Evidence of meeting #107 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 ministers.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Well, I do, but let's just make this make this clearer, and then the committee can pronounce itself on the matter either way. I move that we proceed to hear from the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
We shall continue with the debate.
Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I don't know if this sentiment is widely felt, but I do want to say I'm sorry for the witnesses, who have come here and put in the preparation, that members of the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP just voted against our giving them the opportunity to be heard.
It couldn't be clearer. We just put forward a motion to proceed to hearing from the witnesses, and the other three parties voted against that motion.
Of course, we have other business to attend to, the subcommittee report, and the chair could very easily have set aside time for that to occur. Mr. Badawey is heckling that we should just go to a vote on this motion, but I don't think it's reasonable at all to propose an item of business that's not on the agenda for discussion and say, we must have an immediate vote before we will allow the items that are on the agenda to proceed. I would suggest the committee undertake the items that are on the agenda, but that we set aside time to consider the matters in the subcommittee report.
Nonetheless, let me conclude my remarks here quickly with a couple of final points. The amendment we've proposed is to establish certain things with respect to the future business of this committee: to establish that this committee should complete its hearings and present a report to the House on the Bernardo prison transfer, to complete the work that it has committed to with respect to the transfer of Luka Magnotta out of maximum security, and that the committee should hold four additional meetings as part of its auto theft study before the end of June.
One item that I haven't mentioned yet is that the committee invite the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to appear for one hour and the Minister of Public Safety and the Premier of B.C. to appear for one hour to discuss the impact of the government's approach to dangerous drugs on public safety and the diversion of taxpayer-funded drugs. This is another urgent public safety issue.
That particular proposal does not have a timeline associated with it. It's something that could well be done in the fall. Our view is that we should hear from ministers and those responsible more generally for this file at a time when there is an acute and escalating crisis around addiction and the diversion of taxpayer-funded drugs driving that crisis.
This is broadly what we're trying to do. We're trying to establish the agenda of the committee going forward and trying to establish it on a consensual basis. We're not going to accept that a backroom deal between coalition partners, which excludes some parties, should be the basis for setting the committee's future agenda. We think it should be set in a consensual manner that allows the important work of the committee to conclude.
Of course, we're prepared to make reasonable compromises in the course of establishing the committee's agenda going forward.
The one point that we have persistently insisted on, and we will insist on, is that, given that the families of the victims and their representatives made the sacrifice of presenting their experience before Parliament, it is vital that we honour that sacrifice by taking the information we receive from them and finalizing a report and reporting it to the House so that it can lead to policy actions.
We are committed to saying that, given that they testified and given that the report has been drafted, we should complete the report. It's clear from the original version of the subcommittee report that Liberals in particular are trying to block, bury and suppress the report that has been prepared on the Bernardo prison transfer. They didn't want this study to happen in the first place and they want to prevent this report on why and how Paul Bernardo was transferred to medium-security prison from ever seeing the light of day.
We are opposed to the covering up of this information. We are opposed to Liberal efforts to bury the Bernardo report. That report must see the light of day. If other parties are prepared to agree that the report must see the light of day, then we have a lot of room to talk about the other items in this amendment. However, we will have a hard time finding consensus if the government, the Trudeau Liberals, persist in their posture of denying victims the opportunity to be heard through this report.
With that, Chair, I would like to be added to the list again, because I have a few other points I want to make, but I know that Mr. Shipley is keen to weigh in, so I will cede the floor for now. Please add me back to the bottom of the list, and I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say on this.
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Thank you, Chair. Congratulations, and welcome back to a role you had not too long ago.
I would like to speak on this important issue. I won't be quite as lengthy as my colleague was. I just wanted to mention my concern and disappointment that we're not talking about auto theft here this morning. We had a great list of witnesses who were available to appear before us, including two high-ranking ministers in the Liberal government, whom I was very prepared to ask some questions of. We have moved a motion many times to see if we could get to them. They've now left the room, so we won't be able to ask them any questions. We still have some good witnesses here, of whom it would be nice to ask some questions.
On auto theft, our study is entitled “Growing Problem of Car Thefts in Canada”. That alone shows—and we all agreed to that title—that it's a serious concern. It's been growing immensely. We've heard from a tremendous number of witnesses, throughout this study, just exactly how bad it's getting. We heard from numerous police services—the Montreal Police Service, the OPP, Laval Police, Toronto Police Services—all talking about the rapid increase.
I would just like to touch on a couple of key points, and then I will pass the floor over to my friend and colleague Mr. Caputo. I'd like to talk about the auto theft and how much it's impacting and costing residents right across Canada, specifically in my riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte. I mentioned this once before, and I'm going to repeat it, Chair. I had a resident call me in regard to their young son, who is 19 years old and had a clean driving record, and the renewal for their insurance had gone up $75 a month. They had not received any tickets for their three or four years of clean driving.
Usually, people are used to seeing their rates going down. This resident told me that when the call was made to their insurance company as to why it had gone up $75 a month, which is a lot of money, they were informed it was strictly—and this was the answer that came right from the insurance company—due to the rising auto theft issue.
This is a very serious issue. It's costing people, and it's affecting a lot of people. In Ontario alone, auto theft claims are up 524%. The Toronto police are discussing how brazen thieves are getting. Carjackings have doubled this year. Break and enters have become so frequent that a TPS officer recommended that Torontonians leave their keys by their front doors to prevent thieves from coming further into their houses. It's just remarkable what we're hearing. After nine years, people just don't know, when they wake up in the morning, if their car is going to be in the driveway.
It's a real shame that we couldn't get to some important questions for the ministers today. I had pages of great questions. I have many pages of different quotes from the police services we heard from during our testimony here. I won't get into all that now. I would, as my colleague Mr. Genuis mentioned, like to be put back on the list after that, but I will give the floor over to my friend and colleague Mr. Caputo.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair. Welcome to your new position here.
We did have two ministers here. It's unfortunate that we will not be speaking with the ministers, through the chair, in questions and answers. It's one of the few times we actually get to hear directly from ministers. It's indeed a rarity that we do hear from ministers directly.
In fact, we have many statistics here relating to auto theft between 2015 and 2022. I would have thought the Bloc would want to hear from the ministers, given that they proposed the study on auto theft that occupied, I believe, if my memory serves, over six meetings. There was a 34.1% increase across Canada from 2015 to 2022. Those numbers may be even higher, because we're now in 2024, obviously. There was a 120% increase in New Brunswick.
Now, who was here from New Brunswick a few minutes ago? It would have been very interesting to hear from him—from Minister LeBlanc. In Moncton, his home community, I believe, there was a 190% increase. We voted five or maybe six times to hear from Minister LeBlanc on this, and we won't be hearing from him today. It's unfortunate that the Liberals....
It's no surprise that they voted the way they did, but it is a surprise that the Bloc voted the way they did. It's no surprise that the NDP voted the way they did, as they have stymied and obfuscated on behalf of the Liberals for over two and a half years.
There was an increase of 105.9% in Montreal. There was an increase of 122.5% in Ontario. As my colleague Mr. Shipley just pointed out, it was to the point where people were actually being advised to keep their keys readily accessible, presumably so as to avoid violent confrontation with people stealing their cars. It's almost like harm reduction: We don't want you to get hurt, because people will inevitably be stealing your car. That's how bad it's gotten.
Now, it would have been interesting, too, to speak with Minister LeBlanc as public safety minister. Two reporters, fairly well known, I'm sure, Robert Fife and Steven Chase, actually had a story in the Globe today, which said the following:
Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc had initially promised that the Commission into Foreign Interference would have full access to secret documents, including “all relevant cabinet documents” even if some of that sensitive information can't be made available to Canadians.
Buried in a footnote in Justice Hogue's May 3 report, she said there were redactions in some of the cabinet documents handed over to the inquiry and added “discussions as to the applications of these privileges is ongoing.”
We actually had the minister here who said this. On the one hand, this isn't uncommon, as we know, with the Liberal government—the government of budgets balancing themselves and of getting back to a balanced budget set in stone after four years. It's not uncommon that the Liberals would reverse themselves, but here we're talking about foreign interference, and there has been a lot of obfuscation on this point.
We have the minister, who we could have heard from today, saying that we're going to give this respected judge all the information that we need, all the information that she needs, in order to shine the light—which, in my view, this Liberal government has done anything but when it comes to foreign interference—yet they are claiming the very thing they said they would not claim, which is cabinet confidence. This report came out today from Mr. Fife and Mr. Chase. It would have been wonderful to ask the minister about it.
It would have been wonderful to ask the minister about the 190% increase in auto theft in Moncton and the 120.15% increase in auto theft in New Brunswick. It would have been wonderful. I'm sure he would have given us wonderful answers as he campaigns to be the next Liberal leader.
Be that as it may, we won't hear from him. We voted I believe five or maybe six times to hear from the officials. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.
I'd like to move on to some of the issues in relation to the Magnotta and Bernardo transfers. It's very clear to me that the Liberals do not want to talk about this. It's very clear to me that their partners in the NDP and the Bloc are assisting them—at least in this meeting, in any event—in doing that.
I'm going to read from a letter dated March 11, 2024, from three people: Marcia Penner, Tennille Hilton and Laura Murray. They sent this letter. I believe it was to the chair. I will go through this letter here.
It says: “To say we are heartbroken is an understatement. Today's meeting was nothing short of a political train wreck and beyond disrespectful.”
Now, I was there. I'll let the people who watched the meeting—it's readily available online—decide why that was, but I certainly agree with the comments of the writers, that the intent of this meeting was to propose the motion to undertake a study of reclassification and transfer of Luka Magnotta and other federal offenders, such as Paul Bernardo—a necessary motion that all parties were seemingly in agreement on before the personal political agenda started.
Now, my recollection, Chair, is that, on behalf of the Bloc, Ms. Michaud signed to have an emergency meeting, pursuant to section 106(4) of the orders, so that we could have this meeting. The Liberals came out and said, “You know what? We're content with this meeting. We will have this meeting. Not only will we have this meeting, but we also want to add witnesses.” My recollection is that there would be six meetings. Everybody was in agreement. Then, out of nowhere, the Bloc said, “You know what? We want only one meeting, and these are the people we want to hear from.” The Liberals, who had previously said, “We agree to six meetings with these witnesses,” were all of a sudden so eager to withdraw the need for the witnesses they said were necessary to explore this very important issue—almost with glee, in my view. They said, “Yes, we just need one meeting.”
I'll go on to read here, because I think it really does encapsulate what occurred at that meeting. They say that this—referring to the motion, I believe—then resulted in the interference of good judgment and decisions, a display of childlike playground behaviour debating who has the most friends, and a public display of nonsense. The intent and focus should be on why sadistic pedophile, rapist, psychopathic and dangerous offender murderers are being transferred from maximum-security penitentiaries to medium-security facilities.
I don't think we'd have much disagreement there, although we now know there are actually 57 dangerous offenders. When I say “dangerous offenders”, I mean those people who have been designated by the courts as dangerous offenders. For those who aren't aware, a dangerous offender is designated in the most exceptional of circumstances. In a country of almost 40 million people, I believe there are roughly 815 dangerous offenders. That's all. Somebody do the math. I think the math is roughly one in 47,000, if memory serves. In my community of Kamloops—my home community, where I was raised—that would be two people for all of Kamloops. It's exceptionally rare, yet 57 of them are in minimum security.
Now, the dangerous offender designation is an interesting one. In fact, in all my time practising criminal law, I don't think I once dealt with a dangerous offender hearing, because they are very rare. I'm leaving out the nuance here. In broad strokes, a judge is essentially saying, “There is so much concern about your behaviour legally, and you are such a risk to the community and to the person who was offended, that we will sentence you not just on what you have done but also on what you might do.” It is not a low threshold, putting somebody in what's called an “indeterminate sentence”—a sentence that does not end—with a warrant of committal, as it's called, on that person. They will be committed to custody indeterminately. A judge has said, “You are so dangerous that we believe you may have to spend the rest of your life in jail.” It's reserved for the worst of the worst.
Paul Bernardo is himself designated a dangerous offender, yet 57 are in minimum security, with no fences.
I'll get back to the letter. It asked, why are the transfers being done secretly, without proper notification to the victims and their families?
That's a great question. It's a wonderful question. Had we had the six meetings, it would have been a wonderful question to ask. Why are these notifications being done? The last time I checked, much of the focus of our system should be on victims. As Conservatives, we obviously believe that victims should be at the centre.
Most people here have probably been the victim of something. I've been the victim of relatively minor offences. People have written letters to me that were threatening and harassing, and charges were laid. That's pretty darn trivial to the victims of what people like Bernardo and Magnotta have done.
Why was this transfer done in the dead of night? Why wasn't the notification appropriately done? Why wasn't there any consultation, period? I'm not sure, Mr. Chair. Well, I am. Actually, I shouldn't say I'm not sure. To me, this is a debacle that lays wholly at the feet of the leadership of Correctional Service Canada.
I'm constantly hearing from individuals. These are people on the front lines, not people who sit at national headquarters telling people what to do. If you want to know if something's working well, go talk to the people on the front lines. What they're telling me is that this isn't working. Correctional services are not working well. It's a message that I wish Commissioner Anne Kelly would hear. It's a question that I wish Minister Dominic LeBlanc would hear and actually enforce, but perhaps he's too busy shining up his résumé to become a prime ministerial candidate.
In any event, moving on to the next paragraph of the letter, it says that, instead, we chose to quote numbers of how many inmates were moved to medium-security facilities under the Conservative government, and how the ice rink at La Macaza is not in working order and was, in fact, installed under the Conservatives.
I couldn't have said it any better. The issue, really, wasn't about whether there was an ice rink, in my view.
It's funny. I was told there were skates available. I'm not sure why skates were available for an ice rink that didn't exist, and why hockey nets were there. You would have to ask Anne Kelly and her people about their carefully worded press release and the very nuanced language they used. They certainly weren't seeing what I was seeing, but perhaps we can all go for a tour one day and have a look and see what we actually do see. The photographs I've disseminated publicly pretty clearly show a hockey rink.
In any event, the writers make a very good point. This wasn't about whether there was an ice rink, whether it was working, or whether the tennis courts actually were in use or not. They were used. They were used up until last fall. I believe it was October.
However, the letter writers rightly note that what was not mentioned, or made clear, was that all of the transfers done during that time frame included serial killers, psychopaths and dangerous offenders, such as Paul Bernardo or Luka Magnotta. Here, Marcia Penner, Tennille Hilton and Laura Murray they hit the nail right on the head.
For all the people who say, “You know what? That rink was in existence. These amenities were in existence under Stephen Harper,” with all due respect, you're missing the point. Paul Bernardo, Luka Magnotta and others—there are other very serious offenders who were transferred to that jail—were not transferred there under Stephen Harper. In fact, I have great faith that a Conservative government under Harper, if this had occurred, would have taken steps to remedy this issue and ensure that it would not occur again.
To all the people who say, “Well, politicians can't intervene,” I say that's true, but as politicians and parliamentarians, our job is to react.
In this case the Liberals, with the help now of the NDP and the Bloc, are choosing not to react. They've done that on a number of fronts. They've done it very openly, saying that this is a decision...that corrections has its own view and it will make the decisions.
They also enabled this with Bill C-83, talking about the “least restrictive measures”, as opposed to the measure that ought to be the most just.
We, as parliamentarians, react all the time. We reacted to two cases that struck down section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which essentially said—again, I'm not getting into the legal nuance—that you cannot claim intoxication for a general intent offence. We immediately tabled legislation. Why? It's because that's what's expected of us.
To say that you can't intervene in a decision.... No, we react to a decision. We don't say to the commissioner, or the public safety minister shouldn't be saying to the commissioner, to move Paul Bernardo.
What the public safety minister should be doing is analyzing the regulations, or the commissioner—and I believe she probably left this out of her testimony before this committee—could issue a commissioner's directive on maximum security and who should be there.
Let's not pretend that this is someone else's problem. Let's not pretend that nothing can be done. When there is an issue and that issue is made clear based on evidence, the expectation is that we, as parliamentarians, will react. When we react, we are not reacting in a way that is intervention. We are reacting to right a wrong. It bothers me so much that....
I note that bells are ringing here, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Oh. I'm so sorry. Thank you.
I note, Mr. Chair, that there is no appetite. In fact, my colleague, Mr. Généreux, had a bill that would have returned a very narrow calibre of offender to maximum security. I believe it was for two first-degree murders and dangerous offenders, if memory serves. Again, it was a very narrow category. Very few people have two first-degree murders. In my time practising criminal law, I think I prosecuted one first-degree murder. It is incredibly rare.
What did the Liberals do, including with people who had proximity to offences in relation to Magnotta and Bernardo? What did they do? They voted against it. What did the Bloc do? They voted against it. What did the NDP do? They voted against it. This was after we got this letter, which I am quoting from.
I will go on. They said that key information to have would be how many such people, serial killers like Bernardo and Magnotta, were moved under the Harper government. It is not unheard of or unreasonable that there are certain prisoners who should be classified and moved as such.
You'll hear no agreement from me. I've said repeatedly, and I'll say it again publicly: There is a place for minimum security; there is a place for medium security and there is a place for maximum security.
I think we all wish we lived in a world where everybody could be supervised in minimum security, with no fences, living a life that closely mirrors what a person would get on the street. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world like that. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that permits it. We live in a world where there are Bernardos and Magnottas.
The question is, what do we do with that? Perimeter security aside, can this person escape?
The question, in my view, is actually one of justice. Is it just and appropriate that Bernardo and Magnotta have access to the amenities they have in medium security?
I go back to the letter writers, who hit the nail on the head. This devolved into a debate among so many people about recreation and whether this is appropriate. Let's dismantle that mistruth.
On recreation, are people saying there's no recreation in maximum security? I've been to a number of maximum-security jails—maybe even most in this country. I can tell you there is recreation in every single one of those facilities. It's not like you get moved from maximum to medium and then there's a gym. In fact, when I was at a federal institution in the Atlantic, a new unit design actually had exercise facilities joined to the unit, so that a person could safely exercise without actually having to be moved.
The argument was made of people just discounting exercise, and that people need recreation because it keeps them calmer. Do people in maximum security not need exercise to keep them calmer? In fact, you're actually dealing with a calibre of offender who is likely more dangerous. This is because the only reason you get to maximum security, generally, is that your escape and public safety risks are too high, or your institutional adjustment—that's what it's called; it's essentially your behaviour in jail—causes problems. That's what gets you to maximum security.
This whole notion of being against recreation couldn't be further from the truth. Why? Recreation is present, yet this was turned into a discussion by some, unfortunately, about recreation. The idea of prison recreation is, in my view, a discussion that is worthy of further debate. In fact, there might be people who would argue that there should be hockey rinks and tennis courts. Some may even argue that they should be in medium security, and that's a discussion I'd be happy to have.
Again, returning to what the letter writer said, this is a question of whether or not Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta should have access to such things.
The letter writers go on. This is the point they so eloquently make, which I wish I could say as clearly as them.
They said that further to the ice rink comment, no one is disputing that an ice rink could or should be at La Macaza and used for suitable medium-security offenders.
I underline “suitable”.
They went on to say that the debate is that Paul Bernardo should not be living in a medium-security facility at all, period.
I'm going to say that again, because I think it's very important, particularly for the people who voted for six meetings to one. Here it is: They said that further to the ice rink comment, no one is disputing that an ice rink could or should be at La Macaza and used for suitable medium-security prisoners. The debate is that Paul Bernardo should not be living in a medium-security facility at all, period. That is about as clear as you can get it, they wrote. This move should never have taken place.
I pause there to note that the discussion and the study of the Bernardo transfer commenced, I believe—and, Clerk, you can correct me if I'm wrong—in October 2023. As it stands now, based on the subcommittee report that we are debating, we don't even have a date for the report to be completed. That is how little consideration is being given to this committee, to Canadians generally and the victims specifically about the issue of the Bernardo transfer. We would rather talk about everything other than Bernardo and Magnotta.
It's clear to me that those are the marching orders of the Bloc. To their credit, the NDP voted for the six meetings. I will give them credit for that. The Bloc inexplicably put forward the motion to reduce it from six meetings to one, and the Liberals voted for it. They were all too happy to strike their witnesses, who they had said were all too necessary for this discussion.
Not only did we go from six meetings to one, but that meeting has not yet been scheduled. When is the meeting going to be scheduled? I ask that rhetorically, Chair, but when is the meeting going to be scheduled? When? When are we going to have this meeting? Are we going to go into the fall of 2024, or are we just going to have more pushing it down the way? It's pretty clear to me that the Liberals are happy to work with the Bloc and in some cases with the NDP.
It sure was very quick to be agreed here at the outset of the meeting, when you gave the floor to the Liberals—or when the past chair gave the floor to the Liberals, I should say—that there was an agreement there: “We don't want to talk about this. We want to talk about something else.”
We as Conservatives do want to talk about this, and I'll tell you right now, victims want to talk about this, and Canadians want to talk about this, and my Conservative colleagues and I will not lift our foot off the gas pedal when it comes to talking about this.
The letter continues, saying that it is the designation of prisoners of this calibre that is under severe scrutiny and question, not the facilities and amenities at La Macaza.
This paragraph absolutely nails it. They said that it is easy to get diverted and off track. When not directly impacted by these decisions, it is easy to brush things aside and simply say this isn't our job.
Again, I go back to the fact that I hope nobody in this room has ever been a victim of offences of this nature. If you have, I don't know what it's like, but I'm sorry for what you're going through. I can, however, say that people here are speaking from their hearts when talking about the direct impact. “Do not brush this aside.” This is what people are telling us when they come to us.
There were other letters that came to my inbox. I know they were cc'd to other members of this committee, and they didn't mince words—they know what those letters said.
It's so easy to say that we can't change this, or it's out of our hands. Well, it's quite easy to do that when you just delay the meeting. We don't want to talk about Bernardo now; let's talk about it in the fall. We don't want to talk about Magnotta now; let's talk about it in the fall. We have a draft report; let's not even discuss it. We don't want Bernardo in the news.
It's clear the Liberals don't want Bernardo in the news. The Liberals don't want Magnotta in the news. For some reason, the Bloc is prepared to help them with this. I don't understand.
They go on to say that it's so easy to say that we can't change this, or that it's out of our hands, but that as politicians, it is—capitalized “is”—our job.
I couldn't agree more. It is our job. People expect us to deal with things head on. We are parliamentarians. We are expected to deal with the tough issues. We are expected to say this: Commissioner Anne Kelly, why was Paul Bernardo transferred in the middle of the night? Commissioner Kelly, why wasn't adequate victim notification made? Commissioner Kelly, more information has come up about the Magnotta transfer—internal memorandums now—talking about the fact that we want to keep this quiet, even though when there is a heightened public interest, there is a basis to release this information.
If there is not a heightened public interest in the transfer of an offender with the notoriety and severe offences of Luka Magnotta, I'm not sure where that public interest would exist. His offences rank as some of the worst that anybody in this room has ever heard of. I feel sorry for the investigators who had to deal with that, for the people who had to see the photographs of that time after time.
Yet, here we are, saying, no, it doesn't reach the threshold of notoriety. We don't want to do that. I will go back to the letter. It says that as politicians, it is our job. I couldn't agree more. We are failing to do our job here.
I ask rhetorically, Chair, what will it take for this committee to talk about Magnotta? What will it take for this committee to talk about Bernardo? What will it take for this committee to table the draft report on the Bernardo transfer? I've been here for only two and a half years, so perhaps somebody can correct me afterwards. I'm trying to think of a time when it took so long for a study report to come to committee, especially after the hearings had wrapped up.
I believe, Clerk, you can help me out here. I'm not sure of the last date of the Bernardo hearings—likely sometime in January or February, maybe even in the fall they had come up. At this rate, we won't be dealing with the Bernardo transfer report until next fall, literally years after the transfer occurred, months after the committee did its business.
Why is this committee afraid to deal with the report? I'll go back to the letter again. It is our job. What are we so afraid of?
I return to the letter. It's your job to listen, help and implement change, it says.
Isn't it ever? It is our job to listen, to help and to implement change. If we won't listen to victims, who will we listen to? These victims saw this committee go from six meetings to the Liberals cheering on the amendment to go to one meeting.
Now we have the consequence of that, yet we still show up here and there's still no desire to address this.
One must wonder why they don't just want to rip off the band-aid. Let's just deal with Bernardo and let's just deal with Magnotta and be done with it. It happens; these transfers happen in the dead of night. It's almost like Correctional Service doesn't want anybody to know.
Commissioner Kelly, I'll tell you this: Canadians want to know, and I'll go even further and tell you that Canadians have a right to know. They have a right to know where their tax dollars are going and whether their tax dollars are being used effectively in managing some of the most dangerous and most notorious individuals. This is especially true when we talk about the use of drones in jail.
It's no secret that people like Bernardo and Magnotta in medium, and even in maximum.... I believe that over 150 cellphones were seized from one maximum-security jail in Canada in one year. Commissioner Kelly and her team have some answering to do. How is it that 150 cellphones were in maximum security in one year? I can get the exact statistic on this. I have it somewhere here. There are answers needed.
A simple fence would prevent it. When you have somebody like a Bernardo or a Magnotta in medium security, and not even in maximum.... It's a lot easier to get things like ceramic knives into medium security. I was in a jail a couple of weeks ago, and a drone had just dropped ceramic knives in there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Pardon me, Mr. Caputo.
The time scheduled for our witnesses has passed, so on behalf of the committee I would like to thank all our witnesses for their extreme forbearance.
You are released, if you wish to go. You can stay and enjoy the proceedings, but please feel free to go if that's your will.
Thank you.
Mr. Caputo, you may carry on.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
I'm going to give people a moment to say goodbye or thank you to the witnesses, if that's okay.
Can we suspend, please? It might be appropriate.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I call this meeting back to order.
Before I give the floor back to Mr. Caputo, Mr. MacDonald has advised me that there are 4-H members in the audience.
Welcome to the thrust and parry of Parliament.
We shall carry on with Mr. Caputo.
Please go ahead.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was speaking about a letter that was written on March 11, 2024, and in my view this letter really animates a number of the concerns that I have and that this committee ought to have, and while—welcome to our new colleague here—the committee ought to have these concerns, I'm saddened that it doesn't. I think that part of what this letter talks about is just how far we have gone astray as a committee. I think there are individual committee members who may have more responsibility than others.
I go on with the March 11 letter. They say it is our job to listen, help and implement change. Now, I'm going to read an exchange that took place here during the Bernardo meetings. This is from November 27, 2023. It may actually be November 27, 2024, by the time we actually get this report tabled. Actually, this intervention is between you, Mr. Chair, and the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly. I quote, member, Mr. McKinnon.
I notice a common thread in questions from my Conservative colleagues. There seems to be, still, an impression that somehow the reclassification of Mr. Bernardo to medium security is somehow a mitigation of his sentence. Can you tell me if the pillows are softer in medium security?
Her answer: “No, they are not.”
With all due respect, I think it really misses the point to ask whether the pillows are softer in medium security. In Canada, a lot of people don't know this, but there is no sentencing principle of retribution. There is no sentencing principle of punishment per se. Some people have disagreed on this a bit, but, “Are the pillows softer in medium security?” With all due respect to the chair—and I know or I believe that there are victims watching or people who are interested in watching—this is exactly the type of thing that is dismissive of what people have gone through as victims, what the French family and the Mahaffy family, and the other nameless, faceless, voiceless victims have gone through—people whose names we will never know.
I've often said our work, or the work I'm trying to do, is about giving names to the nameless, voices to the voiceless and faces to the faceless.
Mr. Chair, when we ask about whether the pillows are softer in medium security, I think we completely disregard that. I think we denigrate the victim experience. Frankly, I'm surprised, and maybe this was withdrawn, but it should have been withdrawn, because in my view, it is a slap in the face to victims. The commissioner answered, “No, they are not.” Mr. McKinnon continued:
Under the conditions of his imprisonment, he was not sentenced to maximum security.
That's true, you can't be sentenced to a security level in Canada.
He was sentenced to serve a term of some number of years in a prison.
That's life imprisonment.
He wasn't sentenced to medium versus maximum, so the change of classification is really only about managing the prisoner, managing the conditions of the prison and determining whether or not this person is a danger within the institution. They do not, in any way, increase his opportunity to be put on the street or to escape.
The commissioner said, “That's right. Security classification is very important. It's to manage the inmates where they should be managed.”
It's interesting that the commissioner says this, because escape risk is one of the things, if public safety risk is at “high”, that will actually send you to maximum, if my memory serves. I'm not sure why the commissioner would say that.
The chair said, “They do not, in any way, increase his opportunity to be put on the street or to escape.”
I've been to Millhaven Institution, where Paul Bernardo was previously kept. I saw the cell where he previously was. I've been to La Macaza. The two jails could not be any more different.
For those people who've not been in jail—which is most of the public and probably most of the people in this room—a maximum-security model is highly controlled. Particularly in new jails, there is minimal interaction with inmates.
When I was visiting a jail recently, the correctional officers would do a walk every hour. Every time they did their hourly walk, there was somebody present up above, who could use deadly force at any time to protect them. Once an hour, they would go through.
If somebody needed something, I presume they could make a request, because there was an open area where they could communicate with officers, but there was no hand-to-hand interaction. There was face-to-face interaction, but there was a distance between them.
When you go to La Macaza, it is completely different. You don't have the double-door model, as I'll call it. In maximum security, it's always two doors. When one door is open, the other door must remain shut. When we're talking about escape risk, actually, I'm surprised that the commissioner didn't pick up on this. It is harder to go through two doors than it is to go through one door. In order to get to an inmate at Millhaven, for instance—to actually see them on the living unit—I would estimate that we probably went through three, four or five locked doors, in addition to the external gate.
At La Macaza, once we went through the initial gate, we walked into the unit that housed Bernardo. I don't even think the door to the unit that housed Paul Bernardo was locked.
To say that there's no difference in escape risk is, in my view, completely misguided. Moreover, I think the point that was trying to be made is that there's no difference in perimeter security. That's true. The two external fences are exactly the same. The difference is what is between a person who's incarcerated and that external fence. In maximum security, you probably have to go through one or two fences, one or two gates, or both in order to get to that external fence. In medium security, somebody can get there.
The chair continued to ask the commissioner. He said, “Okay. The day-to-day experience of Mr. Bernardo in medium security is—
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
The chair did not ask the question. I asked those questions as a member. It's erroneous for you to say that the chair asked those questions.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Okay, well, the chair as he then was, a member of this committee, asked the following:
Okay. The day-to-day experience of Mr. Bernardo in medium security is, except for the increased access to programs, essentially the same as it would be under maximum security.
This is what the commissioner said:
Yes. He gets up. It's the same food. It's the same type of cell. It's the same bedding. Many of the same things that you would have in maximum security are there in medium security.
I could not disagree more with the commissioner. I'm going to come back to this, because I have a quote here. This is from Mr. Danson, and he speaks about the comments of the chair, as he then was as a member of this committee, asking questions. The date on that was December 4, 2023. I'm reading:
The glib comment about pillows is.... If I shared that with the families, that would be gut-wrenching for them. That would be a shock to them—to make light of this by talking about whether the pillows are softer or harder in medium security versus maximum security.
To suggest that transferring Bernardo to medium security does not disconnect us from the fact that he is a psychopath, to me, is just words. The fact of the matter is that he will have a lot more freedom and a lot more rights in medium security.
I'll go back and repeat what the chair said as he then was, as a member of the committee:
Okay. The day-to-day experience of Mr. Bernardo in medium security is, except for the increased access to programs, essentially the same as it would be under maximum security.
The commissioner answered:
Yes. He gets up. It's the same food. It's the same type of cell. It's the same bedding.
I'll bet it's even the same pillow. I'm sorry; that wasn't said by the commissioner. She said:
Many of the same things that you would have in maximum security are there in medium security.
With all due respect to the commissioner, this is completely wrong. When a person walks into Millhaven or any maximum-security jail, the security level is like a nine out of 10, if you want to put it like that. There is a super-max jail in Canada that Correctional Service is almost reluctant to send people to now, even if they attack officers, but that's another point.
When one goes to medium security, once they're inside the fences—and yes, there are large fences; it's still jail, there are still cells, and the cells are exactly the same—a person's ability to roam about is substantially different. When a person is out of their cell in medium security, they can walk around to the workshop. If they're not doing work, they can use the gym. There is so much more freedom of movement, I'd say 20 times more freedom of movement, yet Commissioner Kelly is saying yes to answer that question.
I would love for the media to go into both institutions, I don't know why we wouldn't. If you want to shine a light on the difference, then shine a light. Perhaps members of this committee should go into both so they could see the difference. Maybe we could even feel the pillows.
It's “essentially the same as it would be under maximum security.” The commissioner answers, “Yes. He gets up .” That happens in both maximum and medium. “It is the same food.” Yes, it's the same food in maximum and medium. “It's the same type of cell.” Yes, it is the same type of cell in maximum and medium. The cells are the same. They're the same size, with presumably the same mattress and the same pillows. “It's the same bedding.” Yes, it is. “Many of the same things that you would have in maximum security are there in medium security.”
What it's not saying is that many of the things you have in maximum security are not in medium security. In maximum security, if a person leaves their cell or their unit, they frequently have to go through a metal detector to get through. Given the number of drones that are dropping ceramic knives, that is a huge concern to officers, because the metal detectors won't even pick up those knives, but that's another issue, and we can get to that another day. I'd love to hear from the commissioner on that point. Well, we did hear from her on that point, and her answer was most unsatisfactory.
A person in medium security can walk freely inside the unit to outside of the unit. In maximum security, the correctional officers are in what's colloquially called a bubble, which is plexiglass, bulletproof glass.
Actually, there are firearms present in there.
I could not believe this when I saw it, but in medium security, it was a horseshoe similar to the size of this horseshoe here. It was a bit more curved, and there was one officer here, one officer roughly where the chair is and one officer to the other side.
This is the interesting part. In order to get to where the officers are, there wasn't even a door. The platform was probably the level of this table. A person had to go up two steps. That's what it looked like. That's omitted from Commissioner Kelly's comments.
Offenders like Bernardo, Magnotta and others presumably could go up those two steps. Correctional Service wouldn't even put in a door to protect the officers. The officers asked for a door, and they said no. Here's the thing, Mr. Chair. On that horseshoe, they have people who are coming from behind them. They're coming from over their right shoulder if they're on the right, or their left shoulder if they're on the left. They have a panoramic mirror, but your eyes can't focus on two places, so if somebody does something in front of you and you focus there, you don't know what's coming, so what is it? There's an entrance right there, and within three feet—three feet—of that entrance is a correctional officer.
Now, I would say to anybody on this committee, I would say to Commissioner Kelly in talking about it and implying that it is the same, that is not the same. I would not turn my back on Paul Bernardo, and I would not turn my back on Luka Magnotta, but we expect our brave correctional officers to do that at a time when drones are dropping ceramic knives in like they're candy. People are getting mistaken about whether the drone is actually dropping for them or for somebody else. It's that bad. “Is that your drone or my drone?” It's actually gotten that bad. People may think I'm being facetious. I'm not. It has gotten that bad. These officers have to turn their backs to them, without a door.
With all due respect to Commissioner Kelly, when the chair, as he is now, said, “essentially the same as it would be under maximum security”, and she said, “Yes,” she did not talk about these incredibly different changes.
I would ask this rhetorical question, Chair: I would not turn my back on the Bernardos and Magnottas of the world, so why should these correctional officers have to do the same? Why?
In maximum there are high-powered firearms and all sorts of weapons. In medium, they don't have those weapons present, and corrections won't even pay for a door. It's shocking. It's disgusting. It is a complete slap in the face to the brave women and men who work at La Macaza, who not only have to deal with people like Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta but also have to manage them physically and deal with all that comes with managing these people psychologically.
It's no doubt an environment that beckons trauma for the people dealing with it, and corrections won't even put in a door. There would need to be—I believe there are three units—six doors, one on each side. That might make the half-second difference to prevent somebody from walking straight up those two steps and stabbing an officer with a ceramic knife or other weapon that was dropped by a drone.
That's another thing, too. Corrections doesn't want to pay for razors. They showed me the razors. Razors are typically used to make weapons. It's the most common. You take a toothbrush, melt it and insert the razor. I had an officer tell me about how bad it was to see somebody who was slashed from the ear to the mouth with one of those razors.
There are razors that are tamper-proof. They're small. They gave me one. It was tiny. I have to look into this, but I was told that corrections doesn't want to pay for those razors, because they cost more money.
Again, how many of us would work in that horseshoe with the Paul Bernardos and Luka Magnottas of the world, who can easily fashion a weapon out of a toothbrush and a razor blade? Is the safety of our officers not worth the additional cost of a razor blade that would shatter if you attempted to make a weapon out of it? Through you, Chair, I say this directly to the commissioner of corrections.
It's bad enough that drones are dropping things rampantly. If you want to talk about drones and security, it befuddles me that we do not have jamming technology, so that people like Bernardo and Magnotta don't have access to those things. The response from Corrections has been nothing short of a joke when it comes to drones. In one institution, they showed me the only drones they could jam were drones that were registered and were from the manufacturer of the jamming machine. You can't make this up. How many people who are using their drones to drop drugs and weapons into penitentiaries register the drones? It's zero, yet we expect our officers to work there without a door when it comes to the Bernardos and Magnottas of the world.
Take solace, though: The pillows aren't softer.
I'll go back to the letter now. They say that when they first got word of Bernardo's move, they contacted several politicians of all different parties.
That was a pretty wise move.
I was put in touch with an organization called My Voice, My Choice, which I'm sure many people around this table have been in touch with. These are brave women who have spoken about their traumatic experiences as victims. Not only are they victims, but they are also suffering from what I and other people would call secondary or systemic victimization, like the victims of Bernardo and Magnotta are probably going through, dare I speculate, in these circumstances, in which the system reopens that scar, that victimization, even if the scar is not completely closed. It just gets opened again and again.
I'd like to give a shout-out to the people from My Voice, My Choice. They contacted people to get things changed when it came to publication bans, and they contacted all parties, which I remembered as I was reading this letter.
The writers said they contacted several politicians of all parties. It wasn't their concern which party was better or worse but, rather, which party would listen and help get this horrible decision reversed.
We could have had six meetings to do this. In fact, the Liberals came in and said we would have six meetings. Not only would we have six meetings, but they wanted more witnesses and they would have added them. It was fairly non-partisan, I thought. The Conservatives said we wanted the meeting. The Bloc signed on for an emergency meeting, and the NDP said they wanted the six meetings, and then the Bloc inexplicably said no; they only wanted one meeting, and the Liberals gladly withdrew their witnesses and went to one meeting.
It doesn't matter which party, say the writers of this letter. They want this horrible decision reversed. However, we couldn't actually even hear from the victims on that point, because the victims were the witnesses excised from the witness list the Liberals were all too happy to agree to initially for six meetings but now only wanted for one meeting.
How is that victim-centred? How is that not contributing to secondary victimization? There is no doubt, in my view, that it is contributing to secondary victimization. More concretely, it's a complete slap in the face to the victims who were watching and, as a result, wrote this very punchy letter, which says it a thousand times better than I ever could have.
The letter goes on to say that it was very clear that day that the safety and well-being of the public is not a concern to certain people and their designated parties.
We, as parliamentarians, should be concerned. I believe I know who this letter is referring to. I'll let the public judge for themselves. We've had a few personal attacks today. I'm not going to go there. People can watch the video themselves and see who they believe acted appropriately and who didn't. They know who they are, and in their heart, I would hope they know whether they acted appropriately, especially with the dismissive language that was used, in my view.
The letter goes on to say that that personal agenda supersedes any of the victims, their rights and the crimes committed against them. In other words, these three women—victims, as defined in the Criminal Code, in my view—said that the “personal agenda” of certain members around this table got in the way of our talking about what was important, of our talking about what matters.
I'm going to say that again.
I would be remiss, too, Mr. Chair, if I might interrupt.... I know this isn't relevant, but I believe we have some young people from 4-H who have joined us as well. Is that correct? I know that a few of them are from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Caribou.
Welcome. Mr. Kurek is coming to say hello. I don't think he's ever had contact with an animal in his life, so—
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
—you can educate him. Just look at his boots, and you'll know.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Caputo.
On behalf of the committee, I welcome our students. Once again, welcome to the thrust and parry of Parliament.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Returning back, that personal agenda supersedes the victims, their rights, and the crimes against them. These are victims saying that people around this table put themselves and their political agendas above them. You know who you are. They put themselves and their political agendas above them. Not only that, but afterwards, this committee refuses to study the Magnotta transfer that we all agreed to with the one meeting, which, as I noted, was from gutting the six meetings that the Liberals initially agreed to. We haven't even gotten to that meeting.
The victims are saying, “Politics is superseding victims.” What are we doing? We are not even studying the very thing we agreed to study for the one meeting. At this rate, we won't study it until the fall. In fact, the Liberals and Bloc would be content if we never studied this at all. More concretely, we're not even presenting the draft reports on the Bernardo study. What could possibly be more of putting a political agenda before victims than that?
There's a report ready to go. It's ready to be discussed. We should be dealing with this, yet the members of this committee will go on today with their daily lives, not having to live with the trauma that the victims of the Bernardo and Magnotta offences have to deal with. Many of them are living nameless, faceless and voiceless. This is the respect we show them by not even getting to this report.
Mr. Danson's reference to the pillow on the chair, when he appeared before the committee, was made on December 4 last year. It is now May 23. Six months have elapsed since that reference was made. We don't even have a report to discuss that, let alone a report that has been made public. That lies at the feet of the Liberals, with the Liberals' hands being held by the Bloc. Today, the hands were held by the NDP when it came to not hearing from witnesses regarding auto theft.
Just for reference, Mr. Chair, I'm returning to the letter. Just to be clear, those who voted against us today... I presume those who voted for the one meeting were the Liberals, at least two of whom are here today, and the Bloc, the member who is here today. The NDP member was Mr. Julian. He did not vote. He voted for the six meetings, in fairness to him. Just to be clear, those who voted against us today are telling the victims and their families that what has happened to them wasn't that bad. Enough time has passed now, and the monster who committed these crimes against them has done the time and deserves to be rewarded—very key words there—and live better than most Canadians today.
Let's dissect that. I'm going to go on to the next line here. It says, “I want you to reread that again” in bold. Then it says that Paul Bernardo is living better than most Canadians today.
I said that same thing, and I really heard about it. This is coming from the victims, so let's dissect this. You are telling the victims and their families that what has happened to them wasn't that bad. This is that secondary trauma, that secondary victimization I'm talking about.
This committee will not do what—
