Thank you, Chair.
As I was saying, we have been supportive of this study. We participated in—well, this would be a continuation—the initial study that was brought forward. We put forward witnesses and we engaged in it.
Comments have been made in our work, based on what we heard in testimony, that we want to move forward with recommendations and continue based on some of the information we heard. Unfortunately, as was very clear from some of the outbursts by our Conservative colleagues, they're not actually interested in justice or safety. They were outraged, asking, “Who cares what happened when the Conservatives were in power?”
It's pretty interesting, because if they are going to sell a narrative to the public about how tough on crime they are and how only Conservatives will deliver on policies that will support victims, I think we as a committee have every right to look at their record. When we look at their record, what we see is more instances of reclassification from maximum to medium.
They can try to explain that away all they want, but that's the reality. They cut services to Correctional Services facilities. Mr. Caputo wants to suggest that he's standing up for victims over a skating rink, but he had quite the media spanking over the weekend over the misinformation he has been putting out. It's really harmful and traumatizing for victims and their families to read a political agenda that just simply isn't true.
What is true is that the very skating rink he's outraged about was actually in operation under the Conservatives. Mr. Schiefke pointed out the political theatre. The political theatre is in the fact that Conservatives are willing to say anything, even if it's not true, for the outrage and upset it might cause.
What they don't want to talk about—which is why they interjected so much—is that there was no outrage about a skating rink at this facility when they were in power, a skating rink that was operational when they were in power. They don't want Canadians to see the hypocrisy they're living under.
We started this committee meeting by trying to have a very reasonable and rational conversation about how we move forward and continue this study, which is something we're supportive of doing, and how we can give Canadians the opportunity to hear about the process. Mr. Motz just read into the record that the minister does have the ability to change these classifications, but if you heard his words, he read in that the minister has authority to change directives around groups of populations, not reclassifications. His own words don't match or make sense with what Conservatives are arguing.
This is why we're supportive. Let's bring back Correctional Services Canada, which at committee testified that the minister cannot step in, just as Stephen Harper did not step in, and change the over 300 reclassifications from maximum to medium. I think we're happy to have that conversation again because Conservatives don't want to be confused by the truth.
We're happy to continue to put that information on the record, because they would rather say things that are deeply emotional and deeply personal, especially for victims. They're not letting those victims know about their record, while they purport to say they would do things differently when in fact we know they wouldn't. They're willing to say anything. They're willing to say anything for power. I think that's deeply sad given the topic.
Mr. Chair, given that we seem to be in a filibuster with the Conservatives now just reading into the record nothing, I'm going to move a motion to adjourn.
