Public Safety Committee on March 10th, 2026

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

While I have the floor, since we're near the end of our time with you, I want to thank you again for being here.

I'd like to move a motion that I put on notice on Friday, March 6, regarding a study that would be prudent for our committee to study. I understand that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

This is the time for this particular study. If you would like to come back to the motion after the witness has left us.... You have more time, if you want to keep exchanging with the witness. Would you like to do that?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Can I be assured that I will be given the floor before we adjourn?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Yes, you can be assured. Since you raised your hand, you'll be first to speak. Before you finish your time, you have one more minute if you want. I will then turn to MP Ramsay, and then we'll turn to your motion.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Okay.

Mr. Ramsay, would you like to have the floor for five minutes?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

You still have one minute, Ms. Kirkland, do you not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

It looks like it's your turn.

Go ahead.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. German, thank you very much for your testimony today.

In your opening remarks, you portrayed Canada as a country where every criminal would like to go. I would submit to you that every other country I looked at, especially in the Five Eyes, has a similar situation to what Canada is experiencing right now. For instance, there are over 53,000 people in the absconder pool in England. There are 21,000 in New Zealand. I could go on with France, Spain, Australia, etc.

How is Canada different from these other countries? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[Peter German]

My comment was “you may well choose Canada”. I'm not by any means saying Canada is the only attractive country; there are lots of attractive countries.

I returned from Australia on Friday. Australia is a beautiful country and faces many of the same challenges we do, but geopolitically, we are located in a key spot. We are just north of the United States, the largest illegal drug-consuming country in the world. There are reasons for transnational organized crime to find it very comfortable to be in Canada. This is not to say that Norway, Finland or Denmark would not be attractive for different reasons as well.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

You're well travelled. You were in Australia—lucky you.

What could we learn from what these countries are doing regarding foreign national offenders?

[Peter German]

That's what happens when your daughter marries an Aussie.

What we can learn is that, quite frankly, we should look outside our borders. Too often, we don't do that. We look internally for solutions. There's a lot of expertise outside our country as well and a lot of tried solutions to problems.

For example, in Australia, the federal police there do an excellent job when it comes to money laundering. There have been numerous cases involving the Australian police and the Canadian police. Their intelligence gathering is excellent. They've worked with CBSA. They move information to CBSA and to the police here. Yes, we can learn, and to a certain extent we do, but we could probably learn even more from countries such as Australia.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

I'll switch to French, if it's okay.

You mentioned that one of the important things was to prioritize the people who need to be deported first.

We had Aaron McCrorie and Erin O'Gorman here telling us that this is exactly what is being done in Canada. Every case is looked at one by one and the most serious cases are processed first.

On the other hand, we have the 600 cases that were mentioned, in addition to the 351 individuals who are on the run. We were told that, even if the figure remained, it was still volatile data, in the sense that those 351 individuals or 450 individuals are not necessarily the same ones who are wanted at all times.

As far as we know, Canada may be doing a very good job. It may have already deported those 450 individuals, and others since then. The statistics we have, from The Globe and Mail's article, are from July 2025.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Peter German]

I read President O'Gorman's testimony, and of course, it was very good testimony with a lot of numbers.

My point is that we are concerned about those criminal offenders who are in our country and are a threat to our country. They're the ones who are presumably shooting up businesses. It's a case of prioritizing and going after them. The raw numbers, you know, 1,000 removals or whatever, don't really tell me very much. What I'd like to know is, on these high-risk individuals, are we actually going after them? It might be more important to pull one of them off the street than 10 others. I think this is where you have to work closely with the police of jurisdiction.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Do we not have enough data to assess the situation properly?

[Peter German]

I wouldn't say that. I don't know. I'm not an expert on what CBSA has in terms of data. It does gather lots of intelligence. I don't have the expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. German, that brings me to thank you for the time and effort you've put into coming to speak to us and share your expertise. We thank you again for coming to testify.

We wish you all the best. Perhaps we'll be able to invite you back and benefit even more from your expertise and experience.

Mr. German, thank you for coming. We look forward to seeing you again.

We won't suspend, given that there is only Mr. German to thank. You've heard our thanks quite clearly.

Ms. Kirkland, we're moving on to the motion that you wish to propose.

Do you want to move a motion?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes, I do. Thank you.

Technically, I think that during the time I had the floor, I did move the motion, but I'll say it again. I would like to move a motion that I put on notice on March 6. In terms of a study, I would like our committee to undertake examining “the policies, procedures and criteria used by the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada governing the issuance” of conditional releases.

Colleagues, the reason for this motion is something that happened last week in my riding. It provided some questions for me, and I thought it was a good opportunity for our committee to study it and find some answers to these questions. It's about public safety transparency and accountability in our corrections and our parole systems.

On March 2, the Durham Regional Police Service issued a public safety alert to my community in Oshawa, but it wasn't about a storm, a missing person or a crime that was being committed in a particular area. It was about a convicted murderer who had been temporarily released into our community. This released individual was a man serving a life sentence for first-degree murder after he raped, tortured and killed Darren Pepin, a 14-year-old boy in Scarborough.

We see headlines all the time, and they're meant to make people feel safe. The headline here said, “Man...handed life sentence for sex slaying of teenage boy.” When the community sees those headlines, they expect that a “life sentence” means we're safe from the person now, because he has received a life sentence. I hesitate in some ways to show you a photo, because it shows the man's face when, really, the face we should consider is the face of Darren, the young boy who was murdered and raped at 14. It's horrifying for me, as a mother with young children walking in my neighbourhood in Oshawa, to think that this man would be walking the same streets. I believe that everyone in this committee would feel the same way if this happened in their community. He was a 14-year-old boy, this child.

The brutality of the crime makes me question how this man was granted a 72-hour unescorted temporary absence, which allowed him to hang out in Oshawa for 72 hours completely unescorted. Durham Regional Police did the right thing. They warned people to stay vigilant and watch their backs, but my question is, why is it my job to watch my back and stay vigilant when authorities have chosen to let this man out? I want to look at why. If he were alive today, Darren would be 52, quite young. Maybe he would be a dad. Maybe he would have a family.

When police are warning residents to stay vigilant because a murderer has been released into their community, Canadians deserve to know how and why a decision like this is made.

I want to highlight very briefly.... I won't go on for too long, but folks in my community reached out when I expressed concern about this. More importantly, folks in young Darren's life started reaching out and making comments: family, friends and those he went to school with. I thought it would be appropriate for me at this time to read out a couple of those thoughts.

One person said, “If the community is at risk, why on earth was this guy released?” Another said, “Disgusting, how can they let him roam free when he's supposed to serve a life sentence?” Another person said, “This monster did this on my street a long time ago, but he should never be let out for any reason. The little boy he murdered can't come back. This is just disgusting. Canada should do better and know better.” Someone else said, “Darren was such a good soul. He was funny and enjoyed to be in the company of his family and friends.” Another said, “His name was Darren Pepin. He was 14 years old. He was here for a short time and then he was gone. Some of us were privileged to know him, his good nature, his infectious laughter and being the class clown.” Yes, I can relate. “He had a name and a face and he mattered.”

A lot of his family and friends felt as though he didn't matter last week.

One person said, “I'll never forget the day that young man was murdered. It's something that stayed with me and always will. I knew him personally and he was genuinely a good young man.”

Then a corrections officer reached out. It is very rare for someone to make a comment, but they did: “Of the 34 years I worked as a corrections officer, he is one of the few who always stood out in my mind. He was one of the first inmates who I realized was a genuine psycho, void of remorse, empathy and compassion.”

We have to figure out why these decisions get made. How do they get made, and what's missing—what's happening? The study would be very important to report back to the House. I trust that all my colleagues will vote unanimously for the study and will support this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Madame Kirkland.

Go ahead, Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's quite troubling to hear this statement from our colleague. I fully agree that we should study this issue. I think that's very important.

I have an example myself about a lady named Roxane Granger. I'm saying her name because she has made it public. She was raped by a serial rapist named Jacques Groleau. He recently got out of prison. He's a long-term offender for 10 years.

I made a commitment to her, and what isn't understood is that he's under a long-term supervision order. When he got out of prison, he committed another offence, but he is currently in a provincial prison. The 10‑year supervision order is uninterrupted. That means that he is currently in preventive detention for indecent assault, I believe, and is being kept in a provincial prison. There's no interruption on his federal long-term supervision order, and we have a problem with that.

I think the topic of discussion proposed by our colleague will enable us not only to elucidate and better understand how the system works, but also to propose solutions so that victims or victims' families are better informed and understand how decisions are made about people who have committed serious and violent crimes.

So I am quite supportive of my colleague. However, you will understand that I am proposing an amendment that will make it possible to deal with the matter in a broader, less personalized way. Ultimately, the important thing is to understand the system, identify its flaws and propose solutions.

I still want you to know, Mr. Chair, that I sent the text of my amendment to all committee members in both official languages. I believe the clerk has a copy.

I will read it to you so that you understand that the subject my colleague wants to discuss is virtually intact. We just need to depersonalize the specific case that my colleague wanted to discuss. I will read the text of my amendment:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to examine the policies, procedures and criteria used by the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada to govern the issuance conditional releases, the conditions surrounding long-term supervision orders and related release measures, particularly for individuals convicted of first-degree murder and serving life sentences; That the study examine these releases, including the transparency of the decision-making process, the adequacy of information and community supervision, alignment with the provincial justice system, as well as the impacts on victims and victims' families, and community confidence in the justice system; That the study include a minimum of five meetings; That the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime), the Chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada, the Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada, experts in correctional matters and risk assessment, as well as any other witnesses the committee deems appropriate to call; and That the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

We all have our own reasons for studying this important issue. We have names in mind, so I think that justifies this study.

In proposing my amendment, I hope to bring together as many colleagues around the table as possible so that we can meet for an in-depth study of how the system works for our victims and victims' families.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Caputo, go ahead.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

I agree with Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

My proposed friendly amendment was encapsulated by Madame DeBellefeuille's amendment. I wrote a paper on long-term supervision orders way back when, so I look forward to working with her on this very important issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you.

To summarize, we have a motion moved by MP Kirkland, to which an amendment has just been submitted by Madame DeBellefeuille.

I turn again to Madame Kirkland.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the comments made by Madame DeBellefeuille and our conversation beforehand, so I have no problem with the amendment we spoke about.

I would like to say that, even though I'm accepting this amendment, the one line that we removed from here—and I believe it was a recommendation from the Liberals across—was to remove “That the study examines the public safety risk associated with these...releases”. It is exactly our job to study the public safety risk associated with the releases. I think this is what we'll do anyway: We will study the public safety risk associated with these releases.

I am okay with the amendment as presented by Ms. DeBellefeuille, and I hope we have unanimous consent for this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Ms. Kirkland.

Mr. Ramsay, you have the floor.