Public Safety Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

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

Mr. Chair, the rules of committee are these: The questioner doesn't get to dictate that the response by the witness be a yes or no. They have the opportunity to answer the question. I would encourage all members not to speak over the witnesses while they speak. We have interpreters, and we'd all like to hear the answers.

Mr. Chair, I hope the rules will be enforced. The length of time of the question.... You have approximately the same amount of time for the witnesses—

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

Again, that was my time to ask my questions.

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

They cannot dictate that it be a yes or no question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Can we all refrain from talking over one another, MPs as well as witnesses? It can be a detriment to our interpreters.

You can continue, Mr. Lloyd. You have one minute remaining.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Zinger, my question was clear. In the Bernardo case, was the principle and legal requirement of least restrictive measures, as outlined in the CCRA, a contributing factor in determining his security reclassification?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

I don't know. That's a truthful answer, because we never assessed whether that.... There were no complaints. We were never asked to look at whether or not the Correctional Service acted appropriately in this case. We never investigated. We never made any recommendation with respect to cascading Mr. Bernardo from a maximum-security institution to medium security.

That's my answer.

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

I know my time is short.

Millhaven undertook a strategic change to “provide a less restrictive environment for offenders” in July 2022. Do you attribute that change to the integration of Paul Bernardo into the population?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zinger.

Now we're moving on to Mr. McKinnon, please, for six minutes.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll address this question to Commissioner Kelly. I'm not sure if she's the correct person to take it, so please fend it off as you need to.

I think many Canadians are concerned that a transfer of this kind from a maximum- to a medium-security classification involves some sort of mitigation of sentence for the offender. Could you talk about that, and maybe give us a heads-up on the difference in the prison conditions for an offender under the two different classifications?

[Anne Kelly]

Thank you for the question.

I would say that, in this case, Paul Bernardo was given the harshest sentence we have in the criminal justice system, which is a life sentence. He was also designated a dangerous offender, and the sentence is the punishment.

In terms of the different security classifications, at maximum security, you have to be either high institutional adjustment, which means you require a high degree of control and supervision, or high on escape risk as well as high on public safety. If you go to minimum, you have to be low on institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to the safety of the public. Medium includes the other types of ratings.

Obviously, maximum and medium have the same perimeter control. However, in maximum, it's strictly controlled inside as opposed to medium, where it's less controlled, but it continues to be controlled. That would be the difference between the levels of security.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

My understanding is that the security classification is really about how the inmate is managed within the system and the controls, as you mentioned, that are placed upon them. It really has nothing to do with the severity or intensity of the punishment they undergo.

[Anne Kelly]

Actually, when we do a security classification, as I said, there are two tools. There's a statistical component and a clinical component. Obviously, we look at security risks, so we look at offence severity and previous offences. We look at those things.

In terms of assigning a security classification, that's done by law. We have to assign one to each inmate and do reviews at regular intervals. For those who are in maximum and medium security, we have to review the security classification every two years. However, you can have somebody like Paul Bernardo, who remains a high risk to the safety of the public, yet we can manage this particular offender or offenders like him in a medium-security institution.

It's managing the risk that the offender presents in the institution.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

How does this change life for the offender? I think there's a perception that a lower security classification means that he's out golfing all day.

What's the difference in the quality of life for the offender between medium and maximum security?

[Anne Kelly]

First of all, again, maximum security is very strictly guarded. The movement is very controlled. It's not as easy to do programming, and that's one.... We're mandated by law to rehabilitate offenders, and that's done through the delivery of services, interventions and programming.

Certainly, when an inmate goes to medium security, there are more opportunities, again, for interventions and programming.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

How often do these kinds of transfers occur? Also, in the event that this particular inmate exhibits some violent behaviour, how quickly would it be possible for him to be transferred back to maximum security?

[Anne Kelly]

We do many transfers a year, and inmates do move between maximum, medium and minimum security. However—and I think this was mentioned by the president of UCCO-SACC-CSN—if an offender exhibits behaviours, we monitor the offender's behaviour. If there's something the offender is doing that they shouldn't be doing, we do not hesitate to return them to a higher security level.

I think the previous witnesses talked about the different types of transfers—voluntary, involuntary and emergency. We do use emergency transfers in those cases. Therefore, the transfer is immediate or they are placed in what we call our structured intervention units until we can transfer them.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

One of the differences you mentioned was access to programming. If the offender—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Your time is up, Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

You can keep that for the next round.

Thank you, Ms. Kelly.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Now we're moving to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas with the Bloc. Thank you.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to extend my greetings to the witnesses and colleagues who are here for our study.

Mr. Zinger, I'll begin by quoting a Radio‑Canada article:

After a preliminary review of the Correctional Service's report, counsel Tim Danson, who represents the French and Mahaffy families...believes that it's inappropriate to apply the principle that an inmate should be imprisoned in the “least restrictive” environment on the basis of the inmate's classification.

In his view, this rule can't be applied mechanically to all inmates, and the legislation should be amended to take into account the situation of the most dangerous offenders.

The counsel is also challenging the argument that the Correctional Service has a limited ability to share information in order to respect the inmate's privacy and confidentiality.

Tim Danson also said that “it's time for the government to completely re‑evaluate the need for transparency in our corrections and parole system.”

Mr. Zinger, in 2018, your office argued that Correctional Service Canada lacked transparency and accountability. Does this also apply to inmate transfers and the review of the related decisions? Has your opinion changed since then?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger]

We can now see that most Canadians agree on the underlying principles of the Correctional Service of Canada. We hear about the emphasis on rehabilitation and the fact that punishment means sending people to prison.

It's as punishment, not for punishment.

People agree that inmates should retain all their rights, except the restricted rights. This applies to most inmates. The issue arises when much more difficult or challenging cases come up. Applying these principles becomes a real challenge. It tests the system.

You spoke about victims' rights. In my opinion, the committee can take a closer look at public perception. According to this perception, there's a lack of consistency between victims' rights inmates' rights. I hope that all the committee members can reach a consensus on this matter. I agree that it isn't just a perception. It's a reality supported by facts. I think that the federal government could do a lot more in this area. I'm quite willing to share my thoughts on this issue.