Debates of April 19th, 2024

Questions on the Order Paper

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. If enacted, this would ensure a non-partisan, arm's-length organization that would hold the government of the day to its commitments to reconciliation. This is needed, because the government shows less of a commitment to reconciliation every year. Let us look at the Liberal record.

Last year, not one Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendation was implemented. Out of the 94 calls to action, only 13 have been accomplished. The government promised to end long-term boil water advisories more than three years ago, but there is still no end in sight. This year is looking even worse.

What has happened with the government’s most important relationship, we might ask? We can just look at this past week. The Minister of Finance could not even bring herself to utter the word “indigenous” or “reconciliation” in her speech introducing the budget. However, given her rhetoric over the last year, why would she?

Indigenous peoples spent months hearing the government threaten sunsetting and cuts to the services that they and their communities rely on. Programs, services and grants that people rely on were threatened, including Jordan’s principle and dealing with the harmful legacy of residential schools. It took NDP pressure to reverse many of those cuts.

This is how low the bar is set with the government, opposing cuts in the face of a $350-billion infrastructure gap. Instead of proposing a wealth tax or an excess profit tax on people such as Mirko Bibic, Galen Weston or Arthur Irving, the government consciously chose to spend less than 1% of what is needed to end the housing crisis on first nations.

Despite all their bluster, big oil does not need to beg the government for handouts. Galen Weston certainly does not. Bell gets all the money it needs to give away in fat bonuses and shareholder dividends while laying off thousands of workers. However, first nations are treated as an afterthought in this budget. It really boggles the mind.

The government recently co-authored a report that made clear how badly federal governments, whether Liberal or Conservative, have just fundamentally failed first nations. If one doubled the number of homes in first nations communities, the report said, there would still not be enough to meet the housing demand. Upon releasing the report with the AFN, the Liberals decided to completely ignore it.

The Liberals know that they will not hit the 2030 goal to end the housing crisis for first nations. Their department officials have admitted as much, but the Liberal MPs will not admit it, nor will the ministers responsible or the Prime Minister.

Communities such as the ones here in northern Manitoba live this reality every day. They know it well. That is why Grand Chief Cathy Merrick said, in response to this budget, that it will be a cold day in hell before the infrastructure gap facing first nations is ended. That is why the AFN National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak is calling for a first ministers meeting this year to discuss a path forward on reconciliation, because the government is just not getting the work done.

Let us be honest about what a $350-billion infrastructure gap looks like. There is Shamattawa First Nation, where the housing crisis is so bad, the community has had to deal with tuberculosis outbreaks. In fact, here in northern Manitoba, over the last number of years, we have had higher rates of tuberculosis than have some parts of sub-Saharan Africa. There is Tataskweyak Cree Nation, where the government so fundamentally failed in delivering clean water that it had to fight the first nation in court.

There is Pimicikamak Cree Nation, which has a 2,000-family wait-list for homes. There is also the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, which has a 700-family wait-list for homes.

There is Wasagamack, one of the most isolated communities in the country. It is still waiting for the federal government to step up and work with the community and the province to build a desperately needed airport.

Communities on the east side of Manitoba, on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, are paying the price for climate change. They have no choice but to rely on ice roads, which are increasingly unreliable because of the shortened winter season. They have made it clear to the federal government that they need all-weather roads but the federal government has made no commitment to working with them to help build the roads.

There is the Island Lake region, where the population is similar to that of my hometown of Thompson. Thousands of people live in the region; they still do not have a hospital or an all-weather road.

The housing infrastructure gap, which I would call a crisis, is pervasive in first nations here in Manitoba and for many first nations across the country. Communities need housing, elders' care homes, day cares, health centres, water treatment plants and emergency preparedness-related infrastructure. They need to improve existing roads and build new ones so they can fight to survive climate change.

Many of these stories are rooted here in my constituency in northern Manitoba, on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, but we know they are repeated across the country. Indigenous peoples are almost three times more likely to live in a home in need of major repair. More than half of first nations do not have regular access to high-speed Internet, and roughly 15% have none at all.

We need to be honest with ourselves. This is keeping indigenous communities poor, and it is a choice by the federal government. Every time the government looks the other way on a tax loophole, every time we buy fridges for Galen Weston or give billions of dollars to big oil, that is money we are not spending on the people and communities most in need. The sad reality is that the government only steps up when it is court-ordered to do so. In fact, budget 2024 outlined $57 billion in settlement money, as if it were a huge success by the government and not a situation where it fought first nations, Inuit and Métis people every step of the way to deny them justice.

To be honest, it is clear that the government is laying the groundwork for future class-action lawsuits against it. One can only imagine what is coming on the housing front. The Auditor General recently released a report on the housing crisis on reserve, and it came out that Indigenous Services has been using the wrong census data, data from 2001. This has effectively robbed first nations, particularly in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, of the housing dollars they deserve, for up to a quarter of a billion dollars.

Did the Minister of Indigenous Services or the Prime Minister rush to right that wrong, to get that money into the hands of communities that had a right to it? No, when he was asked about it, the Prime Minister instead refused to even entertain the idea that they ever would. That is another example of the government fundamentally failing first nations and one that will likely end in a class-action lawsuit, something it deeply deserves.

In contrast, we have a Conservative Party that never saw a tax break for billionaires it did not love. The last time the leader of the official opposition was in government, the Conservatives gave away $60 billion in corporate tax cuts.

On the day the previous prime minister delivered a public apology to survivors of residential schools, years ago, the current Conservative leader, the leader of the official opposition, said that he was not sure Canada was “getting value for all of this money”. It was money being spent to compensate survivors, and his view was that “we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self-reliance. That's the solution in the long run—more money will not solve it”.

I challenge the leader of the official opposition to come to first nations like the ones I represent, where kids were abused, where kids died and where families are still dealing with the poisonous and destructive legacy of the residential school system. I challenge the leader of the official opposition to look people in the face and to say that Canada is the victim here and that Canada is the one that did not get its value. Shame on him.

However, it is not just him who does not understand the harmful legacy of residential schools. The reality is that we are now approaching three years since Canadians learned what first nations across the country already knew: the existence of mass grave sites near residential schools. However, the government is still not supporting communities with the resources they need to bring their children home.

Communities like Cross Lake and others wanted to work with the International Commission on Missing Persons. The work has already begun. However, before it could move forward, the government ended the contract, and now Cross Lake and other communities are forced to start over; it is justice delayed.

Despite his claims that he wants to support communities, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has done virtually nothing to assist first nations that want to work with the ICMP, a global leader when it comes to uncovering mass graves. He has done virtually nothing to assist first nations that desperately want to work to uncover the truth and to bring their children home.

In Sagkeeng First Nation, an employee recently found bones while digging a trench for a water pipe to a church addition. The area was not part of any known cemetery. The community wants to work with the International Commission on Missing Persons. They have asked CIRNAC for support, but have not received any.

People across our north see through the government's empty use of the word “reconciliation”. People across our north want to see action. The NDP will continue to call out the government when it fails indigenous peoples and when it talks a good talk, especially on reconciliation, while refusing to follow through in terms of action. We are proud to support this bill, Bill C-29, but recognize that the monitoring process, or lack thereof, will not create the change indigenous peoples need to see.

Here, in our part of the country, people are clear. Indigenous leaders, elders, youth and advocates are clear that what they need to see is action: an end to third-world living conditions, true change in the face of the climate emergency, and real investment to make life better. They deserve action. They deserve justice, and we should recognize and act on nothing less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect the member will actually be voting in favour of Bill C-29. I believe it is a commitment that is being fulfilled as one of the 94 calls for action. I have found it quite pleasing to know, as a government, that the member cannot cite any other leader of a political party who has done more to move in a substantive way than the Prime Minister of Canada has over the last nine years.

I know the moment I sit down, she is going to continue to be critical of the government, and that is what she is allowed to do. The reality is that, on the calls for action, we see 80% of them being acted on and many of them have been completed, and this is a government that, from day one, has made a commitment, with first nations, to ensure that we move forward on the calls for action.

Will she confirm she is supporting the bill?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I made clear in my speech that we are supporting the bill, but I am not sure about the member's statements with respect to the historic nature of the Prime Minister's action vis-à-vis indigenous peoples. We can look no further than the fact that the Minister of Finance did not even say the word “indigenous” once, or the word “reconciliation”, in this week's budget. As well, there is the fact that less than 1% of what is needed was invested in first nations housing and infrastructure, given that the recently uncovered $350-billion gap is nothing to write home about.

I know this member is from Manitoba, and he knows well the infrastructure gap first nations face. Clearly, his government's budget and its ongoing approach are nowhere near what we need to see when it comes to closing the infrastructure gap for Manitobans, especially indigenous peoples.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my hon. colleague was as shocked as I was by the comments of praise given to his own government by the member for Winnipeg North.

I want to build on what the member was saying about how the word indigenous was not even mentioned once by the finance minister. The fact that the government gave more money to deal with auto theft in this budget than it did to finding murdered and missing indigenous women and girls is sending a very clear message to indigenous people that it values cars more than it values us. That is how crass the government has been.

We know we are billions of dollars short to deal with the housing gap. We know there continues to be boil water advisories. However, I want to speak specifically about the north. We are in the middle of a climate emergency. The government is watching in real time resources not being able to get to communities, and it is a becoming a crisis, yet the government has failed to act.

How concerned are communities in the north about the failure of governments to deal with this growing crisis?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her championing of the calls for justice and for action for missing and murdered indigenous women. It is a stark condemnation of a Liberal plan to act on the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, as well as the fact that there is more money available for stolen cars than there is for action on missing and murdered indigenous women in this budget. It is absolutely shocking.

To the question on the climate emergency, we are on day two of what we refer to as “snowmagedden” here in northern Manitoba. We have had record snowfall, the likes of which we have never seen before at this time of year. The overall message has been that communities do not have the capacity to deal with what climate change is bringing, whether it is historic wildfires, historic flooding and this kind of precipitation.

First nations are clear on the kinds of infrastructure investments they need to prepare in the face of climate change and mitigate the devastating impacts. Frankly, the only party that does not seem to get it is the federal government, which continues to ignore calls to work on the airport in Wasagamack, calls to invest in all-weather road infrastructure and calls to invest in emergency preparedness related to infrastructure. People are bracing themselves for what the summer will bring. The bottom line is that we need the federal government to step up and work with first nations now.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, my colleague's speech was very informative in showing the realities of what indigenous peoples experience in Canada because of the decades of a lack in investments by the Liberal government and past Conservative governments, which has led to the continued marginalization of indigenous peoples.

I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on what will happen because of the budget announcement. Even if this bill were to pass, what would happen with indigenous peoples once we start seeing commitments rather than inaction?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to my colleague for the incredible work that she does on behalf of the people from Nunavut and as the indigenous services critic and Crown-indigenous relations critic for the NDP. I am so honoured to work alongside her and our incredible team.

The budget is a huge disappointment for indigenous communities. Indigenous national and regional leaders have been very clear that it misses the mark in so many ways. I will say that I am proud of the work that the NDP did to fight back against a number of the cuts that were proposed, but let us not kid ourselves. The less than 1% funding on housing and infrastructure is a serious failure on the part of the Liberal government. It continues the legacy of Liberal underfunding that we saw under Paul Martin and have seen time and time again from the Liberals and, of course, the Conservatives.

Third world living conditions in indigenous communities did not just happen. They are the result of chronic underfunding and of choices that Liberal and Conservative governments have made to prioritize their rich and powerful friends, rather than investing and working with indigenous communities to make the difference that they deserve and that, I would say, Canada is obligated to make as well.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very important speech. I wonder whether the member could share a little bit more about why she feels that the Liberals, despite being in government for seven years, have made repeated promises to indigenous peoples and broken so many of them.

Could the member share why she feels it has taken us so long to get to where we are now, and where the gaps are that she was talking about? Perhaps she could provide us with her thoughts on the implications and impacts on indigenous people across the country.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to work with my colleague. She is a great defender of indigenous communities in her constituency in British Columbia.

What we are seeing from the Liberals is something we have seen from colonial-minded governments of the past, both Liberal and Conservative. Certainly on the Liberal end, government members have talked a good talk about reconciliation and their most important relationship being that with indigenous peoples. However, if we look at the lack of action on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the lack of investment in the housing and infrastructure gap, and the sunsetting of programs to support residential school survivors, this is the Liberal way, and indigenous peoples deserve far better.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, April 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 1:30 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 28, 2023, consideration of the motion that Bill C-351, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (maximum security offenders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and add a few thoughts on Bill C-351.

It is one of the planks the Conservative Party's members talk about. If we remember, there are four things that they talk about, saying these are the things they would do if they were, heaven forbid, to form government. One of them is to abolish crime. I am not too sure exactly how they are going to abolish crime. I think they have some sort of wand or, through legislation, they are going to make it illegal to commit a crime and, therefore, if it is illegal to commit a crime, crime will go away. I suspect that is what they are thinking.

I say that somewhat sarcastically, but when I look at this bill, it reinforces the need to maybe chastise the Conservatives and their approach in terms of how they like to say one thing when they are in opposition and do something else when they are in government.

I was surprised when going over the summary. I would ask my friends across the way to follow along. I am sure they would agree with me that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy they might be witnessing first-hand. I will read the summary of the bill. It states that Bill C-351 seeks to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been designated as dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder be classified as a maximum-security offender and be confined, and this is the really important part, in maximum security by Correctional Service Canada.

There are many thoughts that come to my mind regarding what is being proposed. I could talk about the technicalities of trusting the people in place who are professionally trained individuals and have done a fairly incredible job in our jails, correctional facilities and so forth, and of having more faith in them. I could comment on that, but, rather, I want to point out and expand upon the comments I made about the hypocrisy issue.

Many members will recall the horrific brutality of the killing of Tori Stafford and the abuse and murder that ultimately took place. In fact, it was not that long ago when we heard a regurgitation of it by a number of Conservative members of Parliament, who were raising the issue in fairly graphic detail at times. They were doing that because Terri-Lynne McClintic was transferred to a healing lodge. The Conservative Party was absolutely outraged because that had taken place.

A number of Conservatives took it upon themselves, as I said, to graphically explain what happened to the victim, somewhat referring to the family. Even to this day, I extend my most sincere condolences to them in recognizing the horrific actions that took place. The family and the community are still living with that tragedy.

Having said that, we were soundly criticized. I believe Ralph Goodale was minister of public safety at the time and he was being criticized because of this transfer. I remember it quite well because it was being debated and I commented on the issue. As the debate went on, one of the things we found out was that it was actually Stephen Harper's government that saw Terri-Lynne McClintic transferred out of a high-security prison into a medium-security prison, which enabled her to be transferred to the healing lodge.

With a little more research, what can be found is that this is not the first person. When the Conservative Party was in power, we saw a mass murderer actually being transferred out of high-security into medium-security prison. Now we have a private member's bill that is against what Stephen Harper and his government did. They allowed the professionals, the individuals charged with the responsibility for issues such as jail conditions, the type of incarceration and so forth, to make the decisions. Stephen Harper did what was expected of him as prime minister.

Where were the Conservative voices back then? The leader of the Conservative Party was actually in Stephen Harper's cabinet. I am sure members could appreciate why I am a little skeptical of how the Conservatives are now taking the position that they want high security and that it is absolutely mandatory.

At the end of the day, it is all about the votes for the Conservative Party. It is not about the issues, and they have demonstrated that. It is interesting. The Conservatives recently started talking about auto thefts. Now they are being critical of the government, and we have taken tangible actions on that.

I think back to 2007-08, although I might be off by a year or two, when I was in the provincial legislature in Manitoba. The prime minister was Stephen Harper, and today's leader of the Conservative Party was with him. At that time, no province in the country had more auto theft than the province of Manitoba did, and it was by a long shot. This was not even on a per capita basis. On a per capita basis, it would have been an astronomical difference. We had a serious issue.

What got Manitoba back on the right track was when law enforcement, the federal government and the province came together to come up with a solution to deal with auto theft in the province of Manitoba. It was very effective once it really got going.

One should not quote me on the numbers, but we are talking about thousands of vehicles. If we look at Manitoba, with a population base of under 1.2 million back then, and Ontario, with 14 million-plus people, we still had more vehicles being stolen. It took the governments coming together to make a difference. That is what we are seeing with Ontario and Quebec in trying to deal with this very serious issue.

Therein lies the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. As a government, we are prepared to work with other jurisdictions in order to have their backs and support Canadians in whatever way we can. We can contrast that with the Conservatives, who are more interested in bumper stickers than they are in resolving problems. That is how I see Bill C-351, which is actually a flip-flop on the position Conservatives held when they were in government and Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑351, which is sponsored by the Conservative member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I followed the saga surrounding the transfer of inmate Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security penitentiary to the medium-security facility in La Macaza, because the La Macaza institution is located in my riding of Laurentides—Labelle.

On March 27, at the invitation of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers , I spent the day inside the institution. What I heard that day had absolutely nothing to do with the inmate in question. We agree that his crimes are revolting, but quite honestly, we are not concerned about his transfer to that facility. What revolts us is what is happening inside the walls of this institution. The correctional officers told me about some things that I want to share.

They told me about the delivery of drugs by drone, faulty and outdated equipment and staff retention issues. They told me about shivs, physical assaults on employees and the list goes on. I spent the day there. Rather than addressing the real problems in federal penitentiaries, since it is not just at the La Macaza facility that we need to take action to ensure the safety of staff who work every day to keep the public safe, the Conservative Party has introduced a populist, sensationalist bill.

That is not taking care of people. When a party aspires to form the government, its absolute priority should be to take care of people. Instead, the Conservatives want to instill fear in everyone by making up problems where there are none. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo came to La Macaza in early February for a photo op. Unfortunately for him, some of the facts were wrong.

When I went there, it was not to engage in self-promotion. I was there to get input from the correctional officers and all the employees who work to ensure public safety. I was there to understand their reality, to understand what happens behind the walls, to understand this universe that is completely foreign to me, but is important to grasp in order to avoid coming to hasty conclusions and to have a better sense of this critical problem in our democratic society.

The Bloc Québécois has always stood up for victims. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord, who has already spoken about this bill, had this to say:

I can assure him that the Bloc Québécois [also sides with the victims]. It always has and always will side with victims. The Bloc also sides with society. We must never lose sight of the fact that our justice system is not just about avenging a victim or punishing a criminal. The purpose of our justice system is to build a safer society...

I can say that I am quite partisan about what comes next. As I often say, in a mature, democratically evolved society where the rule of law is a fundamental value, we cannot accept even the slightest encroachment of politics into the judiciary. To me, that is key.

In his work The Spirit of Law, Montesquieu outlines his theory of the separation of powers. He states that, in order to avoid despotism, it is absolutely essential to separate the legislative, executive and judicial powers. This bill is nothing less than a proposal to reverse that sacrosanct separation. The Government of Canada, regardless of its colour, whether it is red, blue or potentially orange, may well seize arbitrary powers for itself, but when it comes to judicial powers, politics should not play a part.

The independence of Correctional Service Canada's and the Parole Board of Canada's decisions about incarcerated individuals, including assigning and changing their respective security classification, stems from the quasi-judicial nature that the law confers on them. Even if these two organizations are attached to the government apparatus, they are effectively equipped with an administrative tribunal that must make decisions independently. I like that word.

The Conservatives are proposing to remove that independence from bodies that make decisions based on objective and impartial criteria. The fact is, that worries me. We need to have governments that respect the independence of government agencies. We saw that the Harper government often trampled on that independence. We see that the Conservative Party wants to go down that road again. That does not bode well for the future. On one hand, we have the Liberal Party that interferes in provincial jurisdictions. On the other hand, we have the Conservative Party that wants to interfere in the independence of government organizations. I believe that is going too far, and it does not bode well.

I will wrap up my speech. The bill introduced by the Conservative member from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is a complete departure from the principle whereby these offenders can be on a path to rehabilitation.

In our society, we do not want penitentiaries to become factories to turn out criminals. Yes, we want them to be places where people are detained, but we also want them to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. In our society, we want the separation of powers to be respected. We want human rights to be respected. We want those who have demonstrated a willingness to reintegrate into society to have a second chance and to turn their lives around, when possible. We want governments that respect everyone's jurisdictions.

That is the society that we will build when Quebec becomes a country.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly ending the week by debating the bill before us provides a certain level of weight for anybody who is recounting the atrocities and the sensationalism that has re-entered public discourse. Certainly, as my Bloc colleague has suggested, I think any discussion in the House needs to be victim-centred. It needs to be survivor-centred. When we propose legislation, I think it is important that we have a duty and responsibility to think about all the ways in which our rhetoric and our communications might be received in the general public and might actually cause some harm.

Before I even begin my remarks, I just want to reflect on, given the nature of the particular reactionary piece of legislation before us, the impacts that Bernardo had in my community. As the member for Hamilton Centre, I know that members will recall that two of his victims were in my region. In the early 1990s, as a young adult of 12 or 13 years, I recall, crystal clear, being at a recreation centre at a karate tournament when the news broke of the atrocities that had happened in the community. As I am sure every member of the House does, when I reflect upon the monstrosities that were committed, I go back through them. Of course, we all know that Leslie Erin Mahaffy, Kristen French and Tammy Homolka were the three victims of the two brutal and vicious criminals.

However, sometimes what is lost is that there were also survivors. There are people who are watching this debate right now who would have had a direct connection, a very violent and traumatic connection, to the atrocities committed by Paul Bernardo. I want people who are watching to know that I and the New Democrats, and indeed many folks in here across all party lines, want to reflect on the fact that they are still living through the horrors that have been expressed in the House, and we want to make sure that any approach we have would be victim-centred.

However, I do not believe that the particular piece of legislation before us is necessarily victim-centred. I do not believe that it would offer victims any of the four foundational principles of victim-centred approaches to things like sexual assault, gender-based violence and the idea of safety and respect. I think that one of the most atrocious, evil and despicable things that a human being can do to another person has been sensationalized and generalized, such that all people caught within the frameworks would be comparable to it. I would suggest that is not the case. I want to honour the survivors who might be tuning in, and I want them to know that if there is any good that comes of the current debate, it is that we should be shifting our justice strategies so that they are not just about crime and punishment but also, again, about victim-centred and survivor-centred approaches.

Let us be clear about what the bill would do; it would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders, or have been convicted of more than one first-degree murder, be assigned to a security classification of maximum and be confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary for the duration of their sentence. Indeed, it is a reflection, and I think all social scientists would agree, of a failed tough-on-crime approach. The reason is that, within the due bounds of our law, there are scenarios, setting aside the atrocities of Paul Bernardo, where, based on this, people would eventually end up leaving prison.

Therefore the question becomes this: What is it that we are unleashing into our community once these people have been incarcerated for decades of their lives? How are we reflecting upon the impacts of any prospect of rehabilitation lost by the failed social approach, the failed Conservative approach, to tough-on-crime? If we put violent people, deeply problematic people and people who were traumatized into settings that continue to dehumanize them, then eventually we will have to work through what will happen when they return to our communities.

It is not like there are no better examples around the world. We only have to look to what some Scandinavian countries have done when it comes to rehabilitation. Norway's rate of recidivism decreased from a high of 70% in 1992 to the lowest in the world, at 20%, after it started community-based correctional facilities and focused on rehabilitation.

When I say these words, it is important for the public and the members in the House to not conflate the evils and the monstrosities of the worst and the most violent among us and to understand that laws ought not to be a knee-jerk response to individual failings or to individual cases, but actually need to be a collective response to our society's social pressures.

In the U.S., with it's toughness on crime, which the “Canadian Republican Party” has seemed to have adopted, the rate of return is 76.6%. Even the fiscal Conservatives among them, the ones who are truly fiscal Conservatives, would recognize that the cost of incarceration is enormous. There needs to be discretion. There needs to be the ability for those who are honestly taking steps for rehabilitation to be rehabilitated and to go from the institutionalization of a maximum-security prison to conditions that would better match the realities of the outside world so that when they are released, the likelihood of them reoffending drops.

That is not my opinion; those are the facts, but unfortunately, punishment is the only tool the Conservatives have in their tool box when dealing with these issues. Rehabilitation is not even in their vocabulary. Their position in this regard is one that is sensationalist and does prey upon the most basic and base fears of society and is based on the most evil who walk among us. There are exceptional cases of violence in this country. I am not naive to that. There are people who have done unspeakable things, but our system currently deals with that.

Were there administrative errors? Could there be administrative errors from time to time? Absolutely, that could be the case. However, concerning the transfer of Paul Bernardo, Dr. Ivan Zinger, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, in his written submission to the SECU committee on November 27, wrote, “In this case, it is especially important to make clear that Canada's correctional system is based on the principle that the rule of law follows sentenced persons into prison.”

Imprisonment does not mean total deprivation and absolute forfeiture of one's rights. The investigator went on to say, “My Office cannot, and does not, select or decline cases on the basis of one's criminal conduct or notoriety. My Office serves all federally sentenced persons, regardless of their sentence.” That is the underlying principle of the rule of law.

I would encourage members of the House, including the so-called “tough on crime” Conservatives, to reflect on ways, perhaps in the remaining months of this session and in the remaining time we are in this legislature and this Parliament, to shift their thinking and to start actually thinking about the victims and the survivors of crime as the primary priority for our legislative responses. I would like them to think about the material conditions for people currently within our federal prison systems. I would like them to think about the investments that could be made to support people in mental health and to support people in social crisis.

With that, I am thankful for this time. I will take my last five seconds to reflect upon not just the victims who were murdered by Paul Bernardo, but also upon all the survivors who may be watching this. They should know that, as New Democrats, our hearts go out to them, to their families and to the communities impacted by this.