Public Safety Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[Anne Kelly]

I want to say.... Because our staff does phenomenal work in very challenging circumstances, I just want to thank them.

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

Thank you. That's very appropriate.

The question that was posed by one of my Conservative colleagues on the constituent who was asking the question, “If not Paul Bernardo in maximum security, then who?” really resonated with me. I hear us talking about the differences of the experience that Paul Bernardo would have in maximum security versus medium security. Why do we have maximum security if there's really no difference of experience? I'm not understanding this.

Maximum security seems like the place for someone like Paul Bernardo, who is showing no remorse. He's a risk to the public. He's a risk to other inmates. Why is he not in maximum security? If not, to reiterate the question of my Conservative colleague, then who is in maximum security?

[Anne Kelly]

I have five seconds. Very quickly, the people who are in maximum security are those whose behaviour we cannot manage elsewhere. They assault staff. They throw urine on staff. They stab each other. These—

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Kelly. The time is up.

We'll move on to Mrs. Thomas, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Kelly, you opened up your remarks by saying that victims' safety continues to be “top of mind”. Is that true?

[Anne Kelly]

Yes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

In the case of Bernardo, victims were told only after the transfer took place or maybe simultaneously. Nevertheless, Bernardo would have known before the victims knew. Does that sound like victims were put first?

[Anne Kelly]

First of all, we work with the offenders. There are different reasons for a transfer, so they're definitely involved in the process.

In terms of notifying victims, in this case, as I said, we notified them the morning of. Normally, for medium security, according to legislation, we notify them after the transfer, but in this case, because of the high-profile nature of the case, we notified them in the morning. However, with the multidisciplinary committee that we've established, these are things that we are discussing, and we're seeing how we can enhance information to victims.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I find it interesting, because you continuously go back to the findings of the multidisciplinary committee, yet, at the same time, you seem to be quite defensive of this terminology around achieving balance.

According to the Supreme Court decision in 2012, the language used around that is this: There would be “a just and proportionate balance...based on the particular case before the court.”

It says, “just and proportionate”. Proportionality suggests that the scale isn't like this, but rather that the factors that might tip the scale slightly are considered. That's balance, according to the Supreme Court decision in 2012.

In this case, that scale was tipped towards Bernardo and not towards the victims' families. Why is that?

[Anne Kelly]

Again, in this case, we did the security classification. We did the transfer and, as per legislation, we notified the victims the morning of, but moving forward—and this is what I was saying in French—now, when we consider a transfer, when we're going to support a transfer, we will reach out to the victims so they have a chance to update their victim statements.

I think that's a good thing, and we're very open to that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Again, though, Mr. Bernardo was put ahead of the victims. Why?

[Anne Kelly]

I wouldn't say that he was put ahead of the victims. Again, we—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Would you say that notifying the victims after the transfer or simultaneously was putting them in a fair place?

[Anne Kelly]

First of all, we would have considered as well in the transfer decision any victim statement they had provided. That would have been part, definitely, of the—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Just to be clear here then, Ms. Kelly, you're saying that you considered their statements and, based on their statements, you determined that it was in their best interest to find out either simultaneously or after the transfer took place. You decided, based on the victim statements, that's what would be in their best interest.

[Anne Kelly]

No, there are two things.

If the victims submit a victim statement, an updated one, that's considered in the transfer process.

In terms of the notification, once it was decided that he was going to be transferred, again, we followed the law and the policies. However, moving forward—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Ms. Kelly, I understand. I understand what your intentions are moving forward. I hope that's true, but what I've heard over and over again from you here today—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I believe that my colleague is badgering the witness. I suggest that's not appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Continue, Mrs. Thomas, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Nevertheless, what I hear today is that, in this case, Bernardo was put ahead of the victims.

I'll give the remainder of my time to Mr. Tony Baldinelli.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Baldinelli.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Quickly, just building on my colleague's comments, Benjamin Roebuck, the federal ombudsperson, stated this on the transfer and its decision. He indicated that the “system strikes the wrong balance between victims' rights and prisoners' privacy rights”, indicating that the system is imbalanced. It leads to this question: Whom does the justice system serve?

[Anne Kelly]

For us, obviously, we take into consideration the protection of the public, our staff and our institutions. We also work with victims and provide them with information.

We have 8,000 registered victims. That amounts to approximately 40,000 contacts per year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you. The time is up.

We're going to move to Ms. O'Connell now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, again, for answering all these questions. I think it has been very helpful.

I want to follow up on Ms. Barron's last question, where you were cut off.

At the beginning of the testimony, we talked about how maximum versus medium is not an extension of the sentence that any given offender is provided. You started to explain. I don't think it's necessarily a mistrust by Canadians. It's a misunderstanding of the inner workings of corrections services.

You were talking about the types of inmates who would be under maximum security. Can you continue with that answer? I found it very helpful.