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
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Bittle, I didn't interrupt you here. You've just arrived. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you as well. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Caputo, please avoid the back-and-forth. If you have an issue with Mr. Bittle, please raise it with the chair.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I was speaking, and I have the floor. I am raising it with you because all comments go through you.
Through you, I did not interrupt Mr. Bittle. I don't intend to interrupt Mr. Bittle.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Through you, Mr. Chair, I would ask him to not interrupt me and afford me the same courtesy that I intend to afford to him.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Bittle's mic keeps turning on, and he doesn't have the floor.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Mr. Genuis and Ms. O'Connell, let us maintain some order here.
Mr. Caputo, I believe you have the floor.
Liberal
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I go back to this letter that I was speaking about. Let's repeat that last paragraph again, because I think it's quite germane to what we just observed here. They said that, just to be clear, the members who voted against them today were telling the victims and their families that what 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 and live better than most Canadians today. They wanted us to read that again: Paul Bernardo is living better than most Canadians today.
Since we brought this up—I'm sorry; I'll try to keep my voice down—let's talk about Mr. Généreux's private member's bill, which would have sent Paul Bernardo back to maximum security. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about how members around this table voted. I voted in favour of it. Mr. Shipley voted in favour of it. Mr. Viersen voted in favour of it. How did the Liberals vote? They voted against. Every one of them voted against. The NDP voted against it. The Bloc voted against it. This is exactly what, in my view, is being contemplated by this letter.
Moving on in the letter, they said they prayed that nothing like this would ever happen to us or our families, but they could say with certainty that if the tables were turned, the meeting that day would have had a whole different outcome.
I think it's actually a very charitable thing to say in the circumstances, “We pray that nothing like this ever happens to your families.”
Now, this is the whole point that was being made in the letter: Victims are experiencing something differently. Victims have met with members—I'm sorry, but my voice was getting loud again. Victims have met with members of this committee, the victims in the Bernardo matter. I know because I was cc'd on the emails that were sent to members of this committee, who seem more intent on making a joke out of things than treating this issue with the dignity and seriousness it deserves. We weren't there. We weren't them, and what are we doing? We're saying that we're not getting to the study of Magnotta that we all agreed to—from six meetings to one—just that one meeting, we don't want to get to it. What are we all saying? We don't want to table the Bernardo report, even though it looks like meetings wrapped up in December, January or maybe February.
Clerk, you can advise us of the dates, I'm sure.
However, I pause to say this. What if they were our sisters? What if they were our brothers? I have two sisters. I have a daughter. I have lots of friends, I think.
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
That was pretty good.
If this were us, would we be prepared to make the same claim? Would we be prepared to vote the same way on Bernard Généreux's private member's bill, which would have sent Paul Bernardo back to maximum security? Would we have been prepared to do that? I don't believe for a second that we would have. That is the problem with the approach taken by the Liberals and the Bloc when it came to the reduction of six meetings to one, and when it comes to the subcommittee report we have before us, which doesn't have either the Magnotta meeting or the completion of the Bernardo study on the list. If the victim were our brother, sister, friend, family or anybody we knew, it's my view that our approach would be radically different.
I'm going back to the letter: “Our best friend's voice may have been stolen from her, but let us be very clear: She is as loud as ever and will forever be heard.” Yes, your best friend's voice will forever be heard. “She will live on, and I hope that we will not forget. We will never stop fighting for her and for the justice of her and all victims alike.” It's signed Marcia Penner, Tennille Hilton and Laura Murray.
Yes, there are things that are more important than asking whether the pillows are softer in medium security. There are things that are more important than what we do here today in the eyes of some. In my eyes, it's more important to address the fact that this committee undertook a study of the transfer of Paul Bernardo and doesn't want to report on it, or that this committee undertook the position that it would study the Luka Magnotta transfer, despite changing from six meetings to one. That still hasn't been scheduled. This letter, in my view, says it all.
With that, I'll give my time to someone else here. Thank you.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'll be relatively brief here, but I want to add a couple of quick comments. There has been a desire for other members to offer commentary, and to do so through points of order. I don't understand why they don't just speak to the issue in the usual fashion.
I want to add that what we're doing here is pushing for the committee to complete its report on the Paul Bernardo prison transfer. My colleague Mr. Caputo has done a great deal of excellent work on the issue of prison transfers, which includes going to prisons and understanding the situation that is on the ground in those places.
He's talked about the importance of getting it right when it comes to protecting the rights of victims and ensuring that heinous criminals remain in the appropriate level of security prison.
In the context of this committee, we are saying that, whatever one's view on that issue, it is appropriate that the committee, having done this study, should provide a report to the House. There is a draft report, and it should simply be completed and presented to the House. Liberals are trying to block this report.
That's the context. Conservatives are fighting for the release of the report on the Bernardo prison transfer. We have proposed an amendment to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure's report that calls for the release of that report. We're certainly prepared to discuss, engage and negotiate on all other matters, but we are insisting on the release of the Bernardo report and that that work be completed. I hope members will see the value of that substantively and will work with us to realize that objective.
I did want to add to the conversation by saying that this is another case where we have Trudeau Liberals trying to avoid responsibility for what are in fact government decisions. Persistently across a range of different areas, Liberals want you to believe that they are not responsible for the things that happen under their watch. Justin Trudeau has been the Prime Minister of this country for nine years, yet he denies responsibility for any of the things that happened under his tenure.
In this particular case, with the question of prisoner transfers, it is up to Parliament to establish rules and to propose and consider amendments to the law that deal with the level of security that a person experiences in prison.
The decision not to pass a law is a policy choice, just as the decision to pass a law in that regard is a policy choice. All of the other systems and people who work within the public service operate within a framework of law established by Parliament.
We have a system of rule of law and parliamentary supremacy, so public servants don't make arbitrary decisions without reference to law and policy; they act within laws that are established. As you would expect, Conservatives proposed a change to the law in Parliament as it relates to these issues of security.
That law was proposed by a Conservative MP, Mr. Bernard Généreux. The bill is Bill C-351. Those members of the public who are interested in this issue of the prison transfer can and should consult the appropriate sites for details on what happened with this bill, what was said in the various debates, how it unfolded and what the final vote on that bill was.
Sadly, it did not pass; and it didn't pass because the other parties voted against it—all of them, as Mr. Caputo mentioned.
I'll just very simply read the summary, so there's no doubt about what this bill would have done:
This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.
If this bill had become law, Paul Bernardo would have been sent back to maximum-security prison. Parliament did have a chance to vote precisely on this matter. The bill didn't name any individual, but it invited the House to make a determination on a matter of law related specifically to the circumstances that were at play in the Bernardo transfer case.
That bill is no more. If it had passed, it would have gone to a committee, perhaps this committee or perhaps the justice committee; I'm not sure. However, had it passed, it would have been referred to a committee and at least for study.
I would submit to members that, at second reading, the vote is not on this specific text but on the principle of the bill. The principle that was being considered with Bill C-351 was the principle of the bill, but there would have been plenty of time for study and amendment. I know there are cases in which members do vote at second reading for a bill that they think merits further study, even if they have concerns about aspects of the text and even if they might well plan to vote a different way at third reading. Second reading is a chance to consider the principle before the House.
Members of other parties voted against it.
During debate on Bill C-351, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, spoke to the bill. That will surprise some members, but Mr. Lamoureux did speak to Bill C-351.
He said:
It is one of the planks the Conservative Party's members talk about. If we remember, there are four things that they talk about, saying these are the things they would do if they were—
He said “heaven forbid”.
—to form government. One of them is to abolish crime.
He continued:
I am not too sure exactly how they are going to abolish crime. I think they have some sort of wand or, through legislation, they are going to make it illegal to commit a crime and, therefore, if it is illegal to commit a crime, crime will go away. I suspect that is what they are thinking.
Those were the profound reflections of the member for Winnipeg North in the House of Commons.
He is right, to a point, that the Conservative priorities we have been articulating in Parliament are to “axe the tax”, “build the homes”, “fix the budget” and “stop the crime”. “Stop the crime” is one of those four.
Mr. Lamoureux is wondering how, exactly, the Conservatives will go about stopping the crime. The modest proposal I would maybe start with is that we will repeal the Liberal policies that have demonstrably led to an increase in crime. Violent crime was dropping in this country prior to the change in government.
Liberals made specific policy changes, based on their ideology, and those policy changes had consequences. The trajectory of crime in this country was reversed. We've talked about some of these statistics. There's the astronomical growth in crime under this government, or, in particular, certain areas of crime, such as auto theft. I was sharing statistics earlier on the numbers around auto theft.
I didn't get to mention the numbers for Winnipeg, but since I'm referencing Mr. Lamoureux's comments, I should say that the rate of auto theft in Winnipeg went up by 62.5% during the time the Liberals were in government.
What are we to make of that, Chair?
The 62.5% increase in auto theft in Winnipeg is not of the same magnitude as the increases in other areas, like the well over 200% increase in the greater Toronto area and the over 100% increase in Montreal.
Crime has gone up dramatically under the Liberals. The Liberal parliamentary secretary is asking, as part of the debate on Bill C-351, what Conservatives would do to stop the crime.
Well, we would start by stopping the Liberal policies that have led to an increase in crime. There may well be more to do after that, but that would seem like a logical place to start.
In the course of debate on Bill C-351.... Again, we had a bill before Parliament that would have addressed precisely this problem. The Liberals want to know how it could happen that a person would be transferred from maximum security to medium security. Well, how could it happen that they voted against the bill that would solve the problem?
It's a very simple matter that could have been addressed with a vote at second reading on the bill. Any members with specific concerns about specific mechanics could well have brought those concerns to the committee study and maybe proposed reasonable amendments to the bill.
Sadly, Bill C-351 was defeated. When given the chance, other parties voted against fixing this problem. They voted, in effect, in favour of continuing to allow prison transfers for Bernardo and people like him, from maximum to medium security.
I will say that, in particular, this bill would not just have prevented things like this from happening again. This bill would have required that inmates who fit a particular description be assigned a maximum-security classification. The effect of this is that Mr. Bernardo would have been sent back to a maximum-security prison as soon as this legislation passed.
In any event, this bill was defeated.
Our position is that the report related to the prison transfer, which has now been sitting on the shelf for six months at this committee, be published. Because of the rules of in camera, members and staff are not able to share that report with the public. The committee should finish its work on that report. We know drafting instructions were given and, as such, we can presume there is a report that is ready, but it has not been tabled in the House.
To honour the victims and, hopefully, to hear some concrete recommendations, I suggest we proceed with that report. That is our position. That is what we're establishing through this process.
I hope we'll see support for my amendment, which would ensure that work gets done.
I hope the report contains a recommendation that measures like Bill C-351 are reconsidered. Of course, procedurally, I don't that think can happen in this Parliament, but you can be sure that in the next Parliament, members will be fully engaged with these issues of protecting the rights of victims.
A Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre will put the rights of victims first. We will ensure that victims who have suffered at the hands of violent criminals are not shocked and revictimized by finding out that in the middle of the night the person who brutalized their family was transferred to a medium-security prison and they weren't even engaged in the process in any way.
You can be sure we will use the legislative authority that the House has and not constantly pass off responsibility, as this government has always done.
Chair, I've spoken mainly on Bill C-351 and the prison transfer. There are a number of other issues dealt with in this amendment, and one of them is auto theft. Maybe that's what he's going to focus on, or maybe it's something else. I don't know, but I'm eager to hear from my colleague Mr. Viersen, who has forgotten more than I will ever know about cars in general. I will cede the floor, but I'd like to be added back at the bottom of the list.
Liberal
