Bill C-20

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments

This enactment, among other things,
(a) establishes, as a replacement of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission, to
(i) review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency personnel, and
(ii) conduct reviews of specified activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency;
(b) authorizes the Chairperson of the Public Complaints and Review Commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints;
(c) amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency;
(d) amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”; and
(e) makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have optimism. I agree with Mr. Julian that typically we should let the witnesses go, but I take Mr. Shipley at his word that he cares about the witnesses and their time. For three meetings in a row, he's had about 10 to 20 of them here. Since he has this new-found love for witnesses' time, I think we should keep the witnesses here, because I really have optimism that Mr. Shipley and the Conservatives intend to keep this short and that we will get through it and get to Bill C-20. If they're going to filibuster, then they'll filibuster, but I take them at their word that this is going to be fast.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to take any more time on this. I think we've had, as you pointed out, three meetings, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars to Canadians, where Conservatives—and I mentioned this before—would agree to something off-line that was then changed online.

We had this discussion. It incorporates what the Conservatives were asking for. It incorporates what the government was proposing. It incorporates Madame Michaud's comments. Unless there is some tweaking that needs to be done, I would hope we could just vote on this and move forward.

If any member of this committee feels that we may want to go further after having these meetings on this issue, I would agree in the same way, in the same spirit that we brought to the Canadian heritage committee, with all parties coming together, to look at the issue of safe sport. With an initial meeting that we had on Hockey Canada, it led to—for those who followed the Hockey Canada and Soccer Canada hearings—a study that lasted about six months.

I think all members of this committee will be interested, first, in hearing from the witnesses. Second, we will have the Minister of Public Safety, and it is important for him to answer questions on this and other aspects of his mandate. A third aspect is having this committee be trauma-informed, which was extremely helpful for the Canadian heritage hearings. After that, as a committee, we can decide whether to move forward, whether to continue or whether to invite additional witnesses.

But for goodness' sake, let us stop the incredible waste of resources. We have before us witnesses who come from a wide variety of backgrounds in terms of public safety and who are here to answer questions on Bill C-20. Let us keep the commitment we have to the House and to Canadians to get the Bill C-20 amendments through—and hopefully a bill that is improved—and out of committee and back to the House. That's our responsibility. As the Conservatives indicated, they want to do this study, and this study is now before us.

I'm hoping, given that it is now 5:45 p.m. on day four of this filibuster, that Conservatives will accept the yes, vote for it, and let us move on to the important amendments and improvements that we have to make to Bill C-20.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lewis wasn't here 48 hours ago, but Mr. Genuis was, and he'll recall that I gave the notice of motion 48 hours ago. Even if that was his point of order, he understands that I spoke to this issue, spoke to this amendment, spoke to this motion 48 hours ago. Therefore, Conservatives have no excuse, no pretext. They got their 48 hours' notice, even if they disagree with the chair's ruling.

Can we please have consideration of the motion, rather than these incredibly wasteful...? For taxpayers' purposes, tens of thousands of dollars have been invested now into this Conservative filibuster, when we have people from Public Safety, people from the RCMP, people who have very busy jobs, who are here to answer questions on Bill C-20. I would hope that the Conservatives would not destroy another committee meeting, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and would allow this discussion and, hopefully, a consensus on this motion.

Forty-eight hours ago, I gave notice of this. It was also distributed, as a courtesy, to all members of the committee. Quite frankly, I'm flabbergasted by Conservatives' trying to pretend that the notice wasn't given 48 hours ago and trying to overturn a decision that was made by this committee a few minutes ago, so thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to this motion.

I will read the motion into the record a second time, just to make sure that everyone is aware and that the typo is corrected:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hold a 3-hour meeting, immediately after the committee's study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections.

That the committee invite:

1. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Benjamin Roebuck; and Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims to appear,

2. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) to appear,

3. Representative(s) of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees (USJE) to appear.

Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and ministry departmental officials to come to committee for two hours to discuss the Public Safety Minister's mandate.

Finally, that the committee hold a 1-hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma-informed questioning at committee for future testimony from victims.

After “That the committee invite”, we strike the first line. That was a duplicate, so I've renumbered these.

This is a consensus of all the comments that were made—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm open to a discussion about some aspects of this, but Mr. Julian did not provide the required 48 hours' notice. The matter at hand, according to the agenda, is Bill C-20, which means that a motion has to be either on Bill C-20 or on a matter being discussed. The fact that we discussed this issue at a previous meeting does not make it the matter at hand. The fact that it was discussed two days ago does not make it the matter at hand at the beginning of this meeting.

Mr. Julian got the floor and moved this motion, which he would be entitled to do if it had been on notice for 48 hours. Respectfully, it is not plausible to say that something having been discussed at a previous meeting 48 hours ago makes it the matter at hand.

I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Julian can present some of these proposals in the context of an amendment to a motion under discussion. It is very clearly not the matter at hand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to propose a motion, which I will speak to, of course. It's already gone out to the committee members. It reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hold a 3‑hour meeting, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C‑20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections. That the committee invite: 1. The current Minister of Public Safety 2. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly, Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper, and the Correctional Investigator, and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Tim Danson, to appear, 3. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) to appear, 4. Representative(s) of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees (USJE) to appear. Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and ministry departmental officials to come to committee for two hours to discuss the Public Safety Minister’s mandate. Finally, that the committee hold a 1‑hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma informed questioning of at committee for future testimony from victims.

There's just a bit of a typo. “The Minister of Public Safety” should appear just in that second section.

The reason I'm proposing this is that, having listened very attentively to Liberal colleagues, Conservative colleagues and also Madame Michaud from the Bloc Québécois, we seem to have a consensus around having meetings. There was an insistence, I understand, from the Conservatives, who talked about six hours. You'll see that this motion refers to six hours of meetings and that we have the Minister of Public Safety before us. That invitation is on this subject, but also on all other subjects in the mandate. Also, it adds in Ms. Rempel Garner's comments about trauma-informed questioning.

Hopefully, with a bit of tweaking, we can get this motion adopted and go on to Bill C-20. We have our witnesses here today, and I think they will be giving us a lot of good wisdom as we move forward on Bill C-20.

Then, following Bill C-20, we would have that three-hour meeting with the witnesses. We'll have the minister, who's invited on the mandate, which also includes this issue, and we'll have an in camera meeting on trauma-informed questioning at committee.

I'm hoping this is a consensus that we can treat relatively quickly and move on to Bill C-20 tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You'll be next.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

When we adjourned last, we did not continue the debate, so strictly speaking, the matters that were under debate at that time are terminated.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

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

Again, very briefly, Mr. Chair, I'll be voting against the amendment, though there are some elements that I would like to bring back to Ms. O'Connell's motion: first, that we hold a three-hour meeting; second, that the Minister of Public Safety be invited as soon as possible to come to the committee on public safety issues; and then, third, that we receive a briefing on trauma-informed committee hearings so that this committee will be as well informed as the Canadian heritage committee was if in the future we are looking to have victims come forward.

I also would be proposing at that time that the union of public correctional officers be brought in. I thought that was a helpful proposal from the Conservatives.

I'll be voting against the amendment, but with the intention of proposing some amendments.

Now, Mr. Chair, I believe we're going to have bells very shortly, so we may not get to that today, but I'm hoping that off-line we can finally come to a consensus so that we can move on to Bill C-20. Like Madame Michaud, I'm anxious to improve the legislation. Hopefully, we can do that at our next meeting.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I think Mr. Motz has a few more points that he wants to put on the record, but before that, I do want to respond to a couple of things that were raised.

In terms of how a committee schedules its agenda, I think members understand that, when a motion has been put on notice, members can move that motion regardless of the agenda. I think that's an important provision, because in the absence of such a provision, if members were required to confine themselves to the agenda, then a chair could repeatedly schedule issues that were schedule one issues to avoid, let's say, dealing with another issue.

Knowing there was a strong desire among committee members to address this issue before we proceeded to Bill C-20, the chair could have, let's say, scheduled this meeting as a meeting of committee business, which is in effect what we've ended up discussing anyway. It's simply the fact that the officials were invited because the agenda said that Bill C-20 was.... Maybe, I would suggest, Chair, there was a reality in terms of what this committee needed to discuss.

The other observation I would make, though, is that it was, of course, Ms. O'Connell who moved the motion. It was a decision by her, by the government, to move the motion. Of course, our view is that this issue needed to be discussed and that it needed to be discussed with three meetings.

This is where we are. We're under the rubric of that discussion, so we are, I think in good faith, trying to put forward and also insist on our position. Our core position is that, when it comes to this transfer of Paul Bernardo from maximum security to medium security, the families have to be heard on this issue, the families have to have an opportunity to testify, ministers have to be held accountable for their actions and we need a proper investigation, a proper study of this issue. That is our position.

That will continue to be our position. Families of victims need to be heard, and we need to hold the government accountable to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

I'll leave it there.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I've said several times since this debate began, I think it's extremely unfortunate that we're spending several hours debating numerous motions that all point in the same direction, when the committee has an agenda to follow: we should be debating Bill C‑20; some people have reminded us of how important it is to them. Indeed, we've all received emails from victims who have been harmed by the Canada Border Services Agency, and they deserve to have parliamentarians take a look at this important bill. Personally, I think it's a shame for these people. I'd even say it's disrespectful to the people who are watching the committee's work, hoping that we'll finally get around to studying this bill. It's also disrespectful to the civil servants who, let's put it this way, are wasting time here while we debate another subject.

I'm not saying this subject isn't important. Of course it's important. There are probably 50 other important topics related to public safety in Canada that we could be debating here. It's just that the timing isn't right. I think we've already wasted too much time and we should be debating Bill C‑20.

That said, I think my colleague Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable compromise in introducing the motion before us. It's the Conservatives' desire to debate this subject, once the study of Bill C‑20 has been completed, and I agree. I would even have gone so far as to say that, since bills are this committee's priority, the debate on this subject could have been held after the study of Bill C-26. However, we agreed to consider this issue directly after the study of Bill C‑20. Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable motion, which I think we could all agree on.

Of course, I'm against the amendments and subamendments proposed by the Conservative Party. We've had ample opportunity to discuss and negotiate behind the scenes so we can't do it here in committee and waste a lot of people's time. The Conservatives always come up with a new proposal to stretch out debate time. They want to politicize the debate and that's really deplorable. It's no secret that they're politicizing the debate. As I've already said, I'd like to take the question even further: should we politicize this process too? The Correctional Service of Canada exists for a reason, it has specific tasks to accomplish, so I don't understand why we're bringing the minister into this.

I agree with a few things Mr. Julian mentioned about public servants, whom we once again allowed to leave after several hours of hearing us debate this.

Out of respect for the people who expect us to do our job, I'd like us to go ahead, vote on the subamendments, on the amendments and on the motion, come to a consensus and proceed with Bill C‑20. There are people who have been waiting for this for a long time.

I said that some of the blame lies with the Conservatives, who are filibustering in Parliament and stretching out debate time on this issue, but it must also be said that the committee spent a lot of time studying Bill C-21 because the government had more or less done its job well. In the case of Bill C‑20, this is the third time in a few years that a similar bill has come before the House of Commons. In the meantime, there has been prorogation and an election; obviously, this is coming from the Liberal side.

So I see political jousting on both sides and I find it deplorable. It's a subject that shouldn't be politicized.

I ask that we vote on the proposal before the committee at this time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This filibuster has been going on for a month. I don't know the cost to Canadians. It's potentially $100,000, when you think of a month of meetings while we're not considering Bill C-20 on the public complaints and review commission. That is important legislation that we need to get to. I find it really unfortunate.

Now, this is compounded, Mr. Chair, by the fact that we've already had agreement off-line numerous times. I find it frustrating that every time there is agreement, the Conservatives simply change the goalposts and pose a new type of motion or amendment rather than coming to a conclusion. This is an important subject. We've agreed that the government's handling last spring was tragic in this regard in the transfer of Mr. Bernardo. We also agree that we have an important role to play as the public safety committee.

I will say that the government's errors have been compounded by the Conservatives' errors over the last few weeks. Instead of coming to a consensus and moving forward with the study, we continue to come to a new motion or a new amendment at every single meeting. Where do we agree? We agree in having the study.

Where we left off, Mr. Chair, as you'll recall, is that I certainly had agreed—this is a minority Parliament, so all parties have to be consulted—to a three-hour meeting that included a number of those important witnesses, plus the meeting with the Minister of Public Safety, which I believe needs to be convened as quickly as possible, with officials from Public Safety, so that we can talk about that public safety issue and a number of other public safety issues. This Conservative filibuster has been blocking that invitation to get the public safety minister here. It is inconceivable to me that you would have Conservatives blocking the public safety minister from coming to testify on this and other very important issues. Quite frankly, I think the official opposition has handled this badly over the course of the last few weeks. I find this unfortunate.

We have an amendment and a subamendment, which doesn't allow me to move the amendments that I was hoping to make so that we can move through and vote on Ms. O'Connell's motion. There are three elements I wanted to bring. The first is that the three-hour meeting, which we had all agreed to, would be the first meeting that we hold on this issue. The second is that we convene the Minister of Public Safety with his officials for a second meeting on this.

I'm certainly open to other meetings on this. I've said this numerous times. However, when we look at what the Conservatives are attempting to do, I must say, having lived through the Harper regime and having lived through Conservatives steadfastly stopping ministers who had been demoted from their positions from coming to committee.... I guess we can say that the Conservatives have reflected on that. After being steadfastly opposed to bringing ministers who had been demoted as a result of their actions, the Conservatives are now saying bring back that former minister. I'm not prepared to say yes to that today, but I think it's important that it be something that we potentially look at, depending on the answers we get from the first two meetings. It makes sense to start step by step.

There's a more important element that I would like to bring up. I think one of the proudest moments I saw in terms of all parties working together in committee was in the Canadian heritage hearings around Hockey Canada. We started with one meeting—you'll recall, Mr. Chair—15 months ago. From there, all parties agreed to convene other witnesses. We made sure, as we went through that process with that sporting organization and other national sporting organizations, that we moved forward on consensus at every single step.

We also heard from victims, Mr. Chair. Conservatives on the heritage committee had the presence of mind to agree with all the other parties to ensure that, when any victims came forward, it was done in a way that was trauma-informed. The heritage committee undertook that understanding of trauma-informed questioning. We took it forward as a committee. We went through that and subsequently invited victims.

I regret to see that the Conservatives on this committee have not taken that tack, which they need to understand the impact of trauma and which this committee needs to be well versed on what trauma-informed committee hearings could be. As Ms. Rempel Garner, whom I have enormous respect for, has mentioned numerous times, these victims have experienced trauma. I don't understand why Conservatives aren't agreeing to a trauma-informed approach on this.

The reality is that we already have agreement. We know that we want to have a three-hour meeting, followed by a meeting with the Minister of Public Safety—or potentially the public safety minister would be appearing before—and then, as a committee, we can decide where to go from there. If at every meeting the demands change, if at every meeting the amendments change and if at every meeting there is a new group of witnesses or a new configuration, we will not be doing the work that we need to do on behalf of Canadians.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I say to my Conservative colleagues, you agreed to a three-hour meeting and you agreed to having the Minister of Public Safety come forward. Let's move forward with that. Let's get to those hearings, and let's decide as a committee after that on what the next steps are. I'm certainly open-minded on that.

I do believe that we need to go through this legislation, which has now been sitting on this committee's desk for months. Given the importance of having that review around CBSA and the RCMP and the numerous complaints that have come forward, and the importance that the legislation be modernized and we put in place amendments that will improve the legislation, we have to move to that as quickly as possible. The cost is not just in the delay of months on the legislation. The cost is as well in the tens of thousands of dollars when we have witnesses from the RCMP, the Department of Public Safety and CBSA who come forward at each meeting and are unable to provide their expertise because we're not even going to the legislation.

We can have this resolved today if we simply stop the filibuster, allow the vote, allow the additional amendments that bring the Minister of Public Safety forward, allow for that three-hour meeting that we all agreed to off-line and allow for a trauma-informed approach with victims. Those are the three steps that allow this study to move forward and allow us to complete the work on Bill C-20.

There's no reason why we cannot move forward today.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair. It's a pleasure to work with you both again. It's been a hot minute.

I am a woman, and I've been watching what's happened here. It shocked me a little, too, to be honest with you, so I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to this today. I will go to the substance of my colleague's argument for her motion and then try to, perhaps, propose an alternative.

My colleague said the motion she put forward addressed all of the concerns of all colleagues. I don't think it does. Some of the issues that have been raised.... I spent yesterday looking through the committee testimony. It was romantic reading, to be sure.

My understanding is that the impasse we're at in this committee is that some colleagues feel there should be more meetings, particularly to give victims an opportunity to talk about the impact from their perspective. I also don't think that there has been an opportunity for correctional services officers—particularly the union—to give their feedback on whether or not the measures the government has put in place are adequate.

This is what I propose, and then I'd like to give my rationale with respect for what I'm proposing.

Chair, I will ensure that this is circulated in both official languages to you, particularly for my colleague in the Bloc.

I move to amend the motion such that all of the words after the word “That” be replaced with the following:

the committee hold a minimum of three meetings, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C-20, on Paul Bernardo’s transfer from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections, provided that the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear alone for no less than two hours, and the former Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino to appear alone for no less than two hours, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada Anne Kelly, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Shawn Tupper, the Correctional Investigator, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, and representatives of the victims’ families, including Tim Danson, and that the committee report its findings to the House.

I would like to give an argument as to why I think this is in the best interests.... I hope I can give fresh voice to this.

I wrote an article on this topic this morning. I entitled it “Canada has a revictimization problem, but doesn’t want to find out why.”

Last June, an uproar arose when the notorious serial rapist and killer Paul Bernardo was transferred to a medium-security prison from a maximum-security facility.

At the time, the families of Bernardo's victims were not given reasons for the transfer. A lawyer for the families, Timothy Danson, described the federal government's opaque process as having a severe revictimizing effect.

As the furor over the transfer unfolded, and more details about what happened behind the scenes emerged, it became clear that the federal government had, putting it mildly, been lacking in its oversight of the process and in its consideration for the impact it would have on victims' families. Finger-pointing between Corrective Services Canada, the agency that oversaw the transfer and the office of the now-former Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, suggested that the Minister knew ahead of the transfer but failed to act on the information.

These failures are problematic for several reasons, the primary one being that the federal government, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been found lacking in addressing internal process concerns across various high-profile issues, even after major incidents have occurred. For example, the government that oversaw the failures in the Bernardo prison transfer also found itself in the same situation in 2018 when child-killer Terry-Lynne McClintic was transferred to a minimum security healing lodge.

This repetition begs the question, why did the government allow this failure to happen twice, and has the government taken adequate action to ensure it doesn’t [happen] again?

The answer to that question [for me] remains unclear, despite an internal report on the Bernardo transfer issued during the summer.

Which I read in its entirety. My article continues:

The report outlines some startling process gaps that led to the opacity and lack of sensitivity to victims' families, but likely not all, particularly critical errors that occurred within the office of the Minister of Public Safety. Further, the report largely failed to examine the impact of those issues from testimony directly from the experience of [victims'] families.

In that, it is currently impossible to know if adequate measures have been taken to stop this type of revictimization, including whether or not a Ministerial directive issued to Corrections Services Canada is sufficient. Today, there are very few public details about whether concrete processes have been implemented or whether victims' families feel they are appropriate.

The scrutiny for these questions and providing a forum for victims to have their say on the matter would typically fall to Members of a Parliamentary Standing Committee. Attempts made by Conservative members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety to review the issue over the summer were rebuffed by other committee members.

I'll get to that. Yes, there is legislation in front of this committee, but I have also been following this issue. It deeply disturbed me that I had to sit in the House of Commons and listen to how the same issue that happened in 2018 happened again. I was pleased when colleagues tried to get a committee meeting during the summer so that legislation, like Bill C-20, would not be held up. This could have been done over the summer; however, that was not done.

I'll continue:

With Parliament having resumed for the fall sitting, now would seem to be an opportune time to bring the matter forward for study.

Unfortunately, the Committee has not been able to come to a consensus on whether a study is needed or what witnesses should testify should a committee study be undertaken. The last meeting of the Committee saw Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Jennifer O'Connell use procedural tactics to attempt to block the passage of a Conservative motion that would have the Minister of Public Safety appear, ostensibly to testify regarding whether or not the process issues that had occurred in his office around the transfer have been rectified. More importantly, the Conservative motion also called for an opportunity for victims' families to appear to have their say on the impact of the government's process failures and whether or not they felt measures taken to date have been sufficient.

Last week, the Conservative Vice-Chair of the Committee, Doug Shipley, signalled that Conservative members would attempt to pass their motion once again.

And here we are:

It would seem prudent for the Committee to do so, [colleagues,] given that at least two high-profile prison transfer failures have now happened under the current federal government's watch, and others have happened with less public scrutiny. For example, in 2021, the mother of a high-profile murder victim that occurred in [Parliamentary Secretary] Jennifer O'Connell's riding, Sherry Goberdhan, described the revictimization process that happened when her daughter's murder, Nicholas Baig, was transferred from a maximum security prison to a medium security facility.

There are other issues that must be explored too, like whether or not correctional services staff feel safe—

Again, we need to ensure the union has an opportunity to address this, but I'll get to that in a moment. It continues:

—and protected under current policy when these types of transfers occur, and also other prisoners who don't have dangerous offender classifications.

Parliamentarians may have differing views on how to address the issue of punishment for Canada's most heinous criminals, be it through new legislation or process reform, but it's difficult for Parliament to have that debate if Members of the governing parties or its supply-and-confidence partners...don't...allow the debate to happen to begin with.

In that, to prevent more revictimization, I think this motion should pass, the revised motion with the amendment.

Colleagues, one meeting is not adequate for this study. I appreciate that we all might have differing opinions. I also appreciate that the government might not like to revisit this issue, for whatever political reason, but the reality is that this is a pattern now.

It happened with Terri-Lynne McClintic. What happened after that? The minister who was in charge at the time failed upward, into a really great gig. We now have gone through, I think, three public safety ministers, and it happened again. We have to take time in the House of Commons to address this issue, and most importantly.... Wait, I'll get to the most important part.

When we talk about legislation and the ability to use committee time like this to review legislation, this could have been avoided if the government had taken corrective action in 2018. However, it did not, so here we are again. The most important issue as to why this needs more meetings and why we have an onus to review every step of what happened, independently and beyond the internal review that happened within the government, is that the victims' families were clearly retraumatized and clearly revictimized—again, completely unnecessarily.

To me, that was what was most striking about what was in the government's internal report. It was not just the shocking process gaps that led to the situation. It was not just that those process gaps existed after Sherry Goberdhan went through this and after the family of Tori Stafford went through this again in 2018. We weren't spending more time on it, and the victims' families had not had an opportunity to talk about the adequacy of the government's review or the government's response.

It will take more than one meeting. I'm begging colleagues in the opposition parties. A one-meeting study on this issue will only allow the government to put forward some talking points and say that everything's okay, but everything's not okay. In Bill C-20, the legislation that this committee is tasked to review right now, many things need to be reviewed. It's an important piece of legislation, I agree. However, what happened here is now a pattern. The members of this committee have an onus of responsibility to the victims' families to hold the government to account, regardless of partisan affiliation. That is what our job is here, all of us. Outside those who hold a government appointment, our role here is to hold the government to account on the report.

The report did not address Correctional Service officers' concerns. Members of this committee have not had the opportunity to scrutinize or ask members of that group about the impact of having a maximum-security dangerous offender prisoner transferred into a lower-level security facility without some sort of plan. That poses a security risk to Correctional Service officers for a wide variety of reasons. I will certainly be reaching out to the union to ensure that, if there is not an opportunity for them to testify on that, they know why. It is just beyond me.

That's number one. I also think that many families who have gone through this need to have their say. The report did not use a lens of revictimization. It was very much an internal review. I think in some ways it was navel-gazing. Maybe I'm wrong, but at the end of the day, it will take more than 45 minutes of questioning to make that determination, which I hope colleagues would do independently.

I think it's also important for this committee to then ask, with regard to the ministerial directive that was issued, which I read at length too, what steps have actually been implemented out of that. What processes have been implemented? We don't know. The committee doesn't know. Forty-five minutes or whatever's left after a round of departmentals is not enough time. It's not enough time for the committee to look at it. I think it needs to be more than three meetings to ensure that this doesn't happen again, but I understand that three meetings is kind of the red-line minimum for some of my more regular colleagues on this committee.

I also want to know what happened in the minister's office—and not for political reasons. Correctional Service Canada, I believe in late June or early July, said that the minister knew about this transfer. At least the minister's office was alerted to this. How was that rectified? I mean, this has happened twice. It's not just about changing the minister out, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Mendicino. This is really about parliamentarians looking at whether or not adequate processes and controls exist to ensure that the finger-pointing situation doesn't happen again. Why? Because that traumatizes victims. Paul Bernardo's victims' families should not have had to watch Correctional Service Canada pointing the finger at the minister's office and the minister's office going, “Oh, I don't know. Maybe I did see the email or maybe I didn't.”

How is that not going to happen again? I do not see anything in the ministerial directive that addresses that concern or, first of all, outlines what happened. We know something happened, but we don't know what happened. That needs to be fixed.

Colleagues, this is why.... If this decision did not involve the minister's office and if there wasn't that back-and-forth between the minister's office and Correctional Service Canada, then perhaps we don't need the minister to testify. I assume he would want the opportunity to do so and to say, “Okay, this is what happened. Don't worry, guys. This is how we're going to ensure that this doesn't happen again.” I know the current Minister of Public Safety, and I like to think that he would like to fix this problem. We should hear from him on this issue.

We should also hear what happened under the past minister so that he can explain to the committee his rationale for how the ministerial directive was implemented and whether or not he thought it was sufficient, and so that it can be entered into the committee's report and recommendations to the government, because that's what this study should do. The study should result in concrete recommendations to the government to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

I also think the reason why we need a minimum of three meetings is that we should look at the impact on other situations that have had similar issues. I'm sure these families want closure. Closure comes in this instance by having a process in place that fixes the problem, but we can't get there if we don't know what the problems are. It is our duty as parliamentarians to scrutinize the government, to read those reports, to read the ministerial directives, to ask very technical questions and to ask for more information in order to make those recommendations to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

I'm not saying I know what those recommendations are, but it certainly.... Guys, this is the fourth or fifth time. It certainly bears studying and it bears our scrutiny.

I respect my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, across the way. I do. I respect her knowledge of committee procedure. I want to drive this home personally for her with a case that happened in her own riding. This is the instance of a man who, I believe, stabbed his wife 27 times.... I'm sorry. It says, “The 27-year-old woman was nine months pregnant when she was stabbed to death in Pickering in 2017.” The mother of this victim—her name was Arianna Goberdhan—was revictimized when this process failed her too.

It is very clear to me that the government has not thought about this. I would just ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to give women like her the opportunity to come to the committee and speak about it.

Without getting into more sensitive topics of debate.... This was already a difficult case, because it involved the stabbing of a woman who was nine months pregnant, and the mother of the victim did not feel that justice was served. Given that I don't believe the death of the fetus was given additional consideration in sentencing.... We had legislation before the House of Commons earlier this year, which I believe my colleague spoke against.

This was already difficult to begin with, and then it was worse because this person was transferred for a life sentence from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, and her only recourse for dealing with this was the media.

Can you imagine trying to get through processing the death of your daughter and a potential grandchild-to-be, and then having to go through this without any sort of sensitivity on behalf of Correctional Service Canada?

It impacts all of our ridings. I had an interaction with my colleague in the House of Commons in an Adjournment Proceedings debate. Because of what these families are going through, I really take offence with the characterization that has happened in these debates over the last few meetings that this is somehow less important or that it is somehow blocking victims' rights to have this discussion. Chair, I would just ask that colleagues give their heads a shake.

To the substance of the subamendment, I will try to persuade my colleagues. To each of the specific....

Chair, do you have a copy? Did you receive a copy of the subamendment?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I provided a notice of motion. I'd like to move it now. I move:

That the committee hold a meeting, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within Correctional Service Canada and that the committee invite the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; Tim Danson; and officials from Justice and Public Safety Canada.

Mr. Chair, now that it's on the record, I would like to speak briefly to it.

There have been four meetings in which we've attempted to address the issue of dealing with the reclassification of prisoners. We've had many sidebar conversations. We've had many committee discussions with amendments. The motion we have introduced here today takes into account all of the concerns that have been raised, including the issues around the lawyer representing victims, yet the Conservatives continue to play games with heinous crimes against women.

Mr. Chair, it's incredibly disappointing to see.

I'm sure Conservatives saw, over the course of last week, correspondence similar to what we received, including from several women who are absolutely appalled that such a heinous crime is being used as a filibuster tool to avoid dealing with Bill C-20. Many have pointed out that the bill is something that many survivors of sexual harassment and victimization say is a welcome tool, which we need to be moving on with.

This is a motion in good faith to take into account all of the concerns from multiple parties and what they would like to see happen in this study, so that we can move forward with Bill C-20 and the work of this committee. If members opposite.... If Conservatives decide to filibuster using this issue, women will be the judge of their issues and who is actually fighting for real legislation that will have an impact versus using heinous crimes as a way to create clickbait. I saw some members out there, filming their videos already. Perhaps it's to hit their fundraising targets. I don't know. I guess we'll see. I think women in this country would be appalled to see that sort of behaviour.

As I've mentioned, the committee has received correspondence on this very matter about the performance of many at the previous meetings. We've received several pieces of correspondence—I know I have, and I'm sure others have—about how appalling it was that some members at the last meeting, when we were talking about such an important issue.... All male colleagues on the Conservative side decided to talk over the women speaking on this committee. They were more concerned about the score of the Blue Jays game. Women noticed these things.

If we are serious about having a conversation about how prisoner classification is handled in this country and if we're serious about victims' rights, we can move forward on this motion and move forward with having that meeting. It's up to the Conservatives now. If there are other members from other parties.... I don't pretend to speak for them. However, I believe this is a motion to address the issue of discussing prisoner transfers and reclassifications. It has, like I said, addressed all of the issues that have been raised to us.

If this really isn't a filibuster using heinous crimes against women, Conservatives can prove it by voting for this motion and moving forward with Bill C-20. If they choose not to do that.... Like I said, I think women in this country realize that crimes against them are nothing more than political tools for the Conservatives to block legislation. I think that's incredibly sad and also probably why Conservatives are polling so poorly among women. It's because they see through their use of heinous crimes as political tools.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 75 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee starts clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We, therefore, ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphones, or your neighbours' microphones, are turned on. I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to thank all the officials for joining us once again. I appreciate your patience.

I would also like to thank Mr. Shipley for presiding over the previous meeting.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, we supported and put forward a motion to study these very transfers. The Conservatives use heinous crimes and the suffering of women and violence against women as a way to block government legislation. Bill C-20 would have tangible results to protect women in the workplace with respect to sexual harassment. The Conservatives time and time again use clickbait, instead of real action to protect women.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, the member is off the subject matter of his own motion, so can we stick to the motion at hand, which is debating whether or not there should be an extension of the study of Bill C-20?