • I'm just curious – what is the reasoning behind sneering at rehabilitation?

      • The conservative mentality sneers at rehabilitation because they are not 'anti-crime' per se, just 'pro-appear tough on crime'. Supporting policies that are demonstrated to reduce crime just don't fit the narrative.

        • That's a cute straw man.

          • If A equals B, and B equals C, then A is also equal to……..

          • Wow. Deep thinker over here. If A is false, B is false, and C is false, then they all have equivalent falseness.

            I assume you know what "straw man" means. Pretending that the "conservative mentality" doesn't believe in rehabilitating prisoners is an example of lazy straw man equivocation.

          • My apologies for poor spelling (it out). All the 'tough on crime' action by this government is not designed to reduce crime. It can't be, because single-facetted tough on crime approaches do not reduce crime the way a broader strategy would. Not to say that 'tough'ness shouldn't be part of it, but ut shouldn't be the whole thing, assuming that actually reducing crime is the intention. (Which it can't be, because it doesn't).


      • I wasn't sneering at rehabilitation. That wasn't my point.

        • That's cool. I understand your larger point, and agree in principal. It just seemed from the wording that you were down on the idea.

        • Can you clarify your intended point?

          Are there significant differences between US prisons and Canadian prisons wrt amenities such as cable TV, access to computers? Eg do 100% of Canadian prisons provide cable TV whereas 0% of US prisons do the same?

          And, regarding rehabilitation, does the US system not include any rehabilitation of any type?

          Just trying to gather relevant info…

          • I guess I should make it more clear when I'm being sarcastic.

          • Or limit the scope of your sarcasm.

  7. What's the difference whether PVL believes the guy will return to a life of crime or not?

    On what grounds is there to "repatriate" our convicted and admitted criminals so they can serve their jail time at Club Fed? Why should Canadians be forced to pay for this guy's incarceration because he's not happy with his accomodations in California after committing a crime there?

    • Because we want to send Americans in Canadian jail to the US?

  8. John and the green fellow are correct… there is no reason to compelling reason for Canadians to serve US sentences in Canada. It would be useful, if Van Loan stopped lying about the rational for his decision and it would be real smart if he stopped putting those lies down on official type pieces of paper. Now it appears that all of the money saved by leaving him in the US will be spent on lawyers in an unnecessary court case.