Public Safety Committee on Sept. 27th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Where do I even start with this? To sit here during a filibuster from the Conservatives using Paul Bernardo and the horrific crimes and the situation that these families have been put through, to suggest that anyone needs to relive that.... Try being a woman in this country. I don't care what your age is. Try being a woman learning about those stories and hearing those stories. To come back here as a filibuster against going through legislation is truly horrific.

If this is really about.... I will try to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that I would be embarrassed for my colleagues opposite—and I'm going to say this so that you think when you come back to this committee—to take a subject like victims' rights on horrific crimes and read a canned speech that has been used on radio ads and campaign whistle stops by your leader. To use canned campaign speeches on a topic like this is truly terrible.

I am going to try to take the benefit of the doubt that my honourable colleagues across the way do not understand the magnitude of hurt that making this situation political brings to women all across this country, but make no mistake: If you're truly serious about this not being partisan, you will support this amendment in its entirety. If you're truly serious about rights of victims and understanding security reclassification, then you will support the amendment to have officials come here and explain the situation. If this is partisan, you're going to behave differently, and Canadians will be watching. Victims will be watching and women will be watching, because women across this country will not tolerate using crime against women as a partisan manoeuvre. We have proposed a very meaningful amendment to come here and hear from Public Safety and Justice officials about how this actually happened.

I want to correct the record, Mr. Chair, on a couple of things.

First, on Bill C‑83, which is the clause in question that the Conservatives continuously raise, guess what: The Conservatives supported it. In addition to that, Public Safety Canada officials have actually already confirmed about the transfer in question—but we'll do it again here in a meeting if needed—that the wording that under the law allowed it to happen existed under the Conservative government too.

If you want to talk about how to put victims' rights forward and take a victim forward-facing approach, I am all for it, but if we are going to revictimize Canadian women and women around the world who have had to suffer, then be prepared, because I am going to show that the Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites on this issue. If you want to have a legitimate conversation about how this happened, how we can improve victims' rights and how we can make women safer in this country, I am all for it and I will be an advocate at this table, but if you make this political....

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

Through the chair, if some parties make this political, then we will expose the hypocrisy and the lows that some members will go to for what they perceive is partisan gain, and I promise you that it will be a miscalculation.

I'm proposing that we bring officials and talk about how transfers happen in this country, because they are independent; that we hear from the commissioner of Correctional Services Canada and from the Department of Justice; and that we have these conversations. Opposition members, and it's mainly Conservatives who have spoken so far, have a choice to make in this moment. Are you going to be partisan on such horrific acts—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Through the chair.

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

I'm sorry.

Through the chair, if some members of the opposition decide that they want this to be a partisan issue to avoid getting through Bill C-20, women will remember. Victims will remember. We will show Canadians the lows that some members will go to for the sake of personal political gain.

If we want to talk about victims' rights, if we want to talk about how transfers in this country happen, if we want to talk about reclassification and if we want to talk about safety, then let's have that conversation.

We'll see, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote on my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

The clerk has asked if you would read that amendment. You wouldn't have it in hard copy, would you, at this point?

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

I just made it. I didn't know when the member would bring it to the floor.

I'll just read it in total: “That the committee hold a meeting on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within Correctional Services Canada. That the committee invite the commissioner of corrections, Anne Kelly; Deputy Minister Shawn Tupper; and officials from the Department of Justice and Public Safety.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That amendment replaces the motion moved.

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Next we have Madame Michaud, followed by Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Bittle and Mr. Motz.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm extremely sensitive to this situation and the pain it is causing the victims' families. With all due respect, as far as I know, the detainee transfer process is normally apolitical. So I agree with the government's amendment, which would have us hear from Correctional Service Canada officials, and we could ask them questions about this process. I think we have to make sure that it remains apolitical.

The victims' families certainly deserve answers to the questions that many of us would like to ask. Before we vote on this amendment, I would like to have a French version of the amendment, or of the new motion.

There you go. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you. I believe our clerk is working on that.

By the way, the debate at this point is on the amendment.

Mr. Lloyd, please go ahead.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I am pleased that the government has shown a willingness to have a meeting on this issue, but I don't think that's sufficient.

Our initial request was for five meetings. The government has put in a request for one meeting with Correctional Service Canada officials. However, I want to amend this amendment in a small way. I think it's important that we include some of the victims' families in this conversation, because it's important that we hear their perspective on how they felt, on the impact of this decision and on how, possibly, Correctional Service Canada or other levels of government may have failed Canadians—these victims' families—by improperly notifying them or notifying them on short notice. I think it's important that our committee hear from these families.

There's also an aspect in the minister's office, as well, that I think is important for us to explore. The minister's office was informed, but the previous minister said repeatedly in the House that he was unaware of this transfer. That raises some very serious questions about the communications between Correctional Service Canada and the minister's office. I would ask that we have representation from the minister's office—the political office—and the minister himself, likely, at a meeting so that we can explore that aspect.

Finally, so that this isn't just some exercise to say we listened to these officials who came to committee and that's it, I would request that this committee report recommendations to the House on how to prevent this incident from happening again.

That would be my proposed amendment. I would suggest probably two or three meetings. I would put that to the government.

I know my colleague Ms. O'Connell has laid a very stark.... We have to vote for her amendment or not, and we're going to be judged if we don't vote for it. However, I'd like to put forward another amendment. I think there are very good reasons for this amendment, as I laid out, and for having up to three meetings that include representation from victims' families, representation from the minister's office and the government officials who were previously cited in the original amendment. It's so that we can have a comprehensive overview of what failed in this situation and report any recommendations we have to the House so that the government can see these recommendations and, hopefully, make the necessary changes to ensure that this terrible incident does not happen again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

I think we're going to have to suspend to get caught up a bit.

You're moving a subamendment. We can't go any deeper than that. We've gone through an hour of our two hours. There's no way we're going to finish this today.

I'd ask for the committee's support to thank the witnesses and our legislative clerk for being here. We appreciate it. If we have the support of the committee, we'd like to excuse you as we carry on with this matter.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Bittle is up on a point of order.

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

I have to go in a couple of minutes. I was hoping I could get my thoughts on the record for two minutes before I have to leave the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Absolutely. You'll be speaking to Mr. Lloyd's subamendment.

We'll invite the witnesses and our legislative clerk to leave. Thank you, all.

Mr. Bittle, if you'd like to make your intervention, we'll then suspend and get caught up.

Please go ahead.

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

In reading letters from the local council and pretending to understand what Niagara went through at the time, Mr. Shipley was even going so far as to say that people my age wouldn't understand the significance of this.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. Shipley, that I remember the terror in my mom's eyes.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Speak through the chair, please.

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

Through the chair to Mr. Shipley, I remember the terror in my mom's eyes. I remember the terror in our community. I grew up in Mr. Baldinelli's riding. I grew up in the city of Niagara Falls, which is next door to my community, where many of the crimes happened—for the individual I won't name.

Throughout this debate, from June, it has been clear that this has been a partisan exercise. If it were a matter of public safety, members of Parliament wouldn't be so gleeful to mention the name of the serial killer in this place. They wouldn't read canned speeches prepared by the 20-somethings sitting behind them who have no knowledge of this but are passing up notes. Their leader said they need to hit all the talking points.

Mr. Chair, real people have been hurt by this. There was even a suggestion by Mr. Lloyd that we should bring in the victims' families. Have they been asked? Have they been consulted? Or are we just going to ask them, without knowing, for partisan purposes?

We're supposed to be debating legislation. Instead of this being a quick motion, we're now an hour into this, just to try to pick at the scab of a hurt community.

I agree that we should look at this, Mr. Chair. I support Ms. O'Connell's amendment, because there's a lot of misinformation here. This is an independent process.

To my understanding, Mr. Motz was a police officer. The mayor's office didn't call him up and tell him which crimes to prosecute or which criminals to go after or which jails to put them in. That was his decision, within the Criminal Code. He had discretion. He was an official. And now, to make a partisan point, he's pretending that this doesn't exist and using the name of a serial killer who harmed my community.

I've said this publicly, Mr. Chair. I believe Mr. Baldinelli's actions are genuine. He is bringing forward the hurt of the community. But the rest of the members are, again, reading canned speeches and talking points. It's outrageous. Canadian people deserve better than this. Niagara deserves better. I hope we have a look at this to show Canadians that this is an apolitical exercise, that there is a rule of law in this country and that politicians don't interfere in this process.

I'm sure we could all say, in this case, “Wouldn't it be great if we could interfere just in this one case?” We'd probably get most Canadians lined up with that. But that sets a dangerous precedent. Or maybe we should pass knee-jerk, unconstitutional legislation. Wouldn't that be great? But that would drag the family through years of court proceedings at the Supreme Court, just to score a couple of cheap political points, and what would that do? Niagara deserves better. The families deserve better. I hope this motion passes.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I have to leave for a community event, an organization in Mr. Baldinelli's riding that's here in Ottawa.

Canadians deserve better than this, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Motz will be next, but I'm proposing that we suspend and get caught up on the motions.

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

First of all, I'd like to respond to a couple of errors from my colleagues across the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Motz, do we want to suspend first?

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

I think we need to respond while it's fresh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay. I'll let you do that, and then we'll suspend.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My colleague across the way, Ms. O'Connell, suggested that the Conservatives supported Bill C‑83. That is not what happened. Bill C‑83 was voted down by the Conservatives and passed by the Liberals in 2019. To make this a partisan issue, that Conservatives are somehow complicit because the Liberals failed to do their job and the minister failed to do his job and reverse this transfer, and he could have.... Mr. Bittle obviously didn't listen to my comments in regard to the acknowledgement that CSC followed the law. The law is in error. The whole idea of Mr. Baldinelli's bill is to suggest that we need to correct the error. That's the whole point of our conversation today. We can't allow this to continue to happen, so we have to change the legislation. That's the whole purpose behind this.

Whether we have three meetings or five meetings, it doesn't matter. The idea is that, as a committee, we have a responsibility to ensure that this doesn't keep happening, that we don't have people who are a risk to public safety transferred again to minimum-security or medium-security facilities. You talk about the impact on families. During the transfer, the communities certainly spoke on what this did to those communities, something that happened years and years ago.

This is not a partisan issue. I have no intention of making it a partisan issue. However, the blame needs to be placed squarely where it is: The Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, failed to deal with this when he could have. Yes, CSC followed the law. That doesn't mean the law was perfect. It doesn't mean the law was right. It's flawed, which is why the Conservatives voted against it in 2019.

Thank you.