I have outlined the rationale for having the ministers here. I think the current minister has to be here to talk about what procedures have been put in place within their office. Correctional Service Canada cannot speak to that, so the minister has to speak to what processes have been put in place to do things like ensuring that the minister reads his email on issues like this. That's number one.
I would assume that the Minister of Public Safety, the new one, would be okay with coming to committee on that. I think we should have him here for that reason, to articulate what processes have been put in place to rectify the situation. But then we can't scrutinize whether or not what he says is adequate unless the previous minister of public safety comes in to explain what he believes happened.
In reading some of the articles on this issue, I don't think he ever said that his staff knew, but Correctional Service Canada said that his staff knew, so I think we need to clarify that. That's problematic. Were there any remedial measures taken? I want to know who's lying—or perhaps not lying, but people are talking over each other in this situation. Correctional Service Canada said the minister's office knew. The minister's office said they did not know. Regardless of prosecuting that point, that situation cannot happen again.
The committee should be asking itself what processes, from the perspective of the minister's office, are going to be put in place to rectify this. The ministerial directive did not address that anywhere. I'm not sure if colleagues have read the directive, but that is why the ministers need to be there. The ministers need to be there, at a minimum, and that's why the subamendment needs to pass. My colleague's original motion did not have the ministers attending, and that is a huge problem in moving forward with this—it really is.
Second, I believe we're going to have a large degree of interest from victims services groups and families. I'm not sure if I'm disclosing anything, but I believe there is interest from the representative of the families in this case to have a say publicly on this matter. The reason that's important is that I do not think Correctional Service Canada or the government has looked at the process through the lens of the victims.
I'm just looking at the wording here: “the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections.” The reason the motion needs to be broadened is that this process, the victims lens process, needs to be reviewed from their point of view. Frankly, I think they're subject matter experts on this in a way that we just aren't, or in a way that Correctional Service Canada is not.
The ministerial directive states:
More can be done to ensure that a trauma-informed and victim-sensitive approach is factored into the decision making process as regards transfers and security classifications. This means meaningfully engaging with victims to elicit input on a transfer prior to its occurrence.
What that “meaningful engagement” means cannot be directed by simply the minister or Correctional Service Canada without public scrutiny by this committee. Victims should have the opportunity to come here to speak and say exactly what that means in terms of operationalization. Then members of this committee should be able to go back to the government and recommend policy, perhaps additional legislation, changes in procedure, changes in communications—whatever—based on that determination or that testimony.
Again, with respect to my colleague's original motion, it does not have any opportunity for victims to testify, and that's a huge problem. They're the ones we're here to protect. That is why we should be ensuring we do not have this perpetual revictimization process.
I think what needs to happen is three meetings. I would hope that colleagues, particularly within the opposition parties, would be open to negotiating something in this regard.
Another thing—and I want to re-emphasize this—is that the directive has nothing in here with regard to correctional services officer safety. I feel like they've been, perhaps, removed from this conversation as well. Perhaps if this amendment does pass—I hope it passes—colleagues would be open to ensuring they have a voice, too.
Colleagues, as I said in the article that I put out this morning, we as parliamentarians might not agree on an approach to dealing with people like Paul Bernardo, but the debate needs to happen. Our responsibility is to hold the government to account, especially in instances of a pattern.
With that, chair, I would implore, with deep respect, all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and if they want to make other suggestions on how to deal with this, to do so—again, not to retract the number of statements so that this issue is given lip service by the government through talking points, but to make sure it is given the scrutiny it deserves by all members of all political parties, so that victims' families are given a say in the matter on determining whether or not the ministerial directive is put in place.
The Terri-Lynne McClintic thing in 2018.... If you didn't have the opportunity to be through that debate, it was deeply uncomfortable. Then to have it happen again.... Let's make sure it doesn't happen again.
Let's have a robust study of this. It could have happened in the summer, but it didn't, so we're sitting here, with witnesses sitting here. I get that, but guys, we need three meetings. We need to have the victims at the table. We need to have the union at the table, and we need to determine whether or not the process has actually been fixed.