Public Safety Committee on Sept. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Briefly, I was unable to make it to the subcommittee meeting. Mr. Lloyd was there in my absence. There are just a couple of things I wanted to mention.

First of all, Bill C-26 is a rather large, very in-depth bill, and there is going to be a long list of witnesses. We actually don't have our side's list completely formalized yet. We're working on that as we're transitioning through the offices.

I have a serious concern that five meetings are not going to be enough. This is a very serious bill—just look at what took place this week with our own systems being down—that I think is going to take extra time. I'm concerned that having five meetings is too tight. Perhaps we can check the will of the table to see if we're going to have that set in stone or if we can be more flexible about having five, knowing there could be so many....

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

It doesn't say so in this report, but there was discussion around the number of meetings. We felt this would be a good place to start, but it's certainly within the purview of the committee to extend that if it is the will of the committee to do so.

What I'm asking for at this point is ratification of the decision.

I have Ms. O'Connell next, followed by Mr. Julian.

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

I certainly don't want to speak for everyone, but I think the position was that we would look at Bill C-20 today. I know, from the previous committee meeting, that there are motions and studies that members are interested in. For the sake of trying to establish a calendar, it's not the best decision to just leave it open.

There will be four meetings, plus one with the minister. At the time we've exhausted that, the committee or subcommittee can come back and have this conversation. We were certainly not trying to shut that down. We just felt that, for the sake of the calendar, we needed some planning parameters and this would be fairly reasonable. We're certainly open to the conversation, but leaving it open-ended, I think, is just not useful in planning our agenda and other studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, Mr. Julian.

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

I support the subcommittee's report. If we need more meetings, the committee can decide.

We could adopt the report today, and then we'll see how many witnesses we have and how we feel about the bill.

I realize that it could take more than five meetings, but we can start with that. Personally, I'm more than willing to add more meetings if necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I agree it's important that we at least have a placeholder for what we anticipate will be, but it would be naive to think we're going to get anything through or review this thoroughly in five meetings, one of them being with the minister.

We should ensure that we have it identified somewhere that.... This is an important bill. We've all been anticipating this study significantly. It overlaps with a lot of different areas. Let's not pigeonhole ourselves, and even if we say we need to add one or two extra meetings, let's not do that. Let's figure out our witness list. Once we have our witness list, let's determine how much time we think we might need, and let's be generous with it. This legislation is going to impact governments and national security for a decade or more, so we need to ensure we do it right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That brings us to one of the points in the report. We agreed in subcommittee that the preliminary witness list, people's nominations for witnesses, should be done by the end of next week.

I bring everyone's attention to the analysts' report, which is a quick summary of Bill C-26, with suggested witnesses. I suggest that as a good starting point. Of course, the clerk will sort out the witnesses according to party standing and the number of meetings, but if we need to extend that, it's open for the committee to do so.

Are we ready to vote? No.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I'm sorry, but there's one other thing. I agree with everything that's been said, and yes, if we're willing to amend that.... I like what Mr. Motz said. Once we have our list of witnesses, it will probably be a little easier, but if we already have some agreement that the number five is not set in stone, we'll adjust that as we go forward.

I thought this would also be a good place, since we're talking about the subcommittee on agenda.... I did put forward a notice of motion. It would be nice to move this now and see if we can get this—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, there is a motion on the floor.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Oh, your motion is on the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, we're on the motion.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I have one more point on the agenda of the committee moving forward, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Yes, Mr. Motz.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Another thing we have to be mindful of is that NSICOP, as I understand, has sent the RCMP mandate study back to the Prime Minister. It's in the PM's office and he has 30 days to respond. I anticipate it will be a study that will be front and centre for this committee in the very near future, so we should probably identify that as something we're going to have to look at as a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

In that regard, a review of NSICOP every five years is mandated, I believe, but the legislation is somewhat vague.

Oh, is it something else?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

This is different, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, then I will backtrack. We'll have to see where that goes.

Can we have a vote on the motion? Is it the will of the committee to accept the report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?

(Motion agreed to)

Yes, Mr. Shipley.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I circulated a motion, in both official languages, which I'd like to put on the floor right now, please.

It is:

That the committee hold no less than five meetings to undertake a study on Paul Bernardo’s transfer from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison.

That the committee invite the former Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, to appear alone for no less than two hours, to explain the transfer;

The committee invite Commissioner Anne Kelly and Deputy Minister Shawn Tupper to appear for no less than one hour to explain the transfer;

The committee invite the current Minister of Public Safety to appear alone, for no less than two hours, to discuss what the government plans are to prevent transfers of dangerous offenders to a medium security prison in the future, and that the Committee report their findings to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I acknowledge receiving the notice of motion. The motion is in order at this time. I hate to take up the witnesses' time for this, but it is in order.

I have Mr. Baldinelli, followed by Mr. Motz.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for this opportunity to appear and to speak to this motion. I asked to appear because of the importance of this motion and the importance of this motion to my community. The name Paul Bernardo is synonymous with evil in my community. The horrific crimes that were committed against Leslie Mahaffy, who was only 14, and Kristen French, who was only 15, resonate and still impact my community today.

It was the transfer decision that brought forward a number of community concerns. I was approached by friends of the victims who asked us what they could do to ensure that this type of activity or this type of transfer never happens again.

At that time, I worked with my colleagues in the leader's office, as well as the public security and justice departments, and I came forward with my private member's bill, Bill C-342, which would require all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers to be permanently assigned a maximum security classification. It would also repeal the Liberals' “least restrictive environment” standard for assigning inmates to prisons and restore the language of “necessary restrictions” that the previous government put in place.

Because my private member's bill is low in the priority list, I have also worked with my colleagues here to look at this and see that it doesn't happen again. In fact, I was contacted by the friends of Kristen French. They asked what they could do. They came forward with a letter to this committee, and I believe many of you have received that letter.

I'm going to quote from the letter:

As childhood best friends of Kristen French, one of the victims of these horrendous crimes, we call on the Standing Committee of Public Safety to immediately initiate a study to investigate this matter further, to answer many of the questions concerned Canadians' have.

Even in Niagara, the City of Thorold and the City of St. Catharines—where these horrendous crimes were committed—are looking for answers and assurances, and they have expressed their desire to keep Paul Bernardo in a maximum-security placement.

They ask us to see the additional resolutions that were passed by both of those communities. It is my understanding that the City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake are also undertaking resolutions in support of that.

Mr. Chair, I believe it's incumbent upon us, in memory of those victims and because of the actions and the concerns that have been expressed by my constituents and other Canadians, to look at this issue, bring forward the ministers responsible and find out exactly why this was allowed to happen.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Motz, go ahead.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for bringing this forward.

While the events that brought us to this conversation did not occur in my riding, I certainly have many people asking about this, who have asked me personally about this response and the government's decision.

I just want to go through two things. One is that there was an Order Paper question placed to government in June by our colleague Mr. Caputo. The reason I bring this up today is that it asks how often this happens. We've heard this in the House. Is this something that's happening regularly? That was the question that was asked. The answer came back from Correctional Service Canada.

The question that was asked was this:

With regard to Corrections Services Canada: (a) how many dangerous offenders are currently housed in (i) minimum, (2)medium, security prisons; and (b) how many offenders convicted of multiple murders are currently in medium security prisons?

Correctional Service Canada came back and said:

This report is based on information entered into the Offender Management System and its accuracy depends upon the timeliness and accuracy of the data entered in the system.

In the 1940s, the Criminal Code was amended to include provisions that gave the courts the authority to designate certain repeat offenders as “Habitual Criminals”, and offenders convicted of certain sexual offences as “Dangerous Sexual Offenders”. These provisions allowed for an indeterminate or life sentence. Dangerous Offender legislation came into effect in Canada on October 15, 1977, replacing the Habitual Offender and Dangerous Sexual Offender provisions that were abolished. A Dangerous Offender is an individual given an indeterminate or a determinate sentence on the basis of a particularly violent crime or pattern of serious violent offences where it is judged that the offender’s behaviour is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint (see section 753 of the Criminal Code).

Note that all in-custody Dangerous Offenders, Dangerous Sexual Offenders and Habitual Criminals were included in the response.

In Custody includes all active offenders incarcerated in a CSC facility, offenders on temporary absence from a CSC facility, offenders who are temporarily detained in a CSC facility and offenders on remand in a CSC facility.

Now, the stats are to the end of 2022-23 fiscal year, so that's as of March 31, 2023. Here is the number of offenders with “dangerous offender” designation in custody at the end of March 2023, by offender security level: in maximum security, there were 99 in-custody dangerous offenders; in medium security, there were 580 dangerous offenders; and in minimum security, there were 57, for a total of 736.

There is a table below that, which I'm about to provide. The document says:

The table below presents the number of offenders with at least two counts of murder on their current sentence who were in custody at the end of fiscal year 2022-2023 with a Medium Offender Security Level (OSL).

The following offences are included: First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, Capital Murder, Capital Murder of Person Less than 18 Years Old, and Non-Capital Murder as well as any break and enter offences where one of the murder offences listed previously was committed during the break and enter.

There were 239 offenders listed with at least two counts of murder on their current sentence in custody at the end of March in medium-security prisons. Now, that is a bit of a concern. It should be a serious concern for Canadians.

I guess the point I want to make in this.... I have some notes prepared and I want to stick to them, because I think it's important for those of us in this committee, as well as Canadians, to understand.

The Liberal government made a decision with Paul Bernardo that actually shocked and dismayed Canadians. He is potentially one of the most notorious serial killers and rapists in our history and was transferred out of maximum security to a medium-security facility. It's their decision to do nothing about it that has caused concern for Canadians.

The decision has ignited outrage, and rightfully so, despite what Anne Kelly, the commissioner of Correctional Services, has said, which was that the decision to transfer Bernardo was “sound”. She said, “The review committee concluded that the decisions to reclassify Paul Bernardo to medium and transfer him...followed all applicable laws and policies.” Bernardo's heinous crimes are etched in the memories of those who, as Mr. Baldinelli said, lived through the darkness of his actions. The pain he inflicted on the victims and their families is immeasurable.

The Canadian government needs to ensure that crimes—especially the most heinous crimes—have real consequences. The Conservatives and our leader, Mr. Poilievre, have been saying to the media that we agree that CSC followed the law in transferring Bernardo. However, we also said that the law must be changed, specifically a 2018 Criminal Code amendment that requires inmates to be held in the least restrictive environment possible while in custody. Whose job is it to do that? It's ours. I would beseech this committee to understand that this job now rests with this committee. We shouldn't be passing that responsibility on or ignoring it; the duty lies with us.

Local communities that were most affected by Bernardo's monstrous acts have spoken out. They are calling for actions, as we heard Mr. Baldinelli speak about. The cities of Thorold and St. Catharines have taken a courageous stand, expressing their grave concerns about Mr. Bernardo's transfer and demanding that he be sent back to a maximum-security prison, where he belongs.

If the Liberals are willing to let the most notorious serial killers and rapists in our Canadian history out of maximum security, then what purpose do maximum-security prisons have? Alternatively, Mr. Poilievre has called on the Prime Minister to issue a directive to require that all mass murderers remain in maximum-security prisons for the entirety of their sentences, or for Parliament to pass a Conservative bill, as Mr. Baldinelli has spoken to, with the same requirement.

Our Conservative leader speaks for all of us when he says that Bernardo “should never be out of a maximum security [prison]. To allow it is an injustice to victims and their families, on whom he exacted his terrible outrages.”

Our Conservative demands, however, seem to have fallen on deaf ears. They have been sent to the Prime Minister, to the previous minister and the new Minister of Public Safety, and to local MPs Mr. Bittle and Vance Badawey. Sadly, they've gone—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.