Public Safety Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. Genuis, continue, please.

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

Thank you, Chair. I will continue with the point.

I'm confused about what point government members are trying to make here, but I think I'll just go back to the argument that I was making, which I understand would be your preference as well, Chair, which is that the committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Mr. Genuis, don't insinuate that it's my preference. Thank you.

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

That's fair enough, Mr. Chair. You are discharging your role as chair with neither fear nor favour.

The letter continues:

Ms. Mahaffy was left with the distinct impression that the transfer had already taken place, or at best was imminent.

Regardless, the decision had been made. It was a fait accompli and there was nothing anyone could do about it. The decision to delay informing myself as counsel and the families until the day of the transfer and while the transfer was in progress, is, with respect, troubling. Given my role as counsel for the past three decades, it was incumbent of CSC to relay this critical development to me in a timely manner so that I could inform the families. This was not regular administrative news. A development of such pivotal importance came as a shock to the families and ought to have been processed through counsel. Had anyone considered that this transfer was done just over two weeks prior to the anniversary date of Leslie Mahaffy's abduction and murder? Does anyone at CSC appreciate the devastating grief experienced by the Mahaffy family at this time of year? While the timing could not have been worse, to affect such a transfer without any explanation under the cloak of protecting privacy rights of the person who sadistically and brutally sexually tortured their daughters before murdering them, is beyond comprehension.

As stated above, as counsel for the families, my discussion with CSC took place after the transfer, not prior to. This aside, if the families were informed of the transfer in the morning of May 29, with it being completed by early afternoon of the same day, assuming that Mr. Bernardo was transferred in a secure vehicle and considering the distance between the two prisons, Mr. Bernardo was likely already in transit. Therefore, to issue a news release that the [family] (but not their lawyer) [was] informed “prior” to the transfer is misleading and disingenuous. Further, CSC had to know or ought to have known that trial/appellate lawyers like me are busy and often in court, and therefore leaving it to the day of the transfer to contact counsel was highly problematic.

We would therefore appreciate answers to the following questions:

1. Who were the persons that were involved in the decision-making process to transfer Paul Bernardo?

2. Who ultimately made the decision - who had to sign off?

3. If you were not part of the decision-making process and you were unaware of the decision, how could such a decision with significant implications be kept from you?

4. What exact time did Mr. Bernardo depart from Millhaven?

5. What exact time did Mr. Bernardo arrive at La Macaza?

Based on media reports and CSC statements, I am assuming that references to the offender's privacy rights relates to ss. 8(1) and (2) of the Privacy Act. Subsection 8(2)(m)(i) authorizes you to disclose the information where, in the opinion of the head of the institution, “the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure.” If this is the section that you are relying upon, we ask whether this analysis was undertaken prior to the transfer and if so, we would respectfully request a copy of CSC's analysis under this subsection. We also need to know if CSC applied the “invasion-of-privacy” test stated in the Treasury Board Secretariat's Use and Disclosure of Personal Information for the purpose of its ss. 8(2)(m)(i) analysis. Our view is that that is unlawful, [as] in contrary to the Privacy Act, the CCRA, and s.2(b) of the Charter. Members of the public have a right to information pertaining to public institutions, without which public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice will be undermined. In my extensive experience in multiple cases, CSC and PBC play mere lip service to the s. 8(2)(m)(i) analysis, with the result that in 100 per cent of the cases, the decision favours the offender's privacy rights over the public interest.

We urge you to restore public confidence in the correctional system and the administration of justice by rescinding the transfer order and return Mr. Bernardo to Millhaven. He is Canada's most notorious and dangerous serial killer who must face the full consequences of his sadistic and cowardly acts. This will also spare the families the need to travel to La Macaza (Quebec) rather than to Millhaven (Ontario) for Mr. Bernardo's upcoming November 2023 parole hearing. Mr. French is 92 years of age, and this would be a significant burden.

We would be pleased to discuss this at your convenience. We understand that Ms. French provided you with the writer's cell phone number.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I believe that if Mr. Genuis had a point, he would have made it by now. It seems he has so little regard for the merit of his motion that he won't let it come to a vote. I would encourage him to do so, to let us vote on the matter and proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

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

Thank you, Chair. That's not a point of order, but I think I've been very clear about our position here as Conservatives. We believe that this issue of the prison transfer is critical and should not be—as the government has shown it clearly wishes to do—buried.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Bittle.

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

I just want to correct the record, as my integrity was questioned by Mr. Genuis and he suggested that I lied about or exaggerated what happened.

On March 21, 2024, at approximately 9.30, Mr. Lloyd asked a question of Commissioner Duheme of the RCMP and, with Anne Kelly sitting right here in this room—the Conservatives pretending that this is a priority for them, only to filibuster—then said, “With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to quickly move to a motion that I gave notice of last committee”, and went on to move that motion on carbon tax.

To pretend that this is a matter of importance because they don't want to discuss a bill that they claim to support—that Mr. Genuis, I'm sure, has gotten up in the House to support—is shocking. Then to suggest, having not been here, that I'm exaggerating what happened when it's clearly in the record.... Their priority is whatever it will take to delay this committee, and they will use whatever. Whether it is a crime, horrific facts, something horrific that happened to a community, they don't care. It's about chaos and delay. It's not about hearing about the witness. It's not about protecting children from child pornography. What is happening is genuinely shocking—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Genuis.

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

My point of order is that Mr. Bittle is misusing points of order to prepare social media clips or perhaps audition for other positions within the government, but I would like to actually have points of order related to rules and get back to the subject—

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Noormohamed, please.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

There are now two things. One is he's impugning the credibility of another member: That is unparliamentary. Decorum is indeed in the Standing Orders as an expectation, a requirement of all of us participating in committee proceedings. Mr. Bittle very clearly articulated what took place in that meeting, which ran counter to the assertions made by Mr. Genuis. He should withdraw those assertions without reservation and let the business of the committee continue as it should.

I think this notion of decorum, of not impugning and putting words into the mouths of other members, particularly when the record has been clarified, is really important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Genuis, can we stick to your topic, please, and continue with your letter? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have some substantive comments I could make in response to Mr. Bittle's intervention. I don't know that they're relevant, but I maintain my view that I didn't ever accuse him of lying, which implies a malicious intent. I do think he sometimes has, let's say, rose-coloured glasses in the partisan sense, and that informs his recollection of certain events. I am happy to discuss what happened at the meeting on March 21, 2024, but I will hold off on that. Mr. Bittle might want to intervene, but it's probably not a point of order, so I will continue.

There are a number of things that were going on in the letter—

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

There's one on file.

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

Mr. Bittle, your mic was turned on there.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Go ahead on a point of order, Mr. Brock.