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.