Public Safety Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

Commissioner Kelly, I'm certainly glad you spoke about the need to do more when it comes to notifying victims. We certainly agree. We think it is completely unacceptable to think that victims, especially in this case, would read about a transfer in the media. It is something that I hope you and your team are looking at very closely. It is unacceptable. I think this committee would look forward to the future recommendations and changes that you will be implementing.

We had witnesses from the correctional services union and parole board representatives. They talked about more notification, but I can certainly see the balancing between not wanting interference in a transfer and the public notification, to avoid any of those types of incidents. That is not being talked about here, but I think that's a very real threat. You wouldn't want someone to try to help an inmate escape, for example, during a transfer. I think that's crucial, but to rely on that and not notify victims' families is not the right balance.

I'll leave it there, because I appreciate, as you have indicated already, that you are working on that.

I want to speak about the suggestion that the members opposite have brought up several times about Bill C-83 being the catalyst to allow this to happen. There was a quote in The Globe and Mail that the original wording around “least restrictive” was actually introduced by Brian Mulroney in the nineties and that it changed to “necessary”, which was outlined by Stephen Harper. The quote was from Public Safety, so maybe Mr. Tupper can speak to this. There was the suggestion that, regardless of “less restrictive” or “necessary”, the process for the custody rating scale in the Bernardo example would not have made any difference. Are you aware of this quote? It was by Magali Deussing.

Can you confirm whether you feel that the custody rating scale would still have been implemented the same, whether it was “least restrictive” or “necessary”?

[Shawn Tupper]

I'm not aware of the quote. What I will say is that we know that the decisions made by the service are based on evidence. They are grounded in modelling that is reflective of decades of experience in applying these assessments. We know that the most effort is placed on those who are at highest risk.

As we work through those processes and look at the evidence-based approach that they take to making these assessments, I'm confident that outcomes are consistent across time.

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

Thank you.

I have to admit that, from the public's perspective and even my own, especially before being in this role, understanding the difference between maximum and medium.... They sound different, but they're not an extension of the punishment for the heinous crimes or the crimes in general. Even if there were offenders who had, say, less heinous crimes who were in maximum security, it's really based on the safety and movement of correctional workers inside the facility or on the flight risk. We heard at our last meeting the difference between maximum and medium. In medium, there are the same perimeters but not weapons to control inside the facility. That allows for a little bit more movement in terms of programming.

There's one programming piece that we don't talk about. We've heard about the heinous nature of Paul Bernardo, but what about ensuring that he understands the consequences of his crimes and his actions and ensuring that the victims have that approach to ensure that he doesn't get to live without understanding the damage he did to victims and to, frankly, women across this country?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

,Thank you, Ms. O'Connell and Mr. Tupper. That's your time.

We'll move on to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Kelly, I'll quote former public safety minister Marco Mendicino, who said that Canadians deserve to know why the offender was transferred from a maximum‑security prison to a medium‑security prison. He said the following: “The system should have done better. [...] More must be done to place victims at the forefront of decisions—and I am determined to make that happen.” This is from a press release issued last July.

We're familiar with Correctional Service Canada's mandate, the transfer protocol and the offenders' privacy rights. Do you think that the minister's comments went too far?

[Anne Kelly]

We've set up a multidisciplinary committee to look at how we can further assist victims and at what information we can give them and when. In addition, the review of that specific case showed that this area needs work.

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

Okay.

Right now, we're aware that the privacy rights of an incarcerated person take precedence over the right of victims and their families to obtain information. In practical terms, you're referring to what the minister brought up, and you spoke about a committee that was established. However, what more can we do to ensure that families receive information earlier?

[Anne Kelly]

The ministerial directive states that, when a transfer is being considered, the Correctional Service of Canada will contact victims to let them know that they can update their statement at any time, which is very important. It's part of the information provided.

Ms. Gagnon, would you like to elaborate on this?

[Kirstan Gagnon, Assistant Commissioner, Communications and Engagement Sector, Correctional Service of Canada]

Yes. I also want to point out that, in this case, we really did inform the victims before the transfer took place, even though it wasn't much notice. It was a week before the media reported on the transfer. The victims were grateful to receive the information.

The ministerial directive requires us to give more information to victims, so that they can inform us about their safety. We must determine whether any considerations, such as geographic considerations, must be taken into account in a transfer. We apply these rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.

We'll move to Ms. Barron now, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll continue with questions for you, Ms. Kelly.

Mr. Wilkins, who was here prior to my being here and is the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said in his testimony last week that correctional officers are often not being engaged with case management teams in making decisions around the transfers of inmates.

Is this true? Can you comment on this?

[Anne Kelly]

The case management team consists of the parole officer and other members, including correctional officers. Correctional officers are assigned a small caseload. France could speak more to this.

Every 45 days they have to do a structured casework record. It's a bit of a template. They know whether the offender was involved in any incident and whether the offender works or is in any programs. It's quite detailed. Also, every day they submit observation reports. Those observation reports and structured intervention records are information that is taken into consideration by the parole officer, who is the person that actually makes recommendations. They are definitely part of it.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Could you explain why the concerns that they're not being engaged at that level would be there then? If the union president is bringing forward these concerns, can you explain what that might be based on?

[Anne Kelly]

Actually, I was very pleased to hear Mr. Wilkins say that correctional officers would want to be even more involved in the case management process. I can tell you that this is something I'll be discussing with Mr. Wilkins.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you. I forgot to set my timer, so I'm going to keep asking questions until I get cut off.

Ms. Kelly, can you tell us about the process of information sharing between the institutions that Paul Bernardo was transferred between and amongst the correctional officers in both institutions? What does that communication process look like between the two?

[Anne Kelly]

When we transfer an offender, normally there's information shared among the parole officers from one institution to the other, so they know who they are getting at the other end. That's the way it works.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

Now we'll move on to Mrs. Thomas, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Kelly, I'm wondering about a couple of questions with regard to the timeline. Can you confirm to us on what date the transfer took place with Paul Bernardo from maximum to medium security?

[Anne Kelly]

The transfer took place on May 29.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. Can you tell me what date the minister was made aware that this transfer would be done?

[Anne Kelly]

There were notifications beginning in February, then again in March and in May. I think this was something that was also mentioned in the press conference.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Can you tell me on what date the victims' families were made aware of his transfer?

[Anne Kelly]

The victims' families were made aware of the transfer on the day of the transfer, in the morning.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Was that notification given before Mr. Bernardo was transferred or after?

[Kirstan Gagnon]

It was by phone and in writing, and then afterwards some of them we recontacted and spoke with to give more rationale around the decision-making.