Yes.
Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's certainly a wide latitude when it comes to relevance, and the reason for attending to a specific piece of business is itself relevant as to whether or not we should attend to that business. In my view, the issue of relevance is misguided.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I don't think the issue of relevance is ever misguided.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The principle of relevance is important. It is possible for it not to be applicable in a particular case, I think, and that is this particular case, since the item of business we're proceeding to is about the prison transfer.
Our position is that we will insist that those families and their testimony be honoured with a substantial report to Parliament. That is our firm line. It's important for all members to know this, to know that when we've taken the time to have these hearings with the families and their representatives, the committee must report to the House.
Members can reflect on whether or not they will permit that to happen and the consequences of it. We will insist that the work done on the Bernardo transfer must lead to a report to the House.
At this point, as the government members have sat on this issue for months and months, at least since the fall, we are insisting on that as part of our amendment to the subcommittee agenda, which I am proposing that we proceed to.
Chair—
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to clarify what I said. I was talking about the performance of the Conservative vice-chair of the subcommittee, but I made a mistake.
I did not mean to talk about the vice-chair. I meant to talk about the Conservative Party critic. The vice-chair was not at the meeting. What is more, I very much appreciate his work.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
May 9th, 2024 / 9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
If deliberations are supposed to be in camera, then they're supposed to be in camera. If we're going to nitpick about who said what and the nature of the representations,s as implied by Ms. Michaud, then we are getting perilously close to discussing what was said in camera. I don't think it's appropriate for somebody to say, “Well, this is what happened in camera,” when people can't actually discuss that. I would ask that those types of communications be refrained from.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you.
I think Mr. Caputo's point—that he's not able to respond to what he said or didn't say in the context of that meeting—is a crucial one. Implications about people's positions are gravely unfair. They may be accurate or they may not be. I wasn't there. It's unfair to sort of half have the conversation about something that happened in private that we're prohibited to discuss.
On the issue of the prison transfer, I'm going to proceed to read the letter that I was referring to. It says:
We are counsel for the French and Mahaffy families and the Estates of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. As you know, the families were shocked by the news that Paul Bernardo was transferred from a maximum-security prison (Millhaven) to a medium security prison (La Macaza)—
I'm sorry if the pronunciation is incorrect.
—without explanation or advanced notice. They have asked that I write this letter to you. Thank you for taking the time yesterday to speak to Donna French directly. That was very much appreciated. This said, a serious public discussion is necessary—
—emphasis on “serious public discussion is necessary”—
—and hopefully this letter will contribute to that discussion. Accordingly, the families have instructed us to write this letter to you as an open letter to the public as well.
The letter, by the way, is addressed to Commissioner Kelly, but it is an open letter, as the text I read just says.
The letter continues:
As you know, Paul Bernardo was convicted of the murder of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French and sentenced to life in prison. He was also declared a dangerous offender. In declaring Mr. Bernardo a dangerous offender, the learned trial judge, The Honourable Patrick LeSage, A.C.J.O. (as he then was), made the following—
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, we are once again ranging way far afield from whether we should go to the matter of business to discuss the subcommittee report. We discussed all these matters previously at this committee, particularly in those studies. They do not help us make the decision of whether we should go to this order of business.
I would really encourage Mr. Genuis, if he recognizes the importance of dealing with these matters and that we actually get to them, to do it.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor back to me.
I wonder if some members don't understand what relevance is. The motion is, “That the committee resume debate on the report from the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and his amendment, provided that once debate has been resumed, Frank Caputo be deemed to have the floor.”
The motion before us is a resumption of consideration of the report from the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and of the amendment. The amendment is centrally about the question of whether or not this committee should report to the House on the transfer of Paul Bernardo.
Now, if the subcommittee report is not considered, we will not have an opportunity to advance that concept. If the subcommittee report is considered—that is, if we return to that item—we will have an opportunity to consider and adopt the provisions associated with the prison transfer in that amendment.
As I said earlier, it is not only within the ambit of relevance but is also centrally at the core of relevance. It is the target of relevance. It is the issue at hand—
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
Continue. We'll try to refrain from the parliamentary procedures. Just continue with whatever you have.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were chasing me for being too close to the mic, which I realize was also the case, and I apologize for that.
Continuing with the letter I was reading, it reads:
The Honourable Patrick LeSage, A.C.J.O. (as he then was), made the following findings: “...I dare say that all of the people in Ontario and perhaps Canada have felt...the revulsion of the crimes which you have committed Mr. Bernardo.” The French and Mahaffy families “...are the ones who suffered”—
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, what's the relevance? This is not relevant to the question at hand.