Evidence of meeting #98 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
The Clerk
Okay, so “representatives from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers”, bullet (h), is staying.
Bullet (i) is being deleted, as are the bullets added further to the previously agreed-to amendment, bullets (j) to (o).
Then, at the end of the list of witnesses, “representatives from the McGill medical team” is being added.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
We're going to move on in the speaking order to Glen Motz.
Mr. Motz.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you very much, Chair. I won't speak at this time.
Liberal
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Yes, that's the point. Whenever there's an amendment, we have to start a new speaking list.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
I see Ms. Ferreri.
Mr. Julian, your hand is up, I take it, to speak.
Liberal
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
On a point of order, I wonder if the reluctance to speak means we'd rather vote on the amendment and then carry on with the main motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Heath MacDonald
I believe, Mr. McKinnon, people want to speak to the amendment.
It will be Mr. Paul-Hus, who is switching with Ms. Ferreri.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am extremely surprised by the Bloc Québécois member's amendment. She said that we are turning this matter into a political issue, when our job is precisely to represent our constituents. When a story like this breaks and people want to know what happened, it is our job to bring the matter before Parliament and try to get answers.
I don't understand why Ms. Michaud is treating this as though it's nothing more than an administrative issue. She doesn't see this as a big deal. She thinks that all we need is a little two-hour meeting to understand how things went down and then we can move on.
I think we need to stick to what the original motion called for. My understanding is that the Liberals even wanted to go further. I think we are pretty well unanimous about wanting to find out the reasons why scum like Luka Magnotta and Paul Bernardo wound up in a medium-security penitentiary.
It's not purely an administrative issue. It's more than that.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to start off by saying that if the kind of violence we saw committed by Bernardo and Magnotta were ever to occur, God forbid, to any person in my life or any of my loved ones, I would want that person to never see the light of day.
I'll take off my political hat and my political affiliation and say this for every single member of this committee. If anything happened and if any violent crimes were committed, God forbid, against any members of your families, I would want that person to be locked up and never see the light of day.
I'm supportive of the motion that was put forward, and I'm supportive of the amendments put forward by my colleague Madame Michaud. I think the amendments put forward will allow us to focus our efforts on finding better outcomes for victims in this country. I think that's important.
Based on what I've heard so far this morning, there is an intent—and I hope it's not the case—to turn this into political theatre. Ms. Ferreri very vehemently and explicitly said we need to be a voice for those who don't have a voice—the voiceless. Mr. Paul-Hus was vehement, and forcefully held in his hand the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Mr. Caputo spent a significant amount of time on Twitter talking about whether or not criminals in this country have access to activities on hockey rinks, for example.
My fear is that's what's going to happen with this study. It is far too important to become political theatre.
I truly hope that doesn't happen, because if it does, as I will unfortunately state to my Conservative colleagues, I will gladly take a chainsaw to their proverbial soapbox. I'll point out, firstly, that transfers from maximum- to medium-security prisons in this country peaked under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, with 291 in 2012-13 and 319 in 2013-14. They are years in which, I will point out—
Conservative
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
In terms of relevancy, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the current Liberal-NDP government's decisions, not those of former governments that are no longer here.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I am speaking to the amendment. I understand they're going to try to use points of order to cut off my train of thought because the facts are hurtful.
The next is with regard to the hockey rink that Mr. Caputo tweeted about. My understanding is it was built decades ago.
The Conservative government had a decade in power—four years of which were as a majority government—when they could do whatever they wanted. They refused to stand on a soapbox, so where was the outrage then?
Conservative
Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
If we're going to talk about soapboxes, perhaps we could refrain from this. Mr. Paul Bernardo was not in medium security at the time when Prime Minister Harper was in.
Let's talk about soapboxes. If we're going to talk about soapboxes, we can do that.
Liberal
Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I will gladly point out once again—and take a chainsaw to the soapbox made of toothpicks—that the three worst years of prison escapes were under the Conservative government. They happened during the Harper years. What I'm hoping is that we actually focus on finding solutions for victims and not on trying to paint a government as soft on crime when members of the government that had the worst record on crime are sitting right in front of me. It is the Conservatives.
I also want to say that I hope whatever we do moving forward in this study builds upon what we already know based on the testimony we received from Commissioner Anne Kelly. A question posed by my colleague Mr. Bittle was this: “Would it be a legal order for the minister to interject in the specific transfer of an individual?” She responded, “My understanding is that the minister does not have a role. It's very much an operational decision.” I hope that we build on that because we've established it. We have that testimony on record.
I hope we also build on the question that I posed to Commissioner Kelly: With the security surrounding a maximum-security prison and a medium-security prison, is one more secure than the other? Her response was no. I actually went out and visited several prisons to confirm this on my own, to witness it on my own, so that's been confirmed.
What I hope we do with the motion proposed by the Conservatives and the amendments, which I support, by my colleague Madam Michaud is build on what we've learned, actually look for solutions to have better outcomes for victims in this country and not let this become political theatre, which it looks like the Conservatives would like it to be.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm voting against the amendment. I want to start by saying that I think the idea of having an expanded witness list and continuing the study we started last November makes sense. I don't believe the amendment achieves that. The amendment actually restricts the kinds of questions that I think we all need to ask about victims and how they are notified and about correctional officers and how their feedback is provided around transfers. The list that we adopted of additional witnesses that Ms. O'Connell presented, I thought, made a lot of sense.
I'm also very concerned about how high escapes were under the Harper government, threatening public safety, and about the fact that Conservatives proposed in December slashing dramatically Correctional Service Canada's budget by nearly $300 million. I don't think any of that comes out with this amendment.
I want to stress that I believe it's important that we respond to victims. In the case of this special emergency meeting, which costs tens of thousands of dollars to put on, if members of two different parties sign a letter, they should at least agree on their approach to how this emergency meeting will be held. We could have had this discussion next Monday at our regular meeting. Instead, we are spending tens of thousands of dollars having the special meeting, and it now appears that the two parties that signed the convocation for this special meeting had two dramatically different visions of how this emergency meeting would proceed. When they're spending taxpayers' money, as this meeting definitely does, I think it's incumbent on members of Parliament of all parties to at least agree on what the approach is.
I'll be voting against the amendment, but I would urge all members to not filibuster this out. If Conservatives are not in agreement with this amendment—like me—instead of talking it out so there's no vote, they should at least allow the vote to be held. I think members should have the opportunity to express their support or rejection of the amendment and the main motion, and the only way to do that is to come to a conclusion.
We only have half an hour left in this meeting, and I hope that no one filibusters this out. I hope we have the vote on the amendment and proceed from there.
Thank you.