:
Good morning, everyone. I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting 85 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Feedback events can occur. This can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece that is worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution while handling their earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.
As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, October 23, 2023, the committee resumes its study of the rights of victims, reclassification and the transfer of federal offenders.
I would like to now welcome our witnesses here today. From the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Anne Kelly, commissioner; Kirstan Gagnon, assistant commissioner, communications and engagement; and France Gratton, assistant commissioner, correctional operations and programs. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Chad Westmacott, director general, community safety, corrections and criminal justice; and Shawn Tupper, deputy minister. From the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, we have Dr. Ivan Zinger, correctional investigator of Canada.
Welcome to all of you. You have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with the rounds of questions.
I now invite Ms. Kelly to make her opening statement.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.
Thank you for inviting me as part of your study on the security classification, the transfer of offenders and the rights of victims of crime.
These issues have received considerable public attention, following the transfer of offender Paul Bernardo from a maximum‑security to a medium‑security institution this past summer. I would like to take the time today to explain more about how security classification works and how we uphold victims' rights in the process.
[English]
As we are here, my thoughts are with the victims and their families. What they have gone through is unimaginable. This offender committed horrific crimes. Hearing about this case has brought up strong emotions, and rightly so. I regret any pain and concern that this has caused. Public safety and the victims' safety continue to be top of mind for CSC in any decisions we make.
Chair and members of this committee, I have worked with the Correctional Service of Canada for 40 years. I have dedicated my career to serving Canadians and upholding the rule of law. I can attest first-hand that our correctional service works only if we perform our duties according to the law.
In Canada, our correctional system is fundamentally based on the rehabilitation of offenders, even if some remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives. This is our legislated mandate.
Under the law, CSC must assign a security classification to each inmate and review it at regular intervals. Our approach to both initial security classification and security reclassification is very rigorous. It includes a statistical component, using research-based actuarial tools, and a clinical component based on the assessment of the set of factors by trained, specialized staff. The custody rating scale and the security reclassification scale are both actuarial tools that generate a score based on an inmate's history. This includes, for example, any security-related incidents, previous escapes and offence severity.
The assessment also includes consideration of three areas by parole officers: the required degree of supervision and control within the institution, also referred to as “institutional adjustment”; escape risk; and public safety. These factors are set out in law and policy.
The final risk assessment, which combines the actuarial score and the assessment of the three areas, determines an inmate's security classification. Once the security classification has been determined, inmates must be placed in an institution that corresponds with their security classification.
It is important to stress that, at any point, an inmate can be placed or returned to higher security level if deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the public or an institution. When deciding on which institution is most suitable for the management of an inmate, the law requires that CSC take into account a number of factors, including the availability of appropriate programs and services.
[Translation]
CSC has always required that victim information be considered in recommendations and decisions. At any time in an inmate's sentence, a victim can submit a new or updated statement to CSC. Prior to the decisions, these statements must be considered by the case management team in the overall assessment for transfers.
At CSC, we strive to provide victims with the information that they need to have an effective voice in the corrections system. We also ensure that victims are treated with compassion, respect and fairness.
[English]
Following the transfer of Paul Bernardo, I heard a wide array of views and felt it was important to order an additional review to make sure that this decision was compliant with the law, policies and procedures that guide our work. While the review committee concluded that CSC followed all applicable laws and policies, it also recommended that I establish a multidisciplinary working committee to enhance policies and practices pertaining to victims, which I accepted and put in place.
The committee is comprised of 11 members, including victims as well as members of our CSC and Parole Board of Canada regional victim advisory committees, corrections experts and the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime. The multidisciplinary committee on victims services started its work on November 17. Over the next months, it will explore how we provide services to victims of crime and examine additional areas that could be further strengthened.
We have also recently undertaken a review of our policies to see how we can better serve victims and provide them with more timely information about the offender who harmed them.
I'm happy to be here to say a few words about the work of Public Safety Canada with respect to your study on the rights of victims of crime, reclassification and the transfer of federal offenders.
I am joined here, as you mentioned previously, by Chad Westmacott, who is our DG for community safety, corrections and criminal justice.
Mr. Chair, from a legislative perspective, Public Safety Canada is responsible for the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. As such, I will be speaking about my department's work in this space. I will note that we are not involved in the operational decisions of the Correctional Service of Canada, which are under the purview of my colleague here beside me.
The act clearly outlines that decision-making authorities related to operations rest solely with CSC. As you know, that act guides both the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board in how federal sentences of two years or more are carried out. It also provides the foundation for the rights to information, protection and participation of victims of federal offenders as set out in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
[Translation]
Public Safety Canada's national office for victims is an important resource in terms of how we provide information. It helps victims navigate the federal corrections and conditional release system by providing information about their rights and the federal services available to them.
Input from victims is constantly helping us adjust and refine the information that we share. One example would be how we help to explain basic sentence calculation rules for federal offenders. This includes how the eligibility dates for various types of releases are determined.
Since 2015, the national office for victims has distributed over 80,000 copies of its publications.
[English]
The Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada provide registered victims with information about the federal offender who harmed them. They assist victims with submitting impact statements, which can be considered in decision-making and can facilitate victim attendance at parole hearings.
On July 20, 2023, a ministerial directive was issued to the service entitled “Information Sharing: Security Classification and Transfer of Offenders”. It recognizes that more can be done to ensure that victims' rights are considered earlier as part of the decision-making process. This includes implementing a victim-sensitive approach. It seeks to enhance notification to registered victims and to improve how and when it provides notification regarding security classification and transfers.
Work is now ongoing across Public Safety and the CSC to identify the policy and legislative changes to implement the directive. In addition, my department supports recent legislative amendments to strengthen the national sex offender registry and empower victims of crime.
To ensure victims are aware of their right to information, judges will now be required to ask if victims want to receive ongoing information about their case after sentencing. They will also be required to ensure that their wishes, if known, are entered into the record of proceedings. By receiving victim contact details from the courts, the Correctional Service of Canada will be able to proactively register victims to receive information rather than the onus being placed on the victim.
Under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, victims can also complain directly to federal departments and agencies if they feel their rights have been denied or infringed upon in order to resolve this in a timely fashion. If the outcome of a complaint is not satisfactory to the victim, there is an ombudsperson for victims of crime who is ready to assist.
My department also plays a role here in terms of increasing the transparency of the complaint process. The national office for victims, in collaboration with portfolio partners, prepares an annual report that compiles standardized information on complaints and how they are resolved. This helps us and our partners monitor new and emerging trends, address any systemic policy issues and find ways to further reduce the burden on victims.
In terms of the implementation of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights within the federal corrections and conditional release system, the office has held five national round tables so far, so that we can all approach this the right way together.
[Translation]
We've talked about accountability, how offenders are reintegrated, restorative justice, outreach and engagement.
Our department is committed to implementing the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Victims must be treated with compassion and respect. We remain committed to getting them timely and accurate information, in accordance with legislation and policies and with how they've told us that they want to receive it.
:
It's yes and no. Thank you for your question.
As you know, we're an independent ombuds office. We investigate complaints and we focus on compliance with the law.
Typically, when it comes to transfers, the complaints we receive are usually related to a denial. We investigate to see whether the denial is justified. In this case, we did have contact with Mr. Bernardo, and it is highlighted in the report of the review committee that was initiated by the commissioner.
We weren't asked by Mr. Bernardo to look at his denial for a transfer to an institution in Ontario. He was obviously—
:
Thank you for the question.
I would say that, in this case, Paul Bernardo was given the harshest sentence we have in the criminal justice system, which is a life sentence. He was also designated a dangerous offender, and the sentence is the punishment.
In terms of the different security classifications, at maximum security, you have to be either high institutional adjustment, which means you require a high degree of control and supervision, or high on escape risk as well as high on public safety. If you go to minimum, you have to be low on institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to the safety of the public. Medium includes the other types of ratings.
Obviously, maximum and medium have the same perimeter control. However, in maximum, it's strictly controlled inside as opposed to medium, where it's less controlled, but it continues to be controlled. That would be the difference between the levels of security.
I want to extend my greetings to the witnesses and colleagues who are here for our study.
Mr. Zinger, I'll begin by quoting a Radio‑Canada article:
After a preliminary review of the Correctional Service's report, counsel Tim Danson, who represents the French and Mahaffy families...believes that it's inappropriate to apply the principle that an inmate should be imprisoned in the “least restrictive” environment on the basis of the inmate's classification.
In his view, this rule can't be applied mechanically to all inmates, and the legislation should be amended to take into account the situation of the most dangerous offenders.
The counsel is also challenging the argument that the Correctional Service has a limited ability to share information in order to respect the inmate's privacy and confidentiality.
Tim Danson also said that “it's time for the government to completely re‑evaluate the need for transparency in our corrections and parole system.”
Mr. Zinger, in 2018, your office argued that Correctional Service Canada lacked transparency and accountability. Does this also apply to inmate transfers and the review of the related decisions? Has your opinion changed since then?
:
We can now see that most Canadians agree on the underlying principles of the Correctional Service of Canada. We hear about the emphasis on rehabilitation and the fact that punishment means sending people to prison.
[English]
It's as punishment, not for punishment.
[Translation]
People agree that inmates should retain all their rights, except the restricted rights. This applies to most inmates. The issue arises when much more difficult or challenging cases come up. Applying these principles becomes a real challenge. It tests the system.
You spoke about victims' rights. In my opinion, the committee can take a closer look at public perception. According to this perception, there's a lack of consistency between victims' rights inmates' rights. I hope that all the committee members can reach a consensus on this matter. I agree that it isn't just a perception. It's a reality supported by facts. I think that the federal government could do a lot more in this area. I'm quite willing to share my thoughts on this issue.
:
Clearly, the issue persists.
Over the past two months, for example, I've continued to push for Canada to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I want Canada to improve its structure by ensuring external oversight not only for the Correctional Service of Canada, but also for any detention facility in Canada. That's one possible measure.
In terms of the victim issue, I think that it isn't just a matter of perception. In Canada, when it comes to the rights of accused individuals and inmates, there seems to be all kinds of recourse mechanisms. I'm aware of that.
However, this isn't always the case for victims. I think that there's a great deal of work to do. In my opinion, the Criminal Code and criminal court procedure could be reviewed to address the simple fact that many so‑called victims' rights aren't really rights at all. There are no rights without recourse.
I might also add that the office of the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime is overseen by the Department of Justice. In my opinion, it should be governed by separate legislation and be independent. It should also have a budget similar to mine. Right now, I believe that the ombudsperson's budget is $1.2 million. Mine will be $7.5 million next year. As far as perceptions are concerned, the lack of parity in this area makes no sense.
First of all, I'm here covering for my colleague, MP Peter Julian. I want to express my condolences to the families and victims of Paul Bernardo, because I haven't had a chance yet to do so.
My first question is for you, Ms. Kelly.
In your opening statement, you talked about the importance of victims' rights in making decisions, ensuring communications with victims and taking an approach that uses compassion and respect for victims.
Can you please clarify how you followed through with the process of ensuring victims' rights in making decisions when transferring Paul Bernardo from maximum to medium security?
:
As part of the transfer process, we have to take into consideration whether the victims have submitted victim statements. Those are taken into consideration.
In the transfer at hand, we actually communicated with victims, and I spoke with one victim before we reviewed the case. After the case was reviewed, again, we communicated with victims, and I spoke with many of them to review the findings and recommendations with them. As a result of the review, a recommendation was made, as I said, that we establish a multidisciplinary committee, and we have done so. I mentioned the composition of the committee. So far, there have been two meetings.
We're going to listen to the victims. We're going to listen to what they need, and we're going to enhance our policies and practices in terms of information sharing.
First of all, thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. I'll start with Ms. Kelly.
In 2018, the Parole Board of Canada found that Bernardo was at a high risk for violence against a domestic partner, and that he was callous, glib, grandiose, cunning, deceptive, manipulative and a liar.
In 2021, the Parole Board of Canada found that Bernardo displays psychopathic traits, such as arrogance, entitlement and lack of empathy”, which they found to be not treatable. The Crown psychiatrist for Bernardo's dangerous offender designation found evidence of paraphilia, narcissistic personality disorder, alcohol misuse and psychopathy.
Patrick LeSage, Bernardo's trial judge, stated that Bernardo is “a dangerous offender” and “a sexually sadistic psychopath” whose likelihood of “being treated is remote in the extreme”.
Is it your position that this man belongs in a medium-security prison?
:
Mr. Zinger, I'll now turn to you.
The CSC review report states that the security reclassification protocol for Bernardo was applied 14 times between 1999 and 2022, always with a recommendation of medium, but was overridden to maximum every time, except this one. What's shocking is that Bernardo was denied a transfer and a reclassification to medium security four months before it was finally approved.
The report also states that Bernardo suddenly had a change of heart. In fact, the report seems to state that your office's meeting with Bernardo was the catalyst for Bernardo's willingness to integrate.
Who from your office met with Bernardo, and what was the nature of that activity?
:
Thank you for the question.
As you mentioned, Mr. Bernardo was denied reclassification several times. We never investigated that, and we never made any recommendation with respect to having him transferred to medium.
How it actually happened was, primarily, that we got involved quite late in the process because Correctional Service of Canada did not meet its policy requirement to process a request within a certain time frame, which was 60 days for a request. We were involved because of that allegation of non-compliance with policy in terms of processing a request.
We met with the—
I too have only five minutes, and I have only about a minute left, so thank you. I apologize for interrupting.
Ms. Kelly, I'll go back to you for one last quick question.
While incarcerated, Bernardo has been an instigator in nine different incidents including possession of an unauthorized item and possession of contraband. His parole hearings have also confirmed that he shows no remorse for his crimes. Why didn't his track record behind bars and lack of remorse for his crimes play a larger role in his revised security classification?
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
Commissioner Kelly, I'm certainly glad you spoke about the need to do more when it comes to notifying victims. We certainly agree. We think it is completely unacceptable to think that victims, especially in this case, would read about a transfer in the media. It is something that I hope you and your team are looking at very closely. It is unacceptable. I think this committee would look forward to the future recommendations and changes that you will be implementing.
We had witnesses from the correctional services union and parole board representatives. They talked about more notification, but I can certainly see the balancing between not wanting interference in a transfer and the public notification, to avoid any of those types of incidents. That is not being talked about here, but I think that's a very real threat. You wouldn't want someone to try to help an inmate escape, for example, during a transfer. I think that's crucial, but to rely on that and not notify victims' families is not the right balance.
I'll leave it there, because I appreciate, as you have indicated already, that you are working on that.
I want to speak about the suggestion that the members opposite have brought up several times about Bill being the catalyst to allow this to happen. There was a quote in The Globe and Mail that the original wording around “least restrictive” was actually introduced by Brian Mulroney in the nineties and that it changed to “necessary”, which was outlined by Stephen Harper. The quote was from Public Safety, so maybe Mr. Tupper can speak to this. There was the suggestion that, regardless of “less restrictive” or “necessary”, the process for the custody rating scale in the Bernardo example would not have made any difference. Are you aware of this quote? It was by Magali Deussing.
Can you confirm whether you feel that the custody rating scale would still have been implemented the same, whether it was “least restrictive” or “necessary”?
I have to admit that, from the public's perspective and even my own, especially before being in this role, understanding the difference between maximum and medium.... They sound different, but they're not an extension of the punishment for the heinous crimes or the crimes in general. Even if there were offenders who had, say, less heinous crimes who were in maximum security, it's really based on the safety and movement of correctional workers inside the facility or on the flight risk. We heard at our last meeting the difference between maximum and medium. In medium, there are the same perimeters but not weapons to control inside the facility. That allows for a little bit more movement in terms of programming.
There's one programming piece that we don't talk about. We've heard about the heinous nature of Paul Bernardo, but what about ensuring that he understands the consequences of his crimes and his actions and ensuring that the victims have that approach to ensure that he doesn't get to live without understanding the damage he did to victims and to, frankly, women across this country?
:
My point still remains. Mr. Bernardo was afforded the opportunity to know that he was going to be transferred before the families of the victims were made aware of such a thing, which again highlights the fact that the perpetrator was put before the victims' families—the victims, essentially.
I think that highlights something that is very wrong with our justice system. When we're talking about the revictimization of those who are impacted by scenarios like this, we have example after example. I can think of Terri-Lynne McClintic, who of course brutally assaulted, raped and murdered an eight-year-old girl and was moved from a prison to a healing lodge. Only after that was the family all of a sudden notified. The father spoke of the traumatic impact that had on him.
I think about Nicholas Baig. In 2017, he was in Pickering, Ontario—Ms. O'Connell's riding—and he murdered his wife. She was nine months pregnant. He stabbed her 17 times, and he was moved from maximum to medium security. Only after that was the family made aware of this. The mother has spoken out about this and the revictimization of that and the impact it has had on her as an individual.
I think about Mark Smich. He brutally killed two people for no other reason than simply being fascinated by death. He was convicted to serve two life sentences, and he too was moved from maximum to medium, and then families found out only after. They have spoken out about the impact of that revictimization.
I would have to ask you this, Ms. Kelly: Do you truly believe that victims are put first?
First of all, we might need more space at maximum security. Also, at this point, there's no incentive for offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs in terms of maintaining good behaviour. The fact is that we have security classification and we have processes, but there are inmates who will never make their way to minimum security. I just want to be clear on that.
Definitely, keeping those who are serving life in maximum security for the rest of their lives would have impacts on how we manage the population, and potential impacts on the safety of our staff.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I think all of us can fully sympathize with the victims and their loved ones. I think that's why we're all here today. It's to try to make some sense of the decisions that were made to allow an individual as heinous as Paul Bernardo to be transferred to a medium-security institution.
Ms. Kelly, I want to begin with you. On July 20, which was the same date that you and the Correctional Service of Canada published the review into the transfer of Paul Bernardo, the Canadian Press quoted you as saying, “The fact that he is at a medium-security institution does not negate the fact that he is a psychopath, and that he committed horrific and unspeakable crimes”.
How is it, then, that you could call Paul Bernardo a psychopath on that day—and you repeated it today—and still feel comfortable with your decision?
:
Ms. Kelly, let me build on that, then, if you think he can be rehabilitated in some sense or taken care of.
I'm in receipt of an email that was written to you on June 8 by my constituent, Marcia Penner, to indicate her clear opposition to the decision made by CSC. Marcia was one of the best friends of Kristen French, who was raped and murdered by Bernardo.
In her letter, she wrote:
This “man” is a monster, and one that is beyond rehabilitation. He is a serial pedophile rapist, abductor, and murderer. He has been deemed a dangerous offender. The worst of the worst. If he doesn’t fit the mandatory requirements for maximum security for his entire prison stay, then please tell me who does.
In your email response, you provided a link to the statement you issued on this on June 5. However, what I find more interesting is your boilerplate contact information, which contains this quote: “Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your work with excellence.” I would seriously question whether this transfer decision was excellent.
If it's not Paul Bernardo, which dangerous offender, rapist or serial killer needs to be in a maximum-security institution? If it's not Paul Bernardo—the worst of the worst—who is it?
Thank you to all the witnesses for making time to appear before the committee.
My questions are for Commissioner Kelly.
I want to talk about the custody rating scale. At our last meeting, I cited the 2022 Auditor General report that focused on systemic barriers in corrections. In that report, the AG actually noted:
For each offender admitted into custody, corrections staff are to assess the Custody Rating Scale’s result to determine an offender’s security level.
The AG found that corrections staff had overwritten the results recommended by that scale for 30% of all security assessments, with almost half moved to a higher level of security. Why would there be manual overrides in 30% of the cases?
I'm wondering if you can help me understand. There have been many discussions so far in this meeting about Paul Bernardo having been in maximum security for 30 years. You discussed the factors that are considered in that transfer from maximum to medium, including institutional adjustment, the risk that he could escape and the risk to the public if he did escape.
The rationale I've heard so far is around the fact that he has apparently shown some signs of institutional adjustment. Is it not a combination of factors that is looked at? Why would one factor supersede the remainder, including the known risks if he were to escape or the risk to others in medium security alongside him?
It seems like maybe attention was being paid to one factor over the others. Can you speak to that?
:
Okay, maybe I could just clarify quickly.
For somebody who is on the outside—I'm not on the inside of this—we hear reports that a psychologist's report concluded that Paul Bernardo participated in “offence-related programming but continues to exhibit offence-related problematic attitudes and behaviours”, that he's had “several responsivity issues” and warned that improvements remained “intermittent”.
I don't know about you, but I have serious concerns when I see reports that Paul Bernardo has been displaying the same behaviours as he previously had, that his remorse is not there and that he has a high risk of—I can't think of the word right now—doing the same sorts of things he had done before. I am just worried.
How is it possible that he has been moved from maximum to medium under the circumstances of the information that we have, which is publicly available, and the concerns surrounding this particular person?
There have been a few questions today about the differences between a maximum-security prison and a medium-security prison.
Earlier today, Ms. Kelly, you mentioned that there are more opportunities for offenders in medium. I make no apology for my next statement. I expect and want Paul Bernardo to have zero opportunities.
You also mentioned that he was incarcerated in a maximum penitentiary for 30 years and he was integrated, which was part of the reason that lead to his getting classified to medium. He was only integrated for four months. How could there possibly be such a change of heart in just four months of integration, after 30 years in maximum?
:
Thank you for that answer. You mentioned that he was monitored during that time. I hope this horrendous criminal has been monitored for his entire 30 years.
Ms. Kelly, in our last meeting, Jeff Wilkins, the head of the corrections union, raised serious concerns about the routine overriding and downgrading of security classifications by upper management at Corrections Canada. He stated that he has no issues when a security classification is upgraded, but that, when it is downgraded, it can lead to serious public safety concerns. We heard that this practice contributed to two inmates' escaping and brutally murdering a 60-year-old man in British Columbia.
How many offenders' security classifications were overwritten to a lower security classification last year?
Going into my final round, I'll note that, at page iv of the review report into the Bernardo transfer, the fourth paragraph outlines that, after his June 2022 rejection, he applied in July 2022, after he had integrated into his unit.
At that time, it said:
Information provided to the Review Committee indicated that, after the offender had applied for a transfer—
Then it's redacted.
—the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) initiated informal discussions concerning his security classification, to ensure compliance with the “least restrictive measures” principle and legal requirements, as per the CCRA.
What is your understanding of the Office of the Correctional Investigator's intervention with regard to the security reclassification of Paul Bernardo and his rights under the principle of “least restrictive measures”?
:
So far, you've done.... I will credit you and your team for this: We've seen the rates go down significantly in terms of inmates who have escaped. We reached a high, in 2006-07, of 38 inmates who escaped. We went down to a 20-year low of nine in 2016-17. Then we saw 13 in 2018-19, 12 in 2019-20, and 11 in 2020-21. We're going steadily down. That is the result of the good work that you and your team are doing. I want to congratulate you on that.
What I want to use my time here for—and this is the message I would like to convey to you and your team, whom I've said have done good work in keeping Canadians safe—is to say that I think there was something that was done, unfortunately, incorrectly here, and I hope that this is the focus of your work and your team's work with the multidisciplinary committee. It was the way that the families of the victims were treated here. They were told the morning of the transfer, without being given any kind of necessary counselling, possibly, after hearing this news and watching it on the media. The way that must have impacted them.... I say this as a father, as a brother, as a son and as a member of Parliament representing my community, Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I cannot imagine what kind of an impact that must have had and what kind of a day they had.
There was an oversight here. I'm glad that you acknowledge that, and I truly hope—and I'm passing this message along to you—that this will be the focus of the work that this committee does and that there's due diligence put in place to ensure that families and victims are treated with greater due diligence and greater care moving forward.
That's how I want to use my line of questioning today. Thank you.
Ms. Kelly, the review committee that looked into the Paul Bernardo case made two recommendations. The first was that Correctional Service Canada share the findings and recommendations of the review with registered victims, prior to any release of information to the media or to the public. You said that you had done so.
The second recommendation was that Correctional Service Canada strengthen victim notifications and engagement by striking a committee dedicated to this work. You said that you had also done this.
In practical terms, what has your organization implemented in response to these two recommendations?
:
Thank you. That's very appropriate.
The question that was posed by one of my Conservative colleagues on the constituent who was asking the question, “If not Paul Bernardo in maximum security, then who?” really resonated with me. I hear us talking about the differences of the experience that Paul Bernardo would have in maximum security versus medium security. Why do we have maximum security if there's really no difference of experience? I'm not understanding this.
Maximum security seems like the place for someone like Paul Bernardo, who is showing no remorse. He's a risk to the public. He's a risk to other inmates. Why is he not in maximum security? If not, to reiterate the question of my Conservative colleague, then who is in maximum security?
:
First of all, we work with the offenders. There are different reasons for a transfer, so they're definitely involved in the process.
In terms of notifying victims, in this case, as I said, we notified them the morning of. Normally, for medium security, according to legislation, we notify them after the transfer, but in this case, because of the high-profile nature of the case, we notified them in the morning. However, with the multidisciplinary committee that we've established, these are things that we are discussing, and we're seeing how we can enhance information to victims.
:
I find it interesting, because you continuously go back to the findings of the multidisciplinary committee, yet, at the same time, you seem to be quite defensive of this terminology around achieving balance.
According to the Supreme Court decision in 2012, the language used around that is this: There would be “a just and proportionate balance...based on the particular case before the court.”
It says, “just and proportionate”. Proportionality suggests that the scale isn't like this, but rather that the factors that might tip the scale slightly are considered. That's balance, according to the Supreme Court decision in 2012.
In this case, that scale was tipped towards Bernardo and not towards the victims' families. Why is that?
Thank you, again, for answering all these questions. I think it has been very helpful.
I want to follow up on Ms. Barron's last question, where you were cut off.
At the beginning of the testimony, we talked about how maximum versus medium is not an extension of the sentence that any given offender is provided. You started to explain. I don't think it's necessarily a mistrust by Canadians. It's a misunderstanding of the inner workings of corrections services.
You were talking about the types of inmates who would be under maximum security. Can you continue with that answer? I found it very helpful.
:
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
Thank you, Ms. Kelly, for your co-operation and all your answers.
To everyone else sitting at that end of the table, we appreciate it.
At the moment, that brings this meeting to an end. I will look for agreement to adjourn the meeting.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.