Public Safety Committee on March 11th, 2024

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you.

Listen, I'm not even going to credit that with a response, because it's whack-a-mole. I mean, I was in grade 8 or whatever grade I was in. It doesn't even make any sense what he's asking me in terms of my position. What I can tell you right now about my position is that I remember being 15 years old when Paul Bernardo was a Scarborough rapist. Every woman my age, 45 years old, knows this.

To the point that I've brought up already, the judge who sentenced him said he will never be rehabilitated. He was transferred in the dead of night.

To Ms. Michaud's point about this happening in 2022 and her questioning why we're talking about it now, it's because nobody knew. That is gross incompetence on this government's part.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

On a point of order, this is not on the amendment.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

That should be even more concerning to anyone else. How did this happen and why? That is the point of this motion. If you want to stop this from happening again, you have to study it. You have to bring forward these people, and in particular the victims.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We're going to move on to Mr. Motz.

Go ahead, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to the amendment and would like my spot on the regular motion to be there after the vote, please.

I do not and cannot support the amendment by my Bloc colleague. As has already been indicated, victims are depending on this. Over the last eight years, through legislation and a soft-on-crime approach, a situation has developed where this has become a more common practice. I think it deserves significant study so we can understand how and why, as well as how to prevent it moving forward.

Ms. O'Connell, in her opening comments, made a statement, as did Mr. Julian and Mr. Schiefke in reference to this amendment, that the Conservative government of the past had the highest number of transfers from maximum security to medium security—or of any transfers period. I would challenge them to show us how many of those transferred were not regular offenders but the worst of the worst. That's what you have to figure out here. We're talking about the worst of the worst.

There are maximum-security prisoners who can be transferred from maximum to medium security and who are not in the same category as those with the dangerous offender designation. Dangerous offenders are designated by the courts, and we have to keep that in mind.

The other interesting comment was about the escapes and how we had the highest number of escapes under the Harper government. I would challenge Mr. Schiefke and Mr. Julian to have a look at that. How many of those escapes were from minimum-security prisons? I would ask them to come back with those numbers, because they'll find that, shockingly, the highest number were from minimum-security prisons rather than from maximum- or medium-security prisons. To try to throw the Conservatives of the past under the bus misses the point here.

As I said, we have an obligation to victims—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

There is a point of order, Mr. Motz.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I always enjoy hearing Mr. Motz, but this is not relevant to the amendment. I am concerned about a filibuster developing when we really should be proceeding to the vote.

Hopefully the amendment will be rejected and we'll move to the main motion, but I don't think a filibuster is appropriate. I think we need to move to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Motz, go ahead, please.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I'm only responding to those of you—including you, Mr. Julian—who made this comment in response to Ms. Michaud's amendment. As a result, I am going to speak to it.

I agree that we need to get to a vote on this amendment and defeat it. I agree with my Liberal colleagues about adding some more witnesses and giving this the attention it deserves. I'm actually surprised that Mr. Schiefke would think otherwise.

I'll have other comments to make when we get back to the main motion with respect to some facts on Bill C-83 and the like.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair. Again, I cannot and will not support this Bloc amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Caputo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's ironic that the Liberals initially said they wanted to add witnesses and now they're in support of rejecting the very witnesses they wanted to add: Howard Sapers, the John Howard Society, Aboriginal Legal Services, the Black Legal Action Centre and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. These are the very groups the Liberals said we should add, and now we have Mr. Schiefke saying, no, they don't want to add them; they want to go from six meetings to one meeting. That is utter hypocrisy.

Mr. Bittle, to his credit, spoke with great sincerity, I would say, when he talked about the impact on communities. Now he will be asked to vote on going from six meetings to one. Ms. O'Connell echoed similar sentiments, and now she will be asked that this go from six meetings to one, gutting the very witnesses she said should be put forward.

I'm going to wait until Mr. Schiefke gets back to his seat so he can hear this.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sitting right here. If Mr. Caputo needs glasses, I can provide him with some, but I'm sitting right here.

I'm literally sitting right in front of you, Mr. Caputo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

That's enough, guys.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Your remarks are uncalled for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Caputo, are you going to continue?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Yes, I am.

Mr. Chair, I would really like Mr. Schiefke to hear this. It is from one of the friends of the victims. When he reduces it from six meetings to one, including gutting the victims in paragraph (i)....

I received a message a few minutes ago that says it's important—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

They don't want to hear that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, if Mr. Caputo wants to read something into the record, that's fine, but he is attributing an amendment to Mr. Schiefke that didn't happen.

I think he should stick to his counterpoints instead of these pretty lame personal attacks. We've all been able to speak to our points, and he should continue to do so without the personal attacks, because he's making a fool of himself at this moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Caputo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

If standing up for victims means making a fool of myself, Ms. O'Connell, I'll make a fool of myself each and every day. I will show up to Parliament right here, right now, today, tomorrow and the next day and make a fool of myself.

I'm going to read this into the record for the benefit of those who plan on voting with this amendment to gut it from six meetings to one. The Bloc and the Liberals are seemingly teaming up to gut the very amendment the Liberals were putting forward. The message says that it's important to hear the witnesses on the impact of these moves and that victims deserve more than one meeting.

What I'd love is for the Liberals and the Bloc to explain why, with this amendment, they are voting to gut the list of the very witnesses they said we need to hear from. Why are they choosing to side with less information instead of more, while they accuse others of getting on a soapbox when they are the ones making this political?

I would love for them to answer that question. Why? It's for the victims. They should be answering.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Lloyd.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't expecting to get on the speakers list so quickly.

I'm just curious. When Mr. Schiefke said he was in support of the Bloc amendment to move this from six meetings to one meeting, was that Mr. Schiefke's personal initiative, or is it the position of the Liberal Party members on this committee to knowingly vote to reduce this from six meetings to one meeting? They know full well that they're removing the Elizabeth Fry Societies. It would be impossible for us to hear from the Black Legal Action Centre, Aboriginal Legal Services, the Elizabeth Fry Societies and the John Howard Society.

It just seems so bizarre to me that the Liberals could come forward with an amendment that was supported by three out of the four parties at this committee, yet flip-flop and turn 180° so quickly from six meetings to one meeting, cutting the number of witnesses. I find it absolutely bizarre.

I'm curious to know, whenever they're up on the speaking list, whether this is the initiative of one Liberal member of the committee or it's now the position of the entire Liberal Party at the committee that it wants to essentially gut this motion, including its own amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd.

Mr. Kurek.