Public Safety Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Chwalczuk, Ms. Murray and Ms. Penner, I want to thank you for being here today.

I want to begin by acknowledging how difficult it must be for you to have to relive this, to a certain extent. I extend the appreciation of all members of this committee, regardless of political stripe. We very much appreciate your being here and sharing your testimony with us so that we can move forward and find a way to do things better.

In our last meeting, I was able to personally address the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Commissioner Kelly. I shared with her my gratitude for the work that she's doing to ensure that Canadians are kept safer. We are at a 20-year low in prisoners escaping from correctional institutions in this country, which is good news.

I also took the opportunity—as a father, as a brother, as a son, as a member of this committee, as a member of Parliament—to express my extreme discontent with the way in which one particular aspect of this transfer was handled. That was the way in which all three of you were treated and informed of the transfer: without being given a full day's heads-up, without being given any possibility of counselling, any possibility of being able to absorb the news. That, for me, was unacceptable. I think it's unacceptable for all members of this committee and for all Canadians.

I think that the best use of my time and the best use of our time here in this committee is to ensure that this doesn't happen again, to ensure that whatever we're doing moving forward ensures that victims of crimes of the likes of those committed by Mr. Bernardo are treated with greater respect and the kind of respect that you deserve.

What I want to ask you today—and this is for the benefit of the multidisciplinary working committee that has been established because of this—is this: Based on the way you were treated, based on the way you were informed of the transfer, what should have been done that it wasn't done?

I'll turn it over to whoever wants to go first, perhaps Ms. Penner.

[Marcia Penner]

That is an important question and one that we've talked about at great length.

I think that time, ample time, is very important. It's giving the family and the friends ample notice that this is going to happen. That leaves time for processing, questions, rebuttal, counsel. There are certain steps in which it has to happen. If a prisoner of this magnitude is being moved, there are certain steps that have to be done in order to facilitate that move and have the family, the victims and the friends ready for that to occur. None of that....

Obviously, I don't believe that this move should have happened, period. In doing it, though, giving enough time and notice would have been the least, I believe, that the committee could have done.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Penner.

Ms. Murray, would you comment?

[Laura Murray]

Thank you.

Obviously, I'm in agreement with Marcia.

One thing I would just like to add is—I think she touched on it briefly—counsel. One of my thoughts with regard to the multidisciplinary committee, seeing that it's supposed to be multidisciplinary, is that I feel very strongly that there should be some trained mental health professionals on that committee. They would then liaise with the family and any other victims or friends who would need to be informed of these things. It really does retraumatize.

You said that you thought that we would re-experience these crimes and this trauma, to a certain extent, when we were notified. In fact, I would say that it was almost to the full extent. That, essentially, is what happens when you are retraumatized: You revert emotionally back to the initial trauma.

I think it's really important that there be some guidance surrounding mental health and how to best handle and support family members of the victims—or the victims themselves, obviously, in other cases. That should really be the first concern: how these family members and victims are going to feel and react, and how you can support them.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Please comment, Ms. Chwalczuk.

[Tennille Chwalczuk]

Thank you.

I would say it's communication and time, as they have both touched upon as well. It has to be the first thing that happens. Give time. Give resources. Again, as Laura touched upon, I think it's getting the victims, their families and friends, and anyone who needs it the mental health backing they need to go through this again. It should be made more readily available.

Thank you.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Chwalczuk.

Do I have any time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Go ahead.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I wanted to ask a question of Dr. Roebuck.

At our last meeting, Commissioner Kelly updated our committee on the creation of the multidisciplinary working group. What do you hope to get out of the creation of that committee?

Could you perhaps build upon what has just been said with regard to the notification, the timing and the resources available to victims, and what you hope the committee will achieve with regard to those actions?

[Dr. Benjamin Roebuck]

Thank you for the question.

To all the witnesses, I'm so sorry for what you've experienced. The way we are treating victims of crime in Canada isn't just. It's not kind, it's not compassionate and it's not respectful.

Our office has made recommendations about notifications of prison transfers all the way back to 2010. They've not been implemented to this point, and we're hoping that this is a turning point.

What we recommended is that there not be any transfers if people haven't been notified at the time of the pending transfer that the decision has been considered and haven't been told how they submit their feedback and share concerns so that they're taken into consideration in that final decision.

Under the current law, what typically happens is that for all transfers to maximum or medium security, victims aren't notified until two days afterward. The standards we're providing are very poor.

In the multidisciplinary committee, I think what's encouraging is that it looks like there's an intent on CSC's side to try to address a broader range of issues affecting victims of crime. As an ombud for victims of crime, I'm hopeful about the concerns that we've certainly been raising. There are many areas like this where we can do better. We need to pay attention and we need to respond so that we're not causing further harm to people who have already been harmed.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Dr. Roebuck.

Thank you to our witnesses who are joining us by video conference.

I want to thank you in advance, Mr. Chair, for being so lenient with the time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Michaud, please.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too would like to thank our guests for being here today.

I commend you for your courage, ladies. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to relive those events over and over again. It's in the media. It still comes up a lot. Again, my condolences. I offered them at the first meeting devoted to this study, but I didn't have the opportunity to speak directly with you. My thoughts are with you at this difficult time, as the events are unfortunately resurfacing with this study.

Despite that, you insisted that the committee conduct this study. In a letter you sent on October 5, you asked the committee to launch a study to deepen public understanding of the reclassification and transfer of the offender in question and to restore Canadians' confidence in the public safety and justice systems.

I imagine that you have followed the committee's work so far, and have heard what Commissioner Kelly and the correctional investigator had to say.

To date, are you remotely satisfied with what's been said? Has it provided you with any comfort? Or quite the contrary, do you think that this won't help at all to restore your confidence or that of any Canadian who goes through events like this?

Like my colleagues, I'd like to hear from all three of you. Ms. Penner could answer first.

[Laura Murray]

I'm sorry; I was able to hear everything as it was translated, but unfortunately Marcia and Tennille were not able to do that, so I will attempt to answer the question.

Basically, the member was asking whether the request to have this study undertaken was in the hopes that it would achieve some success in terms of better informing the public of all the things we've been saying. We heard Anne Kelly speak, and the member was wondering if we were at all satisfied with those comments and explanations and if they provided us a sense of being heard, because she understands that this was obviously extremely difficult for us.

I'm not sure if you want to....

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

You're muted. Ladies, if you want to just check your computer and see if you are under the interpretation sign, that might have been the issue. Go ahead.

[Marcia Penner]

Is it there now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We can hear you fine.

[Marcia Penner]

Perfect. Thank you.

In regard to that question, again, I apologize that I didn't hear that addressed to me. As I had said in my original address, I do understand that Anne Kelly was doing the job correctly in terms of the proper criteria and rules and regulations that they have established and have laid out for her. However, I don't feel heard. I don't feel that the decision that was made was the right decision. I believe that if he escaped from prison he would definitely still be a danger to all of us. I believe he is a psychopath and a sexual sadist who can never be rehabilitated. He was sentenced to maximum security, and that is the facility that he should endure for the entire remainder of his stay.

I believe that those regulations, the criteria, the questions and the testing of these prisoners need to be re-evaluated. Is that the answer? I am not sure. I do know that Paul Bernardo is the worst of the worst. It doesn't get worse, and no crimes get any worse than his.

By moving him to a lower-security facility, they are specifically telling the victims and families that what has happened is not that bad; it's medium. In this way, they are revictimized. They have to go through the whole entire thing again, and it's absolutely wrong. Therefore, I don't feel heard. I think it needs to be changed and I hope that doing this panel will instigate some of that change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Ms. Chwalczuk, do you want to answer? No?

Can you hear us okay?

[Laura Murray]

Yes. Tennille is just....

I am just going to say something quickly, which is that I think when we heard there was going to be a review of the transfer decision, it provided us with some hope that sanity would prevail and the committee would find that he was not the model prisoner who should be moved and whose classification should be downgraded to medium. We watched the explanation from Anne Kelly, and when she said that the findings of the committee revealed that they complied with all the laws and policies, that may well be the case. We obviously aren't privy to all of the ins and outs of that, but she also said that the committee took into account consideration of the victims and they followed all the laws and policies surrounding victim notification. That was really where we dug our heels in and said that's where it's going to have to be changed, because the victim's rights need to matter just as much as the prisoner's rights. The ombudsman's comments have been wonderful, and I think he has summed up so well how victims' rights are not heard in this country and how they need to be heard and the steps this committee is, hopefully, going to be working towards to make that happen.

Really, I think that's what we're hoping for with this panel and with this new committee: It's that the victim's rights will have as much weight as the offender's.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much for your answers.

After reviewing the decision, the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada found that it was sound and consistent. The decision was clearly consistent with established standards and the offender met the criteria to be moved from a maximum security penitentiary to a medium security penitentiary.

Do you think the criteria should be changed? Is that what you're wondering too? Are you asking parliamentarians to change them?

I think it's really important for Correctional Service Canada to remain independent, and it, not Parliament, should be making these decisions, but perhaps the criteria need to be reviewed?

[Laura Murray]

I was trying to give that to Marcia because she's said it a few times, just to us.

The criteria as Anne Kelly outlined them for this downgrading or this decision regarding the security classification were that there was a statistical component and there was also the clinical component. Of that clinical component, it was my understanding that it included the ability to manage the inmate, the escape risk and the public risk.

He came out on the ability to manage as medium, the escape risk as medium and the public risk as high, so it was nice that he was rated as high on that and that it was acknowledged. However, I'll take it to Marcia. She had said that if the public risk is high, whether or not he came out overall as medium, we would like to see that high public risk really negate that entire component.

[Marcia Penner]

Further to that, I do believe that, yes, if there are three boxes for criteria that need to be checked and one of those boxes does not fit the criteria for a move or a rehabilitated prisoner, then the move is negated. If this prisoner is still a risk to society if he escapes prison, then he is not moved.

I believe there has to be more thorough testing. This prisoner has been in jail for 31 years. I think he knows the ins and outs and knows how to work the system and how to manipulate a test to show that he's going to play nice with another prisoner. That, to me, does not warrant a move.

If this is just a lateral move, as Anne Kelly has indicated, and from maximum to medium there's no difference and it's the same security, etc., then leave him in maximum security where he belongs.

There has to be a more thorough system, more questions asked and more ways that the system cannot be manipulated, and if any of those do not fit, then the prisoner is not moved and remains in the maximum security prison to which he was sentenced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We're going to move on to Mr. Julian, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say to the victims—Ms. Penner, Ms. Chwalczuk and Ms. Murray—that words can't describe what you have been through. It is deeply appreciated that you are taking the trauma of that horrific experience to come before this committee, show such courage and tell us what needs to be changed so this never happens again. I think we all deeply appreciate your wisdom, which I deeply hope will serve to create change in the correctional system.

Ms. Kelly testified here this week. I thought the most important part of her testimony was when she said that the Correctional Service always takes into consideration information relative to the victims when they're making a decision. She said that at any moment during a sentence, a victim can present a new victim impact statement to the Correctional Service. I find that appalling, because it puts the onus on the victims. You have lived trauma. Victims are forced, currently, to guess about whether or not their victim impact statement would make a difference in avoiding a transfer that could have significant repercussions.

I have two questions for all three of you, if you would like to respond.

First, how fair do you think it is that the onus is on the victims to present a new victim impact statement?

Second, had you been given a couple of weeks' advance notice that the Correctional Service was contemplating a transfer of this sadistic, pathological murderer, would you have wanted to file a victim impact statement—so they would be aware the trauma is very real and exists today—and in that way head off the transfer?