Bill C-83 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation;
(b) authorize the Commissioner to designate a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary as a structured intervention unit for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons;
(c) provide less invasive alternatives to physical body cavity searches;
(d) affirm that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to support the autonomy and clinical independence of registered health care professionals;
(e) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to provide inmates with access to patient advocacy services;
(f) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada has an obligation to consider systemic and background factors unique to Indigenous offenders in all decision-making; and
(g) improve victims’ access to audio recordings of parole hearings.
This enactment also amends the English version of a provision of the Criminal Records Act.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I can't express my disappointment sufficiently virtually, or even in person, to comprehend the impact, the repercussions, of the vote on this amendment.

We have heard that the government should never interfere in matters of corrections. They can't. However, subsection 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does give the minister the power to issue directives to the Correctional Services commissioner. Paragraphs 96(b) and 96(z.6) also allow the Governor in Council to make open-ended regulations on inmate classification and prison assignment.

We heard in the last study on Bernardo, and we've heard anecdotally today, that the Liberals dispute their ability to issue directives or make regulations for individual inmates. The Minister of Public Safety can and regularly does issue directives dealing with larger classes of inmates. For example, in 2022, then minister Mendicino issued new direction on the use of dry cells to keep inmates from bringing contraband into federal prisons. In 2018, then minister Goodale issued a directive restricting what kind of inmates could be sent to indigenous healing lodges.

We know that nothing would prevent the minister from issuing a directive or cabinet from adopting an order in council mandating that all offenders designated dangerous offenders—the worst of the worst, as said before, like Bernardo, Magnotta and others designated as such—serve their life sentences, with the types of crimes they've committed, in maximum security prisons.

One thing people have been asking me is, how is it possible that this sort of thing keeps happening? How do inmates get moved and why are they being moved, with the worst of the worst being moved at the rate they're being moved at now, especially these high-profile types of offenders? In 2019, the Liberals introduced Bill C-83. It was voted on and passed in 2019 and created a standard, in section 28 of the act, requiring prison selection to be made by the commissioner based on “the least restrictive environment for that person”. This repealed previous Conservative legislation from 2012, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We heard it suggested in the last study that Conservatives supported Bill C-83. Yes, we supported Bill C-83 at second reading to go to committee for amendments. We did not support it at third reading.

I think it's unfortunate that we have now gone from potentially six additional meetings to one meeting. We'll never get this resolved in one meeting, and we're going to leave victims hanging out to dry, so to speak, to continue on with the trauma they face every time a transfer occurs that has the victim impact we see with these dangerous offenders.

As legislators, as members of this committee, I feel strongly that it behooves us to serve our constituents well, and I don't believe this amendment will do that. Unfortunately, the original motion and the first amendment brought by my colleague Ms. O'Connell did serve that purpose, but they have been changed. Again, I'm at a loss to know how victims will be served in this way. We can't get to the bottom of what we're doing based on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[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.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right now, the public trust is being woefully undermined. I was vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when we worked on and debated Bill C-83, which came into force in 2019 and made changes to the conditions of detention. While we are debating, and working and voting on bills, the public is not always very aware of what is going on. Today, however, we are seeing the result of all this. We see situations such as that of Paul Bernardo, who was transferred to a medium‑security prison, and that of Luka Magnotta, who has already been transferred to a medium‑security prison only about 10 years into his incarceration. People don't understand why, and that's to be expected.

In this regard, the proposed motion is very important. We want to understand why the Liberal government implemented this legislation in 2019 and how the process was carried out.

We have to think about the victims. We talk about victims, but we always forget that they are the main people involved. The law is clear: Victims must be kept informed. We even have the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It has been in effect since 2014, but this government never complies with it. Victims have a right to information, protection, participation and restitution. The rights to information and participation have not been respected. These rights were violated during the handling of the Paul Bernardo case.

Why do we always have to fight for victims to be heard and for their rights to be respected?

We're talking about Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta, to name just two, but surely there are others who have been transferred under the same conditions. That's what we want to know, actually. Why do murderers and criminals like them benefit from more lenient prison conditions when they are Canada's worst offenders?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm certainly glad that all members are getting a copy of this motion. It's a very good motion. I think it hits at the heart of the matter.

This new information we've received—that the chief of staff of the public safety minister knew, that staff in the Prime Minister's Office knew and that the Privy Council Office knew—raises very important questions that need to be further looked into. This is a question about the principle of ministerial accountability.

If there is a policy, unofficial or official, in ministers' offices or in the Prime Minister's Office that staff are not to inform ministers of hot-button, controversial issues, I think this undermines a key tenet of ministerial responsibility and ministerial accountability. If that is, indeed, a policy, I think it needs to be looked into, because ministerial accountability is one of the bedrock principles of our parliamentary system of government. We cannot allow mistakes like this, whether deliberate or from incompetence, to continue. It is a very worthwhile study for us to continue at this committee.

Also, we need to look further into Bill C-83 and other legislation that I think has been contributing to this rise in the number of transfers out of maximum-security and into medium-security prisons.

With that, I'll say I support this motion and I'll pass it on to the next speaker.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour to be here on behalf of all Canadians and the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

This is what I can say in these circumstances. I think most Canadians were shocked at the transfer of Paul Bernardo, and I feel similarly that Canadians were shocked to find out that Luka Magnotta and others are not only in medium security but also in the same penitentiary.

As Conservatives, we will always stand with victims, with those seeking transparency and with those seeking the truth. It's for this reason that today we bring forward a motion to further study this in light of the significant offences that have been committed by not only these two people but others who are in medium security. It's important that we get to the bottom of the impact of bills like Bill C-83 and other policies in place with this Liberal government.

With that, I will move my motion and read it into the record, Mr. Chair.

I move:

That, in light of the transfer of sadistic killer Luka Magnotta out of a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, the same facility that serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo was transferred to last year, and given that the Minister's office was made aware of these transfers in advance, the committee:

1) immediately undertake a study in priority order, of no less than six meetings, with these meetings to begin this week, on how the decision to make this transfer was made and on the prisoner transfer process for prisoners in maximum-security facilities, and report its findings to the House; and

2) call the following witnesses to appear:

(a) the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly;

(b) the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper;

(c) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc;

(d) the former Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Marco Mendicino;

(e) the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Public Safety at the time;

(f) Janice Charette, former Clerk of the Privy Council;

(g) the Warden of La Macaza Institution;

(h) representatives from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers; and

(i) Marcia Penner, Tennille Chwalczuk and Laura Murray as individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on Bill C-320. As we reach report stage of this bill, I would like to express gratitude to the hon. member for Oshawa for bringing this important bill to the House.

Bill C-320 is an important piece of legislation aimed at increasing victims' understanding of corrections and conditional release. According to existing federal law, victims who share their contact details with the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada and who meet the legal definition of victim are entitled to specific information about those responsible for harming them. This information includes key dates indicating when offenders may be eligible for review and release.

Should Bill C-320 be accepted, it would amend the law to ensure that victims not only know when offenders could be released but also, importantly, understand how officials determined those eligibility dates.

The government supports this legislation, and I encourage hon. members to lend it their full support. The purpose of this bill aligns with the government's commitment to upholding victims' rights to information while taking into consideration offenders' privacy rights.

Victims of crime and their families seek clarity, transparency and opportunities to have their voices heard within the justice system. Bill C-320 aims to provide the clarity and transparency they seek, offering victims of offenders more information about crucial eligibility and review dates in advance.

This legislation lets victims know that we hear them. It clearly aligns with our commitments to support victims' rights, including their need for information. This bill builds upon the progress made in recognizing and upholding the rights of crime victims in our country.

Over the years, governments of various affiliations and members from both sides of the chamber have taken actions to advance victims' rights. This evolution began back in 1988. At that point, the House endorsed a statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. Subsequently, federal laws provided victims with a voice at sentencing hearings, emphasizing their rights based on an increasing understanding of their needs.

The enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 first entitled victims to receive information about the offender who harmed them. In 2003, the government updated and re-endorsed the statement of basic principles, and in 2015, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights became law, solidifying victims' rights in various ways.

Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, victims of crime are legally entitled to receive information on inmates' progress towards meeting the objectives set out in their correctional plan, to name a representative to receive information on their behalf, to access a photo of the person who harmed them prior to release and to receive reasons if the Parole Board of Canada does not impose any release conditions requested by victims. Moreover, victims can actively participate in Parole Board hearings, virtually or in person, presenting victim statements and requesting special conditions for an offender's release.

Recent legislative measures, such as Bill C-83, further strengthened victims' rights by making audio recordings of parole hearings available to all registered victims of crime. As well, the National Office for Victims, in collaboration with federal partners, continues to produce informative materials on sentence calculation rules that are available online.

The progress made is a testament to ongoing conversations among victims of crime, elected representatives and government officials. These conversations, embodied not only in Bill C-320 but also in recent legislative initiatives, such as Bill S-12, affirm our commitment to victims' rights. Bill S-12, which received royal assent on October 26 of this past year, seeks to connect victims of offenders with ongoing information and to enhance publication ban laws. In addition, the Correctional Service of Canada and Parole Board of Canada work tirelessly to raise awareness of victims' rights.

In the government's view, Bill C-320 aligns with these sensible, non-partisan and multi-generational advancements. Victims of crime and their families want clarity and transparency. They want a voice, and they want that voice to be heard. This is why I look forward to passing Bill C-320 in the House today, and I encourage other members here to join me.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to this bill, because it is crucially important that, in this country, we have a conversation about public safety and how inmates are treated, in the sense of maximum, medium and minimum security. I think it is something that most Canadians have not thought too much about, thankfully, in the sense that they have not had to experience the impacts of crime. What I find very challenging with this bill is the fact that Conservatives continually talk tough when it comes to public safety, but this is yet another example of how their tough talk actually relates to a more and more dangerous situation for Canadians.

The sponsor of this bill just ended by talking about women and women's rights, yet nothing in this legislation talks about them. I come from Pickering, right next to Scarborough. Memories of Paul Bernardo and his heinous crimes are something that women across this country are traumatized by. I will be very curious to see how many women on the other side speak to this legislation in the first place. When it comes to women's issues, one thing I remember from the crimes committed by Paul Bernardo was the complete lack of policing support for women who spoke out, who were victims of rape and assault. There is not a single mention of policing or of how to better serve women who have been victims of crime in this private member's bill.

I asked a question earlier in the House, as the members opposite were talking about their opposition day motion, about sending a note to the Senate to hurry up with legislation. However, not a single Conservative member spoke up in the House when there was legislation by their former leader, Rona Ambrose, on having training for judges for sexual assault cases. That legislation sat in the Senate, and not a single Conservative member wrote or spoke to the Conservative senators to have that bill passed. They came here today to say they speak on behalf of women and women's rights, but their actions say a completely different thing. Therefore, I want to talk about this private member's bill and why it actually makes women more vulnerable.

This bill is not just about one individual and their transfer. It actually impacts 921 current inmates, with 32% of those inmates being indigenous. The issues around the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous persons in incarceration would only be worsened by this legislation. I am going to get to that later in my speech; however, for those watching, it is important to remember that this bill impacts many more offenders than the one that the Conservatives want to speak about because the crimes he committed were so heinous, the country was traumatized.

The Conservatives want to use the most heinous criminal in our country as a way to implement reckless policies in the criminal justice system that actually will not keep communities safe. In fact, I submit to the House and Canadians watching that it will actually leave our communities less safe. Why is this? It is because of what the Conservatives fail to talk about, which is that there are different types of sentencing for the 921 inmates who would fall into the categorization that this bill speaks about. Among them, there are inmates who have a determinate sentence. That means the courts have heard their case, and the inmates have been sentenced to a certain amount of time to be incarcerated. Eventually, once they serve that time, they are back in the community.

This is certainly not the situation with Paul Bernardo, and I do not want anyone to misconstrue that. The Conservatives would love to use that to put fear in the hearts and minds of Canadians and Canadian women for their own policy agenda.

I want to stick to the facts. Individuals who serve their determinate sentence would one day, depending on the length of their sentence, be back in the community. However, based on this legislation, they would serve their sentence completely in maximum security, would have no programming for rehabilitation, would have no responsibilities, would have no assessments of whether or not they might reoffend and would have no programs in place to ensure that, once back in the community, there are conditions placed on them.

When the Conservatives talk tough on crime, they are weak on action. What this does for those who serve a determinate sentence is it releases them back into the community without any programs that would reduce their reoffending. It would, in fact, make their situation one where we could probably guaranteed they would reoffend. This is why countries around the world have determined that in criminal justice systems and corrections, rehabilitation programming is crucial to ensure public safety when inmates are released into the community. Then they have had significant programming and treatment to ensure they do not harm others again.

It is so irresponsible to bring up a heinous offender who, as the commissioner of the Correctional Service Canada said yesterday, has the highest, strictest sentence essentially in Canadian law, meaning Paul Bernardo will spend the rest of his life in prison. This bill does not speak to just that one individual. Imagine living in a community with a potentially violent offender who served their time but is just released into the public once the sentence is over. Time and time again, as we know, that does not keep our communities safe.

I could go on and on about how reckless Conservatives are, but with the remaining time I have, I want to read a quote related to the Conservative government about Mr. Sapers, who was the former corrections investigator during the Harper years. The Globe and Mail notes:

...the Conservatives [were] “tone deaf” on indigenous issues and “dismissive” of many of his recommendations....

The Conservatives passed dozens of bills, which imposed mandatory minimum sentences, changed parole eligibility, created new barriers to pardons and cut rehabilitative programming, among other measures.

He said the Conservatives did so without ever analyzing the impact. It goes to show the Conservatives have not learned anything.

The Conservatives also like to say the transfer of Paul Bernardo is in some way connected to Bill C-83 and the “least restrictive” clause. However, what Conservatives ought to know is that the “least restrictive” term was introduced by Conservatives in the 1990s by Brian Mulroney. As to the former Conservative language, Public Safety has issued quite publicly that the language around “necessary restrictions” would have also led to a transfer, which was decided by the independent Correctional Services. It said yesterday that the security and safety of the public can be maintained with this decision.

I know my time is over. I think what is most important is that the bill does nothing to keep Canadians safe. In fact, it would put more people at risk, because the Conservatives are reckless, just want to talk tough and do not do the work to make our communities safer.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

moved that Bill C‑351, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to the private member's bill I introduced on September 18.

Bill C‑351 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Niagara Falls, who introduced a similar bill last June. He is a strong advocate for victims' rights who worked long and hard to deliver the first version of this bill.

This bill differs from the previous one in one respect. It states that the act will come into force in the third month after the month in which it receives royal assent. This change was made to ensure that the bill is brought into force as soon as possible once passed.

No victim's family should ever again have to endure the trauma of seeing the murderer of a child, a parent, a brother or a sister. However, that is what happened to two families this year, which is what gave rise to this bill.

Everyone has heard of Paul Bernardo, the infamous rapist and serial killer. I will spare my colleagues the details of his absolutely horrific crimes, but he kidnapped, tortured and killed 15-year-old Kristen French and 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy in the early 1990s near St. Catharines, Ontario. He also committed roughly 40 rapes and sexual assaults. He is a real monster.

On September 1, 1995, he was sentenced to life in prison and declared a dangerous offender. In our justice system, this means that he must serve a minimum of 25 years before he can apply for parole. He has applied twice since 2018. Fortunately, both applications were rejected by the Parole Board of Canada.

Donna French, Kristen's mother, addressed her daughter's killer. She quite rightly described their pain as a life sentence. She said that that is what they got and that a dark cloud always haunts them. She said a psychopath like him should never get out of prison.

This dangerous murderer deserves every day he spends behind bars, and that is where he needs to stay forever. Bernardo had been serving his sentence in a maximum security prison in Kingston since 1995, and that is where he should have stayed until the end of his days.

However, in June 2023, we were shocked to learn that Bernardo had been transferred from the maximum security prison in Kingston to La Macaza, a medium-security prison near Labelle in the Laurentians in Quebec. The day his transfer was announced, a huge shock wave rippled across the entire country, as people relived the horrific events that occurred 30 years before. The prison transfer was done on the sly. We found out about it through an announcement made by the lawyer of the victims' families. What is more, the families were informed of the transfer only the day of. Imagine the trauma that this caused for the families who had to relive this unspeakable tragedy.

According to the Correctional Service of Canada, that situation was in line with protocol. Okay, but the transfer in and of itself should never have happened. The families of the two victims were right to condemn this situation. The families' lawyer said that the victims' families had asked that Bernardo's transfer be cancelled. The lawyer also expressed concerns about how the federal correctional service had informed the victims' families of the controversial decision. However, months later, the transfer has not been cancelled. Worse still, the public safety minister at the time, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, feigned surprise and indignation. He claimed to have been informed only the next day. Later, it was revealed that he had been informed months earlier. Email exchanges were obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

They showed that the Correctional Service of Canada had notified the minister's office on March 2, 2023, of the possibility of the serial killer being transferred. Cabinet was informed in May, after a transfer date had been set. We are used to cover-ups with this government, but trying to hide the truth about something so troubling is beyond the pale.

It was discovered that the associate deputy minister of public safety had been notified about the transfer by the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada three days before it happened. The commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada told them that the federal Public Safety Department, the minister's office, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office “have been advised” and that “we have media lines ready”.

In a tweet posted the day after the transfer, however, the minister described CSC's decision as “shocking and incomprehensible”. After being confronted with these facts, which were embarrassing to say the least, the minister blamed his staff for keeping him in the dark. It is pure incompetence at every level. For all his tangled explanations, the problem remained. Bernardo was moved to a medium-security prison, enjoying privileges that such a sadistic murderer should never be entitled to.

We on the Conservative side questioned the minister and asked him to cancel the transfer, as requested by the victims' families. The minister simply replied that there was nothing he could do, that the Correctional Service of Canada is independent. That is another independent entity. He seemed to forget that, as a minister, he had powers. He had the power to issue instructions to Canadian prison officials and make regulations concerning the incarceration of prisoners.

As usual, he and the Prime Minister refused to accept any responsibility. This is yet another example of incompetence. It is not surprising that the MP for Eglinton—Lawrence is no longer a minister. That is a very good thing. Not only do the Prime Minister and his cabinet say there was nothing they could do, but they have taken steps to make it easier to transfer dangerous criminals.

In 2019, this government passed Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Once it was passed, the bill ensured that prisons would be chosen based on the least restrictive environment possible for the inmate. Victims are not part of the equation. Bill C‑83 reversed a policy introduced by the previous Conservative government that imposed stricter standards for dangerous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada used this policy to try to justify transfers.

The lax system introduced by the Liberals allows nonsensical transfers like this. I read a chilling statistic. In Canada, as we speak, 58 inmates who have been declared dangerous offenders are currently in minimum-security, not even medium-security, prisons. It beggars belief. That is the legacy of eight years of this Liberal government: a lax justice and correctional system that allows this kind of aberration. The government is doing everything it can to accommodate criminals, but nothing for victims. It should be the other way around. This situation is deplorable, and it has to change.

We, the Conservatives, stepped up our efforts to try to have the decision reversed. I have to commend my colleague from Niagara Falls for all of the work that he did on this file. The murders and many assaults were committed in cities near his community. On June 14, he sought the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

...that the House call for the immediate return of vile serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a maximum security prison, that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum security classification, that the least-restrictive-environment standard be repealed and that the language of necessary restrictions that the previous Conservative government put in place be restored.

Unfortunately, the motion was rejected.

My colleague supported the cities of Thorold and St. Catharines when they wrote to the government expressing their grave concerns about Bernardo's transfer and demanding that he be sent back to a maximum-security prison. These letters were sent to the Prime Minister, his public safety minister at the time, and local Liberal MPs, but they fell on deaf ears. The government continued to refuse to use its power to require that mass murderers serve their entire sentence in maximum-security prisons.

He refused to take measures to resolve the problem created by his government. Worse yet, the member for St. Catharines accused those who were offering solutions and those who were trying to convey the families' concerns and suffering of playing politics. As usual, the Liberal government divides and blames instead of taking responsibility and making changes to fix the problems it created.

Another initiative that my colleague took was to propose a study at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on October 5 to fully investigate Bernardo's transfer. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP supported the government and shut down the whole thing. Apparently, the trauma caused by the transfer did not matter all that much to them. How typical of this government to systematically side with criminals.

Before I conclude, I have two recent examples that show how lax this government is and how it is ignoring victims. These are two examples of cases where the Conservative Party intervened to cancel out this government's reckless decisions. In March, my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and political lieutenant for Quebec, introduced Bill C-325, which sought to significantly reform the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, in order to make our streets safe again.

This bill would repeal certain elements of Bill C-5, which was passed by the Liberals last fall, and would put an end to the alarming number of convicted violent criminals and sex offenders serving their sentences at home. It is unthinkable that sex offenders and other violent criminals would be released to serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms, while their victims and peace-loving neighbours live in fear. This is a common-sense solution from my colleague, whom I would like to commend for his hard work on behalf of victims.

Despite all our efforts, this government remained unmoved by the suffering and trauma that the families of victims went through a second time as a result of this unacceptable transfer. On this side of the House, we stand with victims, not criminals. That is why I introduced the bill we are debating today. The Liberals made a mistake, but we, the Conservatives, will correct course. We will put common sense back into our justice and correctional system.

I hope that my colleagues in the other parties will listen to reason and support victims by voting with us in favour of this bill.

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

Okay.

Also, given this is a somewhat unprecedented transfer.... The only precedent we can find for a transfer of this magnitude is the Terri-Lynne McClintic transfer, which happened prior to Bill C-83 becoming law. Protecting all personal information—which is redacted—and given the precedent that you released the review into Paul Bernardo's transfer, will you commit to providing the review of Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer information?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Commissioner Kelly, I'm certainly glad you spoke about the need to do more when it comes to notifying victims. We certainly agree. We think it is completely unacceptable to think that victims, especially in this case, would read about a transfer in the media. It is something that I hope you and your team are looking at very closely. It is unacceptable. I think this committee would look forward to the future recommendations and changes that you will be implementing.

We had witnesses from the correctional services union and parole board representatives. They talked about more notification, but I can certainly see the balancing between not wanting interference in a transfer and the public notification, to avoid any of those types of incidents. That is not being talked about here, but I think that's a very real threat. You wouldn't want someone to try to help an inmate escape, for example, during a transfer. I think that's crucial, but to rely on that and not notify victims' families is not the right balance.

I'll leave it there, because I appreciate, as you have indicated already, that you are working on that.

I want to speak about the suggestion that the members opposite have brought up several times about Bill C-83 being the catalyst to allow this to happen. There was a quote in The Globe and Mail that the original wording around “least restrictive” was actually introduced by Brian Mulroney in the nineties and that it changed to “necessary”, which was outlined by Stephen Harper. The quote was from Public Safety, so maybe Mr. Tupper can speak to this. There was the suggestion that, regardless of “less restrictive” or “necessary”, the process for the custody rating scale in the Bernardo example would not have made any difference. Are you aware of this quote? It was by Magali Deussing.

Can you confirm whether you feel that the custody rating scale would still have been implemented the same, whether it was “least restrictive” or “necessary”?

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

This was cited in the OCI's 2012-13 annual report.

He said:

replacing the...“least restrictive” principle with “necessary and proportionate” measures seems to add an unnecessary layer of ambiguity and discretion where precision and consistency are required. This language may make it more difficult for my staff to hold CSC to account for decisions and actions carrying significant life, liberty and security interests (e.g....security classifications....

Mr. Zinger, if Bill C-83 had not amended the CCRA to restore the “least restrictive measures” principle back in 2019, do you believe Correctional Service Canada would have had more discretion under the CCRA when determining an inmate's classification?

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

I'm sorry, Dr. Zinger. I have limited time. I will move on.

Prior to Bill C-83, under the changes made by the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, the language of “least restrictive measures” was changed to “necessary and proportionate”. Is that correct?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Let me correct the record once again. I am going to quote to deal with the misinformation Mr. Lloyd just put on the record. A Globe and Mail article stated:

However, a spokesperson for Public Safety Canada says Bernardo's transfer would have happened under the previous wording of the law, which was brought in by the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

That version of the law stipulated that prisoners should be kept in prisons with the “necessary” restrictions. When the law was originally created by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney in the early 1990s, it used the term “least restrictive”.

“The result of this transfer was not affected by the passage of Bill C-83. A transfer would have also occurred under the previous language of 'necessary' restrictions,” said Public Safety spokesperson....

Mr. Chair, while the members opposite giggled and talked through that, I see why, because they want to act tough on crime but actually don't have the facts to back it up. It was actually two Conservative governments that had the language “least restrictive” and “necessary”, which would still have allowed for this particular transfer.

If we're going to talk about how to make changes to create safer public safety conditions in corrections, then we should at least be dealing with facts, not the fiction created by the Conservatives. Let them giggle, because they haven't had a great outing here today.

My last question I want to actually put forward to Mr. Sandelli.

In your opening remarks you spoke about programming and some of the programming work your members do. Thank you for that, because I'm sure it is incredibly difficult and a weight that is felt by you and your members. This study is looking at all prisoner classification and transfers, not just one individual. In lots of those instances, there may come a day when even dangerous offenders have served their time, based on a court decision, and have to then be released into the public.

How would you feel, from a public safety perspective, if an offender who had served their time went from maximum security, with no programming and no rehabilitation, directly into the community? Do you think that would make our communities safer?

[Jeff Wilkins]

In fact, there was. I know I myself was actually involved in a refusal to work situation before Bill C-83, because there were subpopulations being created with, as I iterated earlier, what would normally have been classified as segregated inmates, mostly inmates who would have been segregated for protective custody reasons.

There were areas of the institution, specific ranges, that were associated with different movement routines, so they couldn't associate with the general population.

The CSC was, in fact, then housing inmates in the least restrictive manner.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilkins, I have a copy of your organization's submission to this committee back in 2018, when we were first reviewing Bill C-83. I note that your third request was: “The reversion of language that now recommends response options be 'least restrictive' to what was previously 'most appropriate'.”

The fact is that prior to Bill C-83 the term “least restrictive” was not in the CCRA. It was actually changed in 2012 under our Conservative government, under the Safe Streets and Communities Act, where we removed the term “least restrictive” and replaced it with the “most appropriate or the necessary restrictions”.

I find the report, the review report, that CSC released over the summer in response to the Bernardo transfer very interesting. It's very interesting to me because it says Millhaven Institution developed “a plan for institutional integration. These efforts were part of an institutional management strategy to establish cohorts...with the underlying goal of alleviating subpopulation pressures, and to provide a less restrictive environment for offenders.”

Previous to Bill C-83, was there a requirement for federal penitentiaries to have strategies to create a less restrictive environment for offenders?