Evidence of meeting #85 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Anne Kelly  Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Shawn Tupper  Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Ivan Zinger  Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada
Kirstan Gagnon  Assistant Commissioner, Communications and Engagement Sector, Correctional Service of Canada
Chad Westmacott  Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald

Good morning, everyone. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 85 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Feedback events can occur. This can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece that is worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution while handling their earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, October 23, 2023, the committee resumes its study of the rights of victims, reclassification and the transfer of federal offenders.

I would like to now welcome our witnesses here today. From the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Anne Kelly, commissioner; Kirstan Gagnon, assistant commissioner, communications and engagement; and France Gratton, assistant commissioner, correctional operations and programs. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Chad Westmacott, director general, community safety, corrections and criminal justice; and Shawn Tupper, deputy minister. From the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, we have Dr. Ivan Zinger, correctional investigator of Canada.

Welcome to all of you. You have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with the rounds of questions.

I now invite Ms. Kelly to make her opening statement.

11 a.m.

Anne Kelly Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Thank you for inviting me as part of your study on the security classification, the transfer of offenders and the rights of victims of crime.

These issues have received considerable public attention, following the transfer of offender Paul Bernardo from a maximum‑security to a medium‑security institution this past summer. I would like to take the time today to explain more about how security classification works and how we uphold victims' rights in the process.

As we are here, my thoughts are with the victims and their families. What they have gone through is unimaginable. This offender committed horrific crimes. Hearing about this case has brought up strong emotions, and rightly so. I regret any pain and concern that this has caused. Public safety and the victims' safety continue to be top of mind for CSC in any decisions we make.

Chair and members of this committee, I have worked with the Correctional Service of Canada for 40 years. I have dedicated my career to serving Canadians and upholding the rule of law. I can attest first-hand that our correctional service works only if we perform our duties according to the law.

In Canada, our correctional system is fundamentally based on the rehabilitation of offenders, even if some remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives. This is our legislated mandate.

Under the law, CSC must assign a security classification to each inmate and review it at regular intervals. Our approach to both initial security classification and security reclassification is very rigorous. It includes a statistical component, using research-based actuarial tools, and a clinical component based on the assessment of the set of factors by trained, specialized staff. The custody rating scale and the security reclassification scale are both actuarial tools that generate a score based on an inmate's history. This includes, for example, any security-related incidents, previous escapes and offence severity.

The assessment also includes consideration of three areas by parole officers: the required degree of supervision and control within the institution, also referred to as “institutional adjustment”; escape risk; and public safety. These factors are set out in law and policy.

The final risk assessment, which combines the actuarial score and the assessment of the three areas, determines an inmate's security classification. Once the security classification has been determined, inmates must be placed in an institution that corresponds with their security classification.

It is important to stress that, at any point, an inmate can be placed or returned to higher security level if deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the public or an institution. When deciding on which institution is most suitable for the management of an inmate, the law requires that CSC take into account a number of factors, including the availability of appropriate programs and services.

CSC has always required that victim information be considered in recommendations and decisions. At any time in an inmate's sentence, a victim can submit a new or updated statement to CSC. Prior to the decisions, these statements must be considered by the case management team in the overall assessment for transfers.

At CSC, we strive to provide victims with the information that they need to have an effective voice in the corrections system. We also ensure that victims are treated with compassion, respect and fairness.

Following the transfer of Paul Bernardo, I heard a wide array of views and felt it was important to order an additional review to make sure that this decision was compliant with the law, policies and procedures that guide our work. While the review committee concluded that CSC followed all applicable laws and policies, it also recommended that I establish a multidisciplinary working committee to enhance policies and practices pertaining to victims, which I accepted and put in place.

The committee is comprised of 11 members, including victims as well as members of our CSC and Parole Board of Canada regional victim advisory committees, corrections experts and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. The multidisciplinary committee on victims services started its work on November 17. Over the next months, it will explore how we provide services to victims of crime and examine additional areas that could be further strengthened.

We have also recently undertaken a review of our policies to see how we can better serve victims and provide them with more timely information about the offender who harmed them.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald

Thank you, Ms. Kelly. Thank you for your remarks. Hopefully, you'll have some more time to continue your opening remarks through questions.

Mr. Tupper, go ahead, please.

11:05 a.m.

Shawn Tupper Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to be here to say a few words about the work of Public Safety Canada with respect to your study on the rights of victims of crime, reclassification and the transfer of federal offenders.

I am joined here, as you mentioned previously, by Chad Westmacott, who is our DG for community safety, corrections and criminal justice.

Mr. Chair, from a legislative perspective, Public Safety Canada is responsible for the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As such, I will be speaking about my department's work in this space. I will note that we are not involved in the operational decisions of the Correctional Service of Canada, which are under the purview of my colleague here beside me.

The act clearly outlines that decision-making authorities related to operations rest solely with CSC. As you know, that act guides both the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board in how federal sentences of two years or more are carried out. It also provides the foundation for the rights to information, protection and participation of victims of federal offenders as set out in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Public Safety Canada's national office for victims is an important resource in terms of how we provide information. It helps victims navigate the federal corrections and conditional release system by providing information about their rights and the federal services available to them.

Input from victims is constantly helping us adjust and refine the information that we share. One example would be how we help to explain basic sentence calculation rules for federal offenders. This includes how the eligibility dates for various types of releases are determined.

Since 2015, the national office for victims has distributed over 80,000 copies of its publications.

The Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada provide registered victims with information about the federal offender who harmed them. They assist victims with submitting impact statements, which can be considered in decision-making and can facilitate victim attendance at parole hearings.

On July 20, 2023, a ministerial directive was issued to the service entitled “Information Sharing: Security Classification and Transfer of Offenders”. It recognizes that more can be done to ensure that victims' rights are considered earlier as part of the decision-making process. This includes implementing a victim-sensitive approach. It seeks to enhance notification to registered victims and to improve how and when it provides notification regarding security classification and transfers.

Work is now ongoing across Public Safety and the CSC to identify the policy and legislative changes to implement the directive. In addition, my department supports recent legislative amendments to strengthen the national sex offender registry and empower victims of crime.

To ensure victims are aware of their right to information, judges will now be required to ask if victims want to receive ongoing information about their case after sentencing. They will also be required to ensure that their wishes, if known, are entered into the record of proceedings. By receiving victim contact details from the courts, the Correctional Service of Canada will be able to proactively register victims to receive information rather than the onus being placed on the victim.

Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims can also complain directly to federal departments and agencies if they feel their rights have been denied or infringed upon in order to resolve this in a timely fashion. If the outcome of a complaint is not satisfactory to the victim, there is an ombudsperson for victims of crime who is ready to assist.

My department also plays a role here in terms of increasing the transparency of the complaint process. The national office for victims, in collaboration with portfolio partners, prepares an annual report that compiles standardized information on complaints and how they are resolved. This helps us and our partners monitor new and emerging trends, address any systemic policy issues and find ways to further reduce the burden on victims.

In terms of the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights within the federal corrections and conditional release system, the office has held five national round tables so far, so that we can all approach this the right way together.

We've talked about accountability, how offenders are reintegrated, restorative justice, outreach and engagement.

Our department is committed to implementing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims must be treated with compassion and respect. We remain committed to getting them timely and accurate information, in accordance with legislation and policies and with how they've told us that they want to receive it.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald

I will end it there. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Everybody received their written statement from Dr. Zinger earlier today, so we're going to move right into questions.

The first questions will be from Mr. Lloyd for six minutes, please.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Dr. Zinger.

In June and July 2022, your office was engaged with Paul Bernardo to ensure that the principle of the least restrictive measures was being respected by Correctional Service Canada. Is that correct?

11:10 a.m.

Dr. Ivan Zinger Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

It's yes and no. Thank you for your question.

As you know, we're an independent ombuds office. We investigate complaints and we focus on compliance with the law.

Typically, when it comes to transfers, the complaints we receive are usually related to a denial. We investigate to see whether the denial is justified. In this case, we did have contact with Mr. Bernardo, and it is highlighted in the report of the review committee that was initiated by the commissioner.

We weren't asked by Mr. Bernardo to look at his denial for a transfer to an institution in Ontario. He was obviously—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

I'm sorry, Dr. Zinger. I have limited time. I will move on.

Prior to Bill C-83, under the changes made by the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, the language of “least restrictive measures” was changed to “necessary and proportionate”. Is that correct?

11:15 a.m.

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

Dr. Ivan Zinger

That is correct.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

In 2012, your predecessor Howard Sapers, for whom you served as chief of staff, noted his concerns about changing the language from “least restrictive measures” to “necessary and proportionate”. He felt this was ambiguous and would give more discretion to Correctional Service Canada in their decisions, which could include security classifications.

Is that correct?

11:15 a.m.

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

Dr. Ivan Zinger

I don't recall. You would have to ask him.

If you ask me—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

This was cited in the OCI's 2012-13 annual report.

He said:

replacing the...“least restrictive” principle with “necessary and proportionate” measures seems to add an unnecessary layer of ambiguity and discretion where precision and consistency are required. This language may make it more difficult for my staff to hold CSC to account for decisions and actions carrying significant life, liberty and security interests (e.g....security classifications....

Mr. Zinger, if Bill C-83 had not amended the CCRA to restore the “least restrictive measures” principle back in 2019, do you believe Correctional Service Canada would have had more discretion under the CCRA when determining an inmate's classification?

11:15 a.m.

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

Dr. Ivan Zinger

This is hypothetical. I'm not sure I'm best placed to respond.

I can tell you that the criteria brought in by the Harper government that dealt with “necessary and proportionate” were likely to be interpreted as the “least restrictive” measure, which is consistent with public safety. I think it—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Not necessarily....

11:15 a.m.

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

Dr. Ivan Zinger

—becomes an interpretation—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Not necessarily....

11:15 a.m.

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

Dr. Ivan Zinger

—because it is something that....

“Least restrictive” is a pillar of principles that Canada and many countries around the world have adopted. It is grounded in international human rights law. It is reflected in, for example, the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, which were redone in 2015. Canada endorsed those. It also appears in instruments such as the body of principles for the treatment of—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Dr. Zinger, I have very limited time to ask you questions.

You say it could be interpreted as the least restrictive measure, but that does not necessarily mean it would always be interpreted as the least restrictive measure.

11:15 a.m.

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

Dr. Ivan Zinger

I think this is speculation. I don't know.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Considering that, in the review report released by Correctional Service Canada, the term “least restrictive measures” was cited numerous times in relation to your office's engagement with Mr. Bernardo.

Do you believe the principle of least restrictive measures, as you understand it, was a contributing factor in his security reclassification?

11:15 a.m.

Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada

Dr. Ivan Zinger

I think “least restrictive measures” is a pillar, as I said, that is not just applied to transfers. It applies to things such as searches, use of restraints, use of force, placement in secure intervention units—

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

I'm sorry, Dr. Zinger. This is a simple yes or no question.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

I have a point of order.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB

Was the security classification...?

I would like to stop my time there, Mr. Chair.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald

I'm sorry. The member has a point of order.