Public Safety Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Please direct the hard copy, if you could, to the clerk so he can make sure he has them correctly. Then we can get them translated properly.

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

I'll do my best, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

The debate continues with Mr. Julian on the subamendment.

It's Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Motz and Madame Michaud.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, since Mr. Genuis has just spoken for half an hour, it's very obvious that we won't be moving on to the bill today. The witnesses have extremely important jobs and their time is precious, so I ask that we let them get back to their work. It's not appropriate to let them sit through this parliamentary filibuster when they have so many other important things to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Is it the will of the committee to proceed thus?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I would like to thank the witnesses and our legislative clerks, as well, for attending once again. I appreciate your patience, all of you. We will get to you, I promise, someday.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This filibuster has been going on for a month. I don't know the cost to Canadians. It's potentially $100,000, when you think of a month of meetings while we're not considering Bill C-20 on the public complaints and review commission. That is important legislation that we need to get to. I find it really unfortunate.

Now, this is compounded, Mr. Chair, by the fact that we've already had agreement off-line numerous times. I find it frustrating that every time there is agreement, the Conservatives simply change the goalposts and pose a new type of motion or amendment rather than coming to a conclusion. This is an important subject. We've agreed that the government's handling last spring was tragic in this regard in the transfer of Mr. Bernardo. We also agree that we have an important role to play as the public safety committee.

I will say that the government's errors have been compounded by the Conservatives' errors over the last few weeks. Instead of coming to a consensus and moving forward with the study, we continue to come to a new motion or a new amendment at every single meeting. Where do we agree? We agree in having the study.

Where we left off, Mr. Chair, as you'll recall, is that I certainly had agreed—this is a minority Parliament, so all parties have to be consulted—to a three-hour meeting that included a number of those important witnesses, plus the meeting with the Minister of Public Safety, which I believe needs to be convened as quickly as possible, with officials from Public Safety, so that we can talk about that public safety issue and a number of other public safety issues. This Conservative filibuster has been blocking that invitation to get the public safety minister here. It is inconceivable to me that you would have Conservatives blocking the public safety minister from coming to testify on this and other very important issues. Quite frankly, I think the official opposition has handled this badly over the course of the last few weeks. I find this unfortunate.

We have an amendment and a subamendment, which doesn't allow me to move the amendments that I was hoping to make so that we can move through and vote on Ms. O'Connell's motion. There are three elements I wanted to bring. The first is that the three-hour meeting, which we had all agreed to, would be the first meeting that we hold on this issue. The second is that we convene the Minister of Public Safety with his officials for a second meeting on this.

I'm certainly open to other meetings on this. I've said this numerous times. However, when we look at what the Conservatives are attempting to do, I must say, having lived through the Harper regime and having lived through Conservatives steadfastly stopping ministers who had been demoted from their positions from coming to committee.... I guess we can say that the Conservatives have reflected on that. After being steadfastly opposed to bringing ministers who had been demoted as a result of their actions, the Conservatives are now saying bring back that former minister. I'm not prepared to say yes to that today, but I think it's important that it be something that we potentially look at, depending on the answers we get from the first two meetings. It makes sense to start step by step.

There's a more important element that I would like to bring up. I think one of the proudest moments I saw in terms of all parties working together in committee was in the Canadian heritage hearings around Hockey Canada. We started with one meeting—you'll recall, Mr. Chair—15 months ago. From there, all parties agreed to convene other witnesses. We made sure, as we went through that process with that sporting organization and other national sporting organizations, that we moved forward on consensus at every single step.

We also heard from victims, Mr. Chair. Conservatives on the heritage committee had the presence of mind to agree with all the other parties to ensure that, when any victims came forward, it was done in a way that was trauma-informed. The heritage committee undertook that understanding of trauma-informed questioning. We took it forward as a committee. We went through that and subsequently invited victims.

I regret to see that the Conservatives on this committee have not taken that tack, which they need to understand the impact of trauma and which this committee needs to be well versed on what trauma-informed committee hearings could be. As Ms. Rempel Garner, whom I have enormous respect for, has mentioned numerous times, these victims have experienced trauma. I don't understand why Conservatives aren't agreeing to a trauma-informed approach on this.

The reality is that we already have agreement. We know that we want to have a three-hour meeting, followed by a meeting with the Minister of Public Safety—or potentially the public safety minister would be appearing before—and then, as a committee, we can decide where to go from there. If at every meeting the demands change, if at every meeting the amendments change and if at every meeting there is a new group of witnesses or a new configuration, we will not be doing the work that we need to do on behalf of Canadians.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I say to my Conservative colleagues, you agreed to a three-hour meeting and you agreed to having the Minister of Public Safety come forward. Let's move forward with that. Let's get to those hearings, and let's decide as a committee after that on what the next steps are. I'm certainly open-minded on that.

I do believe that we need to go through this legislation, which has now been sitting on this committee's desk for months. Given the importance of having that review around CBSA and the RCMP and the numerous complaints that have come forward, and the importance that the legislation be modernized and we put in place amendments that will improve the legislation, we have to move to that as quickly as possible. The cost is not just in the delay of months on the legislation. The cost is as well in the tens of thousands of dollars when we have witnesses from the RCMP, the Department of Public Safety and CBSA who come forward at each meeting and are unable to provide their expertise because we're not even going to the legislation.

We can have this resolved today if we simply stop the filibuster, allow the vote, allow the additional amendments that bring the Minister of Public Safety forward, allow for that three-hour meeting that we all agreed to off-line and allow for a trauma-informed approach with victims. Those are the three steps that allow this study to move forward and allow us to complete the work on Bill C-20.

There's no reason why we cannot move forward today.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I have just a point of clarification, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Go ahead.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'm just wondering if my colleague had proposed a subamendment. I was listening intently to him—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

He can't.

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

I cannot because of the subamendment and the amendments that are on the table. I can't.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There can only be one subamendment alive at one time. However, if we were to vote on that subamendment, then there would be capacity to carry it forward.

Mr. Julian, do you wish to proceed?

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

No. I've said my piece, Mr. Chair.

I ask my Conservative colleagues to allow for the vote so that we can move forward—hopefully, with a consensus on this. It's an important issue. It's not something that we should be delaying on. When we have a consensus off-line, we need to bring that to committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We'll go now to Mr. Motz, who will be followed by Madame Michaud.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I first want to respond to the comments of my colleague Mr. Julian about heritage and how that committee worked through, again, a very delicate situation. As I see it, these are two completely separate issues. In this circumstance, when we're dealing with the security reclassification of inmates, the decision to do that and the legislation around it, this government is solely responsible for that legislation and solely responsible for the implementation of the legislation. That's not true for Hockey Canada, which was really the focus of the conversations in the heritage committee.

I have a couple of things I want to reinforce with this new subamendment to the amendment to Ms. O'Connell's motion, and there are a couple of thoughts I want to get to through this process.

Mr. Bittle made reference to the Conservatives playing games on this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a game. This is about the rights of victims. He can laugh over there all he wants, but I don't know what this government's so afraid of. If we're really talking about dealing with victims and the rights of victims' families and specifically the security reclassification of our inmates...and this is beyond this specific transfer. There are multiple examples of families being revictimized again and again in the same specific way as in this transfer. This government has a history, quite honestly, of ignoring victims. There are serious sentences, life sentences. Those who were previously dangerous offenders serving their time in maximum-security prisons are now being transferred to medium-security prisons.

Quite honestly, it really concerned me when I saw some of the stats that came out from an OPQ, an Order Paper question, with respect to this exact question. There are prisoners in our prison system who have been designated dangerous offenders and they are serving their time initially in maximum-security but now in medium-security prisons. There are 580 of them, as a matter of fact. They are previously designated or currently designated dangerous offenders and are now serving their time in medium-security prisons. There are even over 50 serving their time in minimum-security prisons. We know that the freedom of these individuals certainly varies according to the level of security in a particular facility.

This has an impact on the families who were victimized the first time around. As I was going to say earlier, Canadians are left to wonder. The Conservatives, of course, are the bad guys here now, apparently, because we are trying to stand up against a regime of transfers, reclassifications and potential transfers that has had a direct impact on families and on victims.

Why does this government refuse this study? I'm left to wonder. Canadians are wondering what they are hiding. What are they afraid of finding out? Why would they not want to ensure that the legislation that allows for the transfer and reclassification of the security of our prisoners could be examined, re-examined and tightened up so as not to revictimize families and so the impact this has on families could be talked about.

For decades of law enforcement, families have been victimized over and over again in the whole process of criminal justice, as we know. Obviously they were victimized by the original offence and the tragedy that occurred. They have to relive that during the investigation, during the trial, during sentencing and during the preparation of victim impact statements. Then they have to deal with parole hearings and potentially more impact statements.

Now we have this added burden and traumatization to victims of the transfers and reclassifications of prisoners. It's not just the transfers that are the issue; it's also the lack of communication from the Correctional Service and the minister's office that Canadians have experienced during this process. Such transfers have to be victim-informed. Again, the impact of trauma has to be considered when doing transfers.

Mr. Chair, I recognize that the bells will be going soon. I want to give Ms. Michaud an opportunity to speak before the bells. I would ask that I come back once she's done, if there's still time before the bells.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

After Madame Michaud I have Mr. Genuis. Then I'll put you on the list.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I've said several times since this debate began, I think it's extremely unfortunate that we're spending several hours debating numerous motions that all point in the same direction, when the committee has an agenda to follow: we should be debating Bill C‑20; some people have reminded us of how important it is to them. Indeed, we've all received emails from victims who have been harmed by the Canada Border Services Agency, and they deserve to have parliamentarians take a look at this important bill. Personally, I think it's a shame for these people. I'd even say it's disrespectful to the people who are watching the committee's work, hoping that we'll finally get around to studying this bill. It's also disrespectful to the civil servants who, let's put it this way, are wasting time here while we debate another subject.

I'm not saying this subject isn't important. Of course it's important. There are probably 50 other important topics related to public safety in Canada that we could be debating here. It's just that the timing isn't right. I think we've already wasted too much time and we should be debating Bill C‑20.

That said, I think my colleague Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable compromise in introducing the motion before us. It's the Conservatives' desire to debate this subject, once the study of Bill C‑20 has been completed, and I agree. I would even have gone so far as to say that, since bills are this committee's priority, the debate on this subject could have been held after the study of Bill C-26. However, we agreed to consider this issue directly after the study of Bill C‑20. Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable motion, which I think we could all agree on.

Of course, I'm against the amendments and subamendments proposed by the Conservative Party. We've had ample opportunity to discuss and negotiate behind the scenes so we can't do it here in committee and waste a lot of people's time. The Conservatives always come up with a new proposal to stretch out debate time. They want to politicize the debate and that's really deplorable. It's no secret that they're politicizing the debate. As I've already said, I'd like to take the question even further: should we politicize this process too? The Correctional Service of Canada exists for a reason, it has specific tasks to accomplish, so I don't understand why we're bringing the minister into this.

I agree with a few things Mr. Julian mentioned about public servants, whom we once again allowed to leave after several hours of hearing us debate this.

Out of respect for the people who expect us to do our job, I'd like us to go ahead, vote on the subamendments, on the amendments and on the motion, come to a consensus and proceed with Bill C‑20. There are people who have been waiting for this for a long time.

I said that some of the blame lies with the Conservatives, who are filibustering in Parliament and stretching out debate time on this issue, but it must also be said that the committee spent a lot of time studying Bill C-21 because the government had more or less done its job well. In the case of Bill C‑20, this is the third time in a few years that a similar bill has come before the House of Commons. In the meantime, there has been prorogation and an election; obviously, this is coming from the Liberal side.

So I see political jousting on both sides and I find it deplorable. It's a subject that shouldn't be politicized.

I ask that we vote on the proposal before the committee at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Unfortunately, we cannot get to a vote while there are people wishing to speak.

Next we have Mr. Genuis, followed by Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think Mr. Motz has a few more points that he wants to put on the record, but before that, I do want to respond to a couple of things that were raised.

In terms of how a committee schedules its agenda, I think members understand that, when a motion has been put on notice, members can move that motion regardless of the agenda. I think that's an important provision, because in the absence of such a provision, if members were required to confine themselves to the agenda, then a chair could repeatedly schedule issues that were schedule one issues to avoid, let's say, dealing with another issue.

Knowing there was a strong desire among committee members to address this issue before we proceeded to Bill C-20, the chair could have, let's say, scheduled this meeting as a meeting of committee business, which is in effect what we've ended up discussing anyway. It's simply the fact that the officials were invited because the agenda said that Bill C-20 was.... Maybe, I would suggest, Chair, there was a reality in terms of what this committee needed to discuss.

The other observation I would make, though, is that it was, of course, Ms. O'Connell who moved the motion. It was a decision by her, by the government, to move the motion. Of course, our view is that this issue needed to be discussed and that it needed to be discussed with three meetings.

This is where we are. We're under the rubric of that discussion, so we are, I think in good faith, trying to put forward and also insist on our position. Our core position is that, when it comes to this transfer of Paul Bernardo from maximum security to medium security, the families have to be heard on this issue, the families have to have an opportunity to testify, ministers have to be held accountable for their actions and we need a proper investigation, a proper study of this issue. That is our position.

That will continue to be our position. Families of victims need to be heard, and we need to hold the government accountable to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Motz, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would defer my comments to the regular amendment and suggest that we go ahead and vote on the subamendment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Is there any more debate on the subamendment?

I have Mr. Julian.