Debates of June 15th, 2023

Justice and Human Rights

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the amendment, we all have a responsibility as we move forward to try to ensure that proper changes are made and things are done in the most effective way. I believe all of us parliamentarians, and in particular ministers, have a huge responsibility to ensure that we are moving forward on and responding to issues of the day.

The amendment put forward today was another opportunity to politicize a horrible issue, something that all of us are very concerned about. I am not even going to reference the individual we are talking about nor the families, because I think we are revictimizing families over and over again. Every time this is mentioned in the House, like yesterday and the day before, it is revictimizing the families, and that is not acceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the member's comments, I appreciated the fact that she highlighted a number of the recommendations. In those recommendations, I have found there is a great emphasis on victims. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on why we should be putting more and more emphasis on victims. In the last budget, there was a commitment to additional funding for victims. I would like her general thoughts about victims of crime.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I found out first-hand what is available to victims as far as support or anything else goes when one of my constituents was a victim of a drive-by shooting. I went to see what I could do to help and found out how little there was, whether it was financial support, emotional support or just being able to get before a committee and share what had happened. There was very little there.

The report from the standing committee, which was a unanimous report, is wonderful work. It is really indicative of how members of Parliament can work together on difficult issues. The 13 recommendations were supported by all parliamentarians on that committee and were put together while doing exactly what I think we need to do more of: working together to do our job of advancing the issues that are going to better protect Canadians.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member. I know her to be an MP who stands up very strongly for her constituents, and I thank her for that work.

She mentioned the concern she has that the amendment today revictimizes, which I believe was the word she used, the victims of this horrific, vile killer and those who have been impacted by men like him. I would ask her to reflect on the fact that it was the minister's failure to do his job that led the families of those women to be revictimized in the way they were. He has made a number of excuses and has taken no accountability or responsibility for the fact that he did not know that the most vile killer and rapist of children in this country's history was being moved to a medium-security prison from a maximum-security prison.

I feel the public trust in the Minister of Public Safety has been broken. It is certainly important to women that we have a minister who is competent in this regard, but he has failed in this regard. He needs to take ownership over this revictimization. I would ask for the member's thoughts on his failure to protect those families.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has done admirable work on the files that she has had, on these ones and on the other ones before. We have worked together on a variety of different things. I have tremendous respect for my colleague, but I have to say that there are issues that are taking valuable time in the House. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-35, which would entrench the issues of child care across Canada, to make sure that child care will continue to be available throughout the country and be affordable. I came in totally prepared to be dealing with Bill C-35.

What we are doing is wasting time. That is the wrong wording. We are accepting these recommendations and applauding the recommendations, but we should really be moving on with trying to get the legislation of the government through. That is part of what our job is: to move legislation through. That was what my intention was when I came today, and I would hope that, as soon as this is finished, we will get on to doing that. Issues of what a minister did, should do, or whatever, are issues, I believe, that should not be on the table for our continued discussion. We should be putting our legislation through the House.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo the comments of my colleague from Manitoba about the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek, who, I will also note, is a strong member for her constituents on many issues, including this one.

I just want to follow up on the question from my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound with regard to the amendment.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek was a minister of the Crown, and I just want to ask what her reaction would be if, in a situation like this, staff had kept something from her.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I expect that my reaction would be the exact same as my colleague's reaction.

Today, we have important time to try to get legislation through. We all know that we expect the House will rise. I had hoped it was going to rise this week, but clearly it is going to rise next week.

The minister is responsible, at the end of the day, for his actions, and that will follow. We should not be using House time to discuss something that, at the end of the day, we are not going to be able to take action on.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great disappointment that, yet again, in the last number of days, the Liberal Prime Minister and his cabinet have let Canadians down in quite a tremendous fashion. They have withheld the truth and they have misled the public. They have made egregious errors and taken no responsibility for them. They are making excuses and blaming everyone but themselves. There has been very little, if any, accountability taken, and meanwhile it is the Canadian people and, certainly, our most vulnerable, who suffer as a result.

As such, the amendment the Conservatives moved today in the House is calling for the immediate resignation of the public safety minister, given his long track record of misleading the House and the Canadian people, and in particular his latest quite serious failure of leadership and responsibility in a cabinet position that really, beyond many others, needs the public trust, needs a responsible minister and needs to be beyond reproach in this regard, given the magnitude of the files they are responsible for.

For those who have been paying attention, we are talking about the move of, I believe, certainly the most notorious child rapist and killer in Canadian history, Paul Bernardo. He was recently moved, under the public safety minister's watch, under the Liberal government's watch, from maximum security to medium security. A man who, I would assume almost all Canadians believe, and rightfully so in my opinion, should rot in prison for the rest of his life has now been moved to a medium-security prison with more privileges. The tale that has come out in the last few hours and days about what the minister knew and what the Prime Minister knew, or what they are saying their offices knew, and we will get into that, is just deeply concerning and shows that very little responsibility is being taken.

It is now very unclear whether there is anyone in charge at Public Safety, because it does not seem like there is. Because this issue, what this vile killer did, is so sensitive and has really been burnt into the minds of Canadians, for me, it certainly evoked a very emotional response and a lot of anger at the failure of responsibility and leadership from the Prime Minister and certainly from the Minister of Public Safety, which is why we are calling for his resignation today.

It was on June 1, just a few days ago, that Canadians learned that Correctional Service Canada was transferring this vile killer from a segregated section of a maximum-security prison, where he rightfully belongs until his dying days, to a medium-security prison, a more open, campus-style prison, and he certainly does not deserve that, from my perspective and from the perspective of most Canadians.

Particularly women, but I think most of us, are hesitant to have his name glorified in Hansard or talked about. He does not deserve any of that, so from now on I will just be referring to him as the country's most vile serial rapist and killer of children. So that we really know what we are talking about, this is a man who, in the late eighties and early nineties, repeatedly kidnapped; raped; sodomized; tortured, often recording it on video camera; and murdered young women, as young as 14.

I have a colleague who was of a similar age at the time and who lived in Ontario then. She was telling me that, in school, girls of her age were being told to watch out for a white van and to be careful when they were walking home from school. This is something that is burnt into the memory of women of that age, of women generally, and certainly of parents who had children, particularly young girls, at that time.

He is a really horrific man, and obviously there has been tremendous public outrage at the idea, let alone the fact, that this man was moved to a medium-security prison.

Of course, the minister denied knowing. He came out saying how shocked he was, and it is really frustrating on a number of levels, because we have found, in the last couple of days, that perhaps that is not true at all. It is very well a strong possibility that he did know and failed to act and that the Prime Minister knew and failed to act on this, that they both failed to stop it in any way that they could. The Globe and Mail really outlined this well. I will just quote an article:

The Public Safety Minister invoked the wrath of Parliament and the anger of the families of the victims of Mr. Bernardo on Wednesday after CBC News reported that his office had been told that [this man] would be transferred to a lower-security prison in March. He told the House of Commons [just yesterday] that his office didn’t brief him before the prison transfer happened.

How convenient it is that it did not brief him. We also found out in that same Globe and Mail story, which, I believe, was by Robert Fife and Steven Chase, that the Prime Minister's Office was also alerted months prior to the transfer, and that was confirmed by a Prime Minister's Office spokesperson. They are not even denying it, so I will give them that tiny bit of credit for at least not denying it, though certainly they were not forthcoming in the last number of days that this had broken into public knowledge. As the Globe pointed out, this significantly widens the group of staff, and likely their bosses, the politicians, who knew about this and yet did nothing about it until, oops, the public found out. Now there is shock and disappointment from our elected officials who have been entrusted with public safety and with ensuring that justice is served with respect to the most vile killers in our history. It has not been.

When all this was coming out, I really looked at it with disbelief. How many times are the Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister going to get away with saying, “Oh, I didn't know”, “I wasn't briefed”, “My staff didn't tell me” or saying that the agencies, CSIS and the RCMP, did not let them know and that the information did not quite get to the elected officials? How many times do we have to hear that, as Canadians or as opposition critics? How many times do we have to believe that and just move on like nothing happened?

We have seen this time and time again. With election interference from Beijing, we heard that they just were not quite briefed or that no one picked up the phone and called the former minister of public safety to tell him that my colleague, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, was being threatened by Beijing and that his family was at risk. They said that CSIS wanted to tell him but had not quite done so, or that his staff had not. It is just a bunch of baloney.

Once, maybe, we would believe them, but two times, five times or 10 times, time and time again on issues of national security and public safety, are we expected to believe them? I do not think so. Enough is enough. We need to have the resignation of somebody in this place. There needs to be some accountability. There needs to be some responsibility taken for the absolute failure to govern.

It is really embarrassing, honestly, to be represented by ministers who take no accountability and responsibility for some of the most critical issues in this country. I want to be clear about why people are so outraged. We have maximum security and medium security. I just want to make it clear why Liberals should have been outraged and moved mountains to stop it, and should certainly have brought forward legislation by now to stop this, but they have not, and I will get into that later.

This individual, when he was in maximum-security prison, had very limited movement. He was heavily segregated. He had very little association with anyone. He had very, very few privileges, and rightfully so. He deserves to be punished for the rest of his life. Maximum-security prison is where he has been for almost 29 years, I believe. Now that he has been moved, under the watch of the public safety minister and the Prime Minister, who knew for three months, into a medium-security prison, he gets to talk to more people; he gets to walk around more and he has many fewer restrictions on him. He does not deserve that. I think everyone agrees, yet here we are; it happened and they could have stopped it. They knew it was coming for three months before it happened.

If someone makes a mistake, that is fine, and if it is the first time, then maybe I would believe them. It is not the first time, but they did not know and were not informed; let us pretend we believe them for one moment. Why is it, then, that they have not brought forward concrete solutions so this never happens again? They have a working majority in the House with the NPD's support. They could have brought forward legislation to signal to Canadians that they will never allow this to happen under their watch, but they have not done so.

Every effort by the Conservatives to move motions to stop this from happening again is shouted down by the Liberals. We have also introduced a bill, a private member's bill from the member for Niagara Falls, and I seconded that bill, that would make sure this never happens again. The Liberals say that it is out of their hands, that they cannot really do anything about it and that the minister is sort of tinkering around the edges now. However, is that really true? I looked at the legislation, and I am seeing a bit of pattern of a soft-on-crime, soft-on-criminals and forget-about-the-victims approach from the public safety minister, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister.

If we look at, for example, the Liberals' Bill C-83, it was adopted in 2019 and created a standard in section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and this is important, that required prisoner selection to be made by the commissioner of corrections based on “the least restrictive environment for that person”. That was legislation they passed in 2019. Their bail reform, their soft-on-crime bail reform bill, was also passed that year.

There was a lot of damage done to Canadians in that short time, in favour of criminals at the expense of victims. This is just another one of those bills. In Bill C-83, the “least restrictive environment” for criminals in prison was the standard put forward.

Now what do we have? We have the “least restrictive environment” for the country's most vile serial killer and rapist of children. This is happening, in part, through the legislation that the Liberals put forward. They have created an environment where this is the case. I will say “the least restrictive environment” over and over, because that was the exact intention of their legislation.

In fact, the Liberals repealed a previous Conservative standard that was put in under former prime minister Stephen Harper's government, where it said “necessary restrictions” for criminals and vile killers. In 2019, these guys brought in bail reform and the “least restrictive environment” for those criminals in jail. Now we have that. The mission is fulfilled for the most vile killer in the country.

When the Liberals say that they cannot really do anything about it and that it is an independent decision, they can do something about it. They could repeal this section or probably the entire bill, Bill C-83. If it is anything like this, the whole thing should go in the garbage, but certainly this section. They could have brought forward a bill already, so that it does not happen again. It has been weeks already.

However, again, this was the objective, that the worst people who go to prison in this country get the “least restrictive environment”. When they say that they cannot do anything about it, people should not buy it. That is not true.

Yesterday, my colleague, the member for Niagara Falls, brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-342, that would keep dangerous offenders, like this individual, in maximum-security prisons. It would replace that legal standard that I just talked about, going from the “least restrictive environment” to “necessary and appropriate restrictions”. It is very measured, very responsible and certainly in line, I think, with Canadian values on things like this.

Second, it also requires that inmates like this individual, who are designated by the courts as “dangerous offenders,” which this individual is, have their sentences made indeterminate, with no fixed length. Certainly, this would include people who have committed multiple personal injury offences and are considered so dangerous to the public, individuals like the one we have been talking about today or those who have been convicted of more than one first-degree murder resulting in a life sentence.

It is very clear. Guys like this should always be in maximum security. That is what a Conservative government would do. I honestly think that the private member's bill is fair, measured and should be adopted unanimously by all parties, especially in light of what has recently happened.

Let us now just really drill into the failure of the minister to take responsibility on this and to try to stop it before it ever happened. Again, this guy is in a medium-security prison, getting to walk around and getting rewarded. He should not be there. He should have been stopped, and yet the minister failed to do this.

I am just going to read this, from the Correctional Service of Canada. The statement it put out said, “The March 2 e-mail contained information notifying them [the public safety minister's office] of the transfer, along with communications messaging to support this.”

That was from Correctional Service of Canada spokesperson Kevin Antonucci in a statement made on Wednesday. He added that in March, three months ago, the final date for the transfer had not been determined. Therefore, the minister's office also received an email on May 25 with updated communications messaging, as well as the fact that the transfer would occur on Monday, May 29.

If we read between the lines of what Kevin Antonucci said, the Correctional Service of Canada is really doing the lion's share of the work here, saying that it sent the message and notified the minister's office that the transfer could be stopped. They are not doing the minister any favours. They are saying that they told him and that they told him twice, and nothing.

We also found out, just last night, as I mentioned, that the Prime Minister's Office was also informed. I will read from the Globe: “A separate statement from the minister's office late on Wednesday suggested that when [the Minister of Public Safety's] team found out about the transfer on March 2, the Prime Minister's Office was already aware of the matter.”

It went on to say, “When a staff member in the Prime Minister's Office was alerted in March by the Privy Council Office about the possibility of the transfer, inquiries and requests for information were immediately made to the Public Safety Minister's Office”.

When the PMO was told, it immediately reached out to the public safety minister's office and asked what was going on. The Minister of Public Safety still had no idea this was going on, and he had no idea the Prime Minister's office was reaching out to his office for information. It is a bit hard to believe. There are only a few options there. The minister is so hands-off that he has no idea what is going on in his file in any regard, he knowingly ignored this or he knew and he has been misleading the public and the House. That is very difficult to believe.

Given the minister's track record, which I am going to go into, I think it is the latter. What is really interesting in what we are seeing from the statements from the Prime Minister's Office and the public safety minister's office is that the blame game is starting. Fingers are being pointed at each other in public statements to The Globe and Mail. That is how desperate they are to deflect blame. No one wants to take responsibility here. It is very embarrassing.

Therefore, I am just going to go through the pattern of behaviour that, unfortunately, the Minister of Public Safety has shown in recent months. This is just within the last year.

In January 2022, and we all remember this, the minister said he relied on the advice of law enforcement to trigger the Emergencies Act. You remember that, Mr. Speaker. However, we later found out from both the RCMP commissioner and the chief of the Ottawa police, when they testified publicly, that they did not ask the government to invoke the act. That was a big one. The minister misled the public in a big way. We will say that it was a large falsehood in that regard of a never-before-invoked, in essence, war measures act that he misled the public about. It was very significant, and he should have resigned then.

Then, on October 12, 2022, he was accused of misleading a federal judge after his office backdated government documents on trademark infringements. The minister said that the legislation concerning this came into effect two weeks earlier than it actually did, so he literally backdated legal documents. The minister said this was just human error. There is a pattern emerging here.

On August 8, the minister admitted at a committee that the RCMP was using spyware to gain information on Canadians, but he promised that the technology was being used sparingly. I am making light of it, but it is just so utterly ridiculous at this point. I am only three points in; we have five to go.

On January 15, the minister said that the safe third country agreement was working, despite enormous increases in irregular border crossers in comparison to the previous five years, and that really nothing could be done about it. Then, two months later, Biden and the Prime Minister of Canada came together in agreement to close Roxham Road. They were not telling the truth there.

Again, on April 25 of this year, he claimed that his legislation would not impact hunting rifles. We know how that went. Of course it did, and so much so that he had to back down. He has permanently lost the trust of firearms owners and hunters in this country, and he will never get it back because of how much he misled the public.

On May 5, the minister said he did not read the report into the People's Republic of China targeting an MP in our caucus. He later said that he was investigating why the report was not passed up to him. How many times are we going to have to believe that?

On May 14, after saying that the PRC police stations operating in Canada were closed, we found out that this is not the case either.

Finally, there is what we have been talking about today. The minister said he had no idea. Despite two contacts from Correctional Service Canada to his office and despite the Prime Minister's Office reaching out to him, the minister is saying he was never told about it. However, he has fired no one for that, which tells me that it is not true. If someone's staff members have failed them so badly, obviously, they cannot be trusted with the public safety file, and they have to go. The minister has fired no one. He is the one who should be fired. The buck stops with him.

What we have been calling on is the following:

...that the Minister of Public Safety immediately resign given his total lack of consideration for victims of crime in his mishandling of the transfer to more cozy arrangements of one of the worst serial killers in Canadian history, that this unacceptable move has shocked the public and created new trauma for the families of the victims and that the Minister of Public Safety's office knew about this for three months prior to [this vile killer's] transfer and instead of halting it, the information was hidden from the families.

That is what we moved today.

I will just conclude that this is about ministerial accountability. We have not seen that in the current Liberal government, despite so many failures. So many times, the government has misled the public and failed to take responsibility. Ministerial accountability seems to be dead in this country under the Liberal government.

Ultimately, I will say in conclusion that the Minister of Public Safety, more than most ministers, requires the public to trust him or her. The minister needs public trust; however, as I outlined today, in very real time, he has misled the public, let them down and broken that trust time and time again. This is the final straw. Unfortunately, it is time for him to resign.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, I actually talked about why the Conservatives are behaving in the fashion that they are. The member opposite amplifies that. Here, the Conservatives bring forward a concurrence report with, just so the member is aware, 13 recommendations. I suspect she does not know that. Who knows whether the member actually participated in the committee? Had she participated, she would have recognized that there was a great deal of unanimous support for the concurrence motion.

The Conservatives chose to do this for two reasons. One reason is to filibuster legislation to prevent us from being able to talk about government business. The second reason is to politicize something which the member herself no doubt will be standing up later today in question period to raise. It is about a filibuster. That is the primary reason.

If the member is so concerned about what she is talking about, why was she not upset when Stephen Harper was prime minister and there was the transfer of child murderers from high-security to medium-security prisons?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asserts that we should not be talking about the fact that the Minister of Public Safety has repeatedly misled Canadians on issues of national security and public safety or that he is currently, right now, maintaining mistruths about what he knew about the worst child rapist and killer in history being transferred to a cozy medium-security prison when he should rightfully rot in a maximum-security prison.

This is certainly about victims rights. The families of the victims who were murdered by this vile killer were caught completely off guard by this. They have been revictimized in having to relive this.

It is our duty as an opposition to hold the government accountable. That is what we are doing today. The member calls it politicization. I call it accountability, which they have none of. If there were accountability, then there would be a minister resigning. We are not seeing that, because ministerial accountability is dead under the Liberal government.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating: We know exactly what my colleague thinks about the Minister of Public Safety, but we know almost nothing about what she thinks about the report we are looking at today.

I would have liked to hear what she has to say about the report. She spoke for a long time, after all. We have here a dense and important report about victims of crime in Canada and how we can help them, but she barely mentioned it in her speech.

I would like to hear my colleague elaborate on the content of the report we are studying today.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the victims should have a minister of public safety who tells murderers like Paul Bernardo that they have to stay in maximum security prisons for the rest of their days. That is something the Liberal government can do today for victims, and it is the right thing to do.

I think we need a new minister of public safety to be able to do that, because this Minister of Public Safety is not telling victims and the rest of Canadians the truth. That is not right.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have wandered out of the wilderness into a strange country here today. When we are talking about victims, the justice committee heard from victims and victims advocacy organizations very strongly and came with a unanimous report with 13 recommendations. As I said earlier, there are procedures in the House to hold ministers accountable, and a concurrence report is not normally one of those.

My question for the member is this: What action is she going to take to make sure that the tactic the Conservatives have adopted today does not harm the ability to make progress on the 13 recommendations coming from victims that are contained in this report?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member is trying to say.

I believe the report from the justice committee in favour of victims was unanimously supported, which is good to see. I think what we could do today, as a House, in favour of victims is to vote for the Minister of Public Safety to resign. If the member wants to put victims' rights first, then we cannot have a minister of public safety who misleads the public and lets down the families of the victims of the worst mass killer and child rapist in Canadian history. He has misled the public about knowing that he had every opportunity to do something about it for three months, but he did not. I cannot really think of a more pressing, current issue today that the public is more outraged about when it comes to victims and public safety than the failure of the government to stop this man from going to a medium-security prison.

Again, this is a tool that we have at our disposal to hold the government accountable. If the government had ministerial responsibility, we would not need to do this. Rather than the member pointing his guns at us, why does he not point his guns at his coalition partner and call on the minister to resign?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up the issue that we are dealing with here, that Canadians have lost trust in the government. They have lost trust in the minister, and they have no confidence left.

The minister's incompetency started when he was minister of immigration, and he ruined that file. The Prime Minister moved him to public safety, and he has completely botched that file as well. I thank the member very much for bringing this to light.

The member articulated very well some of the issues, those we are aware of, where he has failed. Could she explain further what she thinks the next steps are for the minister and the Prime Minister to deal with this matter, so that the public could at least have some confidence in this place to deal with the incompetency of the government?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I do great work together on the public safety committee on behalf of Canadians. His speech triggered something in my mind that I would like to share.

This is something we know the Minister of Public Safety has misled us about. What do we not know? What has not been leaked to the media? What are the things he has not told us? I mean, he has not told us anything. He denies all of this. What do we not know?

This is an individual who is responsible for our national police force, the RCMP; CSIS, our spy and intelligence agency; CBSA, our border security agency; and Correctional Service Canada. It is a big, important file, yet he is repeatedly misleading the public, and this is just what we have found out about.

I think it is a good time for a brand new government that would be tough on crime and keep criminals where they rightfully belong. We would put victims of crime first, their needs and priorities first, and the safety of their communities first. We have repeatedly not seen that here.

We have seen it with bail reform and the least restrictive environment there. We have seen it with correctional services changes and the least restrictive environment there. They are all in favour of criminals like the one I have been talking about today. I think it is time for a new public safety minister at the very least, and likely a new government altogether.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer my question on Stephen Harper. Back in 2009, there was the horrific crime against Tori Stafford. Members can look it up to find out what took place. Stephen Harper's government ultimately transferred him over to a medium-security prison. He was not the first child murderer the Harper government did that with. The public safety minister at the time, Ralph Goodale, had the system reviewed.

Does the member believe that Stephen Harper was doing something wrong by allowing the murderer of Tori Stafford to go to a medium-security prison?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in 2018, with the minister he mentioned, the Conservatives had proposed an opposition day motion to overturn that decision directly. The Liberals claimed they lacked the power to do so and voted it down, along with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

We know the Minister of Public Safety does have that ability to do so. They absolutely have the ability to do so. They have certain powers with the correctional commissioner.

What is really interesting is the Liberals had the opportunity to impact the decision with that individual back in 2018, and they voted against our opposition motion to do so. Perhaps the member needs a summer break. He may have forgotten that.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. In relation to the parliamentary secretary to the House leader's last question, this particular parliamentary secretary, in fact the entire Liberal government, love to compare and contrast themselves to former prime minister Stephen Harper.

Could my learned colleague share how differently Stephen Harper would have dealt with these obvious conflicts of interest and the deliberate misleading of the House? How would he have handled ministers with this information versus how the government is presently doing it?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with former prime minister Stephen Harper, ministerial accountability was alive and well in many regards on a couple fronts. There was a principled approach, unlike what we have seen in the last eight years.

Just to conclude on the justice file, Stephen Harper brought forward about 80 justice bills in favour of being tough on crime and in favour of victims. I mentioned one of the bills today, and all of the bills the Liberals have brought forward are for the least restrictive environments for criminals. That is the reason the most vile killer in Canadian history has been moved. It is because of legislation like this.

We saw it with bail reform. It has never been worse in this country. That is directly related to Bill C-75, also a 2019 Liberal bill. I am getting pretty sick and tired of these soft on crime Liberals. It is time for a Conservative government to clean up our streets and keep Canadians safe.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to be speaking to the travesty of justice and human rights committed by our current Minister of Public Safety. I am disappointed, but to be honest, I am not surprised. This minister has a track record of mishandling files, which is ultimately a disservice to justice in this country and to victims. This is why we are debating the amendment put forward by the Conservative Party today, ultimately recommending that the minister resign.

Just so it is clear and on the record once again, our amendment to the motion includes:

the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Monday, April 17, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Minister of Public Safety immediately resign given his total lack of consideration for victims of crime in his mishandling of the transfer to more cozy arrangements of one of the worst serial killers in Canadian history, that this unacceptable move has shocked the public and created new trauma for the families of the victims and that the Minister of Public Safety's office knew about this for three months prior to Paul Bernardo's transfer and instead of halting it, the information was hidden from the families.

Obviously, I have made some very provocative statements, even in my opening couple of sentences, but I want to lay the groundwork for why I believe this. Let us go back to the minister's track record back in August 2021, when he was the minister of immigration. What happened then? We had the fall of Kabul. We had the fall of Afghanistan.

Instead of the government dealing with that situation with the ministers of foreign affairs, immigration and national defence primarily focused on helping victims, the Afghans who had helped Canada, get to safety, what did they do? They called an election. It is unacceptable.

This minister here was in that seat. He could have had a process in place, much like we have done in previous years, under the current and previous governments, so that, when we have a situation around the globe in which Canada could make a difference by allowing refugees and people at risk to get to Canada, we could do it.

This is so fundamentally important and unfortunately something that the government is still not putting the adequate priority and focus on. It is allowing bureaucracy and staff to interfere with getting the job done. That is just one thing. That is the minister's background right off the get-go.

He has now been the Minister of Public Safety since that last election. What did we see just in the last year alone on Bill C-21? Again, we saw a minister who is not focused on victims and justice but is instead focused on law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and farmers, despite him saying that, no, this was not what the bill was about. Lo and behold, there was a last-minute amendment put forth by the minister that exactly targeted the thousands and thousand of hunters, sport shooters and farmers across the country.

That bill was not focused on addressing the root causes of the justice issues that allow for criminals, mass murderers, rapists, gangs, drug trafficking, etc. It was focused again on the wrong demographic.

I am just using that to set the stage. We are now dealing with an amendment because we now have evidence that the minister and his office were aware three months prior to the general public becoming aware that Paul Bernardo, one of our most horrific serial killer and rapists, was being transferred out of a maximum security prison into a medium security prison.

I want to set the stage because we are all victims of our life experiences. We live in a Westminster system of government that allows our democracy to work on a day-to-day basis because it is all about ministerial accountability. The buck stops with them.

As for my comments on life experiences, as many members know, I come from a military background. There is a misperception out there that the military is all about following orders. That is not the case at all and is not how the military functions. Forming a plan begins from the ground up, from the lowest levels all the way to the highest levels, enabling the decision-makers to make the best decisions possible.

When I served at the higher levels, whether as a chief of staff or a director, and we were planning for stuff and doing things, there was one common theme, and that was the daily briefs. It did not matter if it was on operations overseas or here at our Canadian Joint Operations Command, there were daily briefs and the staff's primary role was to flag issues of concern directly to the decision-makers, the commanders and people who are ultimately responsible for making decisions and providing guidance and direction. This was not being blocked by the gatekeepers or the staff, and it was brought to the person in charge. That is key to the way our whole democracy works.

Members do not have to take my word for it. There was a CBC report that basically broke this news. I am going to read a bit from a CBC article that was just released, which states:

The demand for [the Minister of Public Safety’s] exit was prompted by the CBC's report that staff in the minister's office were aware of Paul Bernardo's pending transfer as far back as March 2. Subsequent reporting confirmed that the Prime Minister's Office was also made aware in March and [the Prime Minister] was himself briefed on the transfer on May 29.

According to the version of events, the minister's staff obviously did not think it was necessary to tell him about the transfer of one of Canada's most notorious murderers until May 30, a day after the move was made, and a day after the Prime Minister himself was briefed. The fact that they neglected to alert the minister about this impending transfer is puzzling in and of itself, and obviously an apparent failure at keeping him informed. However, what is more interesting is that the minister himself described it as a shocking event. How could he be so shocked when this was something his staff should have informed him of three months prior?

The minister initially said it was the Correctional Service of Canada that did it, but he has now admitted that the information flowed in, he was not briefed, and could not have really done anything about it. Lo and behold, what has he done now? He has issued a new directive stipulating that he must be informed, something he should have done immediately. That is just common practice.

Therefore, the issue I come back to is this: The minister needs to surround himself with competent staff and people who understand what is truly an important issue under his responsibility because that is how we protect our justice system and victims in this country. Ultimately, the minister needs to do the honourable thing and resign because that is truly the only option left. If he will not resign, the Prime Minister should fire him.

Another thing the government should do is immediately implement the private member's motion that was put forward by the Conservative member for Niagara Falls, which enshrines into legislation, and I am paraphrasing, that when our most notorious murderers and criminals are found guilty, they must remain in a maximum-security prison.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time to put forthwith the question on the motion that is now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried, carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

We request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that, during its consideration of Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into three pieces of legislation:

(a) Bill C-27A, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, containing Part 1 and the schedule to section 2;

(b) Bill C-27B, An Act to enact the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, containing Part 2; and

(c) Bill C-27C, An Act to enact the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, containing Part 3.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here today to speak on this motion. I will be splitting my time today with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

Bill C-27 is a very important bill. We have talked about privacy legislation now for about eight or nine months. Our whole premise was that privacy always should be a fundamental right of Canadians. We talked about the limitations of this bill when the government announced it. That was missing from the bill. The bill was in three parts. The first part spoke to replacing the “PIP” in “PIPEDA”; the second part was announcing and debating the use of a tribunal; and the third part was about AI. This motion asks to split this bill into three parts so the committee can look at and vote on each part individually.

If we talk about why that is needed at this point, it is very simple. The third part about AI part is the most flawed. When we look at the bill in its entirety and we have gone through debate, we certainly hope to have this bill go to the industry committee. The government delayed sending this to committee, but I am hoping it will be in committee in the early fall, and we want to debate, for the most part, the AI section.

I stand today to shed light on a topic that has captured the imagination of many, and yet poses significant risk to our society: the dangers of artificial intelligence, or AI. While AI has the potential to revolutionize our world, we must also be aware of the dangers it presents and take proactive steps to mitigate them. For decades, AI and the imaginary and real threats it brings has been a subject of fascination in popular culture.

I remember, as a child, watching a movie called WarGames. A teenager wanted to change his grades, he went into a computer to try to do that and the computer offered to play a game of nuclear annihilation. It ended up that the U.S.S.R., through this computer, was about to attack the U.S. NORAD thought it was happening, was ready to strike back and somehow the computer could not figure out what was right or wrong and the only way the student was able to figure it out was to play a game of tic-tac-toe that he found he could never win. At the end, after playing the nuclear game he could never win, he said he would play a nice game of chess because that is easier, someone wins, someone loses and it is safe. This was AI in 1984.

My favourite movie with AI was The Matrix. In The Matrix, humans were batteries in the world, who were taken over and owned by machines until Neo saved them and gave them freedom. Another movie that I remember as a kid was Terminator 2, and we know how that one ended. It was pretty good. We are not sure if it has even ended yet. I think there is another one coming. Arnold Schwarzenegger is still alive.

We find ourselves in a season of alarmism over artificial intelligence, with warnings from experts of the need to prioritize the mitigation of AI risks. One of the greatest concerns around AI is the potential loss of jobs as automation and intelligent machines rise. Has anyone ever heard of the Texas McDonald's that is run entirely without people? It is coming. They have figured out how to use robots and machines to eliminate staff positions.

Even though it is not AI, all of us go to the grocery store now and can check out on our own. When we shop, we see lots of different ways, whether it is Amazon or others, that companies are using AI for robotics. We have heard of dark industrial storage where robots operate in the dark, moving products from exit to entrance, and people are not needed. It is a big problem for job losses.

Another major risk of AI lies in the erosion of privacy and personal data security. As AI becomes more integrated in our lives, it gathers vast amounts of data about individuals, which can be used to manipulate behaviour, target individuals and our children with personalized advertisements, and infringe upon our civil liberties. The first part of Bill C-27 has to do with the third part, but is not the same.

We must establish strong regulations and ethical guidelines to protect our privacy rights and prevent the misuse of personal data. Transparency and accountability should be at the forefront of AI development, ensuring that individuals have control over their own information. Moreover, the rapid advancement of AI brings with it the potential for unintended consequences.

AI systems, while designed to learn and improve, can also develop biases. We saw in the ethics committee, with facial recognition technology, when we had experts come into the committee that, alarmingly, Black females were misidentified 34% of the time by computers. It was called “digital racism”. White males were misidentified only 1% of the time.

Again, this is technology that we have allowed, in some instances, to be used by the RCMP and to be used by the forces. All experts asked for a moratorium on that technology, much the same as we are seeing with AI, because without proper oversight and diverse representation in the development of AI logarithms and algorithms, we risk entrenching society biases within these systems. It is imperative that we prioritize diversity and inclusion in AI development to ensure fairness and to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities.

The security implications of AI cannot be overlooked either. As AI becomes more sophisticated, it could be weaponized or manipulated by malicious actors. Cyber-attacks exploiting AI vulnerabilities could lead to significant disruptions in critical systems, such as health care, transportation and defence. They say the greatest risk of war right now is not by sticks and stones, but by computers and joysticks and that AI could infiltrate our systems.

One thing I was reading about the other week is the risk of a solar storm that could knock out all the technology, but AI and cybersecurity could do the same. Can members imagine what our world would be like if we did not have Internet for a day, weeks or a month? We certainly saw that with the Rogers outage last summer, but we can imagine if it was malicious in intent.

Last, we must address the ethical dilemmas posed by AI. As AI systems become more autonomous, they raise complex questions about accountability and decision-making. We have heard about Tesla having automobiles that have gone off course, and the computer is making the life-or-death decision about where that car is going.

The other day I heard a report about vehicles in L.A. that are autonomous and running by Tesla or by taxi, and that fire trucks and ambulances could not get by the vehicles, because the vehicles were programmed to stop and put their four-way lights on, so these fire trucks could not get past them due to AI decisions. They had to smash the windshields in order to get the vehicles out of the way, and they lost precious minutes getting to the scene of a fire.

While AI holds immense potential to improve our lives, we must remain vigilant to the danger it presents. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the risks of job displacement, privacy breaches, bias, security threats or ethical concerns. It is our responsibility to shape the future of AI in a way that benefits all of humanity while mitigating its potential harms. We need to work together to foster a world where AI is harnessed for the greater good, ensuring that progress is made with compassion, fairness and responsible stewardship.

Let us shift for a moment to the positive aspects of AI, and AI actually does exist for good. We have AI working right now with health care diagnostics. Algorithms are being developed to analyze medical images, such as X-rays and MRls, to assist doctors in diagnosing diseases like cancer, enabling earlier detection and improved treatment outcomes.

We have disease prevention and prediction. AI models can analyze large datasets of patient information and genetic data to identify patterns and predict the likelihood of individuals getting certain diseases.

There is environmental conservation. Al-powered systems are being used to monitor and analyze environmental data. I have heard of farmers who are using computer systems to monitor the nitrogen in soil, so they can monitor how much water and how much fertilizer they need to put in the soil, which is saving our environment.

There is disaster response and management. AI is used to analyze social media posts and other data sources during natural disasters to provide real-time information, identify critical needs, and coordinate rescue and relief efforts.

For education and personalized learning, AI is changing the way people are learning right now. The greatest thing we have is ChatGPT, and ChatGPT has revolutionized research. Of course we are looking at the possibility of jobs being lost. It has even helped me with my speech today.

We have a lot of great things that are happening, and in the bill we certainly are going to be looking at how we change and monitor that. The bill should be split into three sections. We need to make sure we look at privacy as a fundamental human right for Bill C-27 as number one; the tribunal is number two; but AI is number three. We need to have as many witnesses as possible to make sure we get it right, and we need to work with our G7 partners to make sure we all look at AI and its benefits, its shortcomings and its benefits to society in Canada and the future.