Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, sir.
The letter reads:
The French and Mahaffy families “...are the ones that suffered the pain and interminable suffering...”. The Associate Chief Justice concluded that Mr. Bernardo should spend—
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, once again, this is absolutely not relevant to the point at hand. If Mr. Genuis wanted us to actually deal with these matters, he would let us vote on his motion and, conceivably, we could get to them, but talking for several hours on miscellaneous matters tangentially related to the point at hand is not productive.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
The French and Mahaffy families “are the ones that suffered the pain and interminable suffering...” The Associate Chief Justice concluded that Mr. Bernardo should spend the “rest of [his] natural life in prison” and that he had “no right ever to be released.” His Honour held that ”Everyone here, everyone in this courthouse, everyone in this city, everyone in this province, everyone in this country knows that you are a dangerous offender...”. Justice LeSage further stated that Bernardo's crimes were “of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that your behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint...”
Again,
“such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that your behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint... The behavioural restraints that you require is jail. You require it, in my view, for the rest of your natural life... You are a sexually sadistic psychopath. The likelihood of you being treated is remote in the extreme.”
Mr. Danson continues in this public letter:
Justice LeSage was considered to be one of the most distinguished, skilled, experienced and compassionate trial judges in the country. Based on the overwhelming expert evidence before him, the Crown proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Paul Bernardo was a “sexually sadistic psychopath” and murderer requiring the dangerous offender designation. Evil is too kind of a word for Paul Bernardo. The powerfully considered words and judgment of Justice LeSage clearly were not considered in the decision to transfer Paul Bernardo to a medium security institution, nor were the findings of the Parole Board of Canada...at Mr. Bernardo's 2018 and 2021 parole hearings.
In its decision of October 17, 2018, denying Paul Bernardo parole, the PBC noted, inter alia, that the “psychiatrist concluded that you [Bernardo] have deviant sexual interests and you met the diagnostic criteria for Sexual Sadism, Voyeurism, and Paraphilia not otherwise specified. Additionally, you demonstrated traits of a personality disorder that the psychiatrist opined met the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He further opined that you met the requirements for a diagnosis of psychopathy... The psychiatrist was pessimistic about your treatment options.” The PBC also noted that other psychiatrists concurred with previous diagnosis of Sexual Sadism and Psychopathy, thereby representing a “significant risk for re-offending.” They felt that the treatment would be unsuccessful given Mr. Bernardo's “personality characteristics and sexual pathology.”
Mr. Danson's argument is clearly very well referenced with the expertise of others. He continues:
The PBC noted in its October 17, 2018 decision that the Spousal Assault Risk Assessments confirmed that Mr. Bernardo was at “a high risk for violence against a domestic partner.” The Board noted that Mr. Bernardo justified inflicting pain, including forcing painful unwanted violent intercourse, on his victims to gain dominance, control and compliance. Bernardo was found to be “callous, glib, grandiose, cunning, deceptive, manipulative and a liar.” Further, the Board found that Bernardo had a complete lack of understanding of the impact of his offending and violent and sadistic behaviour.
Psychopaths like Paul Bernardo know exactly what they are doing. Bernardo fully appreciated the nature and consequences of his actions. The problem was that he enjoyed it. Bernardo had an uncontrollable need for exercising power and control over innocent children and women with unspeakable sadistic brutality. He got a thrill out of terrorizing his victims and inflicting unspeakable pain and suffering on them. He videotaped sadistic attacks for his personal entertainment.
The letter continues:
In the face of this, CSC transferred Mr. Bernardo to medium security.
Based on all of this evidence, which should have been before the relevant authorities, the decision was nonetheless made to make this transfer. This was a subject that the committee engaged on and that the committee should report on.
The letter continues.
At both parole hearings, the PBC [the Parole Board of Canada] found that Bernardo showed no remorse, insight or empathy. At his June 22, 2021, parole hearing, the PBC essentially adopted the findings and conclusions reached at the previous hearing, including sexual sadism, narcissistic personality disorder and psychopathy. At the June 22, 2021, hearing, PBC...[confirmed on] August 17, 2015, psychiatric risk assessment which concluded that Paul Bernardo continued to represent “[a] high risk of sexual and violent behaviour. The clinician noted that you [Bernardo] still met the criteria for sexual sadism and narcissistic personality disorder...[and] continued to display psychopathic traits, such as arrogance, entitlement, and lack of empathy.” It was this psychiatrist's opinion that “these conditions were not treatable.”
The PBC also referred to the most recent psychological risk assessment dated April 28, 2020, which confirmed that Mr. Bernardo had limited empathy and that it is “beyond debate that you [Bernardo] are a high-risk offender” and that the available “psychiatric and psychological assessments conclude that you remain at a high risk for sexual offending.” The simple truth is that there is no cure for sexual sadism and psychopathy. The psychiatrist who testified at Paul Bernardo's dangerous offender hearing and who provided a subsequent report a decade later to CSC/PBC was correct when he testified that Paul Bernardo was not treatable.
We urge you to listen to the audio recordings of both of Paul Bernardo's parole hearings. They are chilling and deeply disturbing. He is Exhibit 'A' as he speaks about his unspeakable crimes like normal people talk about the weather. This man—
—the letter says—
—is a monster, devoid of even a scintilla of humanity, decency, remorse or empathy. At the same time, he is skilfully cunning and manipulative. Given the opportunity, he will offend again—violently, brutally and sadistically. The recordings of Mr. Bernardo's October 17, 2018, and June 22, 2021, parole hearings should be released to the public so that Canadians can judge for themselves the reasonableness of CSC's decision to transfer Bernardo from a maximum security to a medium security facility. Let Canadians, whom you serve, judge CSC's justification for the transfer against the objective evidence. Justice must be carried out in a transparent manner—not in secret.
Respectfully, I am not interested in abstract theoretical discussions about possible rehabilitation of someone who can never be rehabilitated. Even as recent[ly] as Mr. Bernardo's June 22, 2021, parole hearing, 30 years after the murder of Leslie Mahaffy and 29 years after the murder of Kristen French, Mr. Bernardo remained unchanged. It has only been two years since his last parole hearing. No one can suggest that in the last two years, Mr. Bernardo has been able to affect a miraculous rehabilitation within a maximum-security federal penitentiary, which he could not achieve in the first 28 years. .
This is not a subject that I am comfortable discussing for a variety of personal reasons, but I cannot help but to reflect on the content of the Bernardo/Homolka videotapes, which unfortunately are embedded deep in every fibre of my soul and continue to haunt me. No human being can view the images and hear the utterly unspeakable acts of sadistic brutality on two defenceless, beautiful teenage girls and not conclude, as did Justice LeSage, that Mr. Bernardo must remain in a maximum-security federal penitentiary for the rest of his life.
While principles of rehabilitation are critical and apply to 99 percent of the federal prison population, they do not to the remaining 1 per cent, like Paul Bernardo, who are beyond rehabilitation. The system can neither pretend, nor play games. Absent a compelling explanation, it would appear that CSC is trying to assist Mr. Bernardo with his parole eligibility by cascading him through the system from maximum to medium and then minimum security and then out the door on parole.
Perhaps I can pause in the letter, Mr. Chair, to make one point that I think is just very important in this letter and in the issue of the prison transfer.
The prison transfer issue is important in and of itself, because it reflects a false and dangerous assessment of the security risk associated with Mr. Bernardo and it creates dangers to others in the prison population. It carries with it a variety of other risks in the immediate context of the prison transfer. However, it is also a concern of Mr. Danson and the families he represents that the transfer from maximum security to medium security can be part of a process of trying to demonstrate rehabilitation that leads, then, to further transfers and subsequently to parole. Of course, it is a critical matter, based on the evidence that has been presented here at this committee and in this letter, that that process not be undertaken.
The sounding of the alarm by the families and their representatives reflects not only a concern about the specific issue of the prison transfer but also a concern about where this could lead, about the fact that we have seen increasing instances of people who are bailed or paroled beyond all logic, and who reoffend violently against other members of the population. That is why this issue of completing the work on the prison transfer issue and reporting to the House on it is so important to Conservatives.
However, I will continue the letter, Mr. Chair. It says:
Even under the sentencing principles stated in Section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the first principle is punishment—to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm brought to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct. The second principle is to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences. The third principle is to separate offenders from society, where necessary. While the fourth principle is to assist in rehabilitating offenders where realistic, the first three sentencing principles prevail. As questioned above, what has Mr. Bernardo achieved in the last two years that he was incapable of achieving in the previous 28 to 30 years? There is no cure for psychopathy.
Other sentencing principles include increasing a sentence to account for any relevant aggravating circumstances related to the offence or the offender (see s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada). The aggravating circumstances for Mr. Bernardo are endlessly horrific.
I wish to address the CSC news release where it is stated that “[p]rior to the transfer and immediately after, CSC provided information and updates to all registered victims about the offender.” As counsel for the families and Kristen and Leslie through their Estates for the past 30 years, I can advise that I was not informed of the transfer “prior” to it happening. When I was notified, it was a fait accompli—the transfer had already been completed that day.
Chair, it is truly incredible to me that information was only provided to the families after the transfer had already taken place. We know—as I'll get to—that information was provided to government prior to the affected families getting this information, and it was presented only to the families as a matter already complete.
This explains the pain and the concern that we see in their response that we heard here, and it drives the need for us to respond by reporting this matter to the House, by unearthing this report that some on this committee would rather see buried.
One consistent trend in this issue is information being buried by people on the government side. The families were not informed about the prison transfer until after the fact. The government actively resisted letting family members testify, and we had to use all of the procedural tools in the book to allow those hearings to take place. The government opposed a private member's bill put forward by Mr. Jeneroux regarding the prison transfer issue.
Now the situation is that the committee has not reported because a potential report and work on that report is being buried by some members of this committee. This is why we want to bring sunlight to this issue. We want an open discussion so that we can see what's happening. We can report on it to the House and get to the bottom of the issue. We can also make substantive recommendations that reflect what we heard from the families.
I'm very struck by what Mr. Danson wrote in this letter about it being already done when the families were told.
The letter continued:
When notified of the aforesaid statement, I first tried to access my own telephone records and messages. May 29, 2023 was an exceptionally busy day for me and I was not available in the morning. I see that a completely routine, absolutely non-descript voicemail message was left for me at 9:06 a.m. A second voicemail message was left for me at 1:48 p.m. that same day, also non-descript - literally “that CSC had some information for me.” I have been unable to confirm my outgoing calls for May 29 as of this moment, but my recollection is that I returned the call relatively shortly thereafter. At this point I had learned that Paul Bernardo had been transferred from Millhaven to La Macaza. None of my relevant questions could be answered due to Mr. Bernardo's privacy rights. I did express my objections, but at the same time I recognized that the person I was speaking to was just the messenger doing her job.
I then contacted the families to determine if they had been notified of the decision prior to Mr. Bernardo being transferred from a maximum-security penitentiary to a minimum-security penitentiary. By “prior to the transfer”, I do not mean the actual day of the transfer or while Mr. Bernardo was on route.
Obviously, that would not constitute prior to the transfer.
It continued:
To be credible, the advanced notice would had to have occurred days before or at least the day prior.
I might interject that the day prior clearly would not be acceptable, but it wasn't even the day prior. It wasn't at all in advance.
The letter continued:
Yet apparently, the Frenches were advised on the morning of Mr. Bernardo's transfer without any explanation. That is, they were not advised that he was being transferred from a maximum-security penitentiary to a medium-security penitentiary. Rather, in the morning of May 29, 2023,—
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to bring to the attention of the chair the fact that the time allocated for this order of business has expired and that we should release the witnesses and go in camera, as specified in the agenda.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On that point of order, Chair, can I just clarify for the member?
As I said earlier, I have no objection to releasing the witnesses, but the rules of the committee are that when a matter is being debated, that matter continues to be debated until the meeting is adjourned, the item is adjourned or the item is disposed of.
I have no objection to releasing the witnesses. That's what I think I said a while ago.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes. I'm midway through reading this letter.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
To Mr. McKinnon's point, we are at the end of the time that the witnesses had signalled their availability, so if the witnesses would like to go, I don't object to that, but if they'd like to stay, I don't object to that either.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Thank you so much, with apologies.
We're going to pause and allow the witnesses to wrap up, please, Mr. Genuis.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
All right.
Mr. Chair, it seems that chat is going on. I'm happy to continue or I'm happy for us to suspend. I just don't understand where we are right now.
May 9th, 2024 / 9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
While we're in this, Mr. Genuis, and maybe as a privilege of the chair, I want to let members know that based on the last two meetings, I will be requesting a 30-day extension on Bill S-210. I think it's important that we follow through on our—
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Chair, you cannot do that unilaterally. You know that, and so does the clerk. Those extensions have to be adopted by the committee.
In our subcommittee agenda we have a reference to that extension. We have not proposed an amendment to that, but we are going to insist that a report be done on Mr. Bernardo's prison transfer as part of that package.
I think you know that you can't unilaterally report to the House on a matter. The committee does not consent to that.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
Maybe just to respond to some of the context, the subcommittee report with the amendments we're proposing is a package. If there are pieces of that subcommittee report that we have left unamended that members like and want to see, they can indicate their support for the amendment. Perhaps there can be off-line negotiations around that, but our position about the report on the Bernardo transfer is very clear. I want members to understand exactly why that is important to us.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I do believe we should be in camera at this point, per the agenda. I wonder if I can move a dilatory motion to move in camera.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You can't. You don't have the floor. You can't move a dilatory motion when you don't have the floor.