Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[Jeff Wilkins]

Perhaps I could make a comment, to start.

When it comes down to the privacy concerns, I can honestly say that this is the first time in my 21 years I've ever publicly spoken an inmate's name. It's something we're taught when we join the service: The privacy concerns of the inmate are paramount. We are not supposed to tell our friends and family. In fact, even in my labour management committee meetings, we don't typically speak the names of individual inmates.

The privacy concerns are generally for a wide variety of reasons. In this case, I think you're asking what the balance is there. Of course, the victims, for certain, need to know exactly what's going on with that inmate. Because this inmate is so widely known across Canada, I think considerations do need to be taken. I think liberties were taken, to be honest, that I had never seen before in my career in terms of informing the general public about this transfer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Wilkins and Ms. Michaud.

We'll move now to Mr. Julian, please.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Ménard and Mr. Sandelli, thank you very much for your testimony today. What other recommendations can you give us in terms of building a system in which the public has confidence in the transfer of inmates, in inmates being classified at the right level without it being overridden, and in victims' families being informed?

In order to build a system that Canadians can have utter confidence in, what recommendations can all three of you offer as part of the committee report that we'll be producing through the course of the next few weeks?

[Jeff Wilkins]

To reiterate my opening comment, I think correctional officers need to be a bit more involved when it comes to the reports and the reports being taken into consideration through any parole hearings or assessments for decisions. Also, population management is something that the union or correctional officers in general aren't really involved in. These are meetings that happen at the local levels, regional levels and national levels. We need to be involved in that.

I will be honest with you. I was a parole officer for four months of my 21-year career, and an inmate inside an institution acts completely differently toward a parole officer from how they act toward a correctional officer and with their fellow inmates. When they're meeting with their parole officer, they're not exactly themselves. It is the correctional officers who know exactly the behaviours and the mentality of the inmates they're working very closely with 24-7, so yes, I would like to see some changes there.

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

I'd like to know Mr. Ménard's opinion.

[Patrick Ménard]

What I would really recommend is that the Correctional Service open its doors to the public more. People would then be able to observe what happens within the system and to see the work that's done on a day‑to‑day basis. For example, they'd be able to understand how a day goes and how staff approach inmates, in addition to discovering the school and training offered to our members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

That is the time. Thank you so much.

Now we're moving to Mr. Lloyd for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further in the review report that was issued over the summer in response to the Bernardo transfer, it noted that the SRS override—he had received a security designation of medium, but this is for the 13 times it was overridden—was primarily done because of “measures that were required to manage the [inmate's] safety, rather than behavioural concerns.”

I find it interesting that it was more about the safety of the offender. It didn't seem like there was too much concern about the behaviours exhibited by the offender, which the parole board has stated were manipulative, grandiose, glib and showed lack of remorse for his actions. It goes on and on. This is a psychopath we're dealing with, and the parole board has reiterated that multiple times.

I also find it interesting that the definitions of security classifications that were provided by the library describe the environment of medium-security institutions as one that “allows interaction among inmates and prepares them for a minimum security institution.” I note that CSC noted that it doesn't necessarily mean they will go to a minimum-security facility or that they'll be released into the public, but it's very concerning to me and I would like to be able to reassure Canadians and the families of the victims that this is not part of an effort to cascade Mr. Bernardo from maximum security to medium security, which, by definition, is to prepare him for a potential transfer to a minimum-security prison.

Can Mr. Wilkins or any of the other witnesses provide assurances to Canadians and this committee that Mr. Bernardo will not be cascaded down to a minimum-security prison?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I would like to provide assurances. Unfortunately, my membership and I are not the decision-makers when it comes to whether that inmate will be moved to a lower security level.

I could suggest that it probably will not happen, given the sensationalism that surrounds this particular inmate, but I can't be the one who makes those assurances.

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

I understand that. Thank you for that, Mr. Wilkins.

I think, prior to his transfer from a maximum-security facility to a medium-security facility, it would have been incomprehensible—in fact, the previous minister said it was “shocking and incomprehensible”—that this decision would be made in the first place. I am seriously worried that in this country we are being led down this path of more and more shocking and incomprehensible decisions, to the point that we're getting numb to them.

It was so incomprehensible that he would be moved out of maximum, and I would not be surprised if, in the next number of years.... It wouldn't shock me if he was moved to minimum, because the decision that was made was so shocking and incomprehensible. I don't think we can assure Canadians that he won't be moved to minimum unless we have some sort of legislative changes, as your union recommended, to ensure—not specifically for this particular offender, but as a broad-based requirement—that the worst of the worst offenders do not get cascaded out of our system into minimum security.

Do you have any recommendations, Mr. Wilkins, or any of our witnesses who have parole board experience, for what we can do to reassure Canadians that this will not happen?

[Patrick Ménard]

I am a parole officer by training. All officers who work in penitentiaries will tell you, as I do, that the criteria for going from a maximum-security to a medium-security institution are easier to meet than those for going from a medium-security to a maximum-security institution. It's much more difficult in the latter case because the tools are more specific, more demanding, and there are more criteria that have to be met. That's what I would say.

So you mustn't think that, because you've gone from a maximum-security to medium-security institution, you'll necessarily be going from a medium-security to a maximum-security institution in a short period of time.

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

Just quickly, does CSC work with prisoners to assist them with their transfer from a maximum to a medium or from a medium to a minimum? Are there programs to support prisoners like Paul Bernardo to lower their classification so they can achieve that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We'll have a quick yes or no, please, if that's possible.

[Patrick Ménard]

I honestly didn't hear the question. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

I'm sorry. The time is up.

We're going to move to our final questions, with Ms. O'Connell, please.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for the work you and your members do and for representing them here today.

Mr. Ménard, thank you for your last answer, because I think it would be very dangerous if anyone would try to suggest that this committee, to the victims of Paul Bernardo, their families and friends.... For anyone to suggest without any basis in fact that somehow this individual is going to be in the community is simply reckless.

I really appreciate your clear explanation of how this process works and of precisely why politicians don't make prison transfer classification decisions, because it's experts—all three of you, with your membership—that actually build the work to make these decisions. Thank you for putting that on the record and reassuring Canadians of the actual process, for not allowing some sort of fearmongering and political games for the sake of, I don't know.... To use such heinous crimes for a political win, I think, is really upsetting.

Mr. Wilkins, you talked about having your officers' opinions and observations be more a part of this process. You spoke about how parole officers...or how inmates may act very differently around parole officers, and I can completely see that. Perhaps I will leave it out to the parole officers.

How do you manage? Is there a mechanism that enables you to seek input from corrections officers to start building into a larger profile of the individual? I can see Mr. Wilkins's point being very valid, about an inmate's day-to-day behaviour being different from what they're demonstrating to, let's say, a parole officer. Do you have any comments on how that interaction could work better?

[Patrick Ménard]

We're talking here about a case management team, which mainly consists of three types of employees: a parole officer, the parole officer's supervisor and a correctional officer. Sometimes, depending on the cases, psychologists, psychoeducators, specialized educators or even teachers may be added to the team.

The correctional officer must obviously record what he or she observes in various documents, such as casework records, observation reports and incident reports. I guarantee you that what's written is necessarily taken into consideration. When parole officers switch on their computers, they can see on the screen if any incidents have occurred because the computer tracks them. The information is there; it's visible. They can read what's happening and what has happened. They can consult the offence reports and see what happened. An enormous amount of information comes from correctional officers, staff on the floor, teachers, program officers, social program officers, Indigenous liaison officers and so on. The parole officer is ultimately the person who takes all of that information into consideration.

All the information is stored in computer and paper files. That explains why the task is so burdensome: an enormous amount of information has to be taken into account.

In addition, there's obviously nothing preventing people from speaking amongst themselves. These are good practices that should be encouraged.

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

I don't know if you would like to jump in there—with 50 seconds, I'm being told.

[Jeff Sandelli]

I would just add, much as Patrick has been saying, that there are a number of people. We're speaking more specifically to the institution and the community at this point, but within the institution there's opportunity for everybody who works within those facilities to provide insights on what might be happening.

Even those who might be working with the offender in a kitchen and providing them with supervision and training fill out reports, and they can also fill out security reports if they observe or overhear things that need to be reported. This would go if they were working with maintenance workers, or electricians or the librarian. This information can flow from anywhere.

As well, the CX-2s enter information into the computer system, into the OMS. It can be gathered there by the parole officers when they're doing reviews. As well, as Patrick said, you will happen upon these individuals, your colleagues in the institution, and often in a conversation will talk about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Sandelli. That brings our questions to a close.

Mr. Ménard, Mr. Sandelli, Mr. Wilkins, thank you so much for your professionalism on this very important matter, obviously.

With that, you are free to depart.

Committee, I have a couple of things that the clerk wants me to address. I will, because he's my boss.

Next Monday, we're going to meet again on the same study. The following witnesses have confirmed their participation: Mr. Shawn Tupper, deputy minister of Public Safety Canada; and Ms. Anne Kelly, commissioner of Correctional Service Canada.

We have one issue. The correctional investigator of Canada, Dr. Ivan Zinger, was not available today. He requested to appear after December 7, as he is out of the country.

I would like to submit that request to the committee. I guess we don't have much of a choice, do we?

Quickly, the travel budget for the Port of Montreal was rejected today by the subcommittee on committee budgets of the Liaison Committee.

[An hon. member]

We can go together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

A possible option, if members agree, is that the clerk can prepare a new travel budget for the committee in order to present a new request for the travelling period April to June.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

It's the will of the committee, so I'll put it out there.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to note that we members can use our travel points. In this case, if I'm not mistaken, the budget is really for employees, analysts, the clerk and interpreters.

If we submitted a second budget request solely covering employees' expenses and excluding those for members, since we have our own travel system, would that be one way to solve the problem?