Thanks, Chair.
I'm glad we have this motion. From our perspective, we have no issue with looking further into transfers of prisoners and classifications and working with this committee to put forward reasonable, worthwhile recommendations on how we can advance victims' rights in this country and improve the system. However, I think what we learned from the last few days of the study we did on this...because it's important to note that this isn't new. This isn't something the Conservatives are bringing forward today. We, as a committee, have already held several meetings on this and heard testimony, and this would be a continuation of that.
I hope that today is not just Conservatives performing for clips and that this committee is actually serious about working together to put forward serious, legitimate policy recommendations on how we can move things forward. That's exactly what we want to do and what we did as a committee when we all came prepared to ask questions of CSC and the witnesses we had before on this very issue. Again, there's no issue. We've participated and asked tough questions, as I think all Canadians want us to.
I think it's important that we look into this. It was stated by the earlier speaker that this was somehow related to Liberal legislation or a change, and that's simply not true. In fact, some of the years with the highest number of prisoner classification changes from maximum to medium were under Harper Conservative governments. In 2012-13, there were 291 reclassifications from maximum to medium. In 2013-14, there were 319 from maximum to medium.
If there's a question of how this is happening and what policies are in place for the Correctional Service of Canada, I think that's a fulsome conversation we need to have, but putting it out there that this was somehow a change in legislation or policy is, frankly, just not accurate. It's important that Canadians understand that there are certain politicians trying to use the most heinous and horrendous crimes in this country as a fearmongering tactic to suggest that current policies are somehow different from when Conservatives have held office. I think it's important that we get this data on the table so that Canadians can see exactly how decisions are made.
If this committee wants to make recommendations to the government to make changes or to review policy, I think that's absolutely appropriate, but if there's a suggestion.... If we're starting off with a base of misinformation that there was a policy change, I've just outlined that the highest number of maximum to medium reclassifications in the Canadian justice system happened in 2013-14 under the Conservatives' so-called tough-on-crime language.
It's important that we get the facts. That's why we're very happy to continue to hold meetings on this, to make legitimate fulsome policy recommendations based on what we hear and to ensure Canadians' voices are at the table. However, as I said, I think it's incredibly important that we start from a place of truth and honesty. I hope the continuation of this meeting does that, because I think we have a number of policy insights and things that every member of this committee would want to share.
I'll just raise a couple of points about the motion as drafted. I want to hear from colleagues, so please add me to the list again, because I'd like to hear other opinions.
As for doing the study immediately and in six meetings, my issue is not with studying this but with whether or not we need six meetings. We're open to the idea, but based on the witnesses listed in this motion, that wouldn't equate to six meetings. I think the Conservatives are maybe being a little disingenuous in terms of what this motion says and what they hope to accomplish, but we can debate the numbers in terms of what's needed and whether it's immediate.
Based on this, the Conservatives are abandoning the auto theft study. They also don't want to complete Bill C-26, which, as we heard from witnesses, would actually have direct impacts on Canadians' safety, for example, during a weather event when phone lines could go down and there wouldn't be protections in place to ensure that telecommunication companies or banks would have robust procedures to avoid cyber-attacks. I guess Conservatives don't care about those impacts.
This committee can determine the timing, but we had determined the sequence of meetings. Auto theft would being abandoned. Cybersecurity would being abandoned. The other studies we were looking at would be as well, given timing. I assume the minister's visit on the mandate, which was scheduled for next week, would also be abandoned if this motion passed as is.
I have concerns with some of that given the other committee priorities we've talked about, but, as I said, I'm prepared to listen to other opinions about priority and sequencing. We're not opposed to this study.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to move one amendment for now, and that is to add the following witnesses: Howard Sapers, the former correctional investigator for Canada; the John Howard Society of Canada; the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Aboriginal Legal Services; the Black Legal Action Centre and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I'll give those names to the clerk.
I may have other amendments later, Mr. Chair, given my concerns about sequencing and the number of meetings. We're more than happy to move forward with this study, but I want to take into account other people's comments before making any additional amendments. I think it's important that we add some additional witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
