Public Safety Committee on March 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Yes, you're on the speaking list after Mr. Julian, who is after Ms. Ferreri.

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

On a point of order, if we're going to be sticklers on the speaking order, I believe Mr. Bittle was on the list. If Ms. Ferreri was on the list for the amendment, which has now carried, then we should go back to the general speaking list, which I believe has Mr. Bittle.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

We have just the one speaking list on this.

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

Right, but I think there was confusion with the amendment. If Ms. Ferreri was speaking to the amendment, then you would move to the first speaker for the main motion because we just dealt with the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Maybe that was my fault, Ms. O'Connell.

We're going to finish with Ms. Ferreri, and then we're going to move to Mr. Julian.

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

Thanks. I just wanted a clarification.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you.

Hopefully we can get through to the meat and potatoes of this, because I think what we're elected to do here is be the voice of the people who don't have one, in particular, in this case, the victims.

To the point that came earlier that it's an operational decision, who does the commissioner of Corrections Canada report to? It's the Minister of Public Safety. The commissioner of the CSC is recommended for appointment by the Prime Minister and approved by an order in council. This appointed position reports directly to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs and is accountable to the public via Parliament. It's important to have on the record what that is.

I want to read into the record a letter that has garnered a lot of attention, and so it should. It is dated March 4, 2024, and is directed to Ms. Kelly, who is the commissioner who reports to Corrections Canada and the Minister of Public Safety.

Ms. Kelly,

As I am sure by now you are aware that the living conditions of serial rapist, psychopath, murderer and dangerous offender Paul Bernardo has been revealed. Contrary to your address, these conditions are quite the opposite to what you led us all to believe. You claimed this was a lateral move. Other than the fact that there are cells and prison guards, the difference between a maximum-security penitentiary and a medium security facility such as La Macaza, couldn’t be more different.

Please help me understand how someone such as Paul Bernardo can be housed in a facility such as this. One of Canada’s most notorious killers. A psychopathic serial rapist. A designated DANGEROUS OFFENDER. Does any of this mean anything? I can only imagine the prisoners remaining in maximum security penitentiaries must be asking the same question. If someone who commits the worst of the worst crimes doesn’t qualify for the harshest conditions, then who does?

This monster is allowed to play pick up hockey, tennis, billiards, workout in a 5-star gym facility, and partake in a workshop with tools. Signing out tools like the ones he used to torture, sodomise, and ultimately kill his victims. Does this seem fair? Logical? Ethical? Right? And your prison staff feel safe? They certainly shouldn’t.

My best friend Kristen French doesn’t get to skate anymore. She was a very skilled, and talented figure skater. She could have taken her love and passion for the sport to the top. But that dream was stolen from her, as was her life. A beautiful life that was filled with so much promise. All taken away by that psychopath monster who is now living the good life.

I understand that Paul Bernardo has rights. I am not disputing that. But these should be basic rights. He took away lives in the worst way possible. There has to be life-long consequences for this. Not rewards.

Ms. Kelly, I have to assume that any human being with common sense can see that this move is nothing short of insanity. It’s ok to make mistakes or revoke bad decisions. This was a very bad decision. I know you and your team claim all the criteria was met and that policies and procedures were followed. You can now see that by moving Bernardo a major mistake was made. You can right this wrong. By leaving Bernardo in medium-security you are telling everyone that what this monster did wasn’t that bad. You are telling other criminals to just do their time quietly, and you will be rewarded despite the severity of the crime you commit.

Is this the message you are wanting to give? I certainly hope not.

There are more details coming out soon with regard to living conditions at La Macaza. It's time to do the right thing for the victims, their families and all Canadian alike. Do the right thing Ms. Kelly. Move Paul Bernardo back to maximum-security where he belongs.

I would encourage this committee—in particular, somebody who sits on this committee and is from the region in which these women were raped and murdered—to further study this with six meetings and with all of these witnesses so we can make sure that this never happens again.

My point, to my colleague to my left, Mr. Paul-Hus, is that the Victims Bill of Rights be upheld, because we haven't seen that under this Liberal government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, my thoughts are with the victims today as well.

I support the discussion we're having. I appreciate that we've added additional witnesses. I think that is very important. Certainly, thinking of the victims today and the fact that we started this study last fall, my concern is that we have yet to report.... If the objective of our committee is to put in place recommendations that we oblige the government to follow to ensure that the concerns raised about victims and victims families, about the notification process around transfers and about how transfers are effectuated.... There are also the broad concerns that have been raised in the testimony we've heard so far in this study about correctional officers being consulted. They are the ones who know best the offenders who are in the institutions. We've heard from correctional officers that they haven't been consulted.

For all those reasons, it is important to continue this study. I would like the motion to reflect that we are continuing a study that we began last November and that what we're really doing is adding an additional six meetings for a total of no less than 11 meetings on this issue. As my Conservative colleagues have indicated, they see no distinction between the study we started last fall and the proposal to extend or continue that study we're hearing today.

I believe that we as a committee have made the decision to move ahead on clause-by-clause on Bill C-26. Cybersecurity is an issue that is of fundamental importance. I believe we can potentially wrap up the clause-by-clause study of this bill, which has been stuck out in no man's land now for two years. The reality is that we need to complete our work on that. I'm assuming that's the intent as well. We could potentially start the study this week. We would sit on clause-by-clause for cybersecurity, complete our work on that bill, which has been delayed for far too long and is far too critical for Canada's infrastructure, and then come back to this study. I have no objections to that. I believe the additional names Ms. O'Connell offered are valuable.

I have a further concern that's not reflected in the motion. I believe we need to clarify in the motion the fact that we're continuing this study. My further concern is the number of escapes we saw in previous years. I'm talking about the previous government, the Harper government. The number of escapes from federal institutions was at its highest level. In fact, the three worst years for prison escapes in recent memory were under the Harper government.

At the same time, we saw proposals to cut—to slash—funding to correctional services by $290 million. That was proposed by the Conservatives in December. That's a total of $290 million out of the overall Correctional Service Canada budget. I think that is a matter of some concern too. We've seen a higher level of escapes. If we're talking about public safety, it's important to keep in context that slashing the budget, as proposed and voted on in December, is not something that helps to reassure Canadians or to ensure public safety. That's an element that I think needs to be considered as part of continuing our study.

Overall, with those adjustments or changes, I think the most important element is that we proceed to hearing from witnesses, take a break around cybersecurity so we can complete the work that has been delayed for far too long and then come back and complete the study. Most importantly, I hope that we issue a report in the House of Commons that ensures victims are taken into consideration before transfers are put into place and ensures correctional officers are consulted in a meaningful way before transfers take place.

We can't defend at all the horrible, horrific, sadistic acts of Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta. The important thing is that the public have confidence in the correctional service and our prison system and see that they are working on their behalf. It is crucial that we get to a report and to recommendations, table them in the House, have a debate in the House of Commons and ensure that the government is being pressured to put into place the recommendations we are making.

In general, I support the motion. I think there is some tweaking required to ensure that people are aware that this is a continuation of a study we started last November. However, above all, I believe that we need to complete this study, make the recommendations and ensure that they are respected and put into place so that the concerns raised over the last few months are finally met with the response of the public safety committee.

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Wait one moment, please, Mr. Kurek.

Mr. Julian, are you making an amendment? We received something here via email. I just want to clarify that, because you did talk about the ongoing study we're doing. I want to follow up and make sure we're not missing something before we move on.

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

No. What you received you can put aside, because we've made some adjustments, I think. I wrote that up in response to the motion as tabled, but this is an evolving discussion. We have another hour or so to go, and I'm carefully listening to my colleagues from all parties to see the best way to come to a consensus on this.

I would prefer that we clarify we're continuing the study and adding six meetings for a total of 11. I think that would help clarify things. Hopefully that's something the Conservatives will accept as a friendly amendment.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm concerned about the issue of the cuts that were proposed in December and what impact those may have on correctional facilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

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

Actually, I believe that was me.

I was going to make the same point Mr. Julian just made, so I'll let it go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

Mr. Kurek, you have your hand up. I want to go to you, because I'm not sure if you were disrupted or not.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have some things to say, but I believe Mr. Motz was up before me, or at least I saw his hand up before I put mine up. I can reserve my comments until I hear from my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Ms. Michaud, you're up.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think I had my hand up before Mr. Julian, but that's okay. I let him speak before I did.

I don't agree with what he said [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I don't think this study should be seen as a continuation of the Paul Bernardo study that we started last fall. It's completely different.

The reason I signed the request for this emergency meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) is that there may have been some breaches—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Ms. Michaud, I know there's a delay for you. Wait just one moment, please. We have a point of order.

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

We're not receiving interpretation because of the poor sound quality. My apologies to Madame Michaud.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

Ms. Michaud, we're going to let you try again. You can start over, if you wish.

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

I don't know if it will work, because I have a message telling me that the network connection is unstable.

I don't know whether you would prefer I continue or try to connect in another way to see if it works better. The woman from the help desk told me that I was connected to Zoom through my web browser, not through the app. I could try using the Zoom application to see if it's better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

You were coming through at the very end. If you want to continue, we'll keep trying.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.