Bill C-83 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, among other things,
(a) eliminate the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation;
(b) authorize the Commissioner to designate a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary as a structured intervention unit for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons;
(c) provide less invasive alternatives to physical body cavity searches;
(d) affirm that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to support the autonomy and clinical independence of registered health care professionals;
(e) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to provide inmates with access to patient advocacy services;
(f) provide that the Correctional Service of Canada has an obligation to consider systemic and background factors unique to Indigenous offenders in all decision-making; and
(g) improve victims’ access to audio recordings of parole hearings.
This enactment also amends the English version of a provision of the Criminal Records Act.

Justice

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, he still will not clearly answer the question, which is doubly concerning because Toronto has been overtaken by crime and chaos since he brought in the catch-and-release policies under Bill C-375, Bill C-5 and Bill C-83. Violent crime is up 40%. We just heard the tragic story on Monday of a liquor store robber crashing into a family, tragically killing grandparents and a precious child. The assailant was out on bail.

Will the Prime Minister repeal catch-and-release?

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to deliver a final reply in the debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-351, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act regarding maximum security offenders.

I will not go into the details of the context surrounding the introduction of such a bill. I will simply point out that what prompted it was the news last June that serial killer Paul Bernardo had been transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security one. It was news that shocked the public and forced the families and victims to relive their trauma. This bill seeks to ensure that maximum-security offenders remain in a maximum-security facility, where they deserve to be.

I would once again like to thank my colleague from Niagara Falls, who introduced a similar bill, as well as a motion calling for the immediate cancellation of Bernardo's transfer. Unfortunately, his motion was defeated.

I listened carefully to my colleagues' speeches, in the first hour of reading and today, and I have a few comments to make.

My Liberal colleagues mentioned that we do not care about women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Conservative Party has always stood with victims. Unfortunately, when it comes to dangerous offenders, the vast majority of victims are women. I also heard the Liberals say that we are using this bill to fearmonger. They falsely claim that we want to make people believe that offenders like Bernardo could end up being released. That is not the purpose of this bill at all.

The probability that such a dangerous criminal would be out on release is extremely low. However, the fact that he was transferred from a maximum- to a medium-security prison is something we want to prevent. I repeat, the very simple goal of this bill is to ensure that such criminals, given their horrific actions, are kept in maximum-security prisons, not in institutions where they would receive much more generous privileges. Most importantly, we want to prevent the families of victims from having to relive a trauma that no one would want to experience.

Other colleagues have also talked about rehabilitation. I heard someone say earlier that we do not believe in it. That is absolutely not the case. Our party does believe in rehabilitation, especially for young offenders. For some offences, a second chance is the way forward, but in the Bernardo case, for example, I am sure members will agree that rehabilitation is impossible. A second chance for such a monster is out of the question. We are talking about at least 1,000 inmates in Canada who are considered dangerous offenders.

As evidence of the current government's soft-on-crime attitude, the response to an Order Paper question submitted by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo revealed that most of these offenders are serving their sentences in medium- or even minimum-security prisons. There are dangerous offenders in minimum-security institutions. That is what happens when a government does not have its priorities straight, when a government believes that the right thing to do is to offer dangerous criminals the least restrictive environment. That is what happened in 2019 with the passage of Bill C-83, which puts the comfort of criminals ahead of concern for victims' families. That is pure liberalism. That is the legacy of the Liberal government after nine years in power.

On this side of the House, we stand by the victims and not the criminals. That is why I introduced this bill and I am proud of it. Where the Liberals have failed, we will succeed. We will restore common sense in our justice and correctional system.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it has been almost a year since one of the most notorious serial killers in Canada was moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security facility under provisions of the NDP-Liberals' so-called justice legislation, Bill C-83.

This serial killer is infamous for his long string of rapes in Scarborough; the rape, torture and murder of his sister-in-law; and the rape, torture and murder of two very young, innocent girls from St. Catharines. We all know his partner in crime, his wife, Karla Homolka, skated with a 10-year sentence, despite actively participating in the crimes as per the videotape the police had in their possession. This rapist, this serial killer, this monster is Paul Bernardo.

Let me acknowledge the pain and suffering, and the repeated victimization, of the families of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French. I cannot imagine the pain that they live with everyday. God bless them.

After Bernardo, that monster, was found guilty of his crimes, the judge correctly sentenced him to life imprisonment as a dangerous offender, meaning he should have stayed locked up in maximum security until he died of old age. However, no, our current government, this woke bunch of MPs who are running our justice system, decided that Paul Bernardo is the real victim, a nice, fine, misunderstood fellow who deserves medium security.

The Liberals passed a law, Bill C-83, which explicitly tells police, judges and Correctional Services Canada to impose the least restrictive measures on a person as possible. In practice, this means that this monster, Paul Bernardo, now lives in a dormitory, has a tennis court and ice rink for recreation, and access to sharp instruments when he gets that urge to murder again. It is not even close to maximum security. That makes no sense.

On June 23 last year, I asked the justice minister, in this very House. why Paul Bernardo gets such special treatment. What was his answer? Of course, he did not answer at all. Instead, one of the Prime Minister’s attack dogs got up to say that, just because Paul Bernardo is a bad man, it does not mean the Liberals did anything wrong with their legislation.

Yes, everyone heard me right: the Liberals refused to take responsibility for their own actions. However, members need not worry. Since the current NDP-Liberal government refuses to take responsibility for its own actions, it will be the Conservatives who once again step up to the plate to fix the situation.

What would that fix? Bill C-351 is a bill introduced by my great Conservative colleague from Quebec. This legislation would fix the mess created by the Liberals in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It would amend section 28 of the act, which currently states, “If a person is or is to be confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment”.

That is what the Liberals have changed it to say. They made it as easy on the convicted criminal as possible. This is why Bernardo is getting all the special treatment.

My colleague's bill proposes to change that section to say, “ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with an environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. In other words, only make it easier on a convicted criminal if it is absolutely necessary. This legislation is making a significant fix through changing the words “least restrictive environment” to “environment that contains only the necessary restrictions”. While it is a simple language change, it is a massive policy change.

When it comes to crime and what to do with criminals who victimize Canadians, Conservatives, such as myself, my colleague and our leader, have very different approaches than those of the NDP-Liberal government. Conservatives believe that victims of crimes, those who are innocent, who have been terrorized in their own homes, have had their cars stolen, have been mugged on our streets, who have been are raped and those who have had family members murdered, should come first.

The NDP-Liberals have a very different approach than Conservatives do to crime. I believe in common sense. If a crime was committed, the criminal needs to answer. The woke, NDP-Liberal approach is that the criminal is the single most important person in the justice system. They believe, and they have written into law, that police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and jailers must take into account diversity, equity, inclusion and critical race theory when dealing with criminals. They have put into place checklists. Does this criminal have any sort of skin colour, racial background, sexual identity or anything in their background that would warrant that criminal to walk away scot-free? If so, let them go. That is the NDP-Liberal approach to criminal justice.

This woke crowd does not care if a criminal has raped a woman, kidnapped a child or murdered a indigenous man because, in their minds, that so-called underprivileged criminal is more important than any victim can be. In their topsy-turvy world view, it actually sees those committing the crimes as the people who need to be cared for, while the actual victims continue to suffer over and over again.

Senator Kim Pate, appointed by the current Liberal Prime Minister, summed up the Liberal hug-a-thug position quite nicely last year when she addressed the Fredericton City Council. She said, “Canada’s criminal legal system is unjust, discriminatory and biased against indigenous people and people of colour.”

I agree that it has been unjust against indigenous victims of crime like those on the James Smith Cree Nation. The coroner's inquest, which was held in my home riding of Saskatoon West, by the way, was clear on the point. The man who murdered all those indigenous people on the reserve should never have been released in the first place. However, folks like Senator Pate do not particularly care about those victims, do they? Instead, they are making excuses for the inexcusable. Senator Pate is one of the many examples of what is absolutely wrong with NDP-Liberal justice.

Once a crime is committed, the criminal must be punished, period. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will bring in tough-on-crime legislation. We will lock up the criminals. We will stop the crime. “Diversity, equity, inclusion” and critical race theory approaches that lead to “hug a thug” and to repeat offenders will be swept away. Common-sense Conservatives will bring back mandatory minimums. We will crack down on the people who sexually exploit our children and on the people who peddle sexually explicit images of children on the Internet. Indeed, my Conservative colleague for North Okanagan—Shuswap brought in his private member’s bill, Bill C-291, to do this very thing.

We will take the issue of women being trafficked into sexual slavery seriously and not laugh it off as sex workers and body positivity, as men pay their pimps in order to abuse and demean women. My colleague, the Conservative MP for Peace River—Westlock has introduced legislation in the House to accomplish this through Bill C-308, an act respecting the national strategy to combat human trafficking.

We will ensure that men who commit violence against pregnant women face stiffer sentences. The NDP and the Liberals voted to kill the legislation, based on the justification that beating a pregnant woman senseless is just another form of abortion, almost as if that were a good thing. I would argue that the last thing a civilized country like Canada should do is beat pregnant women and not punish criminals properly for it. I proudly supported the legislation brought forward by my Conservative colleague, the member for Yorkton—Melville, that would have allowed the judge to consider pregnancy as an aggravating factor when sentencing someone who has beaten a pregnant woman.

Shall I give another example? Why not? Let us contrast, juxtapose and expose the soft-on-crime approach of the NDP-Liberals. My Conservative colleague, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, has introduced Bill C-296, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, which would make life imprisonment actually life imprisonment. That means that if someone commits—

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not finished.

I will continue in English. I want to share this great speech with English-speaking Canadians.

After nine years of the Prime Minister's deficits doubling the national debt and doubling housing costs and a new budget that brings in $50 billion of new unfunded spending on promises he has already broken, this budget, just like the Prime Minister, is not worth the cost, and Conservatives will be voting no.

Before I get into the reasons, and my common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, I would like to pay the Minister of Finance a compliment for a page in her speech I thought was extremely illustrative. She said, “I would like Canada’s one per cent—Canada’s 0.1 per cent—to consider this: What kind of Canada do you want to live in?”

Before I go any further, let us point out the incredible irony that, as she and her leader point out, Canada's 0.1% are doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister promising to go after them. Yes, they have benefited from the tens of billions of dollars of undeserved corporate welfare handouts and grants, ironically supported by the NDP; of corporate loan guarantees that protect them against losses in cases of incompetence or dishonest bidding; of contracts, of which there are now $21 billion, granted to outside and highly paid consultants, many of them making millions of dollars a year in taxpayer contracts for work that could be done inside the government itself if that work if of any value at all; and finally, of those grand fortunes that have been inflated by the $600 billion of inflationary money printing that has transferred wealth from the working class to the wealthiest among us. That 0.1% is doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister pretending he would get tough on them.

Let me go on. I am interrupting myself. The Minister of Finance asked, “Do you want to live in a country where you can tell the size of someone’s paycheque by their smile?” Wow. How many Canadians are smiling when they look at their paycheque today? People are not smiling at all because a paycheque cannot buy them a basket of affordable food, according to Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor. He has said that the cost of a basket of food has gone up by thousands of dollars per year, but the majority of Canadians are spending hundreds of dollars less than is required to buy that basket. That means they are not getting enough food. We live in a country now where the average paycheque cannot pay the average rent, so nobody is smiling when they look at their paycheque.

The minister went on to ask, “Do you want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry?” According to the Prime Minister, one in four kids are going to school hungry after his nine years. I look here at a press release his government released on April 1, on April Fool's Day of all days, where he says, “Nearly one in four children do not get enough food”. In fact, it says that they do not get enough food “to learn and grow.”

No, we do not want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry, but according to the Prime Minister's own release, we do live in a country where one in four kids do go to school hungry. The Minister of Finance then said, “Do you want to live in a country where the only young Canadians who can buy their own homes are those with parents who can help with the downpayment?” No, we do not want to live in that country, but we do live in that country today.

According to data released by RBC Dominion, for the average family to afford monthly payments on the average home in Canada, the family would have to spend 64% of its pre-tax income. Most families do not keep 64% of pre-tax income because they pay so much in taxes. Therefore, most families would have to give up on eating, recreation, clothing themselves and transportation to be mathematically capable of making payments on the average home. For young people, it is even worse because they do not have a nest egg. They cannot afford a down payment that has doubled in the last nine years. That is why 76% of Canadians who do not own homes tell pollsters they believe they never will. Do we want to live in a country where the only young people who can afford a down payment are those whose parents can pay it for them? No. However, that is the country that we live in today.

“Do [you] want to live in a country where we make the investments we need in health care, in housing, in old age pensions, but we lack the political will to pay for them and choose instead to pass a ballooning debt on to our children?”

Are we living in the twilight zone here? These are the minister's words: Do we want to live in a country where we pass the bill on to our children with “ballooning debt”? She asks this as she is ballooning the debt by adding $40 billion to that debt. She asks this while giving a speech about the perils of passing ballooning debt to our children. She is the finance minister for the government that has added more debt than all previous governments combined in the preceding century and a half. It is worth noting that the Prime Minister has added his deficits as a share of GDP that are bigger than we had in World War I, in the Great Depression and in the great global recession of 2008 and 2009.

I should also note that the majority of debt that has been added under the Prime Minister was unrelated to COVID. The “dog ate my homework” excuse, of blaming COVID for all that is wrong in Canada, no longer works. I will add that we are now three years past COVID and the deficits and debt continue to grow, putting a lie to that entire endless, nauseating excuse that the government has made.

The Prime Minister has added so much debt that we are now spending more on interest for that debt than we are spending on health care; $54.1 billion in debt interest this year; more money for those wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt; and less money for the doctors and nurses whom we await when we sit for 26 hours in the average emergency room right across the country.

No, we do not want to live in a country that passes on a ballooning debt to our children, but after nine years of the Prime Minister, that is exactly the country in which we live.

The Minister of Finance asks, “Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury?” Who does that remind us of? Somebody who flies around in a private jet to stay on secret islands on the other side of the hemisphere, where they treat him to $8,000 and $9,000-a-day luxuries, and he pays for it with the tax dollars of Canadians and emits thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, somebody luxuriates in that way at the expense of everyone else. He shall remain unnamed because we cannot say the Prime Minister's name in the House of Commons, so I will not break that parliamentary rule. However, I do point out the irony.

I will start again. The Minister of Finance asks:

Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury but must do so in gated communities behind ever-higher fences using private health care and private planes because the public sphere is so degraded and the wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns so hot?

She says that the wrath of the majority of less privileged compatriots burns so hot. She is right that some people do not have the ability to live in gated communities, behind armed guards. Those people are told that they should leave their keys next to the door so that the car thieves can just walk in and peacefully steal their cars.

Communities across the country are being ravaged by crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. What she has described is exactly what is happening after nine years of the government. We have nurses in British Columbia hospitals who are terrified to go to work because the Prime Minister, in collusion with the NDP Premier of B.C., has decriminalized hard drugs and allowed the worst criminals to bring weapons and narcotics into their hospital rooms, where they cannot be confronted. We have 26 international students crammed into the basement of one Brampton home. We have a car stolen every 40 minutes in the GTA. We have 100% increase in gun killings across the country.

We have communities where people are terrified to go out. We have small businesses across Brampton and Surrey that are receiving letters weekly, warning them that if they do not write cheques for millions of dollars to extortionists, their homes will be shot up, and their children will have bullets flying through the windows as they are sleeping.

That is life in Canada today. Do we want to live in that country? No, we do not want to live in that country. After eight years of rising costs, rising crime and rising chaos, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. We will replace him with a common-sense Conservative government that will bring home a country we love.

What does that country look like and how will we get there? Fortunately, we have a common-sense plan that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us start with the carbon tax that went up 23% on April 1. Now we see the raging gas prices at the pumps across Ontario. There is chaos as people are desperately trying to get to the pumps and fill up before the latest hikes go ahead.

The Prime Minister celebrates, saying that high gas prices are his purpose, and he has the full support of the NDP leader on most days, when the NDP leader can figure out what his policy is. The NDP leader has voted 22 times to hike the carbon tax. Both parties, along with the help of the Bloc, have voted for future increases that will quadruple the tax to 61¢ a litre, a tax that will also apply on home heating bills and, of course, a tax that applies to the farmers who produce the food, the truckers who ship the food and therefore on all who buy the food.

That is why common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax to bring home lower prices. We take exactly the opposite approach of the Prime Minister when it comes to protecting our environment. His approach is to raise the cost on traditional energy we still need. Our approach is to lower the cost on other alternatives. We will green light green projects, like nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, carbon capture and storage, mining of critical minerals, like lithium, cobalt, copper and others. We will do this by repealing the unconstitutional Bill C-69 so that we can approve these projects in 18 months, rather than in 18 years.

Here is the difference, the Prime Minister wants taxes, I want technology. He wants to drive our money to the dirty dictators abroad, I want to bring it home in powerful paycheques for our people in this country.

The same approach that will allow us to unleash energy, abundance and affordability is the approach we will take to build the homes; that is to say getting the government gatekeepers out of the way.

Why do we have the worst housing inflation in the G7 after nine years of the Prime Minister? Why have housing costs risen 40% faster than paycheques? It is by far the worst gap of any G7 country. Why did UBS say Toronto had the worst housing bubble in the world? Vancouver is the third most overpriced when comparing median income to median house price according to Demographia. Why? Because we have the worst bureaucracy when it comes to home building.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada has the second slowest building permits out of nearly 40 OECD countries. These permitting costs add $1.3 million to the cost of every newly built home in Vancouver, and $350,000 to every newly built home in Toronto. Winnipeg blocked 2,000 homes next to a transit station that was built for those homes. The City of Montreal has blocked 25,000 homes in the last seven years. Literally hundreds of thousands of homes are waiting to be built, but are locked up in slow permitting processes.

What do we have as a solution? The Prime Minister has taken the worst immigration minister in our country's history, the guy the Prime Minister blamed for causing out-of-control temporary immigration to balloon housing prices, and put him in charge of housing. Since that time, the minister has said that his housing accelerator fund of $4 billion does not actually build any homes.

Since he has doled out all of this cash to political friends in incompetent city halls across the country, home building has dropped. In fact, home building is down this year and, according to the federal government's housing agency, it will be down next year and again the year after that. That is a housing decelerator not accelerator.

That is what happens when a minister is chosen because he is a media darling and a fast talker, rather than someone who gets things done, as I did when I was housing minister. The rent was only $973 a month for the average family right across the country, and the average house price was roughly $400,000. That is results. There was less talk and less government spending, but far more homes. That is what our common-sense plan will do again.

Our plan will build the homes by requiring municipalities to speed up, permit more land and build faster. They will be required to permit 15% more homes per year as a condition of getting federal funding, and to permit high-rise apartments around every federally funded transit station. We will sell off 6,000 federal buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to build. We will get rid of the carbon tax to lower the cost of building materials.

Finally, we will reward the working people who build homes, because we need more boots, not more suits. We will pass the common-sense Conservative law that allows trade workers to write off the full cost of transportation, food and accommodation to go from one work site to another, so they can build the homes while bringing home paycheques for themselves.

These homes will be in safe neighbourhoods. We will stop the crime by making repeat violent offenders ineligible for bail, parole or house arrest. That will mean no more catch and release. We will repeal Bill C-5, the house arrest law. We will repeal Bill C-75, the catch-and-release law. We will repeal Bill C-83, the cushy living for multiple murderers law that allows Paul Bernardo to enjoy tennis courts and skating rinks that most Canadian taxpaying families can no longer afford outside of prison.

We will bring in jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders. We will repeal the entire catch-and-release criminal justice agenda that the radical Prime Minister, with the help of the loony-left NDP, has brought in. The radical agenda that has turned many of our streets into war zones will be a thing of the past.

We will also stop giving out deadly narcotics. I made a video about the so-called safe supply. I went to the tragic site of yet another homeless encampment in Vancouver, which used to be one of the most beautiful views in the entire world. Now it is unfortunately a place where people live in squalor and die of overdoses. Everyone said it was terrible that I was planning to take away the tax-funded drugs and that all of the claims I made were just a bunch of conspiracy theories, but everything I said then has been proven accurate, every word of it.

I noticed that the Liberals and the pointy-headed professors they relied on for their policies have all gone into hiding as well. Why is that? It is because the facts are now coming out. Even the public health agency in British Columbia, which has been pushing the NDP-Liberal ideology, is admitting that the tax-funded hydromorphone is being diverted. The police in Vancouver said this week that 50% of all the high-powered hydromorphone opioids are paid for with tax dollars and given out by public health agencies supposedly to save lives. Now we know that those very powerful drugs are being resold to children, who are getting hooked on them, and the profits are being used to buy even more dangerous fentanyl, tranq and other drugs that are leaving our people face-first on the pavement, dying of record overdoses.

The so-called experts always tell us to ignore the bumper stickers and look at the facts. The facts are in. In British Columbia, where this radical and incomparable policy has been most enthusiastically embraced, overdose deaths are up 300%. They have risen in B.C. faster than anywhere else in Canada and possibly anywhere else in North America. The ultraprogressive state of Oregon has reversed decriminalization, recognizing the total chaos, death and destruction the policy has caused.

What does the radical Prime Minister, with the help of his NDP counterpart, do? They look at the death and destruction that has occurred in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and other communities and say we should have more of that. They took a walk, or better yet, these two politicians probably drove through the Downtown Eastside in their bulletproof limousines. They looked around at the people who were bent over completely tranquilized by fentanyl, saw the people lying face-first on the ground, saw the tents that the police would have pointed out are filled with dangerous guns and drugs, saw all the small businesses that were shuttered by this policy and said that we should have more of that. They want to replicate all the policies that have created it so that we can have tent cities and homeless encampments in every corner of the country.

That is exactly what they have done. In Halifax, there are 35 homeless encampments in one city after nine years of the Prime Minister, his NDP counterpart and the Liberal mayor of Halifax. If we look at every town in this country, we will find homeless encampments that never existed before the last nine years. This policy will go down in infamy as one of the most insane experiments ever carried out on a population. Nowhere else in the world is this being done. The Liberals gaslight us. They love to say that all the civilized people believe that giving out these drugs will save lives, but nowhere else is this being done. When we tell people this is happening, they have a hard time believing that we are giving out heroin-grade drugs for free to addicts and expecting it to save lives.

Now they spill into our hospitals, where nurses are told by the NPD government in B.C. and the Liberal government in Ottawa that they are not allowed to take away crack pipes or knives or guns. They are just supposed to expect that someone is going to consume the drugs, have a massive fit and start slashing up the hospital floor. This is something out of a bad hallucination and a hallucination that will come to an end when I am prime minister. We will end this nightmare.

We will also ensure that Canadians have a better way. We are not only going to ban the drugs. We are not only going to stop giving out taxpayer-funded drugs. We are going to provide treatment and recovery.

If people are watching today and are suffering from addiction and do not know how they can turn their lives around, I want them to know that there is hope. There is a better future ahead. We will put the money into beautiful treatment centres with counselling, group therapy, physical exercise, yoga and sweat lodges for first nations, where people can graduate drug-free, live in nearby housing that helps them transition into a law-abiding, drug-free life, and come back to the centre for a counselling session, a workout or maybe even to mentor an incoming addict on the hopeful future that is ahead. That is the way we are going to bring our loved ones home, drug-free.

As I always say, we are going to have a common-sense dollar-for-dollar law, requiring that we find one dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending. In this case, that will include how we will partly pay for this. We will unleash the biggest lawsuit in Canadian history against the corrupt pharmaceutical companies that profited off of this nightmare. We will make them pay.

Finally, we will stop the gun crime. We know that gun crime is out of control. Just yesterday, we saw this gold heist. By the way, all of the gold thieves are out on bail already, so do not to worry. They will have to send the Prime Minister a nugget of gold to thank him for passing Bill C-75 and letting them out of jail within a few days of this monster gold heist.

Why did they steal the gold? They stole the gold so that they could buy the guns, because we know that all of the gun crime is happening with stolen guns. The Prime Minister wants to ban all civilian, law-abiding people from owning guns, but he wants to allow every criminal to have as many guns as they want. I am not just talking about rifles. I am talking about machine guns, fully loaded machine guns that are being found on the street, which never existed since they were banned in the 1970s. Now the criminals can get them because the Prime Minister has mismanaged the federal borders and ports and because he is wasting so much money going after the good guys.

The Prime Minister wants to ban our hunting rifles. He said so in a December 2022 interview with CTV. He was very clear. If someone has a hunting rifle, he said he will have to take it away. He kept his word by introducing a 300-page amendment to his Bill C-21, which would have banned 300 pages of the most popular and safe hunting rifles. He only put that policy on hold because of a backlash that common-sense Conservatives led, which included rural Canadians, first nations Canadians and NDPers from rural communities. He had to flip-flop.

I know that in places like Kapuskasing, the law-abiding people enjoy hunting. While the NDP leader and the Prime Minister look down on those people and think that they are to blame for crime, we know that the hunters in Kapuskasing are the salt of the earth, the best people around, and we are going to make sure that they can keep their hunting rifles. God love them. God love every one of them.

While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals. That is why we will repeal his insane policies.

By the way, I should point out that he has not even done any of the bans. We remember that he had that big press conference during the election. He said to his policy team that morning that he needed them to come up with a policy that would allow him to put a big, scary-looking black gun on his podium sign. They said, “Okay, we will think of something.” He put that scary-looking gun on his podium sign, and he said he was going to ban all of these assault rifles. They asked him what an assault rifle was, and he said he did not know, just that it was the black, scary thing on the front of his podium sign. That was the assault rifle he was referring to.

It is now three years since he made that promise. He was asked again in the hallways what an assault rifle was. He said he was still working to figure it out. These rifles that he says he is going to ban one day, he does not know what they are but one day he is going to figure it out and ban them. In the meantime, he has spent $40 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners. He said he was going to ban them and buy them from the owners. Not one gun has been taken off the street after spending $40 million.

We could have used that money to hire CBSA officers who would have secured our ports against the thousands of illegal guns that are pouring in and killing people on our streets. When I am prime minister, we will cancel this multi-billion dollar waste of money. We will use it to hire frontline boots-on-the-ground officers who will inspect shipping containers and to buy scanners that can pierce inside to stop the drugs, stop the illegal guns, stop the export of our stolen cars and stop the crime.

What we are seeing is a very different philosophical approach. The finance minister said in her concluding remarks that what we need is bigger and stronger government. Does that not sound eerie? In other words, she and the Prime Minister want to be bigger and stronger. That is why they are always trying to make Canadians feel weaker and smaller. The Prime Minister literally called our people a small, fringe minority. He jabs his fingers in the faces of our citizens. He calls small businesses tax cheats. He claims that those who own hunting rifles are just Americans.

The Prime Minister points his fingers at people who disagree with him. He has the audacity of claiming that anyone who is offside with him is a racist. This is a guy who dressed up in racist costumes so many times he cannot remember them all. He has been denigrating other people his whole life. That is because it is all about him. It is all about concentrating more power and more money in his hands. This budget is no different. It is about a bigger government and smaller citizens. It is about buying his way through the next election with cash that the working-class people have earned and he has burned.

By contrast, I want the opposite. I want smaller government to make room for bigger citizens. I want a state that is a servant and not the master. I want a country where the prime minister actually lives up to the meaning of the word: “prime” meaning “first”, and “minister” meaning “servant”. That is what “minister” means. “Minister” is not master; “minister” is servant.

We need a country that puts people back in charge of their money, their communities, their families and their lives, a country based on the common sense of the common people, united for our common home, their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House reject the government's budget since it fails to:

a. Axe the tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form.

b. Build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities permit 15% more home building each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money.

c. Cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation by requiring the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, after nine years and nine deficit budgets, the Prime Minister has doubled the national debt. He has added more to our debt than all the other prime ministers combined.

He has doubled the cost of housing and forced two million people to rely on food banks. Now, he is presenting a budget with $50 billion in additional inflationary spending, while repeating the same election promises he has failed to keep for a decade. That is why this budget and this Prime Minister are not worth the cost. We will be voting against this budget to show the government that we have lost confidence in it.

The Conservative Party has a common-sense plan: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Before I get into my common-sense plan, I would like to pay the Minister of Finance a compliment for asking Canada’s wealthiest some very good questions. She said, “I would like to ask Canada's 1%, Canada's 0.1%, to consider this: What kind of country do they want to live in?”

First, it bears mentioning that the minister and her leader do recognize that Canada's 0.1% are doing very well indeed after nine years of this Liberal government. They have benefited from enormous corporate handouts and grants—the biggest in the history of our country, in fact. They have received massive loan guarantees that protect them against losses from poor investments, which means that working class Canadians are left holding the bag. Millionaire businessmen like the GC Strategies contractors are surely part of the wealthiest 0.1% thanks to the gifts given them by this Prime Minister, such as the 100% increase in the number of outside contracts. In addition, by printing $600 billion of new money, this government made billionaires even richer. Lastly, the Prime Minister is a member of the 0.1%, since he inherited millions of dollars from his grandfather and placed the money in a trust that shelters it from taxes and protects it, just like those billionaires who invite him to their private island in the Caribbean. It was therefore a very good idea to put this question to the wealthiest 0.1% who are doing better than ever after nine years under this prime minister.

I am going to quote other questions that the minister asked them, including the following: “Do they want to live in a country where we can tell the size of one's paycheque by their smile?” After nine years of rising taxes, inflation and interest rates, Canadians are no longer smiling when they look at their paycheque, because it is disappearing. After nine years, Canada has the lowest personal income growth of any G7 country. Our GDP per capita is down from what it was five years ago. People have no reason to smile. Their paycheque does not buy them as much food or cover as much of their housing as it did nine years ago.

The minister also asked, “Do they want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry?” Obviously, the answer is no. However, that is the reality after nine years of this Prime Minister. According to the documents published by his own government, the Prime Minister admits that nearly one in four children go to school without food every day. After nine years of this Prime Minister, who taxes the farmers who produce our food and the truckers who deliver our food, a quarter of all children do not have enough to eat. We see today in the budget a promise to feed them. That promise was made in 2021, three years ago. How many meals have been provided since? Not a single one has been provided. After nine years of this Prime Minister, our children are going hungry.

The minister also asked, “Do they want to live in a country where the only young Canadians who can buy their own homes are those with parents who can help with the down payment?” That is the country we live in now, after nine years of this Prime Minister.

After nine years, he has doubled the cost of housing, doubled the down payment needed to buy a home and doubled the mortgage payment for an average home. Let us not forget that nine years ago, the average down payment was around $20,000. I remember because I was the minister responsible for housing at the time and it was possible to buy a home with a modest down payment of $20,000. Now, the down payment that is needed has doubled. Roughly 64% of the average monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. That is nearly double what it was nine years ago. As a result, only the rich, only the children of the wealthy can buy a home right now.

“Do they want to live in a country where we make the investments we need in health care, in housing, in old age pensions, but we lack the political will to pay for them and choose instead to pass a ballooning debt on to our children?” I am quoting the Minister of Finance.

This Prime Minister is the one who doubled our national debt nine years after saying the budget would balance itself. He said he would run three small deficits totalling less than $10 billion. Now he has added nearly $700 billion to the debt, most of which has nothing to do with COVID-19 spending. He continues to rack up deficits of approximately $40 billion, three years after COVID-19. He can no longer say that the dog ate his homework and that the deficits are tied to COVID-19. He is choosing to go deeper and deeper into debt.

I would like to tell the minister that we do not want to live in a country where we leave our children with a growing debt, but that is the country we now live in after nine years under this prime minister.

“Do they want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury but must do so in gated communities behind ever-higher fences using private health care and private planes because the public sphere is so degraded and the wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns so hot?” I am again quoting the finance minister.

That is the country that we are living in now after nine years under this Prime Minister. Yes, the wealthy, like him, have private planes. He uses his private plane more than anyone else, while he is forcing single parent mothers who dare to drive their Toyota Corolla to pay a carbon tax. He is spending taxpayers' money to take illegal vacations on private islands. He and his cronies are the ones benefiting from this, while things on our streets and in our neighbourhoods are worse than they have ever been. It is complete chaos. Auto theft has become so commonplace that the police are telling people to leave their keys next to the door so that the thieves will have an easier time of it. That is the country that we are living in after nine years under this Prime Minister.

Minister, do we want to live in a country where we can tell the size of one's paycheque by their smile? No, but that is the country we live in. Do we want kids to go to school hungry? No, but the government says that is the country we live in now. Do we want to live in a country where the only young people who can buy a home are those with rich parents? No, but that is the country we now live in after nine years of this Prime Minister. Do we want to live in a country where our children are saddled with more and more debt year after year? No, but that is the country we now live in after nine years of this Prime Minister. Do we want to live in a country where the rich, like this Prime Minister, can travel around the world in private jets, while the majority live in the chaos and hell of our crime-ridden cities? No, but that is the country we now live in.

We do not want that kind of country. That is exactly why we need an election to elect a new common-sense government, a government that will deliver the country we love for all Canadians.

Just for a minute, let us talk about the myth that they are very rich. Nine years ago, members will recall, the Prime Minister said that he was going to spend, spend, spend, that it would not cost anyone a cent, and that some rich guy on a hill was going to pay all the bills. Where is he?

After nine years of this government, the rich are paying less than ever. After nine years of this Prime Minister, and for the first time in our history, owning a home is beyond the reach of an entire generation. After nine years of this Prime Minister's promises to help the so-called middle class, the middle class no longer exists. The middle class is poor.

If anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I have one simple question: Can a middle-class person afford to buy a house today? It is mathematically impossible for a middle-class person to buy an average home. I am not the one saying it. According to the Royal Bank of Canada, it takes 63% of the average family's pre-tax income to pay the average costs of a home today. It is a mathematical impossibility. Nine years ago, it took 38% of a monthly paycheque to pay the mortgage. Now, it takes twice as much.

If someone cannot buy a house, they are not part of the middle class. One in four families cannot feed their own children—one in four, and that is from the government's own statistics. That family is not part of the middle class either.

Yesterday's budget tabled by the Finance Minister was a major admission of failure. She admitted that after nine years of her government, life is hell for the so-called middle class. Middle-class Canadians have become Canada's poor. This Prime Minister has presided over the worst decline in middle-class quality of life in the history of our country. Things may even be worse than during the Great Depression. That is not me saying this, that is the minister herself and the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister talks about the condition this country is in, he describes it as a living hell for the poor and for workers. He describes a hell for the children who do not have enough food to eat. He describes a country where the elderly cannot pay their bills.

It is as though he has not been Prime Minister for a decade. Waving a magic wand, he tries to convince us that this is his first day on the job. After nine years, the Prime Minister is right: Life is hell for the middle class, and it is because we have a Prime Minister who is not worth the cost.

Fortunately, it was not like that before this Prime Minister and it will not be like that after this Prime Minister. We will replace him with a common-sense government that will lower taxes, build housing, fix the budget and stop the crime. I will explain how we will do this.

First, Canadians pay more in tax than they spend on food, housing and clothing. That is how things are after nine years of this costly government. That is why the trend must be reversed. Spending must be brought under control so that taxes can be lowered and Canadians' paycheques can go farther. Workers, businesspeople and seniors must be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Second, more housing must be built. After nine years of this Prime Minister, we have less housing per capita than any other G7 country. That is because we have the worst bureaucracy. Our bureaucracy prevents housing construction, adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of each home and causes years-long delays. Among OECD countries, Canada is the second slowest to issue building permits. This adds $1.3 million to the price of each new home in Vancouver and $350,000 in Toronto. The City of Montreal prevented the construction of 25,000 homes. The City of Winnipeg prevented the construction of 2,000 homes next to a public transit station built specifically for these future houses. That is absurd. The federal government should not be sending $5 billion to municipal governments for them to build bureaucracies that prevent home building.

On the contrary, we must begin to encourage municipalities to allow more construction by freeing up land and authorizing construction more rapidly. Real estate companies are paid for each house sold. Builders are paid for each house built. We should pay municipalities for each housing unit approved. My common sense plan will require municipalities to allow 15% more construction per year and authorize the construction of high rise apartment buildings near transit stations funded by the federal government. That will be the condition to meet to receive this money.

We will do this by entering into agreements with the provinces, fully respecting their areas of jurisdiction and allowing them to achieve these results as they see fit, without federal interference. Then we are going to sell 6,000 buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to allow for more construction. We will also reduce taxes on housing construction to accelerate construction. This is a common-sense plan to return to a situation where housing is affordable, as it was nine years ago, when I was the minister responsible for housing.

Third, we are going to fix the budget by imposing a dollar-for-dollar rule. For each new dollar spent, my government will find a dollar of savings somewhere else. That is how we cap the cost of government to allow taxpayers and the economy to grow and reduce the size of the government relative to the country.

It is a decentralizing and responsible approach. This is how we will eventually balance the budget, reduce interest rates and bring down inflation.

I find it very ironic that the Bloc Québécois has voted more than once to increase the size of the federal government. It voted in favour of $500 billion in centralizing, inflationary and discretionary spending by the current Prime Minister. I am talking about the kind of spending that increased the size of the government and the number of federal employees by 40%. The Bloc Québécois voted to double spending for external consultants, who now cost $21 billion, in other words, $1,400 in taxes for each Quebec family just for consultants.

We understand why this Liberal centralist government would want to do that, but we do not understand why a so-called sovereigntist party would vote for such an increase and concentration of powers and money at the federal level. It makes no sense. It is because the Bloc Québécois does not want to free Quebeckers from federal costs. It wants to implement a leftist ideology born on the Plateau Mont-Royal. It just wants a bigger role for government, whether federal, provincial or municipal. The Bloc Québécois's leader is obsessed with more government, more costs for workers. We Conservatives want a smaller federal government for a bigger Quebec. We want less control by Ottawa and more power for Quebeckers. A smaller federal government for a bigger Quebec is simple common sense. We are the only party that will be able to do it.

At the same time, we need to eliminate inflation, which widens the gap between the rich and the poor. A monetary system of printing money naturally favours the wealthy. It is something the Prime Minister borrowed from the United States. The United States' monetary policy causes inflation year after year to inflate Washington's spending and to inflate shares on Wall Street. It is an alliance between Wall Street and Washington, between big companies and big government. Of course, it favours the wealthy. The people who live in Manhattan and Washington are the richest people in the country. This is due in part to the fact that the United States prints a lot of money to help both groups.

Here in Canada, for the first time, a Prime Minister tried to copy and paste that approach by printing $600 billion to finance his own spending. It caused the worst inflation since the time of his father, who did the same thing. What are the consequences? Those who have shares or investments in land that is ripe for speculation, in gold, or in exclusive luxury wines get richer. The value of their assets is inflated. Conversely, people who rely on a paycheque or pension get poorer. The value of their paycheque diminishes. It is a transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest, and it is a benefit that often goes untaxed.

It is a benefit the Prime Minister keeps adding to day after day, causing this inflation. I would add that the people who receive these big financial gifts from governments often pay no taxes at all because they never sell their assets. They borrow money by using their assets as collateral to purchase more assets, whose value swells more with inflation, and then they use those assets to purchase even more assets, and so on. Wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of the infamous 1% or 0.1% of the population. This trend has been accelerating since the Prime Minister came to power, because it helps the wealthiest Canadians and also allows his government to indulge in uncontrolled spending. Both sides get what they want. The Prime Minister can spend the money he prints out of thin air, and the wealthiest benefit from the inflation of the value of their assets and their wealth. It is always the working class that ends up footing the bill for this irresponsible approach.

I will put an end to that. I will restore the Bank of Canada's mandate, which is to keep inflation low and the dollar higher. We will make sure that we do not print money just to spend it, because that is an inflation tax. It is an unjust and amoral tax. I will axe the inflation tax by fixing the budget. I want people to bring home more powerful paycheques.

Speaking of home, home is more dangerous after nine years of this Prime Minister, who automatically releases criminals on bail or allows them to be sentenced to house arrest, the “Netflix sentences” that he implemented with bills C-5, C-75 and C-83. These laws have allowed people to be released mere hours after their arrest so that they could commit more crimes. That is why street crime is surging all across Canada.

Yesterday we heard reports of a major shootout in downtown Montreal. There has been a more than 100% increase in the number of car thefts in Montreal, Toronto and other major cities. My common-sense plan will keep the most dangerous criminals in prison by making those with dozens of convictions ineligible for bail, getting rid of “Netflix sentences,” forcing car thieves to serve their sentences in prison, and not going after our hunters and sport shooters. If someone has a gun they bought legally after going through an RCMP background check, receiving training and passing tests to prove that they are a safe, responsible person, they will be able to keep it. However, if they are criminals, we will stop them from having guns. We will strengthen the border and our ports. We will scan containers to make sure that no weapons or drugs enter the country and that no stolen vehicles leave. That is the common sense needed to stop the crime and make our communities safe again.

We are going to implement a common-sense plan that will rebuild the country that we want, a country that is the opposite of what the Minister of Finance described in her speech. It will be a country where it pays to work, where everyone who works hard can afford to buy a home and put food on the table in a safe neighbourhood. That is what Canadians are entitled to and deserve, and that is what they will have with a common-sense government.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I can't express my disappointment sufficiently virtually, or even in person, to comprehend the impact, the repercussions, of the vote on this amendment.

We have heard that the government should never interfere in matters of corrections. They can't. However, subsection 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does give the minister the power to issue directives to the Correctional Services commissioner. Paragraphs 96(b) and 96(z.6) also allow the Governor in Council to make open-ended regulations on inmate classification and prison assignment.

We heard in the last study on Bernardo, and we've heard anecdotally today, that the Liberals dispute their ability to issue directives or make regulations for individual inmates. The Minister of Public Safety can and regularly does issue directives dealing with larger classes of inmates. For example, in 2022, then minister Mendicino issued new direction on the use of dry cells to keep inmates from bringing contraband into federal prisons. In 2018, then minister Goodale issued a directive restricting what kind of inmates could be sent to indigenous healing lodges.

We know that nothing would prevent the minister from issuing a directive or cabinet from adopting an order in council mandating that all offenders designated dangerous offenders—the worst of the worst, as said before, like Bernardo, Magnotta and others designated as such—serve their life sentences, with the types of crimes they've committed, in maximum security prisons.

One thing people have been asking me is, how is it possible that this sort of thing keeps happening? How do inmates get moved and why are they being moved, with the worst of the worst being moved at the rate they're being moved at now, especially these high-profile types of offenders? In 2019, the Liberals introduced Bill C-83. It was voted on and passed in 2019 and created a standard, in section 28 of the act, requiring prison selection to be made by the commissioner based on “the least restrictive environment for that person”. This repealed previous Conservative legislation from 2012, the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

We heard it suggested in the last study that Conservatives supported Bill C-83. Yes, we supported Bill C-83 at second reading to go to committee for amendments. We did not support it at third reading.

I think it's unfortunate that we have now gone from potentially six additional meetings to one meeting. We'll never get this resolved in one meeting, and we're going to leave victims hanging out to dry, so to speak, to continue on with the trauma they face every time a transfer occurs that has the victim impact we see with these dangerous offenders.

As legislators, as members of this committee, I feel strongly that it behooves us to serve our constituents well, and I don't believe this amendment will do that. Unfortunately, the original motion and the first amendment brought by my colleague Ms. O'Connell did serve that purpose, but they have been changed. Again, I'm at a loss to know how victims will be served in this way. We can't get to the bottom of what we're doing based on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I'm only responding to those of you—including you, Mr. Julian—who made this comment in response to Ms. Michaud's amendment. As a result, I am going to speak to it.

I agree that we need to get to a vote on this amendment and defeat it. I agree with my Liberal colleagues about adding some more witnesses and giving this the attention it deserves. I'm actually surprised that Mr. Schiefke would think otherwise.

I'll have other comments to make when we get back to the main motion with respect to some facts on Bill C-83 and the like.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair. Again, I cannot and will not support this Bloc amendment.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right now, the public trust is being woefully undermined. I was vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security when we worked on and debated Bill C-83, which came into force in 2019 and made changes to the conditions of detention. While we are debating, and working and voting on bills, the public is not always very aware of what is going on. Today, however, we are seeing the result of all this. We see situations such as that of Paul Bernardo, who was transferred to a medium‑security prison, and that of Luka Magnotta, who has already been transferred to a medium‑security prison only about 10 years into his incarceration. People don't understand why, and that's to be expected.

In this regard, the proposed motion is very important. We want to understand why the Liberal government implemented this legislation in 2019 and how the process was carried out.

We have to think about the victims. We talk about victims, but we always forget that they are the main people involved. The law is clear: Victims must be kept informed. We even have the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It has been in effect since 2014, but this government never complies with it. Victims have a right to information, protection, participation and restitution. The rights to information and participation have not been respected. These rights were violated during the handling of the Paul Bernardo case.

Why do we always have to fight for victims to be heard and for their rights to be respected?

We're talking about Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta, to name just two, but surely there are others who have been transferred under the same conditions. That's what we want to know, actually. Why do murderers and criminals like them benefit from more lenient prison conditions when they are Canada's worst offenders?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm certainly glad that all members are getting a copy of this motion. It's a very good motion. I think it hits at the heart of the matter.

This new information we've received—that the chief of staff of the public safety minister knew, that staff in the Prime Minister's Office knew and that the Privy Council Office knew—raises very important questions that need to be further looked into. This is a question about the principle of ministerial accountability.

If there is a policy, unofficial or official, in ministers' offices or in the Prime Minister's Office that staff are not to inform ministers of hot-button, controversial issues, I think this undermines a key tenet of ministerial responsibility and ministerial accountability. If that is, indeed, a policy, I think it needs to be looked into, because ministerial accountability is one of the bedrock principles of our parliamentary system of government. We cannot allow mistakes like this, whether deliberate or from incompetence, to continue. It is a very worthwhile study for us to continue at this committee.

Also, we need to look further into Bill C-83 and other legislation that I think has been contributing to this rise in the number of transfers out of maximum-security and into medium-security prisons.

With that, I'll say I support this motion and I'll pass it on to the next speaker.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour to be here on behalf of all Canadians and the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

This is what I can say in these circumstances. I think most Canadians were shocked at the transfer of Paul Bernardo, and I feel similarly that Canadians were shocked to find out that Luka Magnotta and others are not only in medium security but also in the same penitentiary.

As Conservatives, we will always stand with victims, with those seeking transparency and with those seeking the truth. It's for this reason that today we bring forward a motion to further study this in light of the significant offences that have been committed by not only these two people but others who are in medium security. It's important that we get to the bottom of the impact of bills like Bill C-83 and other policies in place with this Liberal government.

With that, I will move my motion and read it into the record, Mr. Chair.

I move:

That, in light of the transfer of sadistic killer Luka Magnotta out of a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, the same facility that serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo was transferred to last year, and given that the Minister's office was made aware of these transfers in advance, the committee:

1) immediately undertake a study in priority order, of no less than six meetings, with these meetings to begin this week, on how the decision to make this transfer was made and on the prisoner transfer process for prisoners in maximum-security facilities, and report its findings to the House; and

2) call the following witnesses to appear:

(a) the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly;

(b) the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper;

(c) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc;

(d) the former Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Marco Mendicino;

(e) the Chief of Staff to the Minister of Public Safety at the time;

(f) Janice Charette, former Clerk of the Privy Council;

(g) the Warden of La Macaza Institution;

(h) representatives from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers; and

(i) Marcia Penner, Tennille Chwalczuk and Laura Murray as individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on Bill C-320. As we reach report stage of this bill, I would like to express gratitude to the hon. member for Oshawa for bringing this important bill to the House.

Bill C-320 is an important piece of legislation aimed at increasing victims' understanding of corrections and conditional release. According to existing federal law, victims who share their contact details with the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada and who meet the legal definition of victim are entitled to specific information about those responsible for harming them. This information includes key dates indicating when offenders may be eligible for review and release.

Should Bill C-320 be accepted, it would amend the law to ensure that victims not only know when offenders could be released but also, importantly, understand how officials determined those eligibility dates.

The government supports this legislation, and I encourage hon. members to lend it their full support. The purpose of this bill aligns with the government's commitment to upholding victims' rights to information while taking into consideration offenders' privacy rights.

Victims of crime and their families seek clarity, transparency and opportunities to have their voices heard within the justice system. Bill C-320 aims to provide the clarity and transparency they seek, offering victims of offenders more information about crucial eligibility and review dates in advance.

This legislation lets victims know that we hear them. It clearly aligns with our commitments to support victims' rights, including their need for information. This bill builds upon the progress made in recognizing and upholding the rights of crime victims in our country.

Over the years, governments of various affiliations and members from both sides of the chamber have taken actions to advance victims' rights. This evolution began back in 1988. At that point, the House endorsed a statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. Subsequently, federal laws provided victims with a voice at sentencing hearings, emphasizing their rights based on an increasing understanding of their needs.

The enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 first entitled victims to receive information about the offender who harmed them. In 2003, the government updated and re-endorsed the statement of basic principles, and in 2015, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights became law, solidifying victims' rights in various ways.

Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, victims of crime are legally entitled to receive information on inmates' progress towards meeting the objectives set out in their correctional plan, to name a representative to receive information on their behalf, to access a photo of the person who harmed them prior to release and to receive reasons if the Parole Board of Canada does not impose any release conditions requested by victims. Moreover, victims can actively participate in Parole Board hearings, virtually or in person, presenting victim statements and requesting special conditions for an offender's release.

Recent legislative measures, such as Bill C-83, further strengthened victims' rights by making audio recordings of parole hearings available to all registered victims of crime. As well, the National Office for Victims, in collaboration with federal partners, continues to produce informative materials on sentence calculation rules that are available online.

The progress made is a testament to ongoing conversations among victims of crime, elected representatives and government officials. These conversations, embodied not only in Bill C-320 but also in recent legislative initiatives, such as Bill S-12, affirm our commitment to victims' rights. Bill S-12, which received royal assent on October 26 of this past year, seeks to connect victims of offenders with ongoing information and to enhance publication ban laws. In addition, the Correctional Service of Canada and Parole Board of Canada work tirelessly to raise awareness of victims' rights.

In the government's view, Bill C-320 aligns with these sensible, non-partisan and multi-generational advancements. Victims of crime and their families want clarity and transparency. They want a voice, and they want that voice to be heard. This is why I look forward to passing Bill C-320 in the House today, and I encourage other members here to join me.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to this bill, because it is crucially important that, in this country, we have a conversation about public safety and how inmates are treated, in the sense of maximum, medium and minimum security. I think it is something that most Canadians have not thought too much about, thankfully, in the sense that they have not had to experience the impacts of crime. What I find very challenging with this bill is the fact that Conservatives continually talk tough when it comes to public safety, but this is yet another example of how their tough talk actually relates to a more and more dangerous situation for Canadians.

The sponsor of this bill just ended by talking about women and women's rights, yet nothing in this legislation talks about them. I come from Pickering, right next to Scarborough. Memories of Paul Bernardo and his heinous crimes are something that women across this country are traumatized by. I will be very curious to see how many women on the other side speak to this legislation in the first place. When it comes to women's issues, one thing I remember from the crimes committed by Paul Bernardo was the complete lack of policing support for women who spoke out, who were victims of rape and assault. There is not a single mention of policing or of how to better serve women who have been victims of crime in this private member's bill.

I asked a question earlier in the House, as the members opposite were talking about their opposition day motion, about sending a note to the Senate to hurry up with legislation. However, not a single Conservative member spoke up in the House when there was legislation by their former leader, Rona Ambrose, on having training for judges for sexual assault cases. That legislation sat in the Senate, and not a single Conservative member wrote or spoke to the Conservative senators to have that bill passed. They came here today to say they speak on behalf of women and women's rights, but their actions say a completely different thing. Therefore, I want to talk about this private member's bill and why it actually makes women more vulnerable.

This bill is not just about one individual and their transfer. It actually impacts 921 current inmates, with 32% of those inmates being indigenous. The issues around the overrepresentation of Black and indigenous persons in incarceration would only be worsened by this legislation. I am going to get to that later in my speech; however, for those watching, it is important to remember that this bill impacts many more offenders than the one that the Conservatives want to speak about because the crimes he committed were so heinous, the country was traumatized.

The Conservatives want to use the most heinous criminal in our country as a way to implement reckless policies in the criminal justice system that actually will not keep communities safe. In fact, I submit to the House and Canadians watching that it will actually leave our communities less safe. Why is this? It is because of what the Conservatives fail to talk about, which is that there are different types of sentencing for the 921 inmates who would fall into the categorization that this bill speaks about. Among them, there are inmates who have a determinate sentence. That means the courts have heard their case, and the inmates have been sentenced to a certain amount of time to be incarcerated. Eventually, once they serve that time, they are back in the community.

This is certainly not the situation with Paul Bernardo, and I do not want anyone to misconstrue that. The Conservatives would love to use that to put fear in the hearts and minds of Canadians and Canadian women for their own policy agenda.

I want to stick to the facts. Individuals who serve their determinate sentence would one day, depending on the length of their sentence, be back in the community. However, based on this legislation, they would serve their sentence completely in maximum security, would have no programming for rehabilitation, would have no responsibilities, would have no assessments of whether or not they might reoffend and would have no programs in place to ensure that, once back in the community, there are conditions placed on them.

When the Conservatives talk tough on crime, they are weak on action. What this does for those who serve a determinate sentence is it releases them back into the community without any programs that would reduce their reoffending. It would, in fact, make their situation one where we could probably guaranteed they would reoffend. This is why countries around the world have determined that in criminal justice systems and corrections, rehabilitation programming is crucial to ensure public safety when inmates are released into the community. Then they have had significant programming and treatment to ensure they do not harm others again.

It is so irresponsible to bring up a heinous offender who, as the commissioner of the Correctional Service Canada said yesterday, has the highest, strictest sentence essentially in Canadian law, meaning Paul Bernardo will spend the rest of his life in prison. This bill does not speak to just that one individual. Imagine living in a community with a potentially violent offender who served their time but is just released into the public once the sentence is over. Time and time again, as we know, that does not keep our communities safe.

I could go on and on about how reckless Conservatives are, but with the remaining time I have, I want to read a quote related to the Conservative government about Mr. Sapers, who was the former corrections investigator during the Harper years. The Globe and Mail notes:

...the Conservatives [were] “tone deaf” on indigenous issues and “dismissive” of many of his recommendations....

The Conservatives passed dozens of bills, which imposed mandatory minimum sentences, changed parole eligibility, created new barriers to pardons and cut rehabilitative programming, among other measures.

He said the Conservatives did so without ever analyzing the impact. It goes to show the Conservatives have not learned anything.

The Conservatives also like to say the transfer of Paul Bernardo is in some way connected to Bill C-83 and the “least restrictive” clause. However, what Conservatives ought to know is that the “least restrictive” term was introduced by Conservatives in the 1990s by Brian Mulroney. As to the former Conservative language, Public Safety has issued quite publicly that the language around “necessary restrictions” would have also led to a transfer, which was decided by the independent Correctional Services. It said yesterday that the security and safety of the public can be maintained with this decision.

I know my time is over. I think what is most important is that the bill does nothing to keep Canadians safe. In fact, it would put more people at risk, because the Conservatives are reckless, just want to talk tough and do not do the work to make our communities safer.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to the private member's bill I introduced on September 18.

Bill C‑351 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require that inmates who have been found to be dangerous offenders or convicted of more than one first degree murder be assigned a security classification of maximum and confined in a maximum security penitentiary or area in a penitentiary.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Niagara Falls, who introduced a similar bill last June. He is a strong advocate for victims' rights who worked long and hard to deliver the first version of this bill.

This bill differs from the previous one in one respect. It states that the act will come into force in the third month after the month in which it receives royal assent. This change was made to ensure that the bill is brought into force as soon as possible once passed.

No victim's family should ever again have to endure the trauma of seeing the murderer of a child, a parent, a brother or a sister. However, that is what happened to two families this year, which is what gave rise to this bill.

Everyone has heard of Paul Bernardo, the infamous rapist and serial killer. I will spare my colleagues the details of his absolutely horrific crimes, but he kidnapped, tortured and killed 15-year-old Kristen French and 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy in the early 1990s near St. Catharines, Ontario. He also committed roughly 40 rapes and sexual assaults. He is a real monster.

On September 1, 1995, he was sentenced to life in prison and declared a dangerous offender. In our justice system, this means that he must serve a minimum of 25 years before he can apply for parole. He has applied twice since 2018. Fortunately, both applications were rejected by the Parole Board of Canada.

Donna French, Kristen's mother, addressed her daughter's killer. She quite rightly described their pain as a life sentence. She said that that is what they got and that a dark cloud always haunts them. She said a psychopath like him should never get out of prison.

This dangerous murderer deserves every day he spends behind bars, and that is where he needs to stay forever. Bernardo had been serving his sentence in a maximum security prison in Kingston since 1995, and that is where he should have stayed until the end of his days.

However, in June 2023, we were shocked to learn that Bernardo had been transferred from the maximum security prison in Kingston to La Macaza, a medium-security prison near Labelle in the Laurentians in Quebec. The day his transfer was announced, a huge shock wave rippled across the entire country, as people relived the horrific events that occurred 30 years before. The prison transfer was done on the sly. We found out about it through an announcement made by the lawyer of the victims' families. What is more, the families were informed of the transfer only the day of. Imagine the trauma that this caused for the families who had to relive this unspeakable tragedy.

According to the Correctional Service of Canada, that situation was in line with protocol. Okay, but the transfer in and of itself should never have happened. The families of the two victims were right to condemn this situation. The families' lawyer said that the victims' families had asked that Bernardo's transfer be cancelled. The lawyer also expressed concerns about how the federal correctional service had informed the victims' families of the controversial decision. However, months later, the transfer has not been cancelled. Worse still, the public safety minister at the time, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, feigned surprise and indignation. He claimed to have been informed only the next day. Later, it was revealed that he had been informed months earlier. Email exchanges were obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

They showed that the Correctional Service of Canada had notified the minister's office on March 2, 2023, of the possibility of the serial killer being transferred. Cabinet was informed in May, after a transfer date had been set. We are used to cover-ups with this government, but trying to hide the truth about something so troubling is beyond the pale.

It was discovered that the associate deputy minister of public safety had been notified about the transfer by the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada three days before it happened. The commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada told them that the federal Public Safety Department, the minister's office, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office “have been advised” and that “we have media lines ready”.

In a tweet posted the day after the transfer, however, the minister described CSC's decision as “shocking and incomprehensible”. After being confronted with these facts, which were embarrassing to say the least, the minister blamed his staff for keeping him in the dark. It is pure incompetence at every level. For all his tangled explanations, the problem remained. Bernardo was moved to a medium-security prison, enjoying privileges that such a sadistic murderer should never be entitled to.

We on the Conservative side questioned the minister and asked him to cancel the transfer, as requested by the victims' families. The minister simply replied that there was nothing he could do, that the Correctional Service of Canada is independent. That is another independent entity. He seemed to forget that, as a minister, he had powers. He had the power to issue instructions to Canadian prison officials and make regulations concerning the incarceration of prisoners.

As usual, he and the Prime Minister refused to accept any responsibility. This is yet another example of incompetence. It is not surprising that the MP for Eglinton—Lawrence is no longer a minister. That is a very good thing. Not only do the Prime Minister and his cabinet say there was nothing they could do, but they have taken steps to make it easier to transfer dangerous criminals.

In 2019, this government passed Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Once it was passed, the bill ensured that prisons would be chosen based on the least restrictive environment possible for the inmate. Victims are not part of the equation. Bill C‑83 reversed a policy introduced by the previous Conservative government that imposed stricter standards for dangerous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada used this policy to try to justify transfers.

The lax system introduced by the Liberals allows nonsensical transfers like this. I read a chilling statistic. In Canada, as we speak, 58 inmates who have been declared dangerous offenders are currently in minimum-security, not even medium-security, prisons. It beggars belief. That is the legacy of eight years of this Liberal government: a lax justice and correctional system that allows this kind of aberration. The government is doing everything it can to accommodate criminals, but nothing for victims. It should be the other way around. This situation is deplorable, and it has to change.

We, the Conservatives, stepped up our efforts to try to have the decision reversed. I have to commend my colleague from Niagara Falls for all of the work that he did on this file. The murders and many assaults were committed in cities near his community. On June 14, he sought the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

...that the House call for the immediate return of vile serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a maximum security prison, that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum security classification, that the least-restrictive-environment standard be repealed and that the language of necessary restrictions that the previous Conservative government put in place be restored.

Unfortunately, the motion was rejected.

My colleague supported the cities of Thorold and St. Catharines when they wrote to the government expressing their grave concerns about Bernardo's transfer and demanding that he be sent back to a maximum-security prison. These letters were sent to the Prime Minister, his public safety minister at the time, and local Liberal MPs, but they fell on deaf ears. The government continued to refuse to use its power to require that mass murderers serve their entire sentence in maximum-security prisons.

He refused to take measures to resolve the problem created by his government. Worse yet, the member for St. Catharines accused those who were offering solutions and those who were trying to convey the families' concerns and suffering of playing politics. As usual, the Liberal government divides and blames instead of taking responsibility and making changes to fix the problems it created.

Another initiative that my colleague took was to propose a study at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on October 5 to fully investigate Bernardo's transfer. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP supported the government and shut down the whole thing. Apparently, the trauma caused by the transfer did not matter all that much to them. How typical of this government to systematically side with criminals.

Before I conclude, I have two recent examples that show how lax this government is and how it is ignoring victims. These are two examples of cases where the Conservative Party intervened to cancel out this government's reckless decisions. In March, my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and political lieutenant for Quebec, introduced Bill C-325, which sought to significantly reform the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, in order to make our streets safe again.

This bill would repeal certain elements of Bill C-5, which was passed by the Liberals last fall, and would put an end to the alarming number of convicted violent criminals and sex offenders serving their sentences at home. It is unthinkable that sex offenders and other violent criminals would be released to serve their sentences in the comfort of their living rooms, while their victims and peace-loving neighbours live in fear. This is a common-sense solution from my colleague, whom I would like to commend for his hard work on behalf of victims.

Despite all our efforts, this government remained unmoved by the suffering and trauma that the families of victims went through a second time as a result of this unacceptable transfer. On this side of the House, we stand with victims, not criminals. That is why I introduced the bill we are debating today. The Liberals made a mistake, but we, the Conservatives, will correct course. We will put common sense back into our justice and correctional system.

I hope that my colleagues in the other parties will listen to reason and support victims by voting with us in favour of this bill.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Okay.

Also, given this is a somewhat unprecedented transfer.... The only precedent we can find for a transfer of this magnitude is the Terri-Lynne McClintic transfer, which happened prior to Bill C-83 becoming law. Protecting all personal information—which is redacted—and given the precedent that you released the review into Paul Bernardo's transfer, will you commit to providing the review of Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer information?

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

Thank you, Chair.

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 C-83 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”?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This was cited in the OCI's 2012-13 annual report.

He said:

replacing the...“least restrictive” principle with “necessary and proportionate” measures seems to add an unnecessary layer of ambiguity and discretion where precision and consistency are required. This language may make it more difficult for my staff to hold CSC to account for decisions and actions carrying significant life, liberty and security interests (e.g....security classifications....

Mr. Zinger, if Bill C-83 had not amended the CCRA to restore the “least restrictive measures” principle back in 2019, do you believe Correctional Service Canada would have had more discretion under the CCRA when determining an inmate's classification?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I'm sorry, Dr. Zinger. I have limited time. I will move on.

Prior to Bill C-83, under the changes made by the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, the language of “least restrictive measures” was changed to “necessary and proportionate”. Is that correct?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Let me correct the record once again. I am going to quote to deal with the misinformation Mr. Lloyd just put on the record. A Globe and Mail article stated:

However, a spokesperson for Public Safety Canada says Bernardo's transfer would have happened under the previous wording of the law, which was brought in by the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

That version of the law stipulated that prisoners should be kept in prisons with the “necessary” restrictions. When the law was originally created by former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney in the early 1990s, it used the term “least restrictive”.

“The result of this transfer was not affected by the passage of Bill C-83. A transfer would have also occurred under the previous language of 'necessary' restrictions,” said Public Safety spokesperson....

Mr. Chair, while the members opposite giggled and talked through that, I see why, because they want to act tough on crime but actually don't have the facts to back it up. It was actually two Conservative governments that had the language “least restrictive” and “necessary”, which would still have allowed for this particular transfer.

If we're going to talk about how to make changes to create safer public safety conditions in corrections, then we should at least be dealing with facts, not the fiction created by the Conservatives. Let them giggle, because they haven't had a great outing here today.

My last question I want to actually put forward to Mr. Sandelli.

In your opening remarks you spoke about programming and some of the programming work your members do. Thank you for that, because I'm sure it is incredibly difficult and a weight that is felt by you and your members. This study is looking at all prisoner classification and transfers, not just one individual. In lots of those instances, there may come a day when even dangerous offenders have served their time, based on a court decision, and have to then be released into the public.

How would you feel, from a public safety perspective, if an offender who had served their time went from maximum security, with no programming and no rehabilitation, directly into the community? Do you think that would make our communities safer?

[Jeff Wilkins]

In fact, there was. I know I myself was actually involved in a refusal to work situation before Bill C-83, because there were subpopulations being created with, as I iterated earlier, what would normally have been classified as segregated inmates, mostly inmates who would have been segregated for protective custody reasons.

There were areas of the institution, specific ranges, that were associated with different movement routines, so they couldn't associate with the general population.

The CSC was, in fact, then housing inmates in the least restrictive manner.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilkins, I have a copy of your organization's submission to this committee back in 2018, when we were first reviewing Bill C-83. I note that your third request was: “The reversion of language that now recommends response options be 'least restrictive' to what was previously 'most appropriate'.”

The fact is that prior to Bill C-83 the term “least restrictive” was not in the CCRA. It was actually changed in 2012 under our Conservative government, under the Safe Streets and Communities Act, where we removed the term “least restrictive” and replaced it with the “most appropriate or the necessary restrictions”.

I find the report, the review report, that CSC released over the summer in response to the Bernardo transfer very interesting. It's very interesting to me because it says Millhaven Institution developed “a plan for institutional integration. These efforts were part of an institutional management strategy to establish cohorts...with the underlying goal of alleviating subpopulation pressures, and to provide a less restrictive environment for offenders.”

Previous to Bill C-83, was there a requirement for federal penitentiaries to have strategies to create a less restrictive environment for offenders?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Wilkins, you were correct when you said that there was, previous to Bill C-83, language that would have allowed for reclassification. It was actually in the 1990s, under Brian Mulroney, that the term “least restrictive” was first used. This issue has actually been going on for successive governments in terms of language, and it wasn't actually Bill C-83, so your memory served you correctly with respect to the fact that there has been back-and-forth.

“Least restrictive”, again, was actually introduced by Brian Mulroney, and the same language actually existed under the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper, so this suggestion that it was somehow a change that Bill C-83 brought forward, which created new language, is simply false. That needs to be put on the record.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, there are sometimes misperceptions about what maximum, medium and minimum security classifications mean. It's not a condition of punishment or a situation based on an outcome of the court case of whatever the offender has committed and been found guilty of, but about public safety at large and the risk of escape.

Mr. Shipley brought up escapes, but he conveniently left out some data, so I wanted to put that on the record. In 2006-2007, there were 37 federal prison escapees in Canada. In 2007-2008, there were 33. In 2008-2009, there were 24. In 2009-2010, there were 31. In 2010-2011, there were 17. The list goes on. The next year, 16, 24, 13, 15, 18. In 2016, it went down to 9; then in 2017-2018 it was 18; then 2018-2019 it went to 13 escapees. It has consistently gone down. In 2019-2020 there were 12. In 2020-2021 there were 11.

The suggestion that Bill C-83 has opened up this new least restrictive measure is, frankly, false. That was introduced by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government. Regarding the suggestion that reclassifications have led to prisoner escapees, actually there have been fluctuations, but the highest number was in 2006-2007, with 37 escapees. I want to put those facts on the record, because that really matters if we're going to talk about reclassification and security levels.

Mr. Wilkins, you spoke about corrections officers and their role. You said you have suggestions on how your union members' voices can be part of that ongoing consultation, and I think there are improvements that need to be made here. I would be happy to receive them as a committee for any recommendations on that.

I'd also like to ask a question. The Conservatives have proposed a system through a private member's bill that would actually see the entirety of an inmate's classification.... If it starts at maximum, it stays that way. There would be no opportunity for good behaviour, for rehabilitation mechanisms.

Do your members have concerns for their own safety if there are no interventions for rehabilitation and for measures to be put in place for good behaviour and promoting that sort of program in facilities? Would there not be a larger risk to your members if there was no opportunity for rehabilitation and programming?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I was reading your 2018 submission on Bill C-83, and your recommendation was that the current language was “the most appropriate restrictions”, not “the least restrictive”, so it was not the least restrictive; it was the most appropriate restrictions.

With the introduction of “least restrictive”, we've certainly seen, through the review that was conducted after this transfer, that it had an impact.

Paul Bernardo was denied reclassification in June 2022, but then, according to the review report, they changed their decision in July 2022, just a month later. Is this a normal practice, for them to change a decision in just one month?

[Jeff Wilkins]

I'm quite certain that before Bill C-83, there was something in the CCRA that talked about least restrictive. I remember making the argument many times, even as a local president, that inmates who would normally be placed in segregation at the time, before Bill C-83, were being placed in different ranges, with different population management strategies occurring for those offenders. My example at the time was that there's general population and then there's segregation. There is no other population. If they can't be managed in general population, then they have to be in segregation. I was always quoted—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you believe that this least restrictive principle, as enshrined in C-83, contributed to the reclassification and transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum- to a medium-security facility?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you also attribute the addition under C-83 of the so-called “least restrictive principle” as partially responsible for this trend?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

In your experience, has the number of prisoner transfers, COVID notwithstanding, from maximum to medium security increased since Bill C-83 was brought into effect in June 2019?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

This is the 2022-2023 fiscal year. There were 505 prisoners moved out of maximum security into medium security. Now, prior to Bill C-83's coming into effect in June 2019, would you consider this a high number compared to the numbers in previous years?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Wilkins. Correctional statistics before the implementation of Bill C-83 showed that the number of inmates in a maximum-security facility dropped by as low as eight or as high as 89 on an annual basis.

In 2021, the first full year after Bill C-83 was implemented, that number almost doubled, to 158. I've received an ATIP response that states that 505 inmates were transferred out of maximum security to medium security last year alone, ending March 2023. There are anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 inmates in maximum security in Canada. In your experience, are 505 transfers out of maximum security a high number in any given year?

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

Yes, briefly.

I just want to bring this back to why this motion was brought forward in the first place. Canadians were shocked and outraged at the transfer. That was it. The families and the communities that were impacted by these tragedies were outraged. Across the country, people were outraged.

Here is an example. We realized that there is a deficiency in the legislation. The intent of having a study is to show that the deficiency exists and that Bill C‑83 needs to be amended. To put pressure on government to do so was the intent behind this, to actually have a positive impact on victims, not only now but moving forward, so that they feel heard.

While I agree that there have been discussions among the parties here, I don't feel that brushing this off by having one meeting actually serves the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish.

I can't support one meeting. I'm sorry.

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

Thank you, Chair.

My colleague across the way, Ms. O'Connell, suggested that the Conservatives supported Bill C‑83. That is not what happened. Bill C‑83 was voted down by the Conservatives and passed by the Liberals in 2019. To make this a partisan issue, that Conservatives are somehow complicit because the Liberals failed to do their job and the minister failed to do his job and reverse this transfer, and he could have.... Mr. Bittle obviously didn't listen to my comments in regard to the acknowledgement that CSC followed the law. The law is in error. The whole idea of Mr. Baldinelli's bill is to suggest that we need to correct the error. That's the whole point of our conversation today. We can't allow this to continue to happen, so we have to change the legislation. That's the whole purpose behind this.

Whether we have three meetings or five meetings, it doesn't matter. The idea is that, as a committee, we have a responsibility to ensure that this doesn't keep happening, that we don't have people who are a risk to public safety transferred again to minimum-security or medium-security facilities. You talk about the impact on families. During the transfer, the communities certainly spoke on what this did to those communities, something that happened years and years ago.

This is not a partisan issue. I have no intention of making it a partisan issue. However, the blame needs to be placed squarely where it is: The Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, failed to deal with this when he could have. Yes, CSC followed the law. That doesn't mean the law was perfect. It doesn't mean the law was right. It's flawed, which is why the Conservatives voted against it in 2019.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Where do I even start with this? To sit here during a filibuster from the Conservatives using Paul Bernardo and the horrific crimes and the situation that these families have been put through, to suggest that anyone needs to relive that.... Try being a woman in this country. I don't care what your age is. Try being a woman learning about those stories and hearing those stories. To come back here as a filibuster against going through legislation is truly horrific.

If this is really about.... I will try to give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that I would be embarrassed for my colleagues opposite—and I'm going to say this so that you think when you come back to this committee—to take a subject like victims' rights on horrific crimes and read a canned speech that has been used on radio ads and campaign whistle stops by your leader. To use canned campaign speeches on a topic like this is truly terrible.

I am going to try to take the benefit of the doubt that my honourable colleagues across the way do not understand the magnitude of hurt that making this situation political brings to women all across this country, but make no mistake: If you're truly serious about this not being partisan, you will support this amendment in its entirety. If you're truly serious about rights of victims and understanding security reclassification, then you will support the amendment to have officials come here and explain the situation. If this is partisan, you're going to behave differently, and Canadians will be watching. Victims will be watching and women will be watching, because women across this country will not tolerate using crime against women as a partisan manoeuvre. We have proposed a very meaningful amendment to come here and hear from Public Safety and Justice officials about how this actually happened.

I want to correct the record, Mr. Chair, on a couple of things.

First, on Bill C‑83, which is the clause in question that the Conservatives continuously raise, guess what: The Conservatives supported it. In addition to that, Public Safety Canada officials have actually already confirmed about the transfer in question—but we'll do it again here in a meeting if needed—that the wording that under the law allowed it to happen existed under the Conservative government too.

If you want to talk about how to put victims' rights forward and take a victim forward-facing approach, I am all for it, but if we are going to revictimize Canadian women and women around the world who have had to suffer, then be prepared, because I am going to show that the Conservatives are the biggest hypocrites on this issue. If you want to have a legitimate conversation about how this happened, how we can improve victims' rights and how we can make women safer in this country, I am all for it and I will be an advocate at this table, but if you make this political....

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

Through the chair, if some parties make this political, then we will expose the hypocrisy and the lows that some members will go to for what they perceive is partisan gain, and I promise you that it will be a miscalculation.

I'm proposing that we bring officials and talk about how transfers happen in this country, because they are independent; that we hear from the commissioner of Correctional Services Canada and from the Department of Justice; and that we have these conversations. Opposition members, and it's mainly Conservatives who have spoken so far, have a choice to make in this moment. Are you going to be partisan on such horrific acts—

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

Thank you, Chair.

Once again, we see a pattern of division and blame-shifting, even from the deepest backbenches of the Liberal government, rather than taking responsibility and rectifying the problems that they themselves have created.

The majority Liberal government paved the way for the transfer of Mr. Bernardo by passing Bill C‑83 back in the day, which was supported only by the Liberals and disgraced Liberal Raj Grewal. This bill prioritized the “least restrictive environment” for prisoners, effectively reversing a policy established by the previous Conservative government that imposed a tougher standard on dangerous offenders. This reversal was cited by Correctional Service Canada to justify Bernardo's transfer.

Now, months after this shocking transfer, the government continues to let down the families of victims and the communities forever scarred by Bernardo's crimes. Despite our new public safety minister, we are witnessing the same kind of refusal to use legal authority to direct Correctional Service Canada to ensure that every mass murderer serves their time in a maximum-security facility.

With a level of ineffectiveness that ministers can deem appropriate, the former minister of public safety issued a directive to Correctional Service Canada. Unfortunately, he missed the point. He missed it entirely. The directive covered only the way victims are notified about transfers and their classifications, not a reversal, which is what should have been done with this transfer.

Conservatives will not stand idly by and let this injustice persist. That is why we've introduced the legislation that has been mentioned, which mandates that multiple murderers and dangerous offenders like Bernardo serve their entire sentences behind the walls of a maximum-security prison. We will bring justice and safety back to our communities.

On the issue of public safety, we have seen a government that has admitted its failure to protect Canadians from foreign interference, and we witnessed the replacement of, arguably, an unfit public safety minister with a new one, who seems to follow the orders of his predecessor. Yet, Mr. Bernardo remains in minimum security, outside of where he should be, and violent crime continues to rise in our streets.

To those Canadians who are watching today, Conservatives know that this situation is unacceptable, and we have the desire to do something about it. Victims' rights should never come second to those of dangerous and violent offenders. We must take a stand and rectify the mistakes of the Liberal government. Mr. Bernardo's transfer should never have occurred and it should not stand. He belongs in a maximum-security prison for the rest of his life.

To prevent further transfers like this and to ensure that victims' rights are upheld, Conservatives have introduced Mr. Baldinelli's private member's bill, Bill C-342. This legislation would permanently assign a maximum-security classification to multiple murderers and court-ordered dangerous offenders. It will repeal the Liberals' “least restrictive environment” standard and restore the language of “necessary restrictions” that the previous Conservative government had in place.

Mr. Chair, it's about time.

We call on the minister to issue a directive today and reverse the transfer of Mr. Bernardo. We will continue to champion the rights of victims, and a common-sense Conservative government will bring about safer streets and prioritize victims' rights by reversing this flawed legislation. We will ensure that people like Paul Bernardo remain where they belong.

My colleagues and I have a commitment to justice, public safety and the rights of victims. We will fight to ensure that our communities are safe, that justice is served and that the voices of victims and their families are heard.

If colleagues across the way are not able to ensure this, or Liberal ministers aren't able to ensure this, it will become the work of this committee to do that. It's not simply passing on a responsibility. The duty lies with us, and I ask you to consider the magnitude of our responsibility today and do what's right. Let's reverse this transfer and ensure that it never happens again.

Thank you.

Public Safety

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a common theme among Liberal responses. After eight years of the Liberals being in government, they say it is not their job. That is what the member opposite is saying here. The reality is the buck stops with the government. It and Parliament write the directives and rules under which these decisions are made.

Now, five years since Terri-Lynne McClintic, the families of Paul Bernardo's victims have been revictimized because the government put forward legislation to put mass murderers in the least restrictive environment and refused to issue a directive to ensure that mass murderers stay in maximum-security prisons.

I will ask again. Does the member opposite agree, can she just say she agrees, that mass murderers should stay in maximum-security prisons, and that the provisions around a least restrictive environment the Liberals put forward and voted on in Bill C-83, as they apply to mass murderers and child killers, be repealed?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, in 2018, the House was seized with a very emotive and serious issue. This was the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic, a child killer, from a maximum-security prison to a much less secure facility, a healing lodge. I remember the debate in the House and reading the stories of how the families of the victim were retraumatized through this decision. That was five years ago.

Before the summer constituency break, we had a very similar debate in the House. This was when it was revealed that a mass murderer, mass child killer Paul Bernardo, had been transferred from a maximum-security prison to a less secure facility.

Five years passed. I do not understand why the government did not make changes to ensure that this type of revictimization of families in the most serious crimes did not happen again. How did it happen again?

The former minister, Ralph Goodale, who was overseeing the McClintic file, failed upwards into an ambassadorial position. In fact, the Liberals, in 2018, actually amended the Criminal Code to require that inmates are held in the “least restrictive environment possible.”

It has been five years. Out of respect for victims and families, I would like to see some unanimity in this place on two things. First, the government should acknowledge that this is not appropriate. I would like the government to say that mass murderers should stay in maximum-security prisons. I would like to hear this from the member who is responding to this question, that the government agrees with that principle. Second, very importantly, the government should agree to rescind the amendment that they made in the former bill, Bill C-83, and say that the “least restrictive environment” should not apply to mass murderers and child killers like Paul Bernardo and Terri-Lynne McClintic.

The other thing that I would like the member who is replying to this question to say is whether the Prime Minister has agreed to issue a directive to require all mass murderers to remain in maximum security for their entire sentence. That should be done so that this does not happen again, so that we are not having this discussion and revictimizing families again.

This should be a principle that every person in this House agrees to, and it is the government's job. The government has the responsibility and the capacity to do this. The buck stops with the government.

Those are the three things I would like to hear: that mass murderers should remain in maximum security prisons for the duration of their sentence; that the government will repeal the “least restrictive environment” provision that it put forward and passed; and that the government will issue a directive to require all mass murderers to remain in maximum security for the entirety of their sentence, so that we do not have another family of a victim of a child killer or mass murderer being revictimized.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, even if the Liberals give us an inch when we need miles of reform on public safety, it is very important that we move forward with the small pittance they are providing us in this bill.

However, Bill C-48 is not bail reform, which is what premiers, police forces, provincial justice ministers and civic leaders are all asking for. They are not asking for tweaks on the margins; they are asking for broad bail reform. What the Liberals are proposing today is not that.

I will draw the minister's attention to the fact that there has been a consistent Liberal government theme over the last number of years of going soft on criminals. It is not just Bill C-75 that made it easy to get bail. Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimums for violent gun offences and permitted more house arrest for rapists. Bill C-83 allowed mass murderers, like Paul Bernardo, to be transferred to medium-security prisons.

This is a theme, a perspective that the Liberals bring to the table, which has resulted in more violent crime, and that will not be solved by a measly seven-page bill, Bill C-48.

Public Safety

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Prime Minister has done is free Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security penitentiary into relative freedom in a place where he can have access to other people and where he has more comforts and can put guards in danger.

The Prime Minister interfered with Corrections Canada's decisions by introducing Bill C-83, which allowed this kind of transfer to go ahead. The Minister of Public Safety knew of the transfer, or his office knew at least, for three months while he claimed that they could not walk down the hallway and tell him.

He is incompetent. Will the Prime Minister fire him, yes or no?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the unacceptable transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison was possible because of the changes this government made in connection with Bill C-83. The government has all the powers it needs to reverse that decision.

The Minister of Public Safety has proven his incompetence time and again. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility, clean up his own mess and fire the minister?

Motion No. 17

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question period.

During question period, the Liberal justice minister and several members of the Liberal Party claimed that the Conservatives were spreading misinformation about Bill C-83. I have a document from the Library of Parliament, containing a description of Bill C-83, which says that under their amendments, the Correctional Service of Canada must provide the least restrictive conditions for offenders.

I seek leave to table this document in this House.

Public Safety

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was this government that introduced into Bill C-83 section 28, which states that all offenders must be placed in the least restrictive environment for them.

That is why, yesterday, the member for Niagara Falls asked the House to adopt a unanimous motion to repeal this portion of the section and ensure that offenders such as serial rapists are placed in an environment that contains the necessary restrictions. That is simple. We could have taken action.

Yesterday, the Liberals refused. Why?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, Paul Bernardo is the worst type of human being who can exist, yet over and over again, Liberal ministers stand on their feet to defend his right to the comforts of medium-security prisons.

The minister may not understand, but it is the Liberals' very own Bill C-83 and its change to section 28 of the act that allowed this serial rapist and murderer to be transferred to easy street. This is not something that just happened. The Liberals made it happen. Yesterday, the government would not support a Conservative bill that would fix this by requiring serial killers to stay in maximum-security prisons.

When will the government take public safety seriously, reverse these ridiculous changes and keep notorious—

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is categorically false to say that. Bill C-83, which was aimed at ending solitary confinement, a practice that had been condemned by human rights groups and was found to be against our charter, was replaced by something called structured intervention units to allow for a more direct and equitable form of intervention in those cases.

The link between Bill C-83 and the decision made by Correctional Service Canada to transfer this known killer is misinformation.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal bill, Bill C-83, allowed rapist and killer Paul Bernardo to be moved from a maximum-security to a medium-security prison.

Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Minister of Public Safety has the power to send him back to where he belongs, but he refuses to do so. His office knew about the transfer for months, but the minister chose to remain blissfully ignorant.

Why will he not take responsibility and resign?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety's failure to prevent the transfer of notorious killer Paul Bernardo to a medium-security facility was not a mistake. It was a direct consequence of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, like Bill C-83.

Yesterday, Conservatives gave the government an opportunity to rectify this injustice, but it voted us down. Canadians are watching. The Minister of Public Safety needs to be held accountable for this travesty.

Will the Prime Minister have the courage to sack the incompetent minister, or will the minister do us all a favour and resign already?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑83 has nothing to do with the current situation and it has nothing to do with the correctional service's unfortunate decision regarding Mr. Bernardo.

Bill C-83 is a response to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling and to what we have heard from other experts, which is that solitary confinement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have created another type of structured intervention to address the problem.

I can say that Bill C-83 has nothing to do with the current situation.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑83 is the latest in a series of errors, questionable decisions, backtracking and contradictions we have seen from this government when it comes to protecting victims. This time, the families of Bernardo's victims are suffering a second time because the government has allowed this dangerous criminal to enjoy less strict conditions.

Can the government reverse its decision and support our proposal from yesterday to keep dangerous criminals in maximum-security prisons?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, for three days now, we have been calling for the Minister of Public Safety to resign. He is still in office. For three days now, we have been asking the Prime Minister to answer our questions. He has not. He does not have the guts to explain to the families of Bernardo's victims why he created conditions that allowed Bernardo to be transferred to a medium-security prison. Bill C-83 allowed that to happen.

Is the government sorry for what it did?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, serial killer and serial rapist Paul Bernardo was transferred to a medium-security facility, and a previous Liberal bill, Bill C-83, was helpful in allowing this to happen. The public safety minister said that there should be a review to determine if Bernardo should go back to a maximum-security facility. This is unbelievable.

The Liberals changing laws allowed this monster of our time more freedoms and comforts. When will the minister take public safety seriously and reverse changes the Liberals made that allowed for Bernardo to have more comforts and freedoms?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I want to express how troubling it is that the opposition continues to bring up a horrific crime that is impacting not only victims of this criminal but all victims across this country, some of whom have reached out to me. To spread misinformation that Bill C-83 is in any way responsible for this is irresponsible. That bill ended segregation and put people into structured intervention units. It has absolutely nothing to do with classification and where offenders are placed in our prison system.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government likes to deny its role in the transfer of killer Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, but it is responsible. The Liberals passed Bill C-83, which allowed for this transfer. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety knew for three months and did nothing to stop this transfer. Why does he not do the honourable thing and resign?

Justice and Human Rights

[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.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

The seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights speaks to improving the response to victims of crime. I can honestly say, and I think all Canadians agree, if we believe what we are seeing in the news, that the response of the government to victims of crime has been woefully inadequate. I can go further. When we talk about victims of crime, we are also talking about the victims' families, and that came through loud and clear in our report. Once again, even today we are talking about the impact on victims of crime and their families of the government's soft-on-crime revolving door justice system.

I will speak to some of the measures in our report.

One of the things we heard loud and clear was the need to address the unfair situation of sentence discounts for multiple murders. What that means is that in Canada, someone who is convicted of first-degree murder receives a life sentence but is eligible for parole in only 25 years. What this has led to is a ludicrous situation. For example, in Moncton, New Brunswick, an individual killed three of our Mounties, three police officers, just trying to do their job, and that individual would have received a 25-year parole ineligibility, the same as if they had killed one person. We have seen situations of mass murder in this country where someone kills three, five or six people, and they would receive the exact same parole ineligibility as if they had killed one person.

We believe, on this side of the House, that every life should count, every victim should be counted and every victim's family should be respected. That is why when we were in government, we brought in legislation for ending sentence discounts for multiple murders. This meant that an individual who committed multiple murders would receive multiple consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. It is why the individual who killed the three Mounties in Moncton received a 75-year parole ineligibility. Other mass murderers in Canada sentenced since that legislation have received similar sentences.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that provision. We all know that a charter dialogue takes place between the legislature, Parliament and the Supreme Court, and it is absolutely scandalous that the government has not responded to that Supreme Court decision. We have called on it for over a year to respond to this decision, to make it right and to listen to victims' families.

When we were studying the response to victims of crime, that came up more often than not. One of our great witnesses was Sharlene Bosma. Many members will remember that name, as it was her husband who was killed by a mass murderer, someone who murdered at least three individuals. What Sharlene said left a lasting impact on me as well as on many members, certainly on this side of the House.

She said that through the whole process of attending hearings every day, attending court and working to ensure a conviction of this individual who took the life of her husband, the one solace she took when he was sentenced is that her daughter would never have to attend parole hearings and face this monster. However, with one decision from the Supreme Court, that has been ripped away. Now this individual will be eligible for parole in what is left of his 25 years, and Sharlene Bosma, her daughter and other victims' families will have to face unnecessary parole eligibility hearings. Once again, the government throws up its hands.

Even in today's headlines it is reported that one of the worst killers in Canada, one of the most notorious, the Scarborough rapist, Paul Bernardo, has been moved, to the horror of the victims' families and all Canadians, from a maximum-security prison, where he should have spent the rest of his life, to a medium-security prison. We see, on the other, side feigned outrage. We see crocodile tears. We hear “How could this happen? We're going to look into this”, but now we are finding out every day that the Minister of Public Safety knew. Now we are finding out that the Prime Minister knew.

Why did it happen in the first place? Part of the reason it happened is the government's own legislation. When the government brought in Bill C-83, which amended section 28 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, it meant that, when considering transfers from one institution to another, the litmus test brought in by the government is that offenders have to be held in the least restrictive environment. When the Liberals passed that legislation, and when they refused to act when they found out about this transfer, they made this an inevitability. This is on the Liberal government.

I also want to address bail in this country. This came up again and again in our victims study. There are victims who are unnecessarily victimized. They are victims because our justice system has failed to protect them from repeat violent offenders. Just last week, we had a witness at justice committee, and what she said left an impression on me. She said that we do not have a justice system; we have a legal system, but many victims do not see justice in our system.

Canadians fail to see justice when this government, through Bill C-75, put in a principle of restraint when it comes to bail. It has led to the outrageous situation of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, individuals who have been caught for firearms offences and are out on bail, committing another firearms offence. This is happening in Toronto, and the Toronto police helpfully provided us with the statistics. While out on bail for a firearms offence, offenders commit another firearms offence and get bail again. This is outrageous. The Liberals will say, “This is too bad. It is unfortunate that gun crime is taking place”, but it is taking place as a direct result of both their actions and their inaction, their failure to respond to a revolving-door justice system. I can tell members that Canadians are fed up with it.

There is only one party that is committed to ending the revolving door, committed to ensuring that victims voices are heard, committed to appealing the measures in Bill C-75 that have led to this revolving door, committed to ending the outrageous situation in which individuals who commit gun crime are given no more than a slap on the wrist, and committed to ensuring that individuals who commit arson and burn down someone's home are not eligible to serve their sentence with a conditional sentence. What is a conditional sentence? It is house arrest. Under our Criminal Code, somebody could burn down a house and serve their so-called sentence playing video games from the comfort of their own home.

When we were in government, we brought in legislation to change that, to end the revolving door, to have consequences for criminal actions and to protect the most vulnerable. We made sure that sex offenders were listed on the sex offender registry. We made sure that sex offenders served their sentence in prison and not in the community where they offended.

However, under the current government, with both actions and failure to take action, we have a situation where communities are more and more in danger. Members do not have to take my word for it; this information is publicly available. Violent crime is up 32% in this country. Gang-related homicides are up almost 100% in this country. The approach of the revolving door, of allowing repeat offenders to continue to offend, is not working, and a Conservative government, led by Pierre Poilievre, will address—

[Anne Kelly]

We have the resources. Actually, with Bill C-83, we got resources for structured intervention units and also for enhanced health care.

[Anne Kelly]

Yes. Certainly, Larry can speak more to this.

The indigenous correctional programs have been developed with indigenous people. Clearly, with indigenous people we see that there is a lot of trauma as well, so that's included in the program. Too, there are elders who participate in the program to help them so that they can speak about what they've experienced.

In June 2019, Bill C-83, actually considering the indigenous social history, was enshrined in legislation. We've done a ton of training on indigenous social history. What I will admit, though, is that, with regard to how it translates in the recommendations and the decisions, we still have a little bit of work to do. We actually are very good at gathering the information and the indigenous social history, but then, looking at all these factors when we make recommendations and decisions, there is room for improvement.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I see Ms. Latimer has her hand up.

Just before we go there, I know one of the concerns we heard was that inmates don't necessarily want to leave their SIU. One of the flags I had when we looked at Bill C‑83 was that it indicates a problem that needs to be reviewed, because there's a reason they don't want to leave, whether it's safety or mental health or whatever the reasons are. It doesn't indicate that it's right that they don't want to leave, and it may very well be true, but we need to get to the bottom of the reason.

You've only got about a minute, Catherine.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

To all of our witnesses, thank you for all the work that you do. UCCO and USJE, I would like to thank you for the work you are doing in our institutions. The men and women who work in our prisons do fine work.

However, Mr. Wilkins, I will say that I visited Edmonton max. I had a tour of one of the cells. UCCO was present when I visited. There were no TVs or PlayStations. I was told that they were not even allowed books because of suicide risks. I just want to clarify what I saw at Edmonton max.

I just finished listening to a podcast called Life Jolt , about women at Grand Valley. One of the women who had returned to prison was put in segregation because she was going through drug withdrawal. That's not the right place for people. Now, I will tell you that I worked on Bill C-83. I was actually the one who introduced the amendment for an independent external decision-maker. I was extremely hopeful that things would work, and Dr. Doob and Professor Sprott, thank you for the work you are doing. I do still think we can get there.

My question—I have only four minutes—is actually for the Elizabeth Fry organization.

Emilie, could you give us recommendations concerning sexual violence in the prisons? It's something that you've done a report on. We know that there is a zero tolerance policy at CSC, but it is still happening. Could you perhaps tell us both what we need to do legislatively and also what the commissioner can do without legislation?

Public Safety

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, through the act formerly known as Bill C-83, we are ending administrative segregation. We will continue to work to further develop systems to serve our communities more equitably. We value the work preformed by the independent external decision-makers who review inmate cases on an ongoing basis and issue decisions that are binding upon correctional services.

We will continue to work to ensure that administrative segregation is ended and replaced by the legislation that we have brought forward.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you for that. That is quite astonishing.

The last part of Bill C-83 was to get rid of solitary confinement and move over to structured intervention units. Was there more than just a change in format? Was there a substantive improvement at all?

[Emilie Coyle]

Now I'll go to my comments on COVID-19.

During COVID-19, there has been less CSC oversight than ever, making prisoners even more vulnerable to abuse. This lack of oversight, we believe, has contributed to unacceptable and unlawful conditions of confinement during COVID-19 that were certainly not contemplated or foreseen by the courts at the time of sentencing of most of the prisoners.

From the very beginning of the pandemic, CAEFS, our organization, joined the calls of prisoners, prisoners' families, prisoner rights groups, academics, politicians, lawyers, health care experts and other NGOs, like the John Howard Society, which I believe you will hear from in the next hour or perhaps next half hour, to depopulate the prisons as quickly as possible. This was following the advice of the World Health Organization and actions taken by other states to keep people in prison safe. These calls were not heeded, and it resulted in prisoners being kept in torturous conditions of confinement and further exposed to the deadly virus.

We have documented conditions of confinement that have been implemented at different times for varying lengths of time throughout the last year and a half, which I can't go into because of time, but I will answer any questions you may have about them.

A commonality in the conditions is this restriction of access to mechanisms that support the well-being of prisoners, their timely release and CSC oversight. We are concerned that the conditions under which people have been held have not been to protect their health but rather for the operational convenience of CSC. All of this could have been prevented if the prisons had taken the calls for depopulation seriously and had taken swift action. CSC's operational restrictions cannot and must not be downloaded to restrict the rights and the well-being of prisoners.

Finally, with regard to the structured intervention units, I will try to be very brief, as you have the experts in the room here today, on the lack of transparency, clarity and reporting. We support all the findings of the reports put out by Dr. Doob and Dr. Sprott.

Since the changes to the CCRA through Bill C-83, we have observed that the unconstitutional practice of segregation, often colloquially referred to as solitary confinement, is ongoing. Prisoners are still experiencing the same human rights violations as they were prior to the court rulings of 2019.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Absolutely, we're going to fix it.

You'll see in these estimates that we are bringing forward additional resources to make sure we can fully implement Bill C-83 and the SIUs right across this country.

Jack, I'm not making any excuses. I accept the findings of Dr. Doob's report. I've met a number of times with Dr. Doob. I've known him for almost 40 years. I have great respect for him. I also have great respect for the external review investigators who have also been looking at these issues.

There are issues of implementation that have been challenging, particularly during COVID, because the requirements for isolation related to the illness have impacted these measures. We remain committed to fully implementing Bill C-83 and ensuring that the SIUs are effective right across the country.

That's why the resources are being made available to Correctional Service Canada in these budgets I bring before you today.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister Blair, you talked about the changes in the SIUs as a result of Bill C-83.

We know from Dr. Doob's most recent report that we still have a situation in the prisons. There is solitary confinement still going on, and to the extent that it meets the accepted international definition, including by Canada, of torture. One in 10 inmates who are subjected to these SIUs are subjected to this.

That's a shocking thing for Canada to find from the report of Anthony Doob. What do you intend to do about that? Are you going to fix this, and how soon?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll accept your remarks with respect to charm, but I'm afraid, with respect to looks, it's contrary to the evidence before us.

I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation today, and I'm pleased to present the 2021 supplementary estimates (C) and the 2021-22 main estimates for the public safety portfolio.

I'm very ably joined today by a number of my colleagues. Respectfully, in the interest of time, I will not introduce them, but I'd like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that, during these incredibly difficult and challenging times over the past year, they've all stepped up to the plate. They've been working diligently to keep our borders, communities and correctional institutions safe as well as to protect our national security.

Today, Mr. Chair, I believe these estimates reflect that work.

I'll go through the supplementary estimates (C) for 2021 in order to present these items chronologically. The approval of these estimates will result in funding approvals of $11.1 billion for the public safety portfolio, and that represents an increase of 3.3% over total authorities provided to date. I will briefly share some of the highlights here as they relate to how we manage our critical services during the pandemic.

The first is $135.8 million for the Correctional Service of Canada for critical operating requirements related to COVID-19.

The second is $35 million for Public Safety Canada, to support the urgent relief efforts of the Canadian Red Cross during the pandemic. Mr. Chair, as you know, the many volunteers and staff of the Canadian Red Cross have been there to support Canadians from the outset of this pandemic, including at long-term care homes right across the country.

I would ask this committee to join me in thanking them for all their service and for providing help where it was needed most. I’ll also note that this funding is in addition to the $35 million of vote 5 funding to Public Safety from Health Canada to support rapid response capacity testing being deployed to fill gaps in surge and targeted activities, including remote and isolated communities.

Included in these supplementary estimates is funding to enhance the integrity of our borders and asylum system while also modernizing the agency’s security screening system. This funding will ensure that security screening results are made available at the earliest opportunity under a reformed system.

I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight that CBSA employees have done a remarkable job in keeping our borders safe in response to COVID-19. I'd like to take the opportunity as well to thank them for their continued hard work in keeping Canadians safe.

We're also working through these supplementary estimates to increase funding to end violence against indigenous women and girls and to provide essential mental health services.

For the RCMP, we are investing significant funds through both the supplementary and main estimates to support improvements to the federal policing investigative capacity by bolstering its capability with additional policing professionals, investigators and scientists. This will be used to deal with federal policing initiatives, which include responding to money laundering, cybercrime such as child sexual exploitation, and national security such as responding to terrorism and foreign-influenced hostile activities.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll turn to the 2021-22 main estimates. The public safety portfolio, as a whole, is requesting a total of approximately $10 billion for this fiscal year. As I’ve previously noted, the portfolio funding has remained stable over the last few years. I will endeavour to break down the numbers by organization.

Public Safety Canada is seeking a total of $1.1 billion in the main estimates. This represents an increase of $329.9 million, or 45.5%, over the previous year. The bulk of this increase is due to the grants and contributions regarding the disaster financial assistance arrangements program, or DFAA. It’s an increase in funding based upon forecasts from provinces and territories for expected disbursements under the DFAA for this fiscal year. This represents a critical part of my portfolio as minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

In these main estimates, increases also include $15 million for incremental funding to take action against gun and gang violence. As this committee knows, I introduced Bill C-21 in the House not very long ago, a bill designed to protect Canadians from firearm violence and to fulfill our promise of strengthening gun control.

Mr. Chair, I know that this committee will have the chance to review that legislation at some future date, and I look forward to discussing it with them at that time.

I want to focus on a number of ongoing issues and our responses to them, starting with Correctional Service of Canada, which is seeking $2.8 billion this fiscal year, which represents an increase of $239.8 million or 9.4% over the previous year. This net increase is primarily due to a net increase in operating funding, which includes an increase for transforming federal corrections as a result of the passage of the former Bill C-83, which introduced the new structured intervention unit model.

That bill represents a major change in the way our correctional institutions operate, and recent reports have been clear that more work must be done. Funding is just one part of the solution. With the creation of data teams, efforts to replicate best practices nationally and enhanced support from independent, external decision-makers, I am confident we will deliver on this transformational promise.

I want to again acknowledge the troubling findings that were made in the Bastarache report, which I know this committee has examined and reviewed with concern. We are seeking funds to establish the independent centre for harassment resolution. This will be responsible for implementing the full resolution process, including conflict management, investigations and decision-making.

Mr. Chair, we know more work needs to be done. I'd like to conclude by noting the importance of our oversight agencies. You will see in the main estimates that we are seeking to increase funding for the Office of the Correctional Investigator, the CRCC and the ERC, the latter by close to 100%.

With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you and the members of the committee for your patience as I delivered my opening remarks. I'm happy to answer questions that members may have about these estimates and the collective work of our portfolio.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern. In Bill C-83, we imposed legislation, and we have been working with Correctional Service Canada to ensure the proper implementation of the SIUs. We are very grateful for the work of Dr. Doob and our external panel in their review. Their insight and analysis have been very helpful. We also rely on the work of our external review bodies that also examine this issue. It is a complex one.

I want to assure the member and the House of our absolute commitment to ensure that people who are in our custody in our federal institutions are treated fairly. We recognize the challenges of—

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thanks very much, Jack, and I think these are very important questions.

I work very closely with Dr. Zinger and I very sincerely value his observations and his advice in these regards. I also had the opportunity to work previously in another capacity with his predecessor, Dr. Sapers, and I think their work is invaluable and I very much support it.

I think it's also important that CSC responds appropriately to these recommendations, and it is my responsibility as the minister to ensure that the Correctional Service of Canada pays appropriate attention and responds in an appropriate way to the recommendations and observations made by Dr. Zinger. I believe that in my brief tenure in this office, the relationship between the correctional investigator, the Correctional Service of Canada and the public safety ministry has been very, very positive and productive. I believe that we'll continue to work collaboratively together.

If I may also respond to your earlier question with respect to staffing issues, the additional monies that are requested are staffing requirements for the implementation of Bill C-83, the introduction and the full build-out of the SIUs across the country. It is a resource-intensive activity to ensure that those inmates receive the supports and services and the time in various functions and that there are people there to make sure that it happens. We're making those additional investments because it is part of our legal obligation to ensure that those SIUs are properly implemented.

If I may quickly reference the work of Dr. Doob, I think he identifies for us that there's a lot more to do.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will try to be economical in my remarks.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to you today the 2020-21 main estimates and supplementary estimates (B) for the public safety portfolio. Fortunately, in order to provide explanation to the committee of these figures in greater detail and to answer the questions that members may have, I am very pleased today to be joined by Rob Stewart, deputy minister of public safety; Michelle Tessier, deputy director at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; President John Ossowski, Canada Border Services Agency; the senior deputy commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Alain Tousignant; Commissioner Lucki of the RCMP; and Jennifer Oades, chair of the Parole Board of Canada.

Mr. Chair, before I get to the estimates, allow me to take a very brief moment to recognize the hard work, professionalism and dedication of the employees across the nine organizations of my portfolio. Their collective efforts, Mr. Chair, have helped protect our borders, our communities, our corrections institutions and our national security. This year in particular, amid the unprecedented COVID pandemic, they have continued to serve Canadians and, I believe, have done an exemplary job in their work to keep us safe.

The estimates before you today reflect the breadth of that work. In my allotted time today, I hope to provide a broad overview of the estimates, highlighting some of the most substantial items for the organizations within my portfolio.

Let me begin with the 2020-21 main estimates. As members will note, the public safety portfolio as a whole is requesting a total of $9.7 billion for this fiscal year. Overall, the portfolio's funding has remained stable over the last few years, averaging 2.6% annual growth based on available funding authorities from 2014-15 to 2019-20. Spending increases for the portfolio in this fiscal year are also expected to be in line with those in previous years.

I'll break things down by organization, Mr. Chair.

Public Safety Canada is seeking a total of $725 million in these main estimates. You will note that there is a request for an increase in funds to protect people from unnecessary violence and to work towards holding criminals to account. This includes an additional $25 million to take action against gun and gang violence, over $10 million to combat human trafficking and to protect children from online sexual exploitation, and additional investments for the national cyber security strategy. Additionally, we are working towards providing additional support for the first nations policing program as well as for infrastructure projects in indigenous communities.

I will now turn to this year's main estimates for other organizations in the public safety portfolio.

CBSA is seeking a total of just over $2.2 billion in 2020-21, a net increase of $80 million or 3.8% over the previous year. The most substantial item affecting this change in funding levels for the CBSA is an additional $75 million to implement and to maintain the agency's assessment and revenue management project. Once fully implemented, this project will modernize and streamline the process of importing commercial goods. The goal is to reduce the administrative burden for importers and other trade partners and to increase CBSA's efficiency and Government of Canada revenues.

The CBSA's main estimates of 2020-21 also include an increase of $17.3 million to enhance the operational response related to the fight against gun and gang violence. Also, you will recall that by launching the Canadian travel number, we have delivered on our commitment to improve air security and offer redress to those who were falsely flagged on the no-fly list. The main estimates include $12.3 million to implement amendments to the Secure Air Travel Act and to introduce a framework for the passenger protect program.

I will now turn to the RCMP, which is seeking total funding in the amount of $3.5 billion in the main estimates for 2020-21. In terms of increases, additional funds relate to contract policing services; support for the renewal of the RCMP's radio communications system infrastructure in Ontario, Quebec and the national capital region; and over $20 million in funding to strengthen federal cybercrime enforcement.

The Correctional Service of Canada is requesting a total of $2.6 billion in the main estimates for 2020-21. The most substantial investment is an additional $49.7 million to support the transformation of the federal corrections system following the passage into law of Bill C-83.

As members know, we have eliminated administrative segregation. The new system, called structured intervention units, is designed to provide inmates the opportunity for more time out of their cells and for meaningful human contact, as well as targeted interventions and programs. They also must receive daily health care visits by a registered health professional and comprehensive mental health assessments. As we have recently been informed, there is much more work to do, though progress is being made. We'll continue to work with groups to ensure adequate reporting and oversight and to measure the progress being made in achieving these important goals.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will now turn to the portfolio's supplementary estimates, which so far this year total $523.3 million. This represents a small percentage, only 5.4% of the $9.7-billion base funding requested in the main estimates.

On a portfolio-wide basis, the total authority sought in the supplementary estimates (B) more specifically would result in a net increase of $203.2 million. This represents a 1.9% increase over the total authorities provided to date, for a total of $10.7 billion.

If I may, I'll highlight a few key items in these estimates across the portfolio.

Most notably, CSC is seeking $143.3 million in additional funding for support for the Correctional Service of Canada. The supplementary estimates also include a transfer of $58.8 million from Public Safety Canada to the RCMP, and this is for first nations community policing. This transfer covers the cost of the policing services provided by the RCMP under tripartite agreements among Public Safety Canada, the provinces and territories, and first nations.

The RCMP is also seeking $14.5 million in these estimates to implement and maintain the national cybercrime solution. This will provide the national cybercrime coordination unit with the IM/IT functions it needs to receive, store, analyze and share cybercrime data and establish a public reporting website.

The CBSA is seeking an additional $6 million for measures to enhance the integrity of Canada's borders and asylum system, and is also seeking funds to crack down on fraudulent consultants. More specifically, funding will support an IT system and changes to ensure that CBSA's case management systems reflect the recent changes to Canada's immigration laws.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I'll note that your documents also outline the 2020-21 main estimates and supplementary estimates (B) for CSIS, the Parole Board of Canada, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, the RCMP External Review Committee, and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. Additional funds for the Parole Board of Canada, in particular, will work towards addressing workload capacity for those involved with decisions pertaining to conditional release to ensure we are keeping our communities safe.

This has been a difficult year for Canadians, but regardless of the area in which they work, our employees have risen to the challenge. They work hard to keep us safe and secure.

Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity for me and my officials to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you, sir.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my colleagues across the way to learn how to read the public accounts, because if they did they would see that in the last year the Conservatives were in power, the accounts hit a high of almost $1.8 billion in spending. They then dropped about $300 million in subsequent years, under the Liberals.

I want to go back to a point that my colleague made about the lack of consultation. As we saw, the government did not consult with prison guards when it brought in Bill C-83. It did not consult with parole officers and program officers dealing with the Parole Board issue we discussed the other day. Now we hear that on this bill, the Liberals have not consulted with CBSA guards. Why is the government so apparently allergic to consulting with our officers and considerable police force on the ground?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for laying down the law.

This bill changes the name of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the public complaints and review commission. Under this new name, the commission will also be responsible for reviewing public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency.

The bill follows on a promise made by the Liberals to ensure that all law enforcement agencies in Canada are monitored by an oversight group. We agree that all Canadian law enforcement agencies must have an oversight group. Canadians must be respected and protected from potential abuse of power. We must all make sure that the agency does its job to the letter and in compliance with Canadian legislation.

Our party’s vision of Canadian security has always prioritized maintaining the integrity of our borders and making sure that the CBSA has appropriate resources in terms of staff and equipment. A public complaints review commission will undoubtedly improve general oversight and help the CBSA exercise its duties and powers more effectively.

I have spoken at length with border services officers and listened to the union president. It is obvious that the problem at the border is not due to a lack of training or will on the part of the officers. On the contrary, the problem stems from a blatant lack of resources to support officers in their work.

When Bill C-98 was first tabled, the government had not even consulted the union. We raised this point in the debate on Bill C-98, but we got nowhere, since the government was in a rush to move forward. There was not enough time for the bill to be passed by the Senate. Today, the government is coming back to us with Bill C-3.

Even if we support the bill, we need to take the time to consult the union representing the CBSA and the RCMP, which we will probably do in committee. It is a good idea to create an agency to monitor the officers' work and give Canadians some power. We are completely in agreement with that, but the officers also have something to say. That is why I think it is important to listen to the union. There needs to be a balance between the two.

Since 2015, our Liberal friends have constantly said that they consult Canadians on various issues. However, in the case of Bill C-3, there have been no consultations.

I would like to talk about the challenges faced by the Canada Border Services Agency. A lot has been said in recent years. Members will recall the Prime Minister’s famous tweet from January 2017. At a time when the United States was in turmoil, the Prime Minister tweeted to the world that Canada would welcome everyone with open arms. That created a situation at the border that is still ongoing. Close to 50,000 people who read the Prime Minister’s tweet came to cross the border at Roxham Road in Quebec. Some came through Manitoba, but most came through Roxham Road. These people crossed our border believing that they would be welcomed with open arms.

The RCMP had to mobilize enormous resources. In 2017, officers from across Canada were sent to Roxham Road. The CBSA also had to mobilize resources to receive the people who thought they would simply be welcomed to Canada.

The problem is still going on. The government is trying to make us believe that nothing is going on, but that is not true. Every day, 40 to 50 people cross the border at Roxham Road. The financial and human resources costs are massive. In a report last year, the Office of the Auditor General examined all of the federal agencies involved, including public safety, immigration and other federal services. In three years, we have spent more than $1 billion on federal services alone. That figure does not include costs to the provinces.

Quebec calculated its costs for the first year. Just for costs associated with receiving the asylum seekers, Quebec applied for a reimbursement of $300 million. Ontario followed suit. Quebec was reimbursed before the election campaign because our Liberal friends knew that this was a very sensitive subject for Quebeckers.

We Quebeckers are a hospitable people. We like people, but we also like order. Now we are in a situation where there is no order. No one, myself included, can understand why people are being allowed to enter our country, and specifically Quebec, illegally.

That being said, the Conservatives have often been called racists in debate and in question period. It is very upsetting to be called a racist. The people who come to the border are of different ethnic origins, but that does not make us racist. We are simply asking for effective border control. That starts with a duly completed immigration application. Of course Canada welcomes refugees, as it always has. Even when the Conservatives were in power, we always supported taking in refugees from UN camps around the world.

Let us get back to our officers. We are going to pass a law that will allow the public to file complaints against RCMP and CBSA officers. We should try to see things from our officers' perspective. They are being asked to do things that they may find distasteful. I remember going to Roxham Road three or four times to watch our officers at work. I saw police officers there, RCMP officers, whose job is to enforce law and order.

People arrived with suitcases, knowing full well that they were entering Canada illegally, but they were taking advantage of a loophole in the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement. The warm-hearted RCMP officers carried the people’s suitcases across the border to help them enter Canada illegally. This created a conflict in the officers’ minds. On the one hand, since they have big hearts, they have no choice but to help children, as is only right. On the other hand, their job is to enforce the law.

I would remind members that the Prime Minister created this situation on Roxham Road, which has been going on for exactly three years now. People do not realize that the government has even built a building there that is equipped with systems and all the necessary technology. When people get out of a taxi at Roxham Road, they can walk down a small road that leads directly to this reception centre, which is the equivalent of a regular border crossing.

That makes no sense, and we are in this mess because the Liberals cannot negotiate with the Americans to change a rule that prevents us from putting an end to the situation. Let's not forget the financial repercussions for Canada, which are huge.

In addition, our officers have to deal with another serious problem, namely drugs and weapons being smuggled across the border. The RCMP and CBSA officers find their work very hard and complex. In addition to their working conditions, which are obviously less than ideal, the rules in effect and the way the boundaries are delineated sometimes prevent the officers from doing their job properly, despite their best efforts.

We share a border with certain indigenous reserves and with the United States, and international rules make our officers’ work far more complicated. This means that a lot of illegal drugs and weapons are entering Canada and contributing to crime.

It is important to understand that criminals, especially Toronto gangs, get their weapons illegally. Huge numbers of weapons cross the U.S. border or arrive by ship in Montreal or Vancouver. We are therefore asking the government to invest major human and financial resources to fight this type of crime.

The influx of drugs like fentanyl is a serious threat to officers' health. At Canada Post, CBSA officers randomly inspect packages entering Canada, and those packages may contain extremely dangerous substances. A tiny dose of fentanyl or any opioid can be fatal. We need to keep in mind that this kind of work can be hugely stressful for individuals, just as it is for members of the military.

This bill will make it possible for members of the public to complain about deliberate or accidental conduct on the part of RCMP or CBSA officers.

Still, we need to understand the position we are putting these officers in and be judicious. That is why we have to listen to what the officers' union has to say.

The examples I gave earlier illustrate situations in which officers have to make decisions. They have to face dangerous situations. Sometimes, if they react reflexively or have to make snap decisions, they may say or do things they should not.

For this reason, I hope that the commission that reviews the complaints will have a balanced approach. I find that the blame too often falls on officials, police officers and the military. When I was in the army, we were often aware of this during operational deployments. I remember very well that, during the war in Bosnia, we often had to follow UN rules and send soldiers into a conflict zone and tell them that, if they made a mistake or did something wrong, we would not be there to defend them. They would be responsible for their actions.

We were representing our country, going to a war zone in a foreign country, but, at the same time, we were being warned to be careful not to get into trouble, otherwise we would be on our own.

This type of situation often causes psychological stress for RCMP officers and border service officials. At some point, these people wonder whether or not they should take action. If, for fear of reprisal, they decide not to take action, this may create a situation that will cause problems elsewhere. In the case of drug control, for example, if the official is afraid to take action, the drugs will end up somewhere else. I do not have any concrete examples to give, but I believe that everyone listening to us can understand what I am trying to say.

I would also like to briefly address our correctional services. I know that correctional services are not covered by Bill C-3. However, I would like to remind the House that, when we discussed Bill C-83 during the last Parliament, there was talk about the various resources available to Canada’s penitentiaries.

First, I would like to talk about syringes. Syringes were not part of Bill C-83. However, penitentiaries were asked to give prisoners syringes. The government provides prisoners with syringes, and they inject drugs illegally obtained in prison. It can be difficult to accept and understand how drugs could be illegally obtained in prison and how syringes could be provided so that prisoners can inject these illegally obtained drugs.

Ideally, we should be preventing prisoners from obtaining drugs in prison. There is an easy way to do so, as set out in Bill C-83, and that is to acquire body scanners. Body scanners like the ones in airports, but more sophisticated, can detect 95% or more of anything hidden on a visitor’s body, whether drugs or other contraband. I will not list all the things that can be carried in a human body, but a body scanner can find them. That way, the government could avoid having to provide prisoners with syringes.

At the moment, I can say that there is a great deal of concern within the correctional service. Officers who work in penitentiaries are concerned for their own safety. Despite the fact that there is supposedly a syringe control system in place, needles can, for all sorts of reasons, end up somewhere else, and prisoners can use them to create weapons and do various things.

We expect the government to make this investment and deploy the 47 scanners that are required across Canada as soon as possible.

There are policies for the Border Services Agency. I can say that I am proud of what was done by the former Conservative government. In debates over the past few years, we were blamed for cutting $300 million from the Border Services Agency budget. That is absolutely false. There have been budget cuts in administration, but line officers have never been affected by the cuts. We have evidence, reports from the Library of Parliament complete with exact figures.

I am also proud of the measures taken by our government at the time. Officers were asked to be alone at guard posts at night. Officers were completely alone, left to their own devices. It was excessively dangerous, so we saw to it that there would now be at least two people on duty. We also armed our border officers. They had no weapons previously. How is it possible to intercept someone or take action in dangerous situations without a weapon? That is why we took steps to ensure that Canada is better protected.

Beyond Bill C-3, which will give the public access to a complaints mechanism, our hope is to continue to work to improve border control and enhance Canada's overall security.

Opposition Motion — Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke a lot about victims and victims' families. Bill C-83 included a clause that would allow victims' families access to audio recordings of Parole Board hearings. This was something victims' families asked us for and we put it in the legislation. The party opposite actually voted against that bill.

When it comes to healing lodges, they are not a free pass. These are minimum-security institutions. We need to clarify the record on those two things.

The motion is about the appointments to the Parole Board, the importance of the independence of the Parole Board and also the independence of this investigation into what happened, and the tragic loss of life in this case. Does the hon. member not feel that the Parole Board needs to be independent?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House:

(a) the amendment to the motion respecting the senate amendments to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be deemed negatived on division and the main motion be deemed carried on division; and

(b) the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-100, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be deemed negatived on division and that the Bill be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Parole System

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise today and add my voice to the debate on Motion No. 229.

Before I do that, this may be my last opportunity to give a speech during this Parliament, so I want to thank my wife, Charlene, and my son and daughter, Ethan and Hannah. Hannah will be turning one next week, and Ethan will be turning three next month. They came after my election and do not know any different, but they make a great deal of sacrifices, like so many other kids of parents who work here on a daily basis. It is important to say thanks to remember them and those whom we leave back in our ridings to do this important work.

I also want to thank my constituents for this incredible honour of representing the people of St. Catharines here in this place almost four years.

Let me begin by first thanking the hon. member for Milton for bringing this motion forward. If there is one thing in this House that all of us can agree on, it is the importance of supporting victims and survivors of crime.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the dedication and tireless efforts of all those who work so hard to provide that support. We are all fortunate in this country to have a system in place that is there for people in their greatest time of need. That system spans different orders of government across different sectors. It offers programs and services that support victims of crime so that they can play an important role in the criminal justice system. It works to meet their needs and ensure that they do not suffer in silence. It encompasses professionals and volunteers who work with victims and survivors, helping them to get their lives back on track and making sure they are not re-victimized along the way.

I would like to take a moment to recognize the important work of Victim Services Niagara for the incredible work the people there in my home region do on a daily basis, and to recognize also the Kristen French Child Advocacy Centre. So many organizations across the country are working so hard and so passionately for victims of crime.

As part of that system, the federal government has an important role that includes support for victims of federal offenders, meaning those serving a sentence of two years or more. The Correctional Service of Canada, or CSC, strives to ensure that victims of federal offenders have an effective voice in the federal correctional and justice systems. Part of that involves providing them with information. Last year, in fact, victims received 160,000 pieces of information from CSC and the Parole Board of Canada.

That information is not automatically provided. Victims must register with CSC and the Parole Board in order to obtain that information about the offender who harmed them. However, the government has launched a victims portal to make that process easier. The portal provides a simple and secure way for victims to register and access information. It also allows them to submit information electronically for consideration in case management decisions. That includes victim statements, which can be submitted at any time during the offender's sentence.

In addition to the portal, victims are able to reach victim services officers by email or by phone. These officers can provide victims with information about CSC and the offender who harmed them. That includes information about correctional planning, decision-making processes and the progress the offender is making toward meeting the objectives of his or her correctional plan.

Victims are entitled to receive more than 50 types of notification. For example, victims can be notified of the start date and length of the sentence that the offender is serving. With respect to the motion before us, I would also point out that victims are already notified of the offender's eligibility and review dates for temporary absences or parole. That said, there could be room for improvement. Debates like this one certainly help us to shed some light on the issue of ways to support victims.

This debate is also taking place not long after the government took important steps forward in terms of how it communicates and engages with victims of federal offenders. On May 27, in conjunction with the 14th annual Victims and Survivors of Crime Week, the government announced a new victims outreach strategy.

The strategy has two main goals: The first is to improve public awareness about the information and notifications that the CSC provides to registered victims, and the second is to bring greater clarity to certain aspects of the corrections and conditional release system, including victims' understanding of sentence management and the offender reintegration process.

Specifically, the strategy will see the Correctional Service of Canada promoting the benefits of registration. CSC would also promote the information available to victims through the victims portal and the benefit of submitting a victim statement outlining the impact of the offence on them. CSC is working with federal partners in consultation with victims and survivors to develop new tools to let people know about the resources that are available. These tools include infographics videos and a social media campaign. That is just one recent step that the government has taken to support victims.

It has also proposed a new measure under Bill C-83, which is being considered by Parliament, to increase the participation of victims in the criminal justice system. If that bill passes and receives royal assent, victims who attend a Parole Board of Canada hearing will be allowed to listen to an audio recording of the parole hearing.

Right now, that opportunity is only available to victims who do not attend the parole hearing. It makes perfect sense to extend audio recordings to all registered victims because it would allow victims who did attend a hearing and found the experience difficult and traumatic to have a clear sense of how things transpired.

All of these measures are complemented by the government's National Office for Victims. The office provides a central national resource for information and support to victims of federal offenders. It can answer questions about the criminal justice, corrections and conditional release systems, giving victims a more effective voice. Last year, the office distributed more than 6,000 publications to victims of crime, victim service providers and the general public. The office also helped to point victims in the right direction by receiving calls, responding to email queries and referring Canadians for direct services.

Finally, I would like to note the support the government is providing to victims and survivors of the despicable crime of human trafficking.

Budget 2018 included federal funding of $14.5 million over five years and $2. 9 million per year after that to establish a national human trafficking hotline. Being from Niagara, I find this initiative to be incredibly important, because ours is a border community where so much of that crime occurs. Because so much trafficking occurs through that border crossing, it is important for my community to have those types of resources to combat this horrible crime.

I am pleased to report that the hotline was launched on May 29. It offers help and hope to victims and survivors 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and it is confidential.

Victims and survivors will be able to use it both to seek information and to receive the help they need to find safety and protection. This includes connecting them to local law enforcement, emergency shelters, trauma counsellors, transportation and other services and supports. The hotline will also forward information to law enforcement agencies so they can take action against the perpetrators.

This is only a sampling of the federal measures that are in place or on track to support victims of crime. There is always more we can do to make things work even better for them.

I am proud to stand behind a government that takes this issue seriously, that has already taken steps to improve the support system for victims and is committed to working with partners on further improvements to better serve the needs of victims and survivors of crime.

Again, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those involved in victim services. It is an incredibly difficult job to help people through the trauma they experience. We talk a lot about first responders and the important work that they do, but victim support workers provide a significant component of that, the next step that is too often forgotten about. The work is important to help get people on the right track, to help them move forward, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them.

Again, I would like to thank the member for Milton for introducing the motion and spearheading this important debate.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate, and I would like to thank the hon. member for Milton for moving this motion.

The motion comes just short weeks after Victims and Survivors of Crime Week. Members may know the objectives of that week.

The first objective is to raise awareness across Canada about the issues facing victims and survivors. They and their families must be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect at all stages of the criminal justice process. Victims, survivors and their families also have an important role in helping to ensure that justice is done, that during the parole process, for example, reliable and relevant facts about parole can be made.

The second goal of this special week is to let victims and their families know about the services, programs and laws in place to help and support them.

The motion before us states that:

...the government should amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act prior to the next election, so as to provide victims with an explanation of how dates are determined for offenders’ eligibility for temporary absences, releases and parole.

I will point out that information about offender eligibility dates is provided to victims already, but it is always worth examining whether there is room for improvement.

That said, the government already provides victims with useful and timely information in a number of ways.

In fact, last week, the government announced an important new step, a new victim outreach strategy to ensure that more victims would be aware of the information available to them and the role they could play in the corrections and conditional release process.

There was a great deal of collaboration in creating this strategy. Correctional Services Canada worked with federal partners, including the Parole Board of Canada, Public Safety Canada's National Office for Victims and the Department of Justice Canada, in consultation with victims and survivors. The result is a suite of communication tools to inform the public and victims of the resources and services available to them. The tools include infographics, videos and a social media campaign.

Another way that victims can receive information is through the victims portal. The portal is a secure online service, available to registered victims to receive information about the offender who harmed them. They can submit information electronically, including their victims' statements. These communication tools help victims stay informed, engaged and empowered to make informed decisions.

The Public Safety Canada portfolio is also working to ensure that victims of federal offenders have a voice in the federal criminal justice system.

For example, there are now 8,000 victims registered with Correctional Services Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. They are entitled to receive over 50 types of notifications. Last year, they received 160,000 pieces of information.

Along with more avenues to obtain information and give their input, victims have access to resources such as dedicated victim service officers, who provide victims with information about correctional services and the offender who harmed them.

Victim service officers explain to victims how correctional planning works and how decisions are made. They provide victims with information on the offender's progress toward meeting their correctional plan. They advise when parole hearings are scheduled.

It is fair to say that the rest of the motion aims to ensure that victims are treated even more fairly and respectfully by our criminal justice system. For decades, Canada's criminal justice system has been getting better at attending to the needs of victims and survivors, whether it is a matter of providing information, delivering support, or simply showing empathy and respect.

When Correctional Service of Canada prepares an offender's case for a parole hearing, for example, it takes into account the concerns that victims have raised in their victim's statements. Last year, victims presented over 300 statements at parole hearings. We are also taking steps to make the parole hearing process less traumatic for victims and survivors.

Members may recall that as part of the implementation plan for the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the National Office for Victims hosted consultations on the victims right to information, participation and protection in the corrections and conditional release system.

One of the early issues discussed at the round tables was the parole hearing process as legislated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Under its terms, victims unable to attend the parole hearing can have access to an audio recording of the hearing. At round tables held by the National Office for Victims, we heard that attending a parole hearing could be traumatic, such that afterwards many victims did not have a clear sense of what exactly was discussed.

Why not make the audio recordings available to those who have attended the parole hearing as well as those who could not attend? Why not enable them to listen again at a time and a place of their choosing?

That is one of the proposed amendments we have included in Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, to strengthen victims roles in the criminal justice system.

This is just one way we can increase the number of avenues through which victims can obtain information and participate in the processes of the criminal justice system. There is always more that can be done, but we continue to take steps in the right direction.

One of the most important things we can do is prevent people from becoming victims in the first place.

The national crime prevention strategy provides leadership on ways to prevent and reduce crime among at-risk populations and vulnerable communities. The strategy's goal is to mitigate the underlying factors that might put individuals at risk of offending in the first place.

The Government of Canada is making up to $94 million available over five years to develop inclusive, diverse and culturally adapted crime prevention projects right across Canada.

The national crime prevention strategy is another example of this government's efforts to reduce crime and by the same token, reduce the number of victims.

The government will continue to work with all our partners to support victims in every way possible.

Once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for introducing this motion and I look forward to continued debate on this very important topic.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Well, as I said, Monsieur Dubé, we have had an enormous volume of work to get through, as has this committee, as has Parliament, generally. The work program has advanced as rapidly as we could make it. It takes time and effort to put it all together. I'm glad we're at this stage, and I hope the parliamentary machinery will work well enough this week that we can get it across the finish line.

It has been a very significant agenda, when you consider there has been Bill C-7, Bill C-21, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-37, Bill C-46, Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-59, Bill C-97, Bill C-83, Bill C-93 and Bill C-98. It's a big agenda and we have to get it all through the same relatively small parliamentary funnel.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

I think, Ms. Dabrusin, it's simply a product of the large flow of public safety business and activity that we have had to deal with. I added it up a couple of days ago. We have asked this Parliament to address at least 13 major pieces of legislation, which has kept this committee, as well as your counterparts in the Senate, particularly busy.

As you will know from my previous answers, I have wanted to get on with this legislation. It's part of the matrix that is absolutely required to complete the picture. It's here now. It's a pretty simple and straightforward piece of legislation. I don't think it involves any legal intricacies that make it too complex.

If we had had a slot on the public policy agenda earlier, we would have used it, but when I look at the list of what we've had to bring forward—13 major pieces of legislation—it is one that I hope is going to get to the finish line, but along the way, it was giving way to things like Bill C-66, Bill C-71, Bill C-83, Bill C-59 and Bill C-93. There's a lot to do.

Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if this were a brand new topic that had never been introduced in the House before, it would present a challenge to deal with all of the detail within five hours, but this is a topic that has been amply debated in the House, in the Senate and now back in the House again.

It is time, in light of the very pressing court decisions that are outstanding, for the House to conclude the debate and take a final vote, knowing very clearly, already on the record, what the important views are, for example, of the correctional officers union, which has been very clear in its position, wanting to see Bill C-83 accepted by the government and by Parliament.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is terminology that the hon. gentleman likes to use quite often in the House. I count eight substantive amendments that the government is accepting or has modified from the Senate. The minister said that the government has considered this and is satisfied with it, and therefore it is moving time allocation, which provides us with only five hours.

Several members who have penitentiaries in their ridings have risen on our side of the House. They would like to go back to their constituents and get their opinion on this, and I would like to go back to former prison guards who live in my riding. However, today we are being told there are five more hours and that is it.

The member for Peace River—Westlock mentioned this was four minutes at this stage of debate. How many members can speak in four minutes? Very few could provide substantive feedback. The time allocation being moved today by the government is shutting down debate. I have seen this time and again, both at standing committees of the House and on other legislation.

I spoke to Bill C-83 before and mentioned all my concerns and worries that constituents had explained to me over the distinct sections and technicalities of the bill. The issue now is that, with only five hours left, it gives us literally no time to return to our constituents to get their feedback on these eight substantive amendments.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me once again point out that what we are beginning here is not the end of the debate but another five hours of debate on this very topic. There will be five more hours of debate, in addition to all of the debate that has taken place in the Senate, in addition to all three stages that were dealt with earlier in the House, plus extensive committee hearings by both the Senate and the House of Commons.

The opportunity to discuss in detail has, in fact, been very considerable. I congratulate all members on this side, on the opposition side and in the other place, who have participated in this discussion about Bill C-83 in a very fulsome way.

I would also point out this timing consideration. As I said earlier, there are several outstanding court cases pertaining to the use of administrative segregation in the Canadian correctional system. Those court cases date back to 2015. They have come to decisions in the last number of months, which have imposed upon the government and Parliament an obligation to consider the matters and make decisions in a timely way. We are up against those deadlines now, so it is simply not possible and it certainly would not be responsible to ignore the deadlines that have been imposed by the courts. Otherwise, we are inviting chaos in the correctional system.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister, I do understand the difference between a closure motion and time allocation. I realize that the government is allocating time for this.

The major issue, though, is the fact that on Friday Bill C-83 had proceeded with only four minutes of debate when the government House leader rose in the House to give notice that time allocation was going to be moved. I understand that this bill is at a relatively advanced stage, however, it is tradition that this House, the people's House, the representatives of each of these ridings get to have the time to carefully consider what the other place has done.

When I put what the government's actions are with respect to Bill C-83 within the context of what it did on Thursday with all of the other government bills, I think the pretense of any respect for Parliament has completely evaporated. Right now, the government is quite obvious. It has a week left, it has a checklist, and is it going to use its majority to simply ram through every piece of legislation, no matter what members of the opposition might have to say on it, despite the fact that on this side of the House, our parties, collectively, represent roughly 60% of the Canadian populace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so saddened, as I think most Canadians are, that every day the Liberals continue to repudiate all the commitments they made back in 2015 to work with members of the House of Commons, to stop omnibus legislation and to stop the abuse of the use of closure.

As the House knows, the government has gone far beyond the previous government's abuse of closure by bringing in a new “gag” closure that allows only 20 minutes of discussion after it is moved and only one member of the government gets to speak. Members of the opposition do not get to ask questions, make comments or anything of that nature. It shows how toxic the government has become with respect to trying to move legislation through the House and get it improved so the legislation does what it purports to do.

In the case of Bill C-83, the NDP offered dozens of amendments, because the bill has been largely criticized by the Elizabeth Fry Societies and many other intervenors. We brought forward the witness testimony and said it would improve the bill. The government refused all of that.

Is that not the reason why the government is ramming it through today, because it is a controversial bill that has been much criticized and the government refused to listen to all the witnesses and members of the opposition who tried to make improvements?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendments stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

Bill C-83—Notice of time allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 has two main objectives.

First, it will allow federal inmates to be separated from the general prison population when necessary for security reasons. Second, it will ensure that these inmates have access to the interventions, programs and mental health care they need to safely return to the general prison population and make progress toward successful rehabilitation and reintegration.

The bill would achieve these objectives by replacing the current system of administrative segregation with structured intervention units. In SIUs, inmates will be entitled to twice as much time out of their cells, four hours daily instead of two, and two hours of meaningful human contact every day. We have allocated $448 million over six years to ensure that the correctional service has the resources to provide programs and interventions to inmates in SIUs and to implement this new safety system effectively. That funding includes $150 million for mental health care, both in SIUs and throughout the federal corrections system.

Bill C-83 was introduced last October. It was studied by the public safety committee in November and reported back to the House in December with a number of amendments. There were further amendments at report stage in February, including one from the member for Oakville North—Burlington, that added a system of binding external review. In recent months, hon. senators have been studying the bill and have now sent it back to us with proposed amendments of their own.

A high level of interest in Bill C-83 is indicative of the importance of the federal corrections system and of the laws and policies that govern it. Effective and humane corrections are essential to public safety. They are a statement of who we are as a country. In the words of Dostoyevsky, the degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons.

I extend my sincere thanks to all the intervenors who have provided testimony and written briefs over the course of the last nine months and to the parliamentarians in both chambers who have examined this legislation and made thoughtful and constructive suggestions.

Since the Senate social affairs committee completed clause-by-clause consideration of this bill a couple of weeks ago, the government has been carefully studying the committee's recommendations, all of which seek to achieve laudable objectives. We are proposing to accept several of the Senate's amendments as is or with small technical modifications.

First off, with minor adjustments, we agree with amendments that would require a mental health assessment of all inmates within 30 days of admission into federal custody and within 24 hours of being transferred to an SIU. This fits with the focus on early diagnosis and treatment that would be facilitated by the major investments we are making in mental health care. We agree with the proposal to rearrange section 29 of the act, which deals with inmate transfers, to emphasize the possibility of transfers to external hospitals.

I thank the hon. senators for their efforts and contributions.

The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act.

Public Safety

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for four years now, the Minister of Public Safety has been ignoring decisions handed down by various courts ruling that excessive use of solitary confinement is unconstitutional.

Yesterday, the family of Ashley Smith spoke out against the government's broken promises and the fact that it is invoking their daughter's name to justify its failure to act. Bill C-83 will do nothing to fix this appalling situation.

Will the government abandon the bill, comply with the court rulings and, above all, apologize to the family of Ashley Smith?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

As for the privacy considerations, as far as I've understood, given that the records suspension branch of the Parole Board is an investigative body, they do have Privacy Act exemptions. We spoke with them, and they confirmed they have access to CPIC, so I do find it a bit unfortunate that we're basically saying it would be too much work and we're not accepting to make it automatic, when the reality is, as has been pointed out by numerous people, that the burden is then put onto marginalized Canadians.

I would also just ask for clarification from the clerk, perhaps. I think back to Bill C-83 when we were studying SIUs and I believe amendments were adopted that created additional criteria for health care professional reviews, for example. I'm not clear on the distinction that creating additional actions on the part of public servants in one instance would be acceptable, but here, because we're prescribing the process in a certain way—even though the end result this amendment seeks would still be one of these individuals having records suspensions—it would no longer be within the scope of the bill. I mean, it's titled “no-cost, expedited”. Ultimately is that what we're relying on, the title? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Whitby for that question, especially when it comes to actually dealing with pieces of legislation that are going to impact people's lives for the better.

I would like to assure the member that I will use every tool necessary to ensure that we advance this legislation. However, it would be great if opposition members would share the time needed for debate on those pieces of legislation so that we can ensure that everyone who wants to speak on it is able to. There is definitely a difference between members of Parliament standing up and speaking on behalf of their constituents and members of Parliament speaking to advance their party's line. Unfortunately, when we are advancing the party's narrative, we take away from the work we are doing in our constituencies.

I would agree that Bill C-81 is historic legislation. It has gone to the Senate and we have seen it return with amendments. The minister has considered those amendments, because they would improve the legislation. Therefore, there is no reason that we cannot see this proposed legislation move along quickly. Members will see that the government wants to see it move quickly, and Canadians will be able to see who will block that legislation from happening. Also, when it comes to Bill C-83, once again, we would like to see this proposed legislation move along quickly, and Canadians will also be able to see clearly who blocks that from happening.

It is clear that the government wants to advance legislation that works for Canadians, but the opposition would rather get in the way of government's advancing legislation at the expense of Canadians, and that is really unfortunate.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow my friend from Scarborough—Guildwood, who has had millions of minutes in this chamber. However, I am at a loss to ascribe any real substance to those minutes, despite the fact that I hold him in great affection. He has been very helpful on some projects related to veterans, and on that matter, maybe he can help get the Afghan monument finally done.

I share the comments from a lot of people today in that I have frustration with when the bill is being put forward. I think all members of this chamber have tremendous respect for the men and women who wear the uniform of the RCMP or wear the uniform of the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, who would be impacted by the bill. Nothing shows a lack of priority like introducing bills when the tulips are coming up here in Ottawa. This is when we are in the final weeks of the parliamentary sitting, and so when the government introduces something in this time period, it shows how much it has prioritized it. If the Liberals are doing that in the fourth year of their mandate with literally a few weeks left in the session, it actually shows disdain for the underlying issues of the bill when they have had four years related to it.

My friend from Scarborough—Guildwood was suggesting that we needed to stay in our partisan lane and was bemoaning the fact that we are decrying the lack of consultation and lack of prioritization by the government, but the Liberals have left us no choice. We do not even think, at the pace things are going, that this will be substantially looked at in committee, despite his nice offer to take phone numbers of union members who were ignored in the preparations behind the bill. We will not even be able to get time to hear from them, and that is amiss, because our job as an official opposition is to hold the government to account, critique and push for better. I should remind my friend, the Liberal deputy House leader, that better is always possible, and this is an example.

The bill was introduced on May 7, 2019, literally in the final weeks of Parliament, much like Bill C-93, another public safety bill, which was introduced in the same month. What is shocking is that these are areas the Liberals have talked about since their first weeks in government. In fact, the marijuana pledge is probably the only accomplishment of the Prime Minister in the Liberals' four years in government, and they are putting the cannabis records suspension bill to the House in the final weeks. Who have they not consulted on that? It is law enforcement, which is really quite astounding.

Canadians might remember that in the first few months of the Liberal government, back in 2015-16, the Liberals were fond of consultations, which I think my friend from Sarnia—Lambton and others have made note of. In fact, there were little vignettes created saying, “We're going to consult. We're going to have public consultation.” I guess after that the Liberals stopped doing it entirely.

My real concern in the matter of public safety and security bills is that the CBSA alone will be swept into elements of Bill C-98 and the 14,000 people in that department, including the almost 7,000 uniformed people at 1,200 locations across this country, should be consulted on a substantive piece of legislation that would impact them. They were not. In fact, the Customs and Immigration Union has been demanding to be consulted, and not at the committee stage in June, a few days before Parliament may rise and go into an election. They should have been consulted prior to drafting the legislation. That is the real problem I have with this.

It is the same with the cannabis record suspension legislation, which is another public safety bill being thrown into the mix in the final weeks. The Canadian Police Association was not consulted. Tom Stamatakis, the president, had this to say:

Were we directly consulted? Not in an extensive way. We had some exchanges, but we didn't have a specific consultation with respect to this bill.

It is the same now with Bill C-98. The underlying people impacted by it, including members of the Customs and Immigration Union, were not consulted on the bill.

We also see other important pieces of public safety legislation still lingering in the legislative process. For example, Bill C-83, legislation to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is now at committee. That committee is already charged with other legislation from the final year of the government.

A lot of us are watching Bill C-59 as well, a quite comprehensive, almost omnibus bill on national security. It is in the Senate committee. I have been advocating on that bill with regard to the no-fly list, supporting the good work done by the families of the no-fly list kids to make sure that we can have a system to remove false positives and remove children from this list, which is ineffective in terms of public safety if it has tons of erroneous and duplicative names on it.

It is also substantially unfair to Canadians, especially young children, when they are impacted by being on the no-fly list. We need a mechanism for them to take themselves off the list. That is in Bill C-59. I am publicly urging Senate colleagues to make sure they do a proper review, but get it done quickly.

As we can see, there is already a backlog of public safety and security legislation in Parliament now, not to mention a number of other bills being introduced in May.

Stepping out of the public safety area for a moment, it should also concern Canadians that some of the signature issues for indigenous Canadians also had to wait until the final months of the government. They include child welfare legislation, which I think I spoke about in this place maybe 10 days ago, and the indigenous language bill, which was also tossed in at the end of the year when the flowers are coming up here in Ottawa.

That is a lack of respect. It shows there is a priority given to speech, imagery and photos with the Prime Minister, and a lack of priority given to action on public safety issues and on issues related to reconciliation. Governing is more than lofty language. It is delivering on the priorities for Canadians and the things they need.

To review, I would like to see substantive committee time for Bill C-98 so that the Customs and Immigration Union can be properly consulted. The same goes for the RCMP. In fact, I was the public safety critic before I took a little diversion and a national tour to get into a leadership race. We actually worked with the government on Bill C-7, which was the RCMP union bill. We have tried to work with the government, particularly when it comes to uniformed service members. In fact, we pushed for amendments to Bill C-7 so that there would not be a hodgepodge approach to workers' compensation for our RCMP men and women and so that there would not be different standards in different provinces. These are important bills, and people should be consulted.

I would also urge the former chair who spoke, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, to make sure that adequate time is given. Despite the government's claim that it would never use time allocation and never use omnibus bills, we have seen it use these measures literally by the week. The government House leader appears to relish it now. My friend the deputy House leader wishes he could erase all the speeches of outrage he gave in opposition about the use of time allocation and omnibus legislation, because now he is part of the government House leader team that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood blamed for the delay that we have with these bills, and he uses it with relish.

Let us make sure we have the proper committee time to look at the changes to the RCMP Act and the CBSA Act to make sure we are doing a service to the people who will be impacted by them, whether it is on a public complaints process or other elements in Bill C-98. The consultation should have been done first, but to do this properly, the committee debate time cannot be rushed. We will work with them, but we want to make sure the people impacted are part of the committee review process.

Motion No. 167—Instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity as the chair of the public safety and national security committee.

The hon. member for Lakeland made an intervention last week. Regrettably, I had no notice of the intervention, and I would have preferred to bring my point of intervention after hers, but it is what it is. The hon. member was concerned about the pace at which Motion No. 167 was proceeding through the committee. I want to offer some observations with respect to that particular motion.

It was, in fact, referred to the committee on May 30, 2018, which is roughly a year ago. I would just note that the language of the motion was that it should be “instructed” to undertake, which I would note is not an obligation to undertake. Nevertheless, the committee did hear from the hon. member fairly shortly thereafter, on June 12, as she presented her concerns on Motion No. 167.

Subsequent meetings were held on October 16, October 18, October 23 and October 30. Then, through November and December, the committee was seized with other committee business, namely supplementary estimates, Bill C-83 and a variety of other things. This is an extraordinarily busy committee with private members' bills, private members' motions, supplementary estimates, main estimates and government business.

The first consideration of a draft report occurred on December 4, and then subsequently on March 20. After hearing all of the witnesses and the intervention by the hon. member for Lakeland, receiving four briefs, hearing 19 witnesses and having seven meetings, there is significant disagreement in the committee as to what the report should say, not only the body of the report in recitation of the testimony but also the recommendations. I would be remiss if I did not note that there is significant disagreement in the committee.

In addition to all of the above, I would just note, as you, Mr. Speaker, are considering the hon. member's intervention that, one, the referral is not a mandatory referral, and if the Speaker does do an intervention, I would like that to be taken into consideration; two, this is a very busy committee; three, there is very significant disagreement in the committee as to the way forward; and four, there is consequence to the continuous disruptive nature of House business. Just this motion alone takes all committees off their business, and of course, like all of the other committees, we have suffered the consequence of all these motions.

As due consideration is given to the motion by the hon. member for Lakeland, I would ask that those things be taken into consideration as well.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to private member's Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to increasing parole ineligibility. The bill seeks to protect victims and reduce the possibility of re-victimization by limiting the number of parole applications victims are required to attend.

The underlying assumption of Bill C-266 is that its proposed reforms would spare families from the heartache of reliving the loss of a loved one who may have been murdered in unspeakable circumstances, as is often the case.

It should be noted that Bill C-266 is similar to previous private members' bills, specifically Bill C-478 and Bill C-587. Bill C-478 got through second reading stage and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but it did not go further than that. Unlike Bill C-266, former Bill C-478 did not require that the offences for which the offender was convicted be committed as part of the same criminal transaction.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the laudable objective of the bill. I think all hon. members of the House can agree that minimizing the trauma, psychological suffering and re-victimization of families whose loved ones have been murdered is a worthwhile cause that merits our full consideration.

Victims have rights at every stage of the criminal justice process, including the right to information, protection, restitution and participation. These rights, previously recognized by internal policies of the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada, are now enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and give clear rights to all victims of crime. For example, victims have the right to receive certain information about the offender in the charge of the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service of Canada.

Victims' participation rights include the following: attending the offender's parole hearing or listening to an audio recording of a parole hearing if the victim is unable to attend in person; presenting a written statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had on them and any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose and requesting that the Parole Board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release; and obtaining a copy of the Parole Board's decision, including information on whether the offender has appealed the decision and the outcome of the appeal.

I would like to provide some examples in English.

I would note that currently victims who do not attend a parole hearing are entitled to listen to an audio recording of the hearing, but if victims do attend, they lose their right to listen to the recording. Simply stated, parole hearings can be quite difficult for family members, as I said in French. Despite attending the hearing, they may not always remember everything that was said. They may, for a variety of reasons, wish to listen to an audio recording at a later date. I am pleased to know that changes proposed in Bill C-83 would give all victims the right to listen to an audio recording, regardless of whether they attend the parole hearing.

These legislative provisions and policies were designed to be respectful of the privacy rights of victims who do not wish to be contacted or receive information about the offender who has harmed them.

This recognizes the fact that victims are not a homogenous group and that while some victims may choose not to attend or receive information about parole hearings to avoid emotional trauma, others will attend parole hearings as a means of furthering their healing and feel empowered by having their voices heard.

Anything we can do to better support victims of crime merits serious consideration, and I support sending the bill to committee for further study. I am also mindful that changes to the laws governing our criminal justice system can sometimes have unintended consequences, so I hope that committee study of this legislation, either in this Parliament or in the future, will include a range of witnesses and perspectives.

Clearly, there are various ways of providing support to victims. The proposed changes in Bill C-266 could be one way to improve the experience of victims during the post-sentencing stages of the criminal justice process.

As parliamentarians, we should strive to have a fair, just, and compassionate criminal justice system for all those involved.

For all these reasons, I will be monitoring closely the debate on Bill C-266 and look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on its potential impacts.

The House resumed consideration from March 1 of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the third time and passed.

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 nice to see that this legislation is at third reading stage. I had the opportunity to express a number of thoughts on the legislation at second reading in particular, and I suspect that if we were to check, I likely would have implied, because I know the minister's approach to legislation quite well, that the government is always open to looking at ways to change legislation. My colleague and friend from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, who spoke just before me, referenced some amendments. That is a nice way to start my comments.

We have this wonderful process that allows us to go through second reading and into committee stage, and often amendments are brought forward at committee stage. What is interesting about this legislation is that it exemplifies how open this government really is to opposition amendments. My understanding is that amendments from the opposition provided additional strength to the legislation before us. That tells me, in good part, that committees can be constructive and effective in improving legislation, in dealing with reports and even in discussion. It is a question of having confidence in our standing committees and allowing them to do the fantastic work they can do. Today, Bill C-83 is a good example of legislation being enhanced, and as a direct result, all Canadians will benefit.

Bill C-83, to me, is a good example of how this government has approached the whole crime and safety issue, recognizing just how important it is that no matter where one lives in Canada, there is an expectation that government is going to do what it can to make our communities safer places to be.

This is legislation that would do that, and I do not say that lightly. The majority of people incarcerated in our jail facilities, we have to realize, will leave at some point in time. When they leave, we want to ensure as far as possible that they have the opportunities to succeed and never return to a prison setting. If we are successful in doing that, it means that in Winnipeg North and all over Canada there will be fewer crimes. With fewer crimes, there are fewer victims.

There should be no doubt that when people are guilty of something, yes, there needs to be a consequence for inappropriate behaviour. That is why we have jails, probation and an array of consequences for individuals who commit offences. We also need to recognize that one way we can improve safety in our communities is by ensuring, wherever we can, that there is a sense of responsibility by providing programming and services to minimize the number of repeat offenders. That is what I like about Bill C-83 more than anything else.

There are other aspects to the legislation that would also make a difference. One example is body scanners. I had the opportunity to tour provincial facilities and even some federal facilities in my days as an MLA. Some provincial facilities use scanning technology, from what I understand, and with this legislation, we would better enable body scans to take place in our federal institutions.

I think that is a good thing, because we often hear of drugs, among other things, being smuggled into facilities. This is one of the ways we will be able to reduce that kind of smuggling. It will be a safer environment.

We not only hear about this from individuals in the Ottawa bubble, if I can put it that way, but, more important, we hear it from our constituents and correctional officers. These types of things can really make a difference.

At times, the Conservatives can be somewhat misleading. I am trying to put it as kindly as I can. When they say we are not providing the funds necessary, it is important to recognize that the government is committing almost a half-billion dollars over the next six years to ensure correctional officers and inmates have the supports they need and our system will have a safer environment.

I find it a little odd that the Conservative Party and New Democratic Party do not necessarily support legislation that a sound majority of our constituents would want us to support. There is some really good stuff in here, like the one about audio recordings. I have used the example of someone who is a victim of a sexual assault and whose perpetrator will now go to a hearing. Under the current law, the victim is unable to receive the audio of that hearing. I am sure members of all sides can appreciate the emotions a victim of a sexual assault would feel when put in the same room as the perpetrator. Why would we not allow for that individual to have a copy of the audio recording at a later date? This legislation would allow that.

On the one hand, some very obvious things within the legislation would have a very positive impact. Then some wonderful little things would make a real difference for victims. Whether it is this legislation or the legislation on military justice, when we talked about the Victims Bill of Rights, there are really encouraging things in the legislation.

We are moving forward on a number of different fronts as we modernize. Whether it is the military justice or civil justice, at the end of the day, we want our communities to feel safe. We want to work toward minimizing the number of victims by preventing crimes from taking place whenever we can. We want to ensure there is a consequence to criminal activities. That is why we have different tools to ensure that takes place. I am encouraged by the attitude of the government, in particular, in trying to ensure we are moving forward on this front.

When it comes to the issue of segregation, it is interesting to hear the contrast between the Conservatives and the NDP. The NDP says there is no change in the segregation and the Conservatives say we are going too far on this issue. The reality is that this is a response to the Supreme Court's decision, and we are complying with that decision with the new system we will be putting in place.

Those structured intervention units are in fact a progressive way forward that will ensure that we meet the Supreme Court's requirements, while at the same time allowing more services to be made available. Again, we will hopefully minimize the repeat offenders. We do not want people who are leaving our institutions to be committing more crimes.

We want safer communities, and that is really what all of this is about, trying to get communities across Canada to be safer, more harmonious places to live. It is with great pleasure that I support Bill C-83.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise at third reading of Bill C-83. This important piece of legislation proposes significant reforms to Canada's correctional system. These changes would make our federal correctional institutions safer places for staff and inmates alike, and that in turn would contribute to greater safety for people in our communities.

Under Bill C-83, administrative segregation would be eliminated and a new correctional intervention model would be established through the implementation of structured intervention units, SIUs, which would serve to address the safety and security risks of offenders who are at any given time too dangerous or disruptive to be managed in the mainstream inmate population. When those offenders need to be separated for safety reasons, they would be placed in an SIU. While they are there, they would continue to have access to the interventions and programming they need to make progress on their correctional plan and improve their likelihood of rehabilitation.

The goal is to help offenders reintegrate into the mainstream inmate population as quickly as possible. That has been the main goal of Bill C-83 from the very beginning and remains so today in the bill's current form. We have arrived at a very solid, concise and thorough piece of legislation that was very strong to begin with. That is a testament to a robust, democratic and healthy legislative process, including thoughtful discussion in this chamber and careful scrutiny and informative testimony at committee. That process led to a number of amendments that have strengthened this bill.

Many of those amendments focus on additional measures to ensure that the SIUs would operate as intended. For example, amendments were made to specify that daily time outside an SIU cell must be offered between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and that opportunities to interact through human contact must not be mediated or interposed by physical barriers.

Other amendments are about enhancing oversight and transparency when it comes to SIU placement decisions. However, today I would like to focus on one amendment in particular, proposed by the member for Oakville North—Burlington, which would introduce a new independent external decision-making function.

Under Bill C-83, independent external decision-makers would review an inmate's placement in an SIU if it falls under any one of three specific circumstances.

The first circumstance is if an inmate has not received or taken advantage of the opportunity to spend a minimum of four hours a day outside of their cell or two hours of interaction with others or five consecutive days or 15 cumulative days over a 30-day period. The second is if an inmate has been confined to an SIU for 90 consecutive days. The third is if a health care committee of senior officials from the Correctional Service of Canada has made the determination to maintain an inmate in an SIU contrary to the recommendations of a registered health professional.

This process would ensure that decisions to maintain an inmate in an SIU would be subject to scrutiny and ongoing assessment at specific time periods through a mechanism that would operate at arm's length from the Correctional Service of Canada.

Reviews conducted by independent external decision-makers would create additional external monitoring of inmates who are placed in SIUs. This would include vulnerable inmates, such as those who are not participating in programming or interventions or receiving meaningful human contact. It would also support transparency around decisions to maintain vulnerable inmates in an SIU. In all cases, the external decision-maker would be authorized to order the inmate to be released from the SIU entirely.

In addition, when it has been recommended by a registered health care professional, the external decision-maker could order the modification of the inmate's conditions of confinement in the SIU. The proposed addition of the independent external decision-maker's response was one of the main points raised at the committee stage by various witnesses. More specifically, concerns were raised that inmates in an SIU could still be subjected to indeterminate and prolonged confinement. The introduction of an additional external review mechanism addresses these concerns and would help keep our correctional system safe, lawful and accountable.

Another issue that was raised by witnesses at committee, including those representing front-line staff in federal correctional institutions, involved whether additional resources would be made available to support the implementation of the bill.

To ensure that our federal correctional system has the resources it needs to successfully implement the changes proposed in Bill C-83, the government announced a total of $448 million in funding for corrections in last year's fall economic statement. That includes approximately $297 million over six years to implement the proposed SIUs, funding that, in the words of the Minister of Public Safety would ensure that Correctional Service Canada “has people with the right skill sets in the right places at the right times”.

Canada's federal correctional system is already in a class of its own. Operating in a challenging environment, it does a remarkable job of fulfilling its objectives of holding guilty parties to account, while fostering their rehabilitation. An important part of that rehabilitation process is making sure that offenders, including those who must be separated, are able to take part in reintegration programming in order to make progress against the objectives set out in their correctional plan.

That programming is essential to a successful transition to the mainstream inmate population, and after that, to the community at the end of a sentence. The bill would improve the way that works. In doing so, it would help bring about safer institutions for staff and inmates, in the short term. In the long run, it would mean fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and safer communities for all.

Getting the bill to where it is today has been a truly collaborative effort. I have been impressed and heartened by the careful attention and constructive input given to the bill from all parties and all corners. I would like to thank hon. members for the roles they have played throughout that entire process so far. The result is improved legislation that, if passed, I am confident will lead to a better, safer and more effective correctional system.

For all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-83 at third reading and I encourage all my hon. colleagues to join me in doing the same.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we all remember with sadness the case of Ashley Smith. We should learn from mistakes in tragic cases in our system.

We hear concerns from correctional workers that they have not been properly consulted in the process. We also hear concerns from organizations, from Senator Pate and others, that Bill C-83 does not have the intended purpose to deal with some of the issues the member raised in his speech.

However, I am raising the wider issue that with the government now in a crisis of confidence with respect to the rule of law, maybe the Liberals have lost their moral authority on criminal justice issues, including corrections.

There is widespread disagreement on both the left and the right on Bill C-83. The fact is that the government is now tarnished. I talked about how the public safety minister is the modern equivalent of the solicitor general, the second-highest-ranking legal official in the government of Canada. In the absence of moral authority, should the government not go back to the drawing board and speak to the organizations that can give Bill C-83 its intended purpose?

I would like the member's comments on the wider issue of how the government and the Prime Minister and his office, in particular, have called into question their ability to bring forward appropriate legislation on both the rule of law and the criminal justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I were rising today to support Bill C-83. We have a problem in our corrections system with the use of what was originally called solitary confinement, which then became administrative segregation and is now being rebranded as structured integration units. We are trying to deal with a real problem in the corrections system, but instead, the bill is trying to rebrand the problem out of existence.

I do not think there is any way the courts will be fooled by the bill. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court have clearly found that the practice of solitary confinement is unconstitutional. The bill would actually make that practice more common than it is now, and it would have fewer protections for inmates than there are now. I will return to this question of rights later.

I want to talk about the bill from two other perspectives, which I think are equally important: the perspective of corrections workers and the perspective of victims.

In the last Parliament, I was privileged to serve as the NDP public safety critic. I was given that task based on my 20 years of teaching criminal justice at Camosun College, which is essentially a police and corrections worker training program.

The majority of the students who came into that program wanted to be police officers, as they still do. Once they are in the program, they find out that there are a lot of other jobs within the corrections, policing and criminal justice world. Many of them end up going into corrections.

I always talk to the students who are about to go into corrections about the challenges of that job. It is not as glamourous as policing. There are not many shows on TV glamourizing corrections officers. However, it is an equally challenging job.

One of the first challenges workers have to learn to deal with is being locked in during the day. For some, that is psychologically too difficult to handle. That goes along with the second challenge of that job: Corrections workers do not get any choice in who they deal with. In fact, they have to deal the most anti-social and most difficult people to deal with in our society.

Our corrections system often makes corrections workers' jobs harder. We have long wait-lists for treatment programs within our system. We also have long waits for rehabilitation programs. While people are serving their time, it is not just that they are not getting the rehabilitation they need for when they come out. It is not just that they are not getting the addiction treatment they need. They are not getting anything. They are just serving time.

Many will say that this is the kind of punishment people need. However, they tend to forget the fact that far more than 90% of the people in our corrections system will come back into society. If we are worried about the perspective of victims, we have to do a good job on rehabilitation and addiction treatment so that we do not create more victims when people come out of our corrections system.

In response to a question I posed earlier, the minister claimed that I was living in a time warp. He said the Liberals have solved all these problems and have earmarked new money for addiction and mental health treatment within prisons. He said that on the one hand, while on the other hand, he is making cuts in the corrections system.

We have a system, which is already strained from years of cuts by the Conservatives, being held in a steady state of inadequacy by the Liberal budget. It is great for the Liberals to say that they have earmarked these new programs, but if they do not have the staff and facilities to deliver those programs and the things they need to make those programs work, it does not do much good to say they are going to do it, when they cannot do it.

One of the other critical problems in our corrections system is the corrections system for women. It is even more challenging than the corrections system for men in that it is by nature, given the number of offenders, a much smaller system. There are fewer resources and fewer alternatives available for offenders within the women's system.

I think the women's corrections system also suffers from what many would call “essentialism”. That is the idea that women are somehow different from men, and therefore, with their caring and nurturing nature, do not belong in prison. There is a prejudice against women offenders that they must somehow be the worst people, even worse than male offenders, because we expect it from men but we do not expect it from women. That kind of essentialism has really stood in the way of providing the kinds of programs we need to help women offenders, who largely deal with mental health and addiction problems.

While women have served traditionally, or experientially I would say, less often in solitary confinement and shorter periods in solitary confinement, it is the same phenomenon for women as for men. It means that all kinds of mental illnesses, rather than being treated, end up being exacerbated, because while an inmate is in segregation he or she does not have access to those mental health programs. The same thing is true of addiction problems. If an inmate is in administrative segregation, he or she does not have access to those programs.

In the women's system of corrections those programs are already very limited, are hard to access, are hard to schedule and if women spend time in and out of administrative segregation, they do not get the treatment and rehabilitation that they deserve before they return to society.

Sometimes politicians make correctional workers' jobs harder and they do this by making offenders harder to manage. One of the things we hear constantly from the Conservatives is a call for consecutive sentences. They say the crimes are so horrible that if there is more than one victim we ought to have consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. We have to make sure that the worst of the worst do not get out. That is the Conservative line.

When we do that, however, we make sure we have people in the system who have no interest in being rehabilitated, they have no interest in being treated for their addictions, and they have no interest in civil behaviour, if I may put it that way, within the prison. If inmates are never going to get out, then they might as well be the baddest people they can be while they are in that situation. Calling for consecutive sentences just makes correctional workers' jobs that much harder and encourages all of the worst behaviours by offenders.

Related to that was the elimination of what we had in the system before, which was called the faint hope clause. This, for the worst offenders, allowed people to apply for early parole after serving 15 years.

The argument often becomes entitlement. Why would these people be entitled to ask for early parole? But it is the same kind of thing I was just talking about earlier. If people have a faint hope, which is why it is called faint hope, that they may eventually be released, then there is still an incentive to behave civilly while within the system. There is an incentive to get addiction treatment and there is an incentive to do rehabilitation work.

If we take away that faint hope, which we did in the last Parliament as an initiative of the Conservatives, an initiative that was supported by the Liberals, then we end up with people in prisons who are extremely difficult to manage and, therefore, very dangerous for correctional workers to deal with.

The people who are trying to use the faint hope clause are not the most attractive people in our society. The issue of eliminating the faint hope clause from the Criminal Code came up in the case of Clifford Olson in 1997. He was the serial killer of 11 young men and women. It is important to point out that when he applied for his early release, it took only 15 minutes to quash the process. Those people who are in fact the worst of the worst will never get out of prison.

There were about 1,000 applications under the existing faint hope clause. Of those 1,000 applications, 1.3% received parole, and of those 1.3%, there were virtually no returns to prison, no recidivism.

The faint hope clause worked very well in preserving discipline inside the corrections system and in making the environment safer for correctional workers but unfortunately only the NDP and the Bloc opposed eliminating the faint hope clause.

A third way in which politicians make things worse, which I mentioned in an earlier question to my Conservative colleague, is the creation of mandatory minimums. Under the Harper government we had a whole raft of mandatory minimum sentences brought in with the idea that we have to make sure that each and every person who is found guilty is punished. I would argue that we have to make sure that each and every person who is found guilty is rehabilitated. That is what public safety is all about.

The Liberals promised in their election campaign they would repeal these mandatory minimums, yet when they eventually got around after two and a half years to bringing in Bill C-75, it did not repeal mandatory minimum sentences.

We are still stuck with lots of offenders, be they aboriginal people or quite often women, or quite often those with addiction and mental health problems, who do not belong in the corrections system. They belong in the mental health treatment system. They belong in the addictions treatment system. They need supports to get their lives in order. However, under mandatory minimums, the Conservatives took away the tools that the courts had to get those people into the programs that they needed to keep all the rest of us safe.

When we combine all of these things with the lack of resources in the corrections system, which the Conservatives made a hallmark of their government and which has been continued by the Liberals, then all we are doing here is making the work of corrections officers more difficult and dangerous, and we are making the effort to make sure people are rehabilitated successfully less likely.

I want to talk about two cases, one federal and one provincial, to put a human face on the specific problem of solitary confinement.

The first of those is the sad case of Ashley Smith. Ashley Smith, from the Maritimes, was jailed at the age of 15 for throwing crabapples at a postal worker. She was given a 90-day sentence, but while she was in custody for that 90-day sentence, repeated behavioural problems resulted in her sentence being extended and extended until eventually she served four years, 17 transfers from one institution to another, because she was so difficult to manage, forced medication and long periods in solitary confinement.

What happened with Ashley Smith is a tragedy, because she died by suicide after repeated incidents of self-harm while she was in custody. It is unfortunately a sad example of the outcomes when we place people in, whatever we want to call it, solitary confinement, administrative segregation or structured integration units. It does not matter what the label is. It has enormously negative impacts on those in particular who have a mental illness.

The second case is a provincial case in Ontario, the case of Adam Capay, a mentally ill indigenous man who was kept in isolation for more than four years, without access to mental health services, and under conditions that the courts found amounted to inhumane treatment. The effects on Mr. Capay were permanent memory loss and an exacerbation of his pre-existing psychiatric disorders.

While he was in an institution, unfortunately, Mr. Capay did not get the treatment he needed, and he ended up stabbing another offender, resulting in the death of that offender. What this did, of course, was to create new victims, not only the person who lost his life while in custody but the family of that person.

The result here was a ruling by provincial court Judge John Fregeau that Mr. Capay was incapable of standing trial for that murder within the corrections system because of the way he had been treated and the excessive periods of time he had spent in solitary confinement. The prosecutors did not appeal this decision. It resulted in Mr. Capay's release, to the great distress of the family of the murder victim.

What is the real cause here? The real cause, the fundamental cause, and I am not even going to say it is solitary confinement, is the lack of resources to deal with mental health and addictions problems within our corrections system.

Let me come back to the bill very specifically. The Liberals say they are setting up a new system here to deal with the difficult offenders. They have given it that new title. Senator Kim Pate, who spent many years heading up the Elizabeth Fry Society and has received the Order of Canada for her work on women in corrections, said:

With respect to segregation, Bill C-83, is not only merely a re-branding of the same damaging practice as “Structured Intervention Units”, the new bill...also virtually eliminates existing, already inadequate limitations on its use.

Strangely, what the Liberals have done in the bill, in attempting to get rid of administrative segregation, is that they have cast a broader net. They are setting up a system that will actually bring more people into the isolation and segregation system within the corrections system. The Liberals have actually removed some of the safeguards that existed on the length of time someone could end up spending in what should be called solitary confinement. There is actually no limit in the bill on how long someone could end up in solitary confinement.

Our correctional investigator, Ivan Zinger, an independent officer of Parliament, has criticized the bill, saying people will end up in much more restrictive routines under the new system than most of them would have under the old system. The bill would make things worse.

Josh Patterson, from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, pointed out that the bill would allow the same practices that the courts had criticized as inhumane treatment in the new bill as existed under the old administrative segregation. Therefore, we have merely relabelled the existing practices in the bill.

The final piece I want to talk about is the question of oversight. In earlier debate, the minister said I was living in a time warp. Sometimes I wish that were true. However, he was talking about oversight and said that I had missed the amendments he made on oversight. What is really true is the minister missed the point of the witnesses on oversight. Stretching all the way back to the inquiry into events at the prison for women in Kingston, Louise Arbour recommended judicial oversight of the use of solitary confinement. That is truly independent. That is truly an outside review of what happens.

Also, as Josh Patterson pointed out, not only is there no judicial oversight, there is no recourse for those who are subjected to solitary confinement to have legal representation to challenge the conditions under which they are being held.

Therefore, what the government has done in its amendments is to create not independent review but an advisory committee to the minister. That is not independent oversight and that is one of the reasons the NDP continues to oppose the bill.

I want to come back to the B.C. court decision, which pointed to two key reasons why the existing regime was unconstitutional. Those are the lack of access to counsel for what amounts to additional punishment measures being applied when someone is placed into solitary confinement and the possibility of indefinite extra punishment by being in solitary confinement. The bill deals with neither of those two key unconstitutional provisions of solitary confinement.

Therefore, where are we likely to find ourselves down the road? We are going to find ourselves back in court, with the new bill being challenged on the same grounds as the old regime of solitary confinement.

As I said at the beginning, I would like to be standing here to support a bill that would create a system for managing those most difficult offenders, those with mental health and addiction problems, in a way that would respect their constitutional rights and in a way that would guarantee treatment of their addictions and rehabilitation so when they would come out, they could be contributing members of society. Unfortunately, Bill C-83 is not that bill.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it clearly is not, due to the fact the departmental report does not talk about officer safety and that the union representing corrections officers has commented on many occasions that Bill C-83 could potentially endanger the lives of its officers or other inmates. This is also the same government that is sending returning ISIS fighters to poetry classes, so we know where its priorities are.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the mandatory minimums were aimed at keeping the worst of the worst, the violent repeat offenders, off our streets. I do not believe those who refuse to be rehabilitated in any way should be allowed to go free on our streets. Although there are a number of tools in the tool box that court officers, judges and law enforcement professionals have, the more tools the better.

What Bill C-83 fails to address is the fact that the union representing corrections officers has said on many occasions, especially through its testimony, that this is one tool being taken away that could jeopardize the safety of workers and the safety of other inmates.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act.

While there are a few colleagues across the way that think this is good bill, a number of people and organizations that testified at committee disagree.

One organization said that structured intervention units, or SIUs, are not needed, that the bill fails to focus on the programs and that there are concerns with section 81. That was the Elizabeth Fry Society.

The John Howard Society disagrees, saying that it needs more information on what exactly the difference is between solitary confinement and structured intervention units, believing that there is really no difference other than in the wording.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association disagrees. It will not support this bill, citing a lack of external oversight, a lack of programming needed to assist prisoners to reform and lack of sufficient resources and staff to meet social and educational needs.

The Native Women's Association of Canada also disagrees. It is one organization in a long list that were not consulted. It expressed reservations that the bill does not address traditions, protocol or cultural practices and does not clarify what is meant by “indigenous communities”.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers also disagrees, expressing very real concerns over the feasibility of SIUs and over prisoners and officers being more vulnerable under this bill.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also disagrees, citing that Bill C-83 has no meaningful reform and should be repealed and expressing apprehension that there was little to no consultation as well.

Aboriginal Legal Services also disagrees with Bill C-83, citing a lack of consultation and speaking about the expanse between rhetoric and reality.

A Canadian correctional investigator who testified also disagreed with this bill, expressing that eliminating solitary confinement was one thing but that replacing it with a regime that imposes restrictions on retained rights and liberties with little regard for due process and administrative principles was inconsistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, when there is little regard for the rule of law, disregarding the charter is a trivial thing. I just hope that no one is hurt or killed because of this legislation before November, when Conservatives can repeal this piece of legislation.

I am not sure if my colleagues have detected a pattern or not. Clearly, the government sees no problem with ignoring the concerns of those most affected by this bad bill, but this lack of interest in listening to Canadians does not end with Bill C-83.

In the Correctional Services departmental report, 2018-19, on page 26, if the members opposite care to follow along, there is actually a cut in spending to Correctional Services of Canada of about 6.6%. That is comparing 2015 to 2019. It went down 6.6%.

Also in that departmental report is a list of departmental priorities. Believe it or not, there is not one mention of officer safety in that report. How is that even possible? Again, there is a pattern that is consistently repeating itself here.

With respect to the government's carbon tax, much promoted on their side, no less than four provinces are taking the Liberal government to court, and more are waiting.

The Prime Minister's carbon tax does nothing for the environment, but it will increase the cost of gas, home heating and everyday essentials. Worse still, it is going to get more expensive. For Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, in 2019 the Prime Minister's carbon tax starts at $20 a tonne, going up to $50 in three years. However, internal government documents confirm that the Liberals are already planning for a carbon tax of $300 per tonne. That is 15 times larger than what it will be on April 1 when it kicks in.

The Prime Minister has cut a special carbon tax side deal with Canada's largest emitters, which means they will continue to pollute for free while families and small business owners get hit with the full force of that tax.

For wealthy individuals, an extra $100 a month on a grocery bill or electricity bill might not seem like a big deal, but it matters a lot to a family trying to make its household budget last to the end of the month. Canadians do not want it, but like the stakeholders who testified on Bill C-83, they are being ignored by the government.

The bill is very much about protecting the rights of criminals, particularly those who continue to behave badly in prison. The Supreme Court of Canada recently made a ruling that the law that makes criminals pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional, and the Liberals have jumped on this. Instead of looking at ways to protect victims' rights, they have introduced legislation to remove this necessary instrument for ensuring criminals are held accountable. Victims' rights must always be at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is why our previous Conservative government took unprecedented steps to ensure that the rights of victims were protected.

The Liberals' approach to Bill C-83 is similar to what we are seeing in a lot of other pieces of legislation, and I will outline a few more ways the government continues its pattern of failing to listen to Canadians.

The Prime Minister failed to move an ounce of dirt or build one inch of new pipeline. They had to nationalize it, and they still have continued to fail on this file. After killing the northern gateway, he vetoed the energy east pipeline and obstructed Trans Mountain. This lack of pipeline capacity has turned an already difficult economy in western Canada into a full-blown national economic crisis that is threatening tens of thousands of jobs, on top of the 100,000 jobs already lost in the energy sector since 2015.

The Prime Minister also failed to fix the mess he created at our border with the United States. Since his #WelcomeToCanada tweet last year, 40,000 people have crossed illegally into Canada, at a cost of up to $34,000 each. By 2020, this crisis will have cost Canadian taxpayers $1.6 billion.

As well, the Prime Minister failed to balance the budget, despite promising to do so in the 2015 election campaign. This year is supposed to be the year of the Prime Minister's final deficit before returning to surplus in 2019. Instead, this year's deficit is three times larger than projected and the budget will not be balanced until 2045. He is spending Canada's cupboards bare in good economic times and leaving us open to disaster when the downturn next hits.

The Prime Minister has also failed our veterans. After promising in the 2015 election that veterans would never have to go to court to obtain benefits from his government, he has spent nearly $40 million fighting veterans groups in court over benefits claims. When asked why at a town hall meeting in 2018 in Edmonton, he said that veterans were asking more than we are able to give.

The Prime Minister failed to equip our armed forces. He is spending $2.5 billion less than what he promised in his defence policy. The Royal Canadian Navy is in need of new warships, and to meet Canada's international obligations, the Royal Canadian Air Force requires a new fleet of fighter jets, not used CF-18s from Australia.

Canada's peacekeeping is at an all-time low, and the Prime Minister failed to represent Canada with dignity on the world stage, as he failed to maintain relationships with key allies. His trip to India was a PR disaster for Canada and seriously damaged relations with the world's largest democracy. Relations with the United States and other traditional long-standing allies are also strained.

The Prime Minister failed to uphold the standards of transparency, accountability and ethical behaviour he promised. In 2018, he became the first prime minister in Canadian history found guilty of breaking ethics laws after accepting a vacation from the Aga Khan, while his ministers continued to abuse their power for political gain in 2018. Now, with his handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair and his attempts to manipulate a favourable decision for his friends at SNC-Lavalin, he has lost the moral authority to govern. He must resign.

It seems unless someone employs workers in and around the Prime Minister's riding, there is not much the government will do to listen to their concerns.

I have laid out why this side of the House will not support Bill C-83. I welcome questions from my colleagues.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue today is that if the Liberals do not like the narrative or the message coming from others, they will do everything to tarnish their character. We have seen it with the former attorney general, one who still sits among their very own ranks. That is shameful.

We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that those who face tough times have the tools they need so they can remain healthy. However, we should always ensure that those who we task to protect, to serve our country or our communities have the tools they need to remain healthy, safe and secure at work so they can go home safely and remain healthy at home.

Bill C-83 would do none of that. It is flawed legislation. The Liberals should remove it immediately.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if the member would correct the slight he made to my colleague.

The Hon. Kim Pate, senator and former long-standing head of the Elizabeth Fry Society and who received the Order of Canada for her work against segregation in prisons, said two days ago that Bill C-83 could have been made meaningful. Instead of just changing the name, the government could have made significant changes by including provisions that would allow for the transfer of those who had mental problems to mental health facilities. I wonder if the member could speak to that.

Would the legislation really resolve the problem we face where so many have been put in segregation and suffer severe mental problems? There are other solutions? I have worked with many people in the criminal law field. I have been to those facilities of incarceration. The Hon. Kim Pate is a person whose advice should be considered.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the question today is whether the Prime Minister admits he was wrong.

Our hon. colleague is a good soldier. I am saddened that he is not down at Rideau Hall. I wish him better luck next time.

We have read the departmental plan for this department. One of our colleagues made note of it and questioned the minister on it. It shows about a 13% cut from the time we were government, 2015-16, to today. Correctional Service Canada managers have been tasked to look for efficiencies. In other words, to find ways to cut.

Bill C-83 has not been costed. We have made attempts to get the minister to tell us about the model the government is using and whether it has been costed. All we get is deflection. The Liberals are doing again what they usually do, which is to blame those before them.

The Liberals cannot accept the truth, they do not know the truth, we have not yet heard the truth and they cannot handle the truth.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Durham brought up a very valuable point. It will frame how my 10 minutes will move forward on the topic of Bill C-83.

I am glad to see that our hon. colleague across the way, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is not at Rideau Hall right now, being shuffled away. It is nice he is here with us, as the Prime Minister tries to shuffle himself out of a crisis of confidence.

That is where we are. A great emergency debate took place last night, with valuable comments from all sides.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, and I reiterate that the government has used time allocation to once again force closure to limit debate. Why is that? As we have seen time and again, if the government does not like what it is hearing or does not like the message, it is going to force closure on debate. The Liberals do not want to hear anymore.

It was on day 10 of the 2015 election that the member for Papineau told Canadians that he was going to do things differently, let debate reign and not resort to parliamentary tricks such as closure and time allocation. He said that under his government, Canadians would see the most open and transparent government in the history of our country and sunny ways.

What have we seen over the last three years? We have not necessarily seen a lot of sunshine, but have heard a lot of questions. Canadians have a lot of questions, and rightfully so. Today, we are in the middle of a crisis of confidence.

We should always arm our front-line officers, those who we trust to protect us and who serve our country and our community. We should be giving them to tools so they can fulfill their missions, come home safe and sound and remain healthy.

Bill C-83 is another attempt at being soft on crime, making things easier for those who commit the worst crimes in our society. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that these criminals are okay and that somehow solitary confinement or segregation is cruel and unusual punishment. One day these criminals get out of prison and will walk among us.

Let us consider Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, Clifford Olson, Eric McArthur, Travis Winsor and Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff. These are the types of offenders who are in solitary confinement and they are there not only for the protection of officers and other inmates, but for their own protection as well.

The minister talked about consultation, saying that the Liberals had consulted with the union of correctional officers and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The testimony we heard is considerably different from what they have said.

They purport there is support for the bill. There is support for elements in the bill, such as body scanners. However, the union of correctional officers has some serious concerns with it. In fact, the president remarked that there would be a bloodbath behind bars with the implementation of Bill C-83. He said that prisons did not have the resources now for the two hours inmates in solitary confinement were allowed to be out each day, let alone for four hours per day.

It has been said that solitary confinement is used as an administrative tool for both the safety of the officers as well as other inmates. However, 23% of offenders who are in solitary confinement are serving life sentences; 23% of offenders are serving a sentence between two years and three years less a day; and 681 offenders are serving a sentence with a “dangerous offender” designation. Dangerous offenders very likely never get out of these institutions, because they have committed some of the worst crimes.

The Liberals want people to believe the opposition is sowing the seeds of fear, but the government is soft on crime. We have seen it with Bill C-75. Convictions for serious crimes could now be punishable with just a fine. Bill C-83's intent is to bring the prison population down from 12,000.

Prominent witnesses have had serious issues with Bill C-83. They have said it is flawed. As our hon. colleague for Durham remarked, how can Canadians have confidence in any legislation moving forward?

I will go back to the testimony we heard earlier this week from the former attorney general. It was three hours and 40 minutes of powerful testimony. The Liberals are going to spin it each and every way they can. They are going to say nothing untoward happened. The former attorney general has serious concerns. She spoke truth to power in what happened. She was shuffled. She was demoted, fired. Over the course of the following weeks, the Liberals have done everything to tarnish her character, cast doubt in her testimony. This is what they do, and it is shocking.

I challenge Canadians to take a moment to listen to that testimony, three hours and 40 minutes of it. It will give them a glimpse into our country's highest office and the extent to which it is willing to go to subvert justice. It will shock them. It will strike fear into Canadians. Make no bones about it, the world is listening.

Today is not just about Bill C-83. Today is about the crisis of confidence we have in the Prime Minister, his office and indeed his entire front bench. Those in the gallery and those who are watching should pay attention and listen. If they do one thing today, I urge them to find that testimony and listen to it. Hear in her own words how the pressure was sustained. Despite saying no multiple times, there was sustained pressure for her to subvert justice. After all, the Prime Minister was going to get his way one way or the other. That is shameful.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we are debating something related to our criminal justice system in Bill C-83. The Minister of Public Safety is the inheritor of the old solicitor general role. In fact, the minister was part of the government that changed that. The last official solicitor general for Canada was Anne McLellan, his former colleague. Therefore, the public safety minister is, by extension, the solicitor general, the second-highest ranking legal official in the government of Canada.

We are in the middle of a crisis with respect to the demotion of the former attorney general, the top legal official in Canada, after she refused the orders of the Prime Minister's Office and pressure by major officials.

The solicitor general needs to ensure that there is confidence in our system of justice in Canada. As the second-highest ranking legal official in the government of Canada, a barrister solicitor himself, I would like the member to tell us why Canadians should have faith in Bill C-83 in the corrections part of the criminal justice system, when we have just been witness to the spectacle of the top ranking legal official in the Canadian government suggesting that the Prime Minister interfered with the course of justice. Should the minister not withdraw this bill and all other bills that are now sullied by the government's lack of respect for the rule of law in Canada?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The opposition has correctly noted that is not our government's approach, and I am very proud of the fact that we have worked together on amendments.

Most of the amendments made at the committee responded directly to various questions that were raised by witnesses about whether the SIUs would work as intended. For example, there were concerns that the opportunity for time out of the cell might be offered in the middle of the night, which would obviously be unreasonable. Therefore, the bill now prohibits that.

There were concerns that inmates' interactions with other people would only occur through the doors or through the meal slots. The bill now makes clear that this is to be a truly exceptional practice.

Some witnesses thought that the provision relieving the Correctional Service, in exceptional circumstances, of the obligation to provide time out of the cell could be too broadly construed. Therefore, the bill now includes a specific list of the kinds of extraordinary circumstances that provision is meant to respond to, like natural disasters.

While the bill already allowed medical professionals to recommend that an inmate be removed from the SIU, some witnesses wanted greater assurance that such a recommendation would in fact be taken seriously. Therefore, the bill now requires that if the warden disagrees with the recommendation, the matter would be immediately elevated to a senior panel external to that particular institution.

These and other amendments preserve the fundamental objectives of Bill C-83, while providing more clarity and confidence that the new system would function as planned and accomplish the transformation that is intended.

There is one other thing that happened at committee that I would like to highlight.

Along with their amended version of the bill, committee members sent this House a specific recommendation, that as we go about replacing segregation, particular attention should be given to the circumstances at women's institutions. Under the existing system, women tend to be housed in segregation less frequently and for shorter periods of time than men, and there is almost always a serious mental health issue involved. Also, while segregation cells and regular cells are quite similar at men's institutions, the same is not the case for women.

I am, therefore, pleased to report that in line with the committee's recommendation, the Correctional Service is taking a gender-informed approach to the implementation of SIUs. The service has confirmed that it will be engaging stakeholders, such as the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, as it develops plans to implement the new law in a way that is appropriate for women's corrections.

Having completed a brief overview of the work that was done at the committee, I would now like to turn to the report stage debate that has occurred in this House in recent days. One notable outcome of the report stage process was the addition of an external oversight mechanism, thanks to an amendment proposed by the member for Oakville North—Burlington. As I mention that particular member, let me also congratulate her on becoming the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

SIU placements now, thanks to that amendment, would be subject to binding review by independent external decision-makers. This process would kick in if, for whatever reason, an inmate in an SIU does not get his or her minimum hours out of a cell or minimum hours of meaningful human contact for five straight days or for 15 days out of 30. At that point, the independent decision-maker would determine if the Correctional Service has taken all reasonable steps to provide those hours out of the cell and may make corrective recommendations. If after a week, the decision-maker is not satisfied, he or she can order the inmate removed from the SIU.

The independent decision-maker would also get involved if the Correctional Service is keeping an inmate in an SIU despite the recommendation of a health care professional. A review would be conducted of each SIU placement after 90 days and every 60 days thereafter. That is in addition to internal reviews that would be done by warden and the commissioner. Importantly, the determinations of the independent external decision-makers would be appealable to the Federal Court by both the inmate and the Correctional Service of Canada in accordance with section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

Independent oversight is something that has been advocated by a number of stakeholders, including The John Howard Society, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association and Aboriginal Legal Services, as well as the correctional investigator. I was, therefore, a bit surprised during the third reading proceedings to see the NDP join with the Conservatives to oppose adding independent oversight to the bill.

At committee, the NDP member for Beloeil—Chambly said that he indeed wanted independent oversight in the legislation, and the NDP member for Salaberry—Suroît made several calls for independent oversight in this place on Tuesday of this week during the debate. However, on Tuesday night, for some reason, the NDP voted against independent oversight and in favour of keeping all the reviews of SIU placements internal to the Correctional Service. That was an absolutely baffling turn of events, and I would be very interested to hear NDP members explain it during the course of the debate today.

There were a couple of other points made during the report stage debate that are worth touching upon. First, Conservative members accused us of not putting any resources toward the implementation of Bill C-83. I suppose none of them have had the opportunity to read the fall economic statement, which allocated in fact $448 million over six years to “support amendments to transform federal corrections, including the introduction of a new correctional interventions model to eliminate segregation.”

I suppose that the the Conservative members of the public safety committee did not actually read the written response that was provided to them by my department in November outlining the breakdown of that funding.

As was set out in that document, we are putting nearly $300 million over six years, with $71.7 million ongoing, towards staffing and other resources required to run the SIUs. The other approximately $150 million over six years, with $74.3 million ongoing, will be devoted to enhancing mental health care both within SIUs and throughout the correctional system.

All of that is on top of the nearly $80 million for mental health care in corrections that was provided in the last two federal budgets.

In my meetings with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, a key point of emphasis has been the importance of having the staffing levels and other resources needed to safely implement this legislation. The new investments that I have just outlined will in fact ensure that is the case.

That brings me to the matter of staff safety, which has also come up repeatedly during this debate, as indeed it should. The success of our corrections system relies on the skills and dedication of correctional officers, parole officers, program officers, medical professionals, elders, aboriginal liaison officers, chaplains, support staff and a great many other employees and volunteers.

Ensuring that they have a safe work environment is a prerequisite for everything that the Correctional Service of Canada is mandated to do. That is why Bill C-83 allows inmates who pose a security risk to be separated from the general inmate population. The enhancements to mental health care and rehabilitative interventions are also important for staff safety, because staff will be safer when inmates make correctional progress and when their mental health issues are under control.

It is worth remembering that in 2014, the head of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers at that time said, “We have to actively work to rid the Conservatives from power.” He said that because he felt that the Harper government's policies and budget cuts were endangering correctional officers.

Those cuts were deep. During their last term in office, under their deficit reduction action plan, the Conservatives cut $846 million from the Correctional Service of Canada. Those cuts had a considerable impact on institutional and public safety. For example, they resulted in a freeze of transfers to the organizations that run halfway houses, which play a key role in the safe reintegration of former inmates. That freeze is finally ending this year.

Conservative cuts resulted in the near elimination of the CoSA program, an initiative that has been shown to dramatically reduce the recidivism rates of sex offenders. We restored funding for that effective program in 2017.

The Conservative cuts caused the closure of prison farms, which serve important rehabilitative and vocational purposes. The work to reopen the farms is now under way.

When I met recently with parole officers, they explained how cuts to so-called administrative functions can affect public safety. For instance, when the people fired are those who handle billing and travel arrangements, that work has to get done by parole officers, who then have less time to spend with the inmates whose rehabilitative progress they are supposed to be supervising.

There is naturally more work to be done to compensate for the decade of Conservative cuts and policies that treated rehabilitation as the opposite of public safety. In fact, one cannot have one without the other.

I am pleased with the work we have been able to do so far. Bill C-83 is a vital step as part of that.

I will close with this. Court rulings finding the existing segregation regime unconstitutional are due to take effect in coming months. The courts have recognized explicitly that simply ending segregation without having a new system in place to replace it would put correctional workers, employees and inmates at greater risk.

The replacement we are proposing in this legislation is clearly a major improvement, with double the time out of the cell, a focus on mental health care and rehabilitation, independent external oversight and the investments to make it all work. Just to make sure, I will be appointing an advisory committee to monitor the implementation of the new SIU system. This committee will comprise experts with a diversity of relevant experience in areas such as corrections, rehabilitation and mental health care. Its role will be to advise the commissioner on an ongoing basis and to alert me directly if anything is not proceeding as it should.

Bill C-83 is legislation I hope we can all support. I thank the hon. members who engaged in a thoughtful study of the bill and proposed constructive amendments. I want to thank the witnesses who provided the informed and useful feedback that led directly to some of those specific amendments.

I want to thank in advance the correctional employees who will be charged with implementing this new system, and who work hard every day in very, very challenging circumstances, to effect successful rehabilitation, safe reintegration and the protection of Canadians and our communities.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that we have reached together the third reading stage of Bill C-83, legislation that would significantly strengthen our federal corrections system in a variety of important ways. It would make institutions safer both for employees and for inmates. It would enhance support for the victims of crime. By improving the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada to successfully rehabilitate and safely reintegrate people who have broken the law, this legislation will better protect Canadians in communities across the country.

The bill's main feature is the replacement of the current practice of administrative segregation with structured intervention units, or what is commonly known as SIUs. This is a new system that would allow inmates to be separated from the rest of the institution when that needs to happen for safety reasons, while giving them more time out of their cells, more meaningful contact with other people and greater access to mental health care and other rehabilitative interventions.

I would like to thank the members who participated in the meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, as well as the many individuals who appeared as witnesses or submitted briefs. The bill was reviewed in meticulous detail, and the participants were, by and large, motivated by a sincere desire to strengthen our correctional system.

In response to witness testimony, committee members made a number of important amendments. Strangely, the opposition has been arguing that this is somehow a bad thing. We make no apologies for being receptive to feedback and willing to let legislators legislate. It is a testament to the strength of our parliamentary process that at least one amendment was accepted at committee stage from every party that made a submission during the committee's study of Bill C-83. There were even situations where an amendment was proposed by a member of one party and then subamended by a member of another party and then supported by both of them together. This stands in stark contrast to the way that things worked during the Harper days in Parliament. The Conservative government generally operated as though its bills were immaculately conceived and good-faith amendments were dismissed as heretical.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with debate at third reading of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation, at third reading.

For the next two weeks, we will be working with our constituents in our ridings. Upon our return, Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday we will start report stage and third reading of Bill C-84, on animal cruelty. At 4 p.m. on Tuesday, the Minister of Finance will present budget 2019. Wednesday will be dedicated to the budget debate.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and comments.

The reality is that the inmates in question, because we are not talking about all inmates here, are too dangerous or disruptive to be safely housed in the mainstream prison population. Right now, they can leave their cells for two hours a day. Once the bill is passed, they will be entitled to spend four hours outside their cell, and that will be enshrined in law. What is more, they will have to have human contact, be it with correctional officers, health care professionals or chaplains, to create ties and move forward.

We are also going to ensure that they have better access to mental health care, because that is often necessary. The previous government cut $800 million in funding, which definitely had a negative impact on our correctional facilities. We need to fix that.

Bill C-83 will promote inmate rehabilitation and ensure that all Canadians feel safe. That is a critical objective.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House and participate in today's debate on Bill C-83, a transformative piece of legislation for our correctional system. Its ultimate goal is to promote safety, both inside and outside our federal institutions, and it prioritizes rehabilitation as an indispensable part of achieving that goal.

The core innovation in Bill C-83 is the proposed introduction of structured intervention units, or SIUs. These SIUs would address a reality in any prison, which is that some inmates are, at certain times, simply too dangerous or disruptive to be safely housed in the mainstream inmate population. The current practice is to place those offenders in administrative segregation.

Segregated inmates in federal institutions can be in their cells for as many as 22 hours a day, and their interactions with other inmates are highly limited. Bill C-83 offers a more effective way forward for everyone involved. Safety will always be priority number one, but prisons are safer places to live and work when inmates receive the programming, mental health care and other interventions they need. Inmates who receive these interventions are more likely to reintegrate safely into the community when their sentences are over.

The solution the government is proposing in Bill C-83 is to eliminate segregation and to replace it with SIUs. These units will be secure and separate from the mainstream inmate population so that the safety imperative will be met. However, they will be designed to ensure that the inmates who are placed there receive the interventions, programming and treatment that they require.

Inmates in SIUs will be given the opportunity to leave their cells for at least four hours a day, as opposed to two hours under the current system. It is worth noting that currently, those two hours are set out in policy and not in legislation. Bill C-83 will give the four-hour minimum the full force of law. Inmates in SIUs will also have the opportunity for at least two hours of meaningful human contact. During that time, they could interact with people such as correctional staff, other compatible inmates, visitors, chaplains or elders.

The goal of these reforms is for inmates in an SIU to be in a position to reintegrate into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.

Bill C-83 has undergone rigorous analysis at every stage of the parliamentary process to date. Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security went over the bill with a fine-tooth comb.

Based on testimony from a wide range of stakeholders, a number of useful amendments were adopted at the end of the committee's study period. Bill C-83 was a solid and worthwhile bill from day one. It is now even better and stronger for having gone through vigorous debate and a robust review process.

It is worth noting that the bill that has been reported back to us reflects amendments from all parties that proposed them. I wholeheartedly reject the idea we have heard during this debate that somehow the fact that the bill has been amended in response to public and parliamentary feedback is a bad thing. I am proud to support a government that welcomes informed, constructive feedback and that respects the role of members of Parliament from all parties in the legislative process.

Most of the amendments made to Bill C-83 are about ensuring that the new SIUs will function as intended.

For example, some witnesses were worried that the opportunity for time out of the cell would be provided in the middle of the night, when inmates were unlikely to take advantage of it. The member for Montarville therefore added the requirement that it happen between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Other witnesses wondered whether the mandatory interactions with others might happen through a door or a meal slot. To address that concern, the member for Toronto—Danforth, whom I commend, added a provision requiring that every reasonable effort be made to ensure that interactions are face to face, with a record kept of any and all exceptions.

To address concerns that the Correctional Service of Canada might make excessive use of the clause allowing for time out of the cell not to be provided in exceptional circumstances, the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore added a list of specific examples, such as fires or natural disasters, to clarify how this clause should be interpreted.

Amendments from the member for Toronto—Danforth at committee and from the member for Oakville North—Burlington at report stage will enhance the review process so that each SIU placement is subject to robust oversight, both internally and externally.

All of this will help ensure that the new SIUs operate as intended. Amendments have also been accepted from the members for Brampton North, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Beloeil—Chambly and Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank them for their contributions.

We all want safer institutions and safer communities, and we all want Canadians to feel safe.

Successful rehabilitation and safe reintegration of people in federal custody are key to achieving our shared objective of enhanced public safety. By allowing inmates who must be separated from the general prison population to receive more time out of their cell and more mental health care and rehabilitative interventions, Bill C-83 represents a major step in the right direction.

Again, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues for their contributions throughout the legislative process so far, and I urge them to join me in enthusiastically supporting the bill.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak in support of Bill C-83.

The role of our corrections system is to keep Canadians safe by managing people who have received criminal sentences of two years or more. In most cases, that involves preparing them for safe and successful reintegration into our communities, which obviously is a very difficult task.

Some of the people in federal custody have done terrible, violent things. Most inmates have some combination of mental illness, a history of physical or sexual abuse, drug or alcohol addiction and a lack of economic or educational opportunity. Getting them to where they can return to a society and live safe, productive, law-abiding lives involves interventions to deal with all of those factors. This includes mental health care, education, skills training, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitative programs and the guidance of elders and chaplains.

However, that work can only happen in a safe environment. When inmates pose a security risk, they may have to be temporarily separated from the rest of the institution.

On that point, there is agreement from the correctional investigator, the John Howard Society, correctional employees and even former inmates that this needs to be done. The problem is that our existing system for doing that, administrative segregation, separates inmates not only from the rest of the prison population, but also from the interventions that could address the factors that caused them to be a security risk in the first place. Bill C-83 would address this problem.

The bill maintains the ability for inmates who pose a risk to be separated when necessary, but it sets out conditions of confinement and intervention that are a major improvement over what is currently in use. In the structured intervention units, or SIUs, created by Bill C-83, inmates would receive a daily opportunity of at least four hours to be out of the cell and at least two hours of meaningful interaction with other people, such as program staff, visitors, volunteers and other compatible inmates.

On that last point, some participants in this debate have conjured the spectre of correctional staff just throwing incompatible inmates, such as members of rival gangs, together in the yard and keeping their fingers crossed. Of course, that will not happen, and would not happen, with the professional staff we have at Correctional Service Canada.

We are talking about a situation where out of maybe seven or eight inmates in the SIU, two of them get along and might be allowed to have lunch together. To allow for meals or yard time to happen in small groups or for rehabilitative programs to be provided one-on-one or in small groups, the corrections services will need new resources, including hiring new staff and making adjustments to infrastructure. That is why the fall economic statement included $448 million over six years for the implementation of the bill, $300 million going toward staff and infrastructure.

As set out in the breakdown the government provided to the public safety committee in November, that includes this funding as well as as $150 million toward mental health care. These resources will allow the corrections services to meet the ambitious new standards set by Bill C-83, improving the quality and accessibility of mental health care and rehabilitative interventions.

The whole point is to address the issues that led to a person being separated from the mainstream inmate population in the first place, so he or she can safely reintegrate in the community within the institution and eventually the community outside it. I hope that is an objective we all share. Indeed, most of the witnesses at committee, who made critiques of the bill, did not take issue with this objective. They simply wanted greater assurance that the objective would be met. Since their testimony was heard, amendments have been made in an effort to provide that assurance.

In fact, amendments have been accepted from all parties as we have gone through this legislation, which is one of the main purposes of committees and a purpose that our government respects.

Witnesses worried that the opportunity for time out of the cell would be provided at unreasonable hours, like in the middle of the night. Therefore, the bill has been amended to specify that it must occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Witnesses also worried that the clause that time out of cell not be provided in exceptional circumstances might be too broad. Therefore, the bill has been amended to provide specific examples of the kinds of exceptional circumstances that we are talking about, like fires and natural disasters.

Although the bill would allow for health care providers to recommend that an inmate be removed from the SIU for medical reasons, witnesses worried that wardens might not take these recommendations seriously. The bill has been amended so that any disagreement between the health care provider and the warden could be elevated to a senior committee external to the institution.

Witnesses also expressed the view that independent, external oversight would be required to ensure that SIUs would be used appropriately and as a last resort. Therefore, the member for Oakville North—Burlington proposed an amendment to create an independent oversight mechanism, and the government announced its support.

Earlier this week, these amendments were read into the record at length and are available for all Canadians to see the great work that was done by the member for Oakville North—Burlington. In other words, this was a strong bill when it was first introduced, and the parliamentary process has been informed by witness testimony and public debate, and that has made it even stronger.

I thank all the members of the House who have made thoughtful, informed, constructive contributions throughout the process thus far. I thank the government for being receptive to feedback and open to amendments. It is worth noting that this is not something that could often be said about the previous government.

The provisions in the bill, together with the resources allocated by the government, will make our correctional system more effective at its core mandate, which is protecting Canadians through the effective rehabilitation and safe reintegration of people who have broken the law. It deals with people as people. It helps them to progress through difficult situations to get back into society and be productive members.

As the public safety minister wrote last summer in the first-ever public mandate letter for a commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, the public is best protected by safe, successful rehabilitation. Bill C-83 would help achieve that goal. I encourage all hon. members in the House to give their support.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am appalled to hear the Liberals say that Bill C-83 will prevent suicides, when we know that many experts oppose administrative segregation. The bill proposes up to 20 hours a day of segregation for an indefinite period of time.

Two courts, one in Ontario and another in B.C., ruled that indefinite administrative segregation is unconstitutional. Furthermore, there is no independent oversight to assess the restrictions on freedom. Administrative segregation restricts freedom.

It has been proven that more than 48 hours in administrative isolation can cause permanent mental health effects and lead to self-harm, depression, suicide, panic attacks and hypersensitivity to external stimuli. The fact that administrative segregation is still an option is disastrous. The Liberals are just replicating what existed before and claiming to improve the situation.

The Liberals say that this could prevent suicides. However, the new measures aggravate mental health problems related to administrative segregation. In my view, it makes no sense to go down this path.

Today, the government is muzzling MPs. We should be moving amendments to improve the bill. The government rejected virtually all of the NDP and Conservative Party amendments aimed at improving the bill. That is not very professional, and it is very hypocritical. It harms inmates whose mental health problems will be aggravated and who will eventually be released and reintegrated into society.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-83, an act that amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, transforming administrative segregation.

The legislation would do a number of important things, such as creating patient advocates to help ensure inmates get the medical care they need, giving victims of crime enhanced access to recordings of parole hearings and enshrining in law the requirement that Correctional Service Canada considers systemic and background factors when making decisions affecting indigenous people in custody.

Of course, the main thing it would do is replace the current system of administrative segregation with structured intervention units, SIUs, for inmates who need to be separated from the rest of the institution for safety reasons, where they would have access to rehabilitative programs, mental health care and other interventions that are generally not available in segregation, which is an improvement. Importantly, inmates in SIUs would be entitled to a minimum of four hours a day out of their cells and at least two hours a day of meaningful human interaction with staff, visitors, volunteers, elders, chaplains or other inmates with whom they are compatible and can interact safely.

One of the main questions that was asked in the early days of committee study was whether the bill would be backed up with the funding needed to implement it safely and effectively. The answer is yes. The fall economic statement included a $448-million fund to implement the legislation. It includes about $300 million for staffing and other resources for the SIUs as well as $150 million for mental health care both in the SIUs and throughout the corrections system. These investments build on nearly $80 million for mental health care in corrections in the last two budgets. In short, the Correctional Service would have the resources it needs to turn the intention of the legislation into a practical reality.

However, to make sure that these resources are put to good use and that the new structured intervention units really do work as planned, the public safety committee made several amendments to Bill C-83. Yes, the committee system does work and our government committed to that when we were first elected. None of these amendments change the nature of the bill, but they add clarity to the way the new system will work.

For instance, Bill C-83 specifies that an inmate's time out of the cell will have to be offered between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Interactions would generally be expected to happen face to face rather than through a door or meal slot. The clause that would allow hours out of cell not to be offered in exceptional circumstances now includes a list of examples, such as fires or natural disasters, to be clear that the circumstances must be truly exceptional. Also, if a warden disagrees with a medical recommendation to remove an inmate from an SIU, the matter will be elevated to a senior panel external to the institution.

However, those are the important additions that would strengthen the new system, and now at report stage, the member for Oakville North—Burlington has proposed an additional amendment that would add independent external review of SIU placements, which is something that was called for by several witnesses. The public safety minister told the committee last fall that he was open to the idea. The government has now confirmed that it will support the proposal.

Again, the role of committees is near and dear to our democracy, and it is again in Bill C-83 that we see committees doing the good work that Canadians expect them to do and that their members do with pride.

External decision-makers would get involved in three scenarios: if an inmate in an SIU has, for whatever reason, not received the minimum hours out of his or her cell or minimum hours of meaningful human contact for five days in a row or 15 out of 30; if the senior panel reviewing a medical recommendation decides to keep the inmate in the SIU; and on the 90th day of placement in SIU, and every 60 days thereafter, for as long as the inmate is there.

In the first scenario, when an inmate has not been getting his or her time out of cell, the external independent decision-maker will consider whether the Correctional Service has taken all reasonable steps to provide the inmate with opportunities for hours out and encourage inmates to avail themselves of those opportunities. If they determine that not to be the case, they can make recommendations to the service, and if, after a week, the independent decision-maker is still not satisfied, they can order the inmate removed from the SIU. The decision-maker's ruling will be appealable to the Federal Court, both by the inmate and the Correctional Service.

In the other scenarios, a disagreement about a medical recommendation and regular reviews beginning on the 90th day, the independent decision-maker will consider whether having the inmate in the general population poses a security threat or would interfere with an ongoing investigation. It will take into account the inmate's correctional plan, the appropriateness of the inmate's security classification and confinement in the penitentiary, and any other factor it deems relevant.

Bill C-83 provides extensive flexibilities to the authorities to do their jobs. In other words, inmates who currently need to be separated from the rest of the institution for security reasons spend 22 hours a day in their cells, with very little in the way of rehabilitative interventions and no external oversight. Under Bill C-83, those inmates will have twice as much time out of their cells, with a full suite of rehabilitative interventions, including mental health care, and there will be binding external oversight that could kick in after as few as five days or even sooner in the event of a health care professional's recommendation.

This is a major step forward and that cannot be over-emphasized. Bill C-83 updates issues with regard to our penitentiaries and commits the appropriate funds to do so. I am proud of the legislation. I do not sit on the committee reviewing and bringing the bill forward, but it is great to see the committee doing its work and also incorporating amendments.

Bill C-83 will also enhance rehabilitation while continuing to meet the security imperatives that must always be top of mind when we are dealing with corrections. In fact, we cannot really separate rehabilitation from security. Better, more effective rehabilitation results in better security, both while the inmates are incarcerated and, as importantly, once they have been released.

That is why I support Bill C-83, and I hope that the bill will be adopted and enacted as soon as possible by this Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and add my voice in support of Bill C-83, a piece of legislation that would make a number of changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I am pleased to lend my support, as my colleagues have also done.

Bill C-83 proposes a number of important things. It creates the concept of patient advocates, as recommended by the inquest into the tragic death of Ashley Smith. Many of us in the House are very aware of the inquest and what happened to Ms. Smith, and the difficulties. We are very hopeful that Bill C-83 is going to help remedy some of those problems and prevent that from happening to some other young person.

The bill is meant to support inmates who need medical care, and ensure that they and their families can understand and exercise their rights. It would enshrine in law the principle that health care professionals working in the corrections system are autonomous and make decisions based on their medical judgment, without undue influence from correctional authorities.

It would enshrine in law the requirement that systemic and background factors be considered in all decisions involving indigenous people in custody, and it would expand the section of the law requiring the correctional service to be guided by respect for the diversity of the inmate population.

It would allow victims who attend parole hearings to access audio recordings of the proceedings.

It would create the legislative authority necessary for the Correctional Service of Canada to use body scanners to interdict drugs and other contraband, something that has been a problem for many years. There are people who have had to endure strip searches and so on. Having the body scanners would make it better for both the correctional service folks as well as for inmates. This technology is both less invasive than methods such as strip searches and less prone to false positives than the ion scanners CSC currently relies on.

It would also replace the current system of administrative segregation with structured intervention units, or SIUs, as they are referred to. This new system would ensure that when inmates need to be separated from the rest of the prison population for safety reasons, they would retain access to rehabilitative programming, mental health care and other interventions, something that was not happening before.

The bill deals with serious and challenging issues, and it is to be expected that Canadians and members of Parliament will have differences of opinion about them. So far, however, the Conservative contributions to this debate have been incredibly disappointing. At times, the Conservatives have blatantly contradicted themselves. For instance, in his speech, the member for Yellowhead complained that the changes made by the bill to administrative segregation are insignificant and superficial. However, in the very same speech, the very same member said that those very same changes would endanger inmates and staff. Which is it? Do the Conservatives think the bill is insignificant, or do they think it is catastrophic? It cannot be both.

At other times, the Conservatives have simply chosen to ignore the facts. They have been complaining over and over again that the government has not allocated resources to implement the bill, when they know that is not the case. On page 103 of the fall economic statement, issued by the finance minister last November, there is $448 million allocated to support amendments to transform federal corrections, including the introduction of a new correctional interventions model to eliminate segregation.

Also in November, the government sent the public safety committee a written response that went into more detail about the funding.

That response says that if Bill C-83 is adopted, the government will invest $297 million over six years and $71 million ongoing to implement the structured intervention units. The funding will be dedicated to providing focused interventions, programs and social supports and will include access to resources such as program officers, aboriginal liaison officers, elders, chaplains and others. That is in a document that all members of the public safety committee have had for over three months.

The document goes on to say that the remaining amount from the fall economic statement, $150.3 million over six years and $74.3 million ongoing, is for mental health care. That includes assessment and early diagnosis of inmates at intake and throughout incarceration, enhancements to primary and acute mental health care, and support for patient advocacy and 24/7 health care at designated institutions.

Again, this is all from a document that the Conservatives also have had since the fall, so when they complain about a lack of resources, they are either being disingenuous or they just have not had time to read the report.

The Conservatives' contributions to this debate have also been characterized by an unfortunate amount of self-righteousness. They position themselves as champions of victims, but it was legislation passed by the Harper government in 2015 that prohibited victims who attend a parole hearing from accessing an audio recording of that same hearing. Their bill said that victims who want recordings have to stay away from the hearing itself.

Parole hearings are often difficult experiences for many victims of crime, full of emotion, and the law should not expect them to retain every word of the proceedings at a time when they are immensely frightened and nervous and in an unfamiliar environment. The legislation before us today would finally let all victims access those recordings, whether they attend in person or not.

The Conservatives also position themselves as champions of correctional employees. Let me remind the House what the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers said in 2014. Kevin Grabowsky was head of the union at that time, and he said, “We have to actively work to rid the Conservatives from power.” He said the Harper government was endangering correctional officers with changes to the labour code, cuts to rehabilitative programming and policies that resulted in overcrowding in federal prisons.

The main question raised at committee by both correctional officers and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, which represents other CSC staff such as parole officers, was whether Bill C-83 would be accompanied by sufficient resources to implement it safely and effectively. As I have already made clear, the answer to that is a resounding yes.

Finally, the Conservatives' interventions in this debate have been reminiscent of the very worst of the Harper approach to the legislative process. They have been actually attacking the government for listening to stakeholder feedback and accepting some of those amendments. Under the Harper government, that kind of openness was unheard of, but I am proud to support a government that lets legislators legislate.

I thank all members who have engaged in a serious study of the bill and proposed thoughtful amendments, which is exactly what Canadians sent all of us here to do.

We have before us legislation that would make correctional institutions more effective and humane, accompanied by the resources needed to implement it safely. It is important that we move forward and pass the bill at this time.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is good to be here this afternoon. It is unfortunate that we do not have a stronger bill with a little better content in it, but we will deal with what we have today. As usual, this is the kind of thing we have had to face with the government. It should be no surprise to us that it is in the chaos it is in, because we see a fairly consistent presentation that leads to bills that are this weak. I will talk about those weaknesses later.

The bill is basically a knee-jerk reaction to two Supreme Court decisions. The Liberals decided to play both sides of that game, so they are appealing those decisions at the same time as they are bringing forward whole new legislation. I think the public needs to understand that. Unfortunately, on this bill, they have missed the boat both on content and knowledge. We heard that from witnesses who came forward at committee. Witness after witness said that, first of all, they were not consulted, and second, the bill was not going in the right direction and needed to be reworked or thrown out, set aside or whatever.

One of the things the Liberals have done consistently since they have come to power is bring things forward and then actually look at them and decide whether they are worth bringing forward. Then they start to get people's opinions and they find out that they are on the wrong track. Then they start to backtrack and begin to amend their legislation. Once it comes back in here, they start forcing it through. We are here today on a bill with time allocation. The Liberals not only brought in time allocation at report stage but have already brought it in for third reading as well. We have seen this many times before, and we are seeing it here today. Fortunately, on some of these occasions, the Liberals have actually set bills aside and decided that they were not going to see them through. I guess electoral reform would be one of those that was obvious. Bill C-69 is another one that people across this country are begging the Liberals to set aside, because it would basically destroy the energy industry in Canada if they brought it through. Sometimes they can listen, but usually they find it very difficult to do that.

It is ironic that we have time allocation today, because had we had petitions today, I wanted to bring one forward. It is an electronic petition, E-1886. I found it fascinating that over 10,000 people signed this petition. It is an electronic petition from people across Canada, and it has to do with this issue.

This morning I asked a question of the public safety minister. He has been here for a long time. He was here before I was. One of the things he was part of before I came here was an attack on and actually the jailing of western Canadian farmers. These were farmers who had said that they would like to sell their own grain. One of them had donated one bushel of grain to a 4-H club in Montana. The public safety minister was one of those ministers who led the charge against those farmers. By the time they were done, they had five departments of the government working against individual Canadians. The CRA was involved. Justice was involved. Immigration was involved. The RCMP was firmly involved. Members can read stories of what happened in a couple of books by Don Baron. He writes about raids on people's farms in the middle of the night and their trying to confiscate their equipment, and those kinds of things. The public safety minister was then the agriculture minister. I asked him why it seems that every time we turn around, he is going after regular law-abiding Canadians.

We see this again with the initiative coming from the other side on handguns, which have been very restricted since the 1930s. People in Canada use them for sport. Many people across Canada have gone through the process to be licenced. This government seems bound and determined to try to make some sort of criminals out of handgun owners across this country. Again, my question to him was why he continued to come after law-abiding citizens, especially when on the other side, they are not all that interested, it seems, in actually protecting people from criminals.

That brings me back to my petition. Everyone is familiar with the case of Terri-Lynne McClintic, who was convicted of first degree murder in the horrific abduction, rape and murder of eight-year-old Tori Stafford. She was moved from a secure facility to a healing lodge without fences, where the government confirmed the presence of children. She is not eligible for parole until 2031. The Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, which happens to be in my riding, lacks the necessary security measures to ensure the safety of local citizens in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan and surrounding areas.

Over 10,000 people across Canada called on the Government of Canada to exercise its moral and political authority to ensure that this decision was reversed and could not be allowed to happen again in other situations. We all know that it took the government weeks before it would acknowledge that there was a problem with this transfer, and in the end, it semi-reversed that transfer.

The interesting thing is that some of the same things are in Bill C-83. Right at the beginning, subclause 2(1) says, “the Service uses the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders”. There is no sense of some sort of disciplinary activity taking place in our prisons. The government says it has to find the least restrictive and most friendly way to treat people being held in our prisons right now.

I could go through many of the provisions of this bill. It talks about prisoners receiving the most effective programs, but when the minister was asked if there was a costing for this, he said that the government had not done costing on the bill. We can talk all day long about effective programs and health care, which this bill does, but if it was not costed before it was brought forward, how would the government even know what it would be expected to provide?

The bill talks about the criteria for the selection of the penitentiary. It says that it must be the “least restrictive environment” for the person. Correctional Service Canada has to deliberately run around and try to find the least restrictive place to put people. Many of these people are very dangerous individuals. Some of these people are actually bad people. I heard some heckling from the other side basically implying that they are not and that they can all be reformed if we treat them well, and if we ask for their opinions, they will give us good, solid opinions, we will all get along and we can hold hands and sing songs. The reality is that there are some people in these prisons who are very bad people and do not deserve to be running around as they choose.

One of the strange changes in this bill would allow the commissioner to designate a penitentiary or any section of a penitentiary as any level of security he or she chooses. That is very strange. The Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge is a minimum security prison on the edge of the Cypress Hills area. It is a beautiful location right at the edge of the trees. There are no fences around it. There is a series of cottages. The women right now spend time in the cottages. They have programming in the main lodge. Does that mean that the commissioner can designate one of those cottages a maximum security unit without changing the security level of the facilities or anything else and just say it is now a maximum-level unit, and someone can be put there who is supposed to be in a maximum security prison? All of us would put our heads in our hands and say that this is a crazy idea.

Within prisons there are some people who do not want to be in the general population. They are okay with being segregated. There are a number of reasons that might happen. One is that they may get hurt or injured themselves. The second is that they may hurt or injure someone else. They do not want to be put back into the general population of the prison. This bill basically says that the department has to continually work to do everything it can to put them back into general population.

A common theme throughout Bill C-83 and legislation on crime the Liberals keep bringing forward is that they want to try to make life easier for the most difficult prisoners. They should be looking at public safety. They should look at the people who work in the prisons. Why do Liberals not ever seem to focus on them instead of trying to find a way to hug a thug. They seem to really enjoy doing that.

This bill contains a lot of rhetoric and very few specifics. We were told that it was not costed. Once again, it is a demonstration of how soft the Liberals are on crime and how willing they are to close their eyes to reality. This is a series of promises that again will not be kept. This bill should be set aside. It is unfortunate that the government has moved time allocation for the 60th or 70th time to force this bill through.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-83, a bill dealing with some of the rules around incarceration in Canada. I want to make a few general points about the principles that should guide our approach before I move to the particulars of the legislation itself.

Our approach to criminal justice should affirm the dignity of the human person, which includes personal responsibility and the capacity to change. Both are key elements. Its primary goal should be rehabilitation and the protection of society, which obviously go together. If people are rehabilitated, then they no longer present a risk to society. If they are not rehabilitated, they can be a risk to those around them, even when they are in prison.

It seems to me that both extremes in the criminal justice debate deny in some way the dignity of the person. Some believe individual criminality is necessarily the result of social factors as opposed to bad moral decision-making. Social factors can obviously contribute to a person's situation, but the extreme leftist analysis, which reduces everything to social factors, denies the dignity and agency of persons who are in vulnerable situations.

No matter people's circumstances, they do have a choice. They have a choice to try to make the best out of their situation or on the other end, a choice to engage in criminal activity. It seems that this recognition of dignity, and therefore responsibility, is the necessary grounds of rehabilitation. People must recognize their own agency in order to turn their lives around.

We also reject the extreme that those who commit crimes cannot turn their lives around. Some would want us to write people off too easily. However, our own life experience should teach us that people can change their patterns of behaviour for the better. Many people who have committed crimes can change, and there is a public interest and moral obligation for us to do all we can to help with the process. This means maximizing incentives and supports to people who are on that journey.

A criminal justice policy that fully affirms human dignity, recognizing personal responsibility for crime and the ability to change, would assign sentences that are both tough and variable. Tough and variable sentences is an approach that ensures people who are rehabilitated can get back into society and contribute. However, people who refuse to take the steps necessary to turn their lives around remain in prison until they do. Providing strong incentives and program supports that maximize the chances of turnaround is indeed in everybody's interest.

Our approach to sentencing should also take scarce resources into account. If people who are no longer a threat to society remain in prison, they are consuming resources that could be better spent on crime prevention programs, policing and rehabilitation. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown us that the average cost of incarcerating someone is about $115,000 a year. The average cost of segregation is $463,000 for a year.

Incarcerating people, or putting them in segregation, should never be done lightly in any event. Even for guilty persons, we should only incarcerate them to the degree that the cost of their incarceration would more effectively advance public safety than any other expenditure of the same funds. Clearly because of the costs, the system should have an interest in avoiding incarceration and segregation whenever effective and less costly options exist.

This analysis is not to penny-pinch for its own sake, but it is to recognize that there is an opportunity cost associated with any expenditure. Proactive policing and effective crime prevention is good for victims and public safety, so striking that right balance is indeed of critical importance.

Some will point out that we can never know for sure if people will reoffend, which is true. However, when the likelihood to reoffend is very low, perhaps resources would be better used for other kinds of interventions, like more policing, which are more likely to advance public safety than continued incarceration.

About a year ago, I had the opportunity to visit a prison in my riding and have some good dialogue with employees and inmates. A few points stuck with me from that visit. One is that there are a variety of programs available to people who are in prison and a variety of not-for-profit organizations, including many churches and other faith-based organizations, involved in connecting with and supporting inmates while in prison.

The process of transition from prison to life back outside of prison can be a real challenge. Prison life is structured and regulated in a way that life outside is not. There are far more services inside than outside. The process of transition back to normal life often involves economic challenges and pressures, as well as the temptation to fall back into old social groups and patterns of behaviour.

It seems to me that we need to look more at the area of transition and post-prison supports. How can we help people leverage new skills and experiences to find meaningful employment and develop a new peer group? How can we better partner with faith communities and other not-for-profits, recognizing that post-prison ministry is just as important as prison ministry?

Speaking of skills that help with transition, the prison in my riding offers inmates the potential opportunity to seek trade certification. Inmates who get a trade certificate almost never return to prison, according to the staff I spoke to.

That made me wonder. What if we built into our criminal justice a system a mechanism by which sentence lengths would be automatically adjusted if an inmate acquired a specific employment-related qualification? Inmates acquiring employment-related qualifications in areas of skill shortages in particular would help the economy, It would employers have a greater incentive to hire former inmates in cases where there would be a skill shortage. Therefore, perhaps there is an opportunity there for a win-win.

There should be positive incentives associated with rehabilitation and with making choices to turn one's life around. There also needs to be negative incentives associated with bad and disruptive behaviour that creates problems for the rehabilitation and for creating an environment in a prison setting that is conducive to rehabilitation. That brings us to the question of administrative segregation.

Bill C-83 would replace administrative segregation with something called, “structured intervention units”. We know that one of the Liberals' favourite things to do is to change the names of things, be it the universal child care benefit to the Canada child benefit. The workers' tax deduction had its name changed. Many existing programs had their names changed and the process relabelled under the current government.

Certainly the critics of administrative segregation do not see a meaningful or sufficient difference between the old and the new forms of segregation. However, there are some specific differences. Whether they are sufficient is a question for us to debate.

I will note the differences. The legislation would require that the person in the new Liberal rebranded form segregation to have a minimum of four hours per day out instead of two. It specifically mandates meaningful human contact.

What is frustrating for me is that the government does not seem to have a plan associated with it to actually link these objectives with the resources that are required. So often we see the government's desire to brand itself on something. The Liberals are eliminating administrative segregation. However, they are simply making an adjustment with respect to the name, but there are not sufficient resources associated with the commitments they have made to deal with the reality that having four hours instead of two is significantly more costly from a policing and administrative perspective. If they mandate it without having the resources in place to deliver on that commitment, they risk the inmates and the prison itself. They risk creating an environment of much less safety in the prison because they have a requirement for people to be out of a segregated environment when they may be very dangerous, yet they do not have the resources to ensure that is policed in an effective way.

It is interesting as well to have legislation that mandates meaningful human contact. It is interesting for the state to even be in the business of trying to define what is meaningful human contact and to mandate it. There are probably many people who are not in prison, who for various reasons with respect to life circumstances would like to have that much meaningful human contact and do not. The goal of rehabilitation should be to get people to a place and disposition where they are able to reconnect with and have meaningful connections with people in their lives. Although it is a laudable objective, I question what the legislation could mean and how the government would propose to operationalize this requirement of meaningful human contact.

I will close with this. In the area of criminal justice policy, there might actually have been an opportunity for some cross-party co-operation if the government had listened to the arguments we were making and understood the need for balance; that is a criminal justice policy that affirms human dignity, recognizing personal responsibility as well as the ability for people to change and recognizing the need to properly resource the proposals it is putting forward. Instead, we have an inadequate bill that serves to meet a branding exercise.

The Liberals want to say that they have done away with a particular aspect of prison life when they do not have a plan to resource it, they do not have a plan for public safety and they are not interested in the kind of meaningful, substantive reforms that people across the spectrum are looking for, the kinds of sentencing reforms on which we could potentially co-operate on. Again, we are not seeing those ideas proposed by the government.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This piece of legislation proposes to do the following: eliminate administrative segregation in correctional facilities; replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs; introduce body scanners for inmates; set the parameters of access to health care; and formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues.

On any given day in Canada there are roughly 40,000 prisoners in custody. From coast to coast, there are eight maximum security facilities, 19 medium security facilities, 15 minimum and 10 multidisciplinary facilities. Canada has 18,000 Canadian government employees looking after these prisoners, of which 10,000 are on the front line. These are either correctional officers, parole officers or health care workers.

While I do not sit on the committee that reviewed this piece of legislation, I have been made aware of some very striking testimony by the Correctional Service Canada ombudsman, as well as many stakeholders, including these front-line workers who faithfully serve every day.

It is clear that the Liberal government, which campaigned on engaging and consulting with Canadians, has thrown all intentions of such actions out the window, as there was clearly very little of it done in this case, if any. Prominent witnesses, such as the CSC ombudsman, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, and civil liberties and indigenous groups, all commented on the lack of consultation and their concern that too much of the legislation is being left to regulation.

I just want to touch on that for a few seconds because, as co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee, I can testify to the importance of the fact that any law that is passed in the House has to have an adequate legislative framework so that the regulations are actually authorized by the legislation that is passed. All too often, we have examples from various departments across the Government of Canada where regulatory mechanisms are put in place and actually enacted, in some cases, for many years without the adequate legislative authority for them to do that. It is very important that adequate legislative authority is given here, yet we have had many of our witnesses testify to the fact that this is the case in this situation and there is not adequate legislative authority.

Ivan Zinger, the Correctional Investigator of Canada had this to say:

All the consultations seem to have been done internally. To my knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.

The Elizabeth Fry Societies said this was a bad bill. It said that structural intervention units are not needed, that it failed to focus on the programs and that there was a lack of oversight. It is concerned about proposed section 81, due to the workings of indigenous governing bodies.

The John Howard Society calls it a bad bill. It wanted to know what the difference was between solitary confinement and structural intervention. It said there was no difference. The bill changed the words but did not change anything. That sounds pretty familiar with the government over the last three and a half years. There are great sounding words but very little action and very little follow-through.

This is not the first time that the Liberal Government has ignored consultations with the corrections community while unilaterally implementing its own ideological beliefs. Another time occurred at the Grand Valley Institution for Women, which is close to my riding. This correctional facility was one of two in Canada that was mandated to implement a prisoner needle exchange program, putting both correctional officers, as well as other inmates at risk. On Monday, June 25, a needle exchange program was introduced to the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener.

It is very concerning that the Liberal government commanded Correctional Service Canada to approve this program, which sends the wrong message to prisoners, to victims of crime and to all Canadians. This program will give prisoners who are convicted of violent crimes access to needles in order to inject themselves with substances that are illegal among the general public, as well as in prison.

I agree with the Ontario regional president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Rob Finucan, who raised the concern that this program puts correctional officers in harm's way and is forcing officers to turn a blind eye to illegal activity in the prison system.

I realize that illegal drugs make their way into our prison system and that there are nearly 1,500 drug seizures in prisons each year. However, the solution to this is not to turn a blind eye but rather to effectively enforce Correctional Service Canada's zero tolerance policy.

The previous Conservative government took action and cracked down on this problem by increasing random drug testing, investing significantly in drug interdiction and creating tough mandatory prison sentences for selling drugs in prisons. My constituents and all Canadians would like to see more of this action, not the normalization of the use of illegal drugs in prisons.

We also need to be investing far more in treatment and in prevention programs. I have on my desk a petition from constituents all across Canada who are calling on the government to end this prisoner needle exchange program. I have not had time to table this petition yet, partly because of moving to orders of the day and then closure motions. These petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to end this prisoner needle exchange program. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers was not consulted on this plan, which puts its members and the Canadian public at risk.

The previous Conservative government passed the Drug-Free Prisons Act, which revokes parole for those who are caught using drugs behind bars. Under the new regulations, an inmate who is approved for the prisoner needle exchange program is not even required to disclose to the Parole Board that he or she is in the program.

The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety to end the prisoner needle exchange program and implement measures that would increase the safety of correctional officers and the surrounding community.

The first and most important role of any government is to keep its citizens safe, not focusing on making criminals' lives more comfortable. I will always focus my efforts on giving victims a strong voice in the justice system and ensure that convicted criminals do face the full force of the law.

Unfortunately, we have also seen this heavy-handed decision by the Liberal health minister to force communities that do not want them to have so-called safe injection sites. Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. The Respect for Communities Act, which was introduced by the previous Conservative government, gave police, residents and municipal leaders a say when it came to opening an injection site within their communities.

Dangerous and addictive drugs tear families apart. They promote criminal behaviour and they destroy lives. Instead of making it easier for drug addicts to consume drugs, the Liberal government should support treatment and recovery programs to get addicts off drugs and enact heavy mandatory minimum sentences to crack down on drug traffickers.

I do hope that the Liberal government will stop and consider the negative message that this needle exchange program is sending and reverse this policy as quickly as possible for the sake of correctional officers and inmates, as well as citizens of the Region of Waterloo and in fact all Canadians.

It is also important to note that since learning of this program, my office has been in contact with Jason Godin, head of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who has been expressing his anger that his members were not consulted on a matter that directly affects their safety. They were not consulted, a common complaint with this legislation in spite of all the flowery language earlier in the 2015 campaign that the Liberals would be a government that would consult Canadians widely.

I have also received petitions from inmates at the Grand Valley Institution for Women who are against this program as it increases the risk to them.

One of the more profound statements that I have read recently on this was in a newspaper article by Jason Godin. He was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying, “attacks on guards and inmates have been increasing as the use of segregation has decreased ahead of new legislation to change the prison system.”

There are many reasons not to support this bad piece of legislation but let me summarize our position this way.

We on this side of the House are opposed to the inaction in regard to ensuring that high-risk offenders are not transferred to low-security facilities. The legislation would empower the commissioner to sub-designate parts of prisons, which could lead to more cases where higher security prisoners are kept in a lower security space based on technicalities.

It is also concerning that the Liberals are moving away from segregation particularly as a deterrent to bad behaviour, as it strips front-line officers of tools to manage difficult prisoners.

The legislation lacks support from every major stakeholder who appeared before committee, from left to right—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I should have mentioned this. When the Liberals stand in the House, they look straight into the camera and tell the Canadians listening in and those in the gallery to trust them, as they have everyone's interests at heart. They always talk about working collaboratively with all parties, telling us we should let committees do the good work they do. However, witness after witness has expressed serious concerns about this, and the bill does not reflect those concerns.

Our friends in the NDP and in the official opposition have always attacked the Liberals' pieces of legislation faithfully, trusting our friends across the way. Sadly, time after time, that trust, just like in everything else the government has done, has been broken by their not allowing the amendments through.

We are always told that the Liberals know best. While they like to talk a good game, their actions leave us wanting, for sure. It is shameful that Bill C-83 is being rushed through, and that the serious recommendations and requests from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers are not being heard at all.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way has monopolized a ton of time on the other side, but I want to get back to this flawed piece of legislation, Bill C-83. There are serious concerns. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has said its members are not being heard.

The needle exchange is one area we did not discuss. We talk about providing tools and resources to ensure that we are keeping our correctional officers safe, yet the government is allowing needles to freely enter our correctional system. There are no restrictions in that respect. Inmates can go back to their cells to do drugs, and there is no onus on them to bring the needles back.

Let us imagine a correctional officer having to go into a cell to do an administrative check or a security check. The officer does not know whether there is a needle with bodily fluids in it, or whether the sharp end of a needle might be used as a weapon.

That is shameful. These are concerns that the correctional service union has brought up time and time again, and the government, including our hon. colleague across the way, refused to listen.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for this informative debate. It is too bad our friends across the way, and I say “friends” loosely, have once again limited this debate. As I said earlier today in this debate, it has to be 60 times that the government has forced closure on debate on legislation.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This legislation has been proposed to eliminate the administrative segregation in correctional facilities and to replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, which I will refer to as SIUs during my speech.

The bill also introduces body scanners for inmates, sets parameters for access to health care, and formalizes exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues, among a few other things. It also expands on transfers and allows for the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary.

I have risen to speak to this legislation a number of times and expressed the Conservatives' concerns. Our number one concern is consultation. No matter how many times our friends across the way say they have consulted thoroughly from coast to coast to coast on this, we know through witness testimony that witness after witness expressed serious concerns with this piece of legislation. Some of the comments were that it is flawed to the core.

We always have concerns when we talk about the safety and security of those we entrust and empower to protect Canadians. Imagine that a correctional service guard reports to work and does not have all the tools required to do the job. We need to make sure first responders, and indeed correctional officers are first responders, are provided the tools and resources they need to do their job effectively and securely, but also to return home and remain healthy at all times.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has repeatedly voiced its concerns with this. As a matter of fact, the head of the national prison guards union predicts a bloodbath behind bars as the federal government moves to end solitary confinement in Canadian prisons. In a newspaper interview, the union president went on to explain that segregated inmates are supervised at a 2:1 guard-to-prisoner ratio when they are not in their units. He said, “No thought has been given to what measures we need to take to make sure no one gets hurt.” When he says “no one gets hurt”, he means the correctional officers who are tasked with making sure that Canadians remain safe and secure and that inmates remain safe and secure among the inmate population. He wants to make sure they have the tools to do their jobs.

The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers last year wrote a letter to the minister and said that over the last year, over 140 violent attacks on correctional officers had taken place. Let us imagine being a security guard or correctional officer in charge of over 40 inmates. We heard the flowery language from our friends across the way when they said everybody deserves a chance. Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson are the kinds of people housed in solitary confinement.

With this piece of legislation, Bill C-83, not only does the union have some serious concerns that it is not being listened to, but we also know that this program has not been fully costed out. As a matter of fact, Correctional Service Canada managers have been asked to review spending and find some efficiencies. Regardless of whether the Liberals say there is $448 million going to this program over six years, the managers have been asked to find some efficiencies.

Every day, these officers go to work and their lives are put in jeopardy. They are there to protect Canadians. They are there to make sure that the worst of the worst stay behind bars. Whether it is Bill C-75 or Bill C-83, what we see with the government is that it is getting softer and softer on crime. Bill C-83 also looks at reclassification of certain crimes, to bring the prison population down from 12,000 to even less.

On that point, I want to bring up a case I brought up earlier today to the minister, and that is the case of Cody Legebokoff. He is Canada's youngest serial killer. In Cariboo—Prince George, he is responsible for killing four young women. He killed Loren Leslie, age 15, Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko and Cynthia Maas. To this day, the Montgomerys are still trying to find out through the court system if Cody Legebokoff knows where the remains of their daughter are.

He has refused to take any responsibility for this crime. He was sentenced at the end of 2014, yet we found out over the last month that he was transferred from maximum to medium security in early 2019, with very little notice. As a matter of fact, two of the four families did not receive any notification.

In sentencing him, Justice Parrett said, “The injuries caused in each case were massive and disfiguring, the object of each attack appearing to be aimed at not simply killing the victims but degrading and destroying them.” Justice Parrett further said, “He lacks any shred of empathy or remorse,” and, “He should never be allowed to walk among us again.”

Now we know that Legebokoff has been transferred to a prison here in Ontario from British Columbia, and even Correctional Service Canada's website, where it talks about transfers or the safety and security reclassification of inmates, says that assigning security classifications is “not an exact science”.

We should be arming our front-line workers with every tool so that they can make the best decisions, and so they can remain safe and secure at all times. That means physically as well as mentally. How is it that we are now giving more rights to our criminals than to victims and their families, or to those we trust and empower to protect us?

It is quite concerning when time after time we see our friends across the way stand up, put their hands on their hearts and say, “Trust us.” They say they have the best intentions to do well and are looking after Canadians, yet we see this type of misstep.

Bill C-83 is yet another failed piece of legislation. The victims' families and the victims of crime deserve better, and so do our first responders and our correctional officers. All they are asking for is to be heard, yet the Liberal members continue to turn a blind eye and cover their ears when those concerns are being voiced.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to speak once again on Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The Liberals seem to have a long history and a running streak of putting forward bills focusing more on criminals' rights than on those of the victims, and in some ways this bill seems to be another one of those. It is mostly a poorly thought-out bill that provides no resources or thoughts to employee safety among those working in correction services.

The government should have spent time consulting with CSC workers, figuring out how it could reconfigure the prisons and how it would also pay for all of these changes. Bill C-83 is another example of the government making a big announcement and thinking that everything ends at the announcement, that everything is done, without putting any planning behind it.

We have seen this with the government and its infrastructure program. It announces $180 billion in infrastructure spending, but kind of overlooks the fact that $90 billion of it was commitments from the previous government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is not able to locate within the budget or the estimates a significant amount of the spending. The Senate committee did a study on the infrastructure spending, and it said that the only metric for success in infrastructure was how much money was spent, not how many roads were built or how many highways were upgraded; it was just how much money was spent.

We see the same thing from the Liberals with their housing plan. They make grandiose announcements, standing in this House again and again to say it is $40 billion. Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, reported that it is actually about $1.5 billion. The Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary responsible for housing stood up in this House and said that a million families have been helped under this plan, believing that if they just make an announcement, then everything happens. It turns out that if we look at the departmental results plan, it was 7,500 families helped, not a million.

We see this again and again. Bill C-83 is no different. I will get to that later.

There are some things in Bill C-83 that I can support. The Liberal government is much like a broken watch, which is correct twice a day, and sometimes the government can be correct in its bills. The bill calls for body scanners to prevent contraband and drugs from getting into the prison. I fully support that. I wish the Liberals would modify it so that everyone coming in gets a body scan.

However, I do have to agree with the people I have talked to at corrections services. Why are we trying to stop drugs, but at the same time bringing in and handing out needles to the prisoners? These are needles that we have heard are being used as weapons against CSC workers.

I also like the fact that Bill C-83 gives more consideration to indigenous offenders. It is no secret that the indigenous population is overrepresented in prisons, and that has to be addressed, so I do agree with that measure. However, there are too many parts of the bill that would negatively impact the safety of corrections officers.

We all know of the Ashley Smith situation, which was a tragedy, and the government should do everything in its power to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. However, a poorly thought-out plan and an underfunded bill that just bans segregation is not the answer.

We have to keep in mind that it is not just inmates who are committing crimes who are going into segregation. Often it is a victim. They are put in there to assure their safety by moving them away from their abuser. They obviously do not want to name their abuser because of prison rules, so to speak, so the assaults continue unless the victim is moved into segregation. Unfortunately, that person eventually has to desegregate back into the prison system or change prisons. Nothing in Bill C-83 addresses that issue.

A CBC report says segregation is not the deterrent it once was. Prisoners now receive all of their possessions, their television and all of their belongings, within 24 hours of being put in segregation. Another CBC report quoted a couple of corrections officers. One of them stated that whereas the more violent inmates used to be in separate containers, now they are all in one bag, so they are just waiting for one to go off. That sets the rest of them off, and they end up with murder, stabbings, slashing, and officer injuries higher than ever.

Another one is saying that the inmates can get away with a lot more than they used to in the past, and that contributes to the growing violence and the crisis in corrections. Another says that all removing segregation does, especially disciplinary segregation, is soften reprisals for bad behaviour. Inmates know there is one less tool for corrections officers to use to maintain order and ensure their own safety.

In September 2017, with respect to a provincial study that I imagine would also cover federal, the CBC reported a massive upswing, a 50% increase, in inmate assaults over the five years that segregation had been removed or reduced.

Under this proposal, whenever inmates move from segregation to have their additional hours in the open, two officers will be needed to escort them. I have to ask where those resources will come from. If I look at the manpower figures in the departmental plan for the Correctional Service of Canada, which shows what its budget would be several years out, I see that the figures are identical in 2021 to what they are now. We are planning all this extra work for the officers, but there is no plan to provide extra officers. In fact, if we look at the plan, which has been signed off by the Minister of Public Safety himself, we see that the Liberals have cut the number of officers on staff from what it was when the Harper government was in charge. Again, where are the resources coming from?

As well, where are the added dollars coming from to renovate these new cells? I have heard the Minister of Public Safety stand and say that there is $80 million from the last budget and $400 million in the estimates. That is fine, but when we look at the departmental plans, again we see that from last year in 2017 to this year, the Liberals have cut $152.5 million from corrections services, and in the next couple of years, they are cutting an additional $225 million.

If they are spending $400 million on renovations and resources and the end result is $225 million less, where is the missing $600 million? I am sure the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be unable to find where this money is, as was the case with the missing infrastructure money.

Getting back to the departmental plans, these plans lay out the priorities for the government for this department. Again, the plans are reviewed and signed by the Minister of Public Safety. In this plan, there are 20 priorities, yet not a single one mentions or addresses officer safety or the safety of anyone working for corrections services.

The government, when discussing Bill C-83, brags about how it is the first time ever it has given the head of Correctional Services of Canada a mandate letter. I looked at the mandate letter. There are 1,400 words in the mandate letter for the head of the CSC. Let us keep in mind the government is so proud of this letter. Of the 1,400 words, 24 are about victims of crime, and just 52 are about the safety or well-being of corrections officers. The 52 words include this gem: “I encourage you to instill within CSC a culture of ongoing self-reflection.”

Can members imagine an inmate coming at them with a knife or a needle? What would their response be? If we looked it up in the manual, we would find “self-reflection”. Self-reflection sounds like something that would be more appropriate after being confronted after having groped someone at a concert, not when dealing with inmates in a criminal institution.

The president of the union of correctional officers, Rob Finucan, described how a guard in the Millhaven Institution was slashed across the face with a shard or knife. Why? It was because of the new rule that inmates can only be handcuffed in front and not behind. The inmate was cuffed and being moved to segregation. He had a shard of glass or a knife with him and cut across the face of the officer. Luckily, the officer's eye was not lost, but that happened because of rules we are putting into effect without any consideration for the officers.

In the minute I have left, I will end with the money set aside for mental health for inmates in the last budget. No one can argue with that, as it is obviously a very important issue.

Money has also been put aside for mental health for RCMP officers. There is 40% more money put aside per capita for inmates than for RCMP officers. That sums up the government's priorities in a nutshell: more money for criminals, less for the RCMP and less for our valued officers in prisons.

I think it is time for the government to show some self-reflection on this issue.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

This legislation proposes to limit administrative segregation in correctional facilities; replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs; introduce body scanners for inmates; set parameters for access to health care; and formalize expectations for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues.

I have the privilege of chairing the public accounts committee, and at committee, we work very closely with the Auditor General's office. We studied the reports the Auditor General released, and much of what I want to speak to today actually quotes from the Auditor General's reports.

One of those reports, in the fall of 2017 reports of the Auditor General of Canada, was entitled “Preparing Women Offenders for Release”. The objective of this audit was to determine whether Correctional Service Canada assigned and delivered correctional programs, interventions and mental health services to women offenders in federal custody, including indigenous women offenders, that responded appropriately to their unique needs and helped them successfully reintegrate into the community.

As noted by the Auditor General, “Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Correctional Service Canada is required to provide programs and services that respond to the needs of women offenders.”

What the Auditor General found was that, again, CSC had not implemented an initial security classification process designed specifically for women offenders, and as a result, “some women offenders risked being held at inappropriate security levels”. Furthermore, CSC had not implemented an appropriate tool for referring women offenders to correctional programs that were in line with their risk of reoffending, nor had they “assessed the effectiveness of its correctional programs in addressing the factors associated with a risk of reoffending”. Last, and most relevant to our debate today, the Auditor General concluded that CSC “had not confirmed whether its tools correctly identified women offenders with mental health issues or assigned them the appropriate level of care.”

Paragraph 5.104 of “Report 5” revealed, “We also found that out of 18 women offenders identified with a serious mental illness with significant impairment, 7 were placed in segregation at some point during 2016.”

According to the Auditor General's report, CSC acknowledged that segregation for persons with serious mental health issues “should be limited.” I draw my colleagues' attention to the word “limited”. The AG disagreed with limited use and recommended that CSC ensure that women offenders “with serious mental illness with significant impairment are not placed in segregation” and that there be improved oversight and enhanced observation of these offenders.

Correctional Service Canada agreed with the Auditor General's recommendations, and therefore, the public accounts committee had asked in our report that by May 31, 2019, CSC provide us with a report regarding the relocation of observation cells out of segregation ranges. Obviously, this request was thwarted by the introduction of Bill C-83 on October 16, 2018, less than five months after the public accounts committee tabled our report, which would eliminate administrative segregation and establish the SIUs, or structured intervention units.

Proposed section 32 of Bill C-83 says:

The purpose of a structured intervention unit is to (a) provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons; (b) provide the inmate with an opportunity for meaningful human contact and an opportunity to participate in programs and to have access to services that respond to the inmate’s specific needs and the risks posed by the inmate.

In other words, CSC is simply being compelled to do exactly what it is already mandated to do: deliver correctional programs, interventions and mental health services that respond appropriately to an offender's unique needs.

As pointed out earlier, an audit by the Office of the Auditor General revealed, with respect to women offenders, that CSC has failed in its mandate. In the fall 2018 report of the Auditor General, it was also revealed that CSC has not properly managed offenders under community supervision. As of April 2018, approximately 9,100 federal offenders, or 40% of all federal offenders, were under community supervision. According to “Report 6” of the fall 2018 Auditor General's report:

The number of offenders released into community supervision had grown and was expected to keep growing. However, Correctional Service Canada had reached the limit of how many offenders it could house in the community.... Despite the growing backlog [for accommodation], and despite research that showed that a gradual supervised release gave offenders a better chance of successful reintegration, Correctional Service Canada did not have a long-term plan to respond to its housing pressures.

CSC “did not properly manage offenders under community supervision”. Parole officers “did not always meet with offenders as often as they should have”, nor did they always “monitor [offenders'] compliance with special conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Canada.”

We met with CSC last week, and we discussed this very report. These deficiencies were brought out with an action plan to correct them. However, I would humbly suggest that the Liberal government should be focused on ensuring that Correctional Service Canada fully meets its mandate, as the safety and security of Canadians depends on the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society upon their release.

To meet its mandate, a good start would be for Correctional Service Canada to start listening to its correctional workers. I am fortunate to have Drumheller penitentiary in my constituency. Over the years, I have met countless times with wardens, correctional officers and other staff in Drumheller. I can tell members that there are concerns about this bill. Concerns have come forward to the public safety and emergency preparedness committee. Again, I am concerned that many of these correctional officers are not being listened to. In fact, Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, stated that they were not consulted on Bill C-83. We have a leader of one of the unions of correctional officers, and his frustration is that the Liberal government has not consulted.

The Correctional Investigator has said:

What I would agree with is that there has been very little detail provided by the Correctional Service or the government on how this [Bill C-83] is going to be implemented. If you read the proposed bill as it's currently written, there's a lot of stuff that seems to be pushed to regulation, as prescribed by regulations. We don't know what those regulations would look like. I think that's why there's a lot of uneasiness about this particular piece of legislation.

Given the findings of the OAG, I believe that this uneasiness with respect to the safety and security of Canadians extends well beyond Bill C-83. I certainly know, from the number of calls and emails I have received from correctional workers, that considerable uneasiness exists in the Drumheller Institution. The reason for that anxiety ranges from concerns about their safety and their colleagues' safety to pay issues around Phoenix. I currently have 70 files, some inactive, on Phoenix.

We have a bill now that would affect correctional officers, and they are bemoaning the fact that the government is not listening.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again we hear our colleagues across the way mention that they consulted broadly with respect to Bill C-83, yet at committee, witness after witness talked about the failure to consult properly. In fact, the correctional investigator of Canada told the public safety committee that all the consultations seemed to have been done internally. To his knowledge, there were no consultations with external stakeholders. He commented, “I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out”, such as Bill C-83.

It is so odd to hear time and again that the Liberals have consulted broadly. It seems that it is a tick box in their vernacular to say they have consulted broadly. All they have done is rushed this legislation through.

Witness after witnesses expressed concerns with respect to Bill C-83. Why does our hon. colleague feel the need to rush Bill C-83 through after faulty consultation?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will resume where I left off, which has to do with the utility of committees. I noticed that was a theme of question period, that committees are assigned tasks and committees doing their work make significant differences. Therefore, I want to go over a number of the significant differences the committee made with respect to the original Bill C-83 and the Bill C-83 that is before us as amended by the committee. We listened to witnesses and suggested changes to the government, and in many instances the government listened to the committee and made those changes.

The bill now includes a strengthened health care review system. If the warden disagrees with a recommendation from a health care provider to move inmates in or out of SIU or to alter their conditions of confinement, the committee or senior CSC personnel, external to the institution, would review the matter. That was a Liberal amendment.

The Conservatives contributed an amendment, which said that a new provision would allow CSC staff to recommend to a health care professional that an inmate be assessed under certain conditions, such as self-harm, emotional distress, adverse drug reaction, etc.

The NDP-Green Party amendment reinserted the principle that CSC and the parole board impose the “least restrictive” measures, consistent with security. The language existed for 20 years until the previous government changed it to “necessary and proportionate”. Least restrictive is back in, thanks to the amendments provided by the NDP and Green Party.

The NDP wanted a meaningful four hours of face time. Therefore, when CSC records the fact that an inmate did not get his or her four hours out, it would now have to include in the report the reasons for refusal.

About 14 or 15 different amendments were provided by all parties. Those amendments strengthen the bill and recommend the bill to the House.

The bill would enshrine in law the principle that medical professionals in CSC must operate independently of correctional authorities. It would also require CSC to consider systemic and background factors when making decisions that would impact indigenous people in federal custody.

None of this is a panacea. Even once the bill passes and the considerable resources to implement it are put in place, there will remain a lot of work to do.

One of the amendments I did not mention was that we insisted on a five-year review. Therefore, this is an open bill. It is not a panacea, but it is to be recommended. The effective rehabilitation and safe integration of people who have broken the law is essential for public safety. That is why I support the legislation and commend it to hon. colleagues.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that generous five minutes.

I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-83. I join this debate in two capacities: as an interested member of Parliament and as the chair of the public safety committee, which reviewed the bill, heard the witnesses and put forward quite a number of amendments to the original bill, which in some respects reflects the interest in the bill and how the government was open to amending the bill at committee.

The bill would replace the existing administrative segregation system with structured intervention units. The new SIUs would ensure a separation from the general prison population, which is sometimes necessary for security reasons. Even those witnesses who had actually been segregated prisoners emphasized the need for some mechanism by which a prisoner is separated from the general population. This, however, does not mean separation from rehabilitative programs, mental health care and other interventions.

If members think that this is just an academic exercise, I direct their attention to the front page of The Globe and Mail this morning. It read:

Ontario will not appeal a judge’s decision to abandon a charge of first-degree murder against Adam Capay, the 26-year-old from Lac Seul First Nation who spent more than 1,600 days in solitary confinement before a public furor over his plight forced officials to send him to a secure hospital.

The very issue that we are debating today is on the front page of The Globe and Mail. The article continued:

In deciding against an appeal, the province is consenting to a scathing ruling from Justice John Fregeau that set Mr. Capay free last month and faulted the ministry of corrections for allowing a term of solitary that was "prolonged, egregious and intolerable.”

In particular, he found that the jail’s procedure for reviewing Mr. Capay’s segregation was “pro forma, perfunctory and meaningless”....

Further on, there is some disaggregation of the errors and omissions:

At the time, nothing was controversial about the initial decision to lock him in solitary confinement. Correctional officers have authority to segregate a prisoner if they believe he could harm himself or others. On average, 472 provincial inmates faced segregation every day in 2012.

But in the Capay case, the institution started racking up serious errors and omissions that led directly to his release without trial.

The Supreme Court long ago ruled that people keep some residual rights and liberties after the courts send them to prison. If those residual rights are further reduced by being placed in segregation, the state must hold regular review hearings of the decision.

In Ontario, the law requires segregation review hearings to be held at the institutional level....

The article goes on to discuss Mr. Capay's case, but also the larger issue and that is the larger issue that we are facing today.

As I said earlier, when we heard testimony from various witnesses, those who actually had been subject to segregation and those who were supporting those who had been subject to segregation all argued for the need for segregation. The bill fits with the broader approach to corrections, which is based on the fact that public safety is best served by effective rehabilitation and treatment.

Naturally, there are some inmates who will never be granted any form of conditional release by the Parole Board. They are mostly people serving life sentences who will never progress to the point where the risk they pose to the outside can be managed outside of a correctional institution.

I see that my all too generous five minutes are now up and I will be delighted to resume after question period.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

I understand that Bill C-83 is designed to make a number of significant changes to our correctional system. It seeks to eliminate administrative segregation in correctional facilities, replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs, and introduce body scanners for inmates, among other changes.

There have been a lot of problems with the correctional system and Bill C-75 could make it worse. The policies under Bill C-75 include serious offenders receiving sentences of a maximum two years less a day. People who have committed serious crimes to persons and property will be in provincial jails, downloaded. We now will have a system where there will be less chance to deal with serious offenders in provincial institutions. It has become a revolving door, where some know they will be in and out very quickly and will not be provided the help they may need in a prison system.

I know the legislation has prompted some strong responses from stakeholders. I am happy to convey some of those serious concerns.

The CSC ombudsman, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, civil liberties and indigenous groups have all commented on the lack of consultation. Unions and employees have not been consulted. Nor have indigenous groups.

The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, whose members will be directly impacted by the legislation, even said, “The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody.” It does not sound right that it was a surprise to those who would be affected the most. It is something like the Parks Canada budget that had a $60 million pathway in it and Parks Canada knew nothing about it.

The correctional investigator of Canada told the public safety committee:

All the consultations seem to have been done internally. To my knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.

For a government that supposedly loves to consult, it sure seems to have left a lot of people dissatisfied with this process.

Of particular note are concerns we have heard from correctional officers. These are the people who wear the uniforms. These are the people who protect us and inmates. The introduction of SIUs may pose a risk to both prison guards and inmates. The legislation goes further than what was raised in either Superior Court decisions. It completely bans administrative segregation and introduces the structured intervention unit model.

We need to take a lot of care in how we deal with youth offenders or those with mental illnesses or mental disease for which segregation may not be an option. We need to be very careful in how we use segregated models with those people.

This has the potential to make prisons much more dangerous for guards and inmates. Guards will lose an important disciplinary tool. In fact, the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers told the public safety committee, “by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations.” That is a very troubling statement. In other words, was the consultation there to find another solution? I do not think so.

Guards will be placed in greater danger as they attempt to control extremely dangerous offenders without the ability to fully separate them from other inmates. Who is going to want to be a guard if things continue this way? It is already an intensely stressful, challenging occupation. We cannot keep placing these people under greater strain. Dangerous inmates will be forced together in units with each other. Is that the right way to go?

I understand that this change is well intentioned. Canada has a fundamentally sound and humane correctional system, especially compared to many other jurisdictions around the world. We do not want a draconian system, but we do need to balance the mental health of prisoners with the safety and protection of guards, workers and fellow inmates.

The bill would fail to do some of those things. It ignores the reality on the ground in many prisons. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles noted, some inmates request to be in administrative segregation for their own safety. They do not want to rub shoulders with other dangerous offenders.

Legislation intended to improve our correctional system should not compromise safety and security. The government needs to go back and fix the bill. It should not force the bill through over the objections of virtually all interested stakeholders and put lives at risk in doing so, especially the lives of those who wear the uniform.

I am also surprised to find that the legislation does nothing to ensure that high-risk offenders are not transferred to low-security facilities.

It was just last year that Canadians from coast to coast expressed outrage over Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge. Only after massive public pressure did the government finally move to address the injustice and send her back behind bars. The Prime Minister personally attacked his critics and accused Canadians of politicizing this issue. Thankfully, Canadians were able to pressure him enough to act so that decision was changed.

However, a prime minister should never have to be shamed into doing the right thing. There was an opportunity in this legislation to take real action to prevent similar situations in the future, but no action was taken on this topic.

One clear positive aspect that would result from the legislation is the introduction of body scanners. If this system is applied properly, it should be helpful in intercepting drugs before they make their way into prisons. It is important that the scans apply to all individuals entering the prison. Drugs simply should not be flowing into correctional facilities and creating even more dangerous conditions there.

However, I am unclear why the Liberals' haphazard plan to supply inmates with syringes would still being implemented if we have scanners. Our objective should be to prevent drug abuse in prisons, not facilitate it. Furthermore, legitimate concerns have been raised over the weaponization of the syringes. It should be obvious that the worst offenders will try to use syringes as weapons. This presents yet another threat to guards who are already operating in a dangerous environment. The body scanners should receive the highest priority, and the needle exchange program should be scrapped.

In summary, this flawed legislation is not right. It does not prioritize the safety of correctional service officers. It compromises the safety of inmates. Almost all of the witnesses the public safety committee heard were critical of the bill. The consultation process was obviously not complete.

Instead of scrapping the legislation in light of witness testimony, the Liberals are pressing forward with it. I join my colleagues in opposing the bill.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is very concerned about the problem of administrative segregation.

After reading Bill C-83, I think that structured intervention units are a major step forward in resolving this problem. They will ensure that inmates have access to human contact and appropriate interventions that promote their rehabilitation.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is quite simple. I asked another Liberal member the same question, but I did not really get a response.

Bill C-83 was tabled in response to decisions handed down by superior courts in Ontario and British Columbia that deemed the current administrative segregation model unconstitutional. These decisions included a number of recommendations, but upon reviewing Bill C-83, it would seem that most of them were overlooked.

Why did the government not seize this opportunity to respond to the two court rulings that struck down the current administrative segregation model as unconstitutional?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, far from parliamentarians, the stakeholders and the Canadian public being silenced, I am actually quite taken with the amount of consultation that went into this legislation, which is long overdue for a problem that was putting in jeopardy not only the people that were incarcerated but also those who work with them.

I have something of a background in community and social work service and I had many colleagues who worked in the prison system. I was very much taken with how they were able to work in such difficult conditions with so few tools. It is one thing to talk and it is another thing to take action. To come forward with a piece of legislation such as Bill C-83, which meets those demands while at the same time coming with $448 million in investments, including in infrastructure and the kinds of tools that would keep people safer within and outside of the prison system, shows that our government is taking action where it counts and that people have been heard.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring this back. I feel it is important we do this at every opportunity. Each member from the government side has said there have been significant consultations and witnesses that appeared before the committee, and their concerns were heard. However, we know through comments from the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers that there are still significant concerns. Witness after witness has said the bill is flawed right to the core.

Therefore, I want to go back to what we are dealing with again today. During the 2015 debate, the member for Papineau, now our Prime Minister, said he would let debate reign. He would not force closure on debate. We have seen it well over 60 times. On a piece of legislation, such as Bill C-83, which is so important, all sides would agree to that, the Liberals have forced time allocation once again, limiting debate and essentially limiting the voices of the members of Parliament on this side. We are the voices of the electors who put us in the House to ensure the voices of our regions and ridings come to Ottawa. What the Liberals have done now, as they have done so often, is that they have silenced those voices of opposition.

Why, on such an important piece of legislation, do the Liberals feel the need to force closure and ignore the comments and concerns of the witnesses that came before the committee?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House and to participate in today's debate on Bill C-83.

This piece of legislation will transform our corrections system. Ultimately, we want to promote safety and security, both in and out of our federal institutions. The bill also prioritizes rehabilitation as a key factor in achieving this objective.

The key innovation in Bill C-83 is the proposal to create structured intervention units, or SIUs. These SIUs would be found in every prison. Some inmates are sometimes too dangerous or disruptive to be housed safely in the general prison population. Currently, these inmates are placed in administrative segregation. Federal inmates placed in administrative segregation can spend up to 22 hours a day in their cells and have very limited interaction with other inmates.

Bill C-83 offers a more effective solution for everyone involved. Safety will always be the top priority. Prisons are safer for those who live and work there when inmates have access to programs, mental health care, and other interventions they need. Inmates who benefit from these interventions are more likely to reintegrate into society safely when they leave the institution.

The government's proposed solution in Bill C-83 is to eliminate administrative segregation and replace it with structured intervention units. These units will be safe and separate from the general population to ensure compliance with safety requirements. They will also be designed in such a way that inmates who are placed there will receive requisite interventions, programs and treatments. Inmates in structured intervention units will be allowed to leave their cells for at least four hours a day instead of the two hours allowed under the current system. It should be noted that the two-hour period is currently established by policy, not by law. Bill C-83 would enshrine the four-hour minimum in law.

Inmates who are placed in SIUs will have the opportunity to have at least two hours of meaningful interaction with other people, including corrections staff, other compatible inmates, visitors, chaplains and seniors. The objective of these reforms is to ensure that inmates in SIUs are able to reintegrate into the general prison population as soon as possible.

Bill C-83 has been thoroughly analyzed at every step of the parliamentary process thus far. Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security went through it with a fine-tooth comb, and some useful amendments were made at the end of the committee review period based on the testimony of a broad range of stakeholders.

Bill C-83 was already a robust and effective piece of legislation when it was introduced, but after being vigorously debated and carefully examined, it is now even better. It is important to point out that the bill that was sent back to us includes amendments from all of the parties that proposed amendments.

I disagree with the suggestion made in debate that it is somehow a bad thing that the bill was amended in reaction to comments from the public and parliamentarians.

I am proud to support a government that welcomes constructive, thoughtful input and that respects the role members from all parties play in the legislative process.

The purpose of most of the amendments to Bill C-83 is to ensure that structured intervention units, SIUs, work as intended.

For example, some witnesses were concerned that time outside of the cell might be made available in the middle of the night, when inmates are unlikely to benefit from it. The member for Montarville added the requirement that time outside the cell be provided between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Other witnesses wondered whether mandatory interaction with others might be provided through a door or a meal slot.

To address that concern, the member for Toronto—Danforth added a provision stating that every reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that human contact takes place face to face and that a record of exceptions is kept.

In response to concerns about Correctional Service Canada making inappropriate use of the provision stating that time outside the cell can be denied in exceptional circumstances, the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore added a list of specific examples, including fires and natural disasters, to clarify the interpretation of that provision.

Amendments put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth in committee and by the member for Oakville North—Burlington at report stage will strengthen the review process to ensure that placement in SIUs is subject to robust internal and external oversight.

All of these measures will help ensure that the new SIUs are used as intended.

We also accepted various amendments put forward by the members for Brampton North, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Beloeil—Chambly and Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank them all for their contributions.

We all want our institutions and communities to be safer, and we want Canadians to feel and be safe. The successful rehabilitation and reintegration of people serving a federal sentence is essential for achieving our shared objective of enhancing public safety.

By enabling inmates who need to be separated from the general inmate population to spend more time outside their cells, have more access to mental health services, and receive more rehabilitation interventions, Bill C-83 is a big step in the right direction.

Again, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their contributions at each step of the legislative process so far, and I urge them all to join me in enthusiastically supporting this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a number of amendments accepted in this process, and I found the clause-by-clause process of Bill C-83 to be quite collaborative.

I was briefly out of the chamber. Therefore, I have to apologize if this point has come up already.

Earlier today one of my hon. friends referred to people in segregation units or solitary confinement as the worst of the worst. I think of the coroner's report with respect to what happened to Ashley Smith. She was a young woman with mental health issues who was moved 17 times in the period before she was found in her cell. She had committed suicide, but the correctional guards were watching as she died. The coroner's report was very clear.

This bill attempts to deal with some of that. Edward Snowshoe is another example of somebody who died in solitary confinement. These are not the worst of the worst; rather, “There but for fortune may go you or I.” Ashley Smith's mother was desperate to help her. However, the correctional authorities and the system kept a mother away from a girl who was suffering and ultimately killed herself. Therefore, let us not judge the people who get stuck in solitary confinement, but rather recognize it for what it is: a form of torture, which we must not use.

This bill does not go far enough. I will vote for it and hope it gets improved again in the Senate.

I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to talk about the fact that some of the people in solitary confinement are there because of mental health and addiction issues. Could he explain how it compounds the torture when they are kept away from people who can have good, healthy contact with them?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with what my friend beside me has said. I would also point out that during my speech, I listed quote after quote from people involved in the correctional services who were saying that they are not consulted, that they are being asked to do more with less and that they do not have the proper resources as it is.

This new legislation, Bill C-83, if it passes, will actually hamper them in doing their job and could put more officers at risk, so the Liberals are not protecting those they claim they are protecting.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely I agree with everything my friend said. The departmental plan is very clear, and even in the case of Bill C-83, which we are discussing today, this plan that the Liberals have has not even been costed.

We are already dealing with correctional officers who feel overworked and stressed as it is, and now they are being asked to do more with less. For those who are working hard, sometimes in dangerous conditions each and every day, and at times dealing with the worst of the worst within our society, asking them to continue while taking away a tool that they use to protect themselves and others is simply irresponsible.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Let me state from the outset that I am opposed to this bill, not for what the bill purports to accomplish but for what I am afraid the bill would unintentionally accomplish.

This legislation proposes to eliminate administrative segregation in corrections facilities by replacing these facilities with new structured intervention units and to also allow the commissioner to reassign the security classification of each penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary.

It is a tenet of our free and democratic society that the worst punishment one can consign to people is to deprive them of their liberty. Indeed, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is clear on that matter. Section 7 states,

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It is that clause that allows a democratic society that holds the fundamental principles of life, liberty and security of the person in such high esteem to deprive another of them. If someone commits a crime in Canada, particularly a heinous crime, that person will be locked away to protect society from that person's acts.

There are Canadians, particularly those who have endured unimaginable pain at the hands of criminals, who believe that they should have no rights in jail. On a deeply personal basis, I understand that cry for vengeance, the need to make another suffer for the way that person made a loved one suffer. As a parliamentarian, I must, like my colleagues in this House, temper my personal feelings with the duty Canadians have sought fit to invest in me to ensure that all people are treated equitably under the laws of this great nation.

As such, inmates in Canada are afforded a number of protections through human rights legislation, various statutes and the supreme law in Canada, our Constitution. They too are protected from the most dangerous criminals inside our institutions.

Segregation, or isolation, whatever we want to call it, affords protection for inmates, and let us not forget, the correctional staff who work in these facilities. The law requires that a balance must be struck between the protection of inmates and staff and the protection of inmates in segregation.

Inmates who are determined to be at risk to themselves or others would now be placed in new structured intervention units, or SIUs. Inmates would be given at least four hours a day outside their cells and guaranteed at least two hours to interact with others.

The introduction of SIUs would pose a risk to prison guards and inmates and to the inmates for whom solitary confinement is used for their own safety. Bill C-83 would strip the ability to use segregation for discipline. This change would make prisons more dangerous for the guards, as they would have to deal with the most violent of inmates, those who continue to prey on others inside the institution.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has said that it has not been properly consulted on Bill C-83. On October 21, the Vancouver Sun reported that the head of the national prison guards' union predicted a “bloodbath” behind bars as the federal government moves to end solitary confinement in Canadian prisons. The national president, Jason Godin, explained:

...by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations. We are concerned about policy revisions that appear to be reducing the ability to isolate an inmate, either for their safety or for that of staff....

I share this concern that no thought has been given to what measures we need to take to make sure that nobody gets hurt.

Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator of Canada, stated:

ln effect, Bill C-83 proposes a softer version of segregation without any of the constitutional protections. The bill is uniformly short on specifics and places too much discretion and trust in correctional authorities to replace segregation with an unproven and not well-conceived correctional model.

Bill C-83 goes further than what was raised in either of the Superior Court decisions. With respect to SIUs, the bill would allow the commissioner to reassign the security classification of each penitentiary or any area within a penitentiary. These sub-designations have raised concerns about whether this would allow an entire penitentiary to become an SIU and what that would mean for security and staffing.

Furthermore, these sub-designations could lead to more cases of higher-security prisoners being in a lower-security space, based on technicalities.

We know just how soft the government is already on the most despicable elements of our society. Recently, Terri-Lynne McClintic, who was convicted of first degree murder in the 2009 kidnapping and brutal killing of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford, was transferred to a minimum-security facility in Saskatchewan, even though she is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years. Now the government wants to institute an official policy to allow this to potentially happen on a regular basis. It will not be on our watch.

Conservatives are opposed to any legislation that opens the door to allowing high-risk offenders to be housed in low-security facilities. Dangerous child killers, pedophiles and murderers—the most heinous of people—deserve to be behind bars. ISIS terrorists deserve to be in prison, not offered poetry classes by the government.

This bill is just another example of Liberals putting the rights of dangerous criminals ahead of the rights of victims and their families, ahead of the safety and well-being of correctional officers who must work in these facilities and of course ahead of common sense. The legislation is too wide-ranging.

Debra Parkes, a professor at the UBC law school, stated:

The first point is that the proposal for structured intervention units actually expands rather than eliminates segregated conditions. These provisions give incredibly broad powers to the commissioner to designate whole prisons or areas of prisons as SIUs. Purposes for placing in SIUs are also very broad, including from proposed paragraph 32(a), to “provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons”, undefined and unclear. It's very broad.

While the supplementary estimates show $448 million for CSC over the next six years, this piece of legislation has not been costed. Our correctional officers are doing an exemplary job at keeping everyone safe, including themselves and the inmates, but situations arise and people do get hurt. Now we are asking our correctional staff to do more with less. As situations continue to arise—and they will—more people will get hurt, and that is not acceptable.

Jason Godin, the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, stated:

As recently as a couple of weeks ago, I was in Edmonton sitting in the segregation unit asking the staff in there if they were meeting the two-hour requirement, with the showers and the phone calls, and they said, “Absolutely not. It's 10 o'clock at night and we can't meet them.”

Currently, segregated inmates are supervised at a two-to-one guard-to-prisoner ratio when they are not in their unit. Bill C-83 purports to expand services to inmates in segregation and to double their time out of segregation without costing the resources needed to keep inmates and staff safe.

This is another reason I oppose the bill. It just does not add up, and the result could mean that people will be getting hurt.

The CSC ombudsman, the union of correctional officers, civil liberties and indigenous groups have all commented on the lack of consultation and they are concerned that too much of this legislation is being left to regulations. I am anxious that not enough consideration was given to the concerns of indigenous groups, to civil liberty organizations and to the correctional services staff who must maintain security in these institutions. The lack of consultation and foresight from the government on Bill C-83 is, to be frank, appalling.

Jason Godin offers this insight into the process, stating:

Unfortunately, due to cabinet confidentiality, as our commissioner often tells us, we weren't really consulted. The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody. I don't see the bill before it comes onto the table, so we weren't officially consulted on Bill C-83.

There was also this shocking revelation by Ivan Zinger:

All the consultations seem to have been done internally. To my knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.

It is of concern that the Liberals are moving away from segregation, particularly as a deterrent to bad behaviour, as it strips front-line officers of their tools to manage difficult prisoners. Solitary confinement must take into account the mental health of prisoners balanced with the safety and protection of guards, workers, and fellow inmates.

The safety of inmates and correctional service officers must be the priority for any legislation put forward by this government. It is clear, in our opinion, that the Liberals did not do their homework when it came to Bill C-83, and Canada's Conservatives call on this government to go back to drawing board with Bill C-83 and put forward legislation that prioritizes inmate safety and the safety of correctional service officers.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in favour of Bill C-83.

The purpose of the bill is to move away from the system of administrative segregation in place at the moment toward a new structured intervention units. We have heard before in the debate in the House that this responds to two recent decisions by courts in Ontario and British Columbia. I read those decisions again last night. I have read them a few times now. They are difficult decisions. They set out clear problems with our existing system.

The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques raised a question earlier, saying that the bill did not respond to what was set out in the decisions. I do not believe that is correct. There are two reasons, some of which I will go into later as we discuss the matter. However, in addition, it is because the system that was being reviewed and some of the rules that were being put in place when the judges were making their decisions were based on the system we have now. The system we would be putting into place with Bill C-83 would have a very different set of rules. We need to take that into account, and I will work through some of it. I believe this change in legislation, the change to the system we would putt in place, would increase charter compliance and would respond to the issues that were raised.

I will admit that I approached the bill with some concerns. When the bill first came before us, I had a lot of questions. I listened to the testimony. We heard from inmates, corrections officers and lawyers. A lot of people brought forward their concerns on the bill. It made me think long and hard about what was the right way for us to address these issues.

What was really clear to me, the most important part when I looked at what was needed to improve the bill, was oversight. In fact, oversight and decision making was one of the key issues raised by both court decisions as a matter of procedural fairness. It was not only in the transfer to a unit but also in the decision to keep a person in what was at the time an administrative segregation unit.

I want to highlight the fact that oversight is the glue that keeps it together. Ultimately we need to have a system that is safe and secure, conducive to inmate rehabilitation, to staff safety and to protection of the public. We are all working toward that. There is much more work to be done, but there is also much work under way.

Regardless of Bill C-83, some improvements are already in place. There has been more than a 50% decline in administrative segregation placements over the last four years. That is already a change in the way things are happening on the ground. The other part is the fact that the correctional service commissioner's mandate letter highlights the need to work in a collaborative relationship with the Office of the Correctional Investigator in order to address and resolve matters of mutual concern.

I have the highest respect for the Office of the Correctional Investigator. When we read those annual reports, we get an insight into what happens in our correctional system. To have that need to work together collaboratively in the mandate letter to resolve issues that have been raised is a very important statement about how we move forward with Correctional Service Canada. I would also add that the budget for the Office of the Correctional Investigator has been increased. I welcome that as part of the essential oversight we need for the system.

When talking about the bill specifically, at committee I worked closely with my colleague, the member for Oakville North—Burlington, on how we could improve oversight in the bill. How could we, when looking at structured intervention units, improve oversight. I want to thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington for introducing an amendment, to which the government has given royal recommendation, to allow for properly funded external oversight. That piece is essential. It responds to many of the concerns that were raised, not only by the courts but by witnesses as well. It builds on amendments that were made at committee.

At committee, for example, there were additional oversight pieces. One part I worked on would ensure that when people were transferred into a structured intervention unit, they would get written reasons for it in very short order. That is important, because one cannot appeal a decision if one does not have the reasons for it. It sounds legalistic, but it is important to have written reasons so people can appeal a decision if they wish.

Another piece I worked on was this. If a health expert recommended that an inmate be moved out of a structured intervention unit, and the warden disagreed, an additional review would be built in at a more senior level within Correctional Service Canada so that the decision could be reviewed. It is the layers of oversight that are essential and is why I believe that the work at committee was very important in moving that forward.

I have talked about oversight. Another issue we needed to address when we looked at the court decisions was the essential piece on what is now administrative segregation, which was highly criticized, and what we are proposing as far as moving toward structured intervention units. This turns on two parts: time in the cell and time in the cell without meaningful contact with people. Currently, inmates have 22 hours in a cell, plus shower time. The court was clear that shower time is over and above the two hours and does not mean that inmates are in their cells for over 22 hours. It completely rejected that as a notion. Inmates have two hours out of their cells.

There is an international set of rules, the Mandela Rules. Rule 44 sets out that solitary confinement is 22 hours without meaningful contact with people. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association case, which is one of the cases that gave rise to this, spoke specifically to this issue. It said,

Canada can take itself outside of the literature dealing with solitary confinement...in administrative segregation both in terms of the time that an inmate spends in his or her cell and the nature of the human contact that they have while segregated.

When the court was reviewing it, it said that we needed to make changes to the system in those two ways. That is, in fact, what this bill would address. Clause 36 of the bill would require that inmates spend a minimum of four hours a day outside their cells. In addition, though, an amendment was introduced at committee that said that it had to be at a reasonable time. Those four hours could not be in the middle of the night, when people want to be sleeping. Therefore, those four hours would have to be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., a reasonable time when inmates may want to be outside their cells. Of those four hours, inmates would have to have an opportunity to interact for a minimum of two hours through activities, including, but not limited to, programs, interventions and services that would encourage inmates to make progress toward the objectives of their correctional plans or that would support their reintegration into the mainstream inmate population and leisure time. These are meaningful ways people could have contact and interact.

When I was looking at the B.C. case in particular, one of the things that really hit home was the fact that a lot of the contact inmates are having is through a meal slot. When they are interacting with staff and individuals, a lot of it is happening just through their meal slots, and that is just unacceptable. Without eye contact, that is not meaningful contact. It is important to make sure that there is contact, not just people walking by without interacting.

These are important changes. The bill gives us a chance to think about an entirely new system, which it really would be. We would be moving from administrative segregation, which is 22 hours in a cell without meaningful contact, to 20 hours and a requirement for meaningful contact. We would be changing things in a way that would be meaningful and important and that would respond to these court decisions. I understand that people have raised some issues, but I believe that this is an important step forward, and I am pleased to speak in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely I will.

The nice thing about a democracy is that we can and we are allowed to disagree. I sit on the committee, just as my hon. friend across the way does, and quite frankly I was disappointed. The main issue we were trying to address was the rehabilitation of prisoners. That is the purpose of corrections. We want to place them safely back into the community.

Bill C-83 fails in that respect. Witnesses had many other amendments, all of which were ignored by the Liberal majority on the committee. Were amendments made? Yes, but they did not strengthen the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-83. As we know, it is a bill that symbolizes the current government's approach to leadership in this country. It is an approach of ignoring the concerns of many, providing little in the way of moral leadership and transparency, and putting the safety of Canadians at risk for the benefit of political gain.

I have said many times in this place that it is and should be the top priority of the House to put the safety of Canadians first, ahead of any other issues or politics. With the bill, the House would fail to meet that expectation.

To paraphrase my NDP colleague from Beloeil—Chambly, I can think of no time when a bill has come before Parliament where there are no witnesses who support the legislation. That is exactly what happened with Bill C-83. The minister claimed the bill would end administrative segregation. The witnesses who refuted the bill included prisoner advocacy groups, civil liberties groups, former wardens, professors, correctional unions, the correctional investigator and a senator. The overriding sentiment was that the legislation lacked the detail and information needed to back up such a claim by the minister.

The minister claimed the bill responded to issues raised by the courts that segregation caused the death of two inmates. However, the facts are clear in these two unfortunate deaths that they were the result of operational and management failures in both circumstances.

The minister claimed safety and security of staff were the top priorities. However, correctional workers and former inmates testified that segregation is essential to managing violent and volatile inmates, and that the bill would create more risk to staff.

Civil liberties groups called the bill unconstitutional and said it would make things worse rather than better. They noted the bill lacked external oversight, a check against the authorities of Correctional Service Canada. The minister actually acknowledged this lack of oversight existed.

Senator Pate testified before the committee and indicated that Bill C-83 was a bad piece of legislation. The senator dismantled the minister's claims as to how the bill would end segregation. In a visit to a Nova Scotia Prison, Senator Pate noted that it had renamed the segregation unit, the “intensive intervention unit”. The minister will claim otherwise, of course. However, I will take the testimony of a senator and her eyewitness account over the minister's promise, especially given the minister's repeated track record of misleading Parliament and Canadians.

Perhaps the only accomplishment by the minister with respect to the bill is that he brought together the NDP, the Green Party and the Conservatives, who all oppose the legislation.

I would like to note the unexpected and very valuable contribution of written testimony from Mr. Glen Brown, someone who knows the system well. Mr. Brown is a highly experienced former warden and deputy warden, who now teaches criminal justice and criminology at Simon Fraser University and Langara College.

As someone once responsible for segregation units, he notes that the Ashley Smith and Edward Snowshoe cases were more about mismanagement of behavioural issues and neglect. These issues are not legislative problems. They are management, training and accountability issues. When in segregation, inmates should receive bolstered communication on current risks and mental health issues. They should have increased contact with officers and staff, and they should have an increased potential for services. All this should bring greater attention to an offender's rehabilitation plan.

Mr. Brown wrote:

The strength of a functioning administrative segregation process is that it should bolster all of those things: oversight is strengthened; case management should be more active; information sharing should be more robust; referral for clinical service should be prioritized and case management intervention to develop plans should be urgent.

After noting that science and research has shown that properly managed segregation units do not cause short- or long-term harm, Mr. Brown noted, “To respond to current circumstances with sweeping legislative reform is only to react ideologically, and to ignore science and evidence.”

On the minister's grand solution to segregation, which is to rename segregation units to “structured intervention units”, Mr. Brown noted that Bill C-83 described SIUs in such broad and vague language that the consequences of implementation were very uncertain, that the details were unknown and the details were the key. The current layout of many segregation units did not facilitate socialization and programming. The emphasis on programming suggested longer-term stays in SIUs, weeks or maybe months. SIUs would not be suitable for short-term management of volatile inmates, such as those under the influence. There was the inability to have specialized staff for particular subpopulations in a prison. Finally, he noted that given the current layout of many prisons, a wing may need to be deemed a structured intervention unit, meaning up to 96 inmates may be subject to 20 hours a day of confinement where before it would be only 16.

To be clear, someone who is an expert and has worked for years in prisons with segregation says that he cannot discern the minister's plan. Moreover, he says that prisons often lack the infrastructure, are inappropriate to what is needed and could have the opposite effect to what the minister claims.

Perhaps the only potential value in the legislation could come from an external review mechanism of segregation, because it could provide Canadians with greater confidence in offender management. The minister, however, told the committee that we did not have the authority to do this, an order the Liberal MPs on the committee followed, while the opposition members put forward mechanisms to provide such oversight, which were soundly rejected.

When we pushed the Liberals at committee to amend the worst parts of the legislation and pointed to the glaring issues raised by the many expert witnesses, we were told that Liberal MPs were voting with “faith in the minister”.

The role of committees is not to provide support and faith to a minister. It is to conduct detailed examinations on challenging issues, to hear from experts and impacted Canadians, to examine programs, spending and legislation to determine if it will meet the needs of Canadians or, at the very least, what the minister claims it will meet. On this, our committee has failed.

At the conclusion of committee debate on Bill C-83, my Conservative colleagues and I put our views on the record. We indicated that the committee failed in its role to review the legislation and ensure that it could make informed decisions. We also said that we believed the minister withheld information from committee that was clearly available to him at the time, namely the cost and how it would be used and implemented in the bill, which most witnesses said was essential to knowing if the bill would be useful. For the minister, it seemed more important that he withhold his plan from the committee. Half a billion dollars connected to a bill, where and how the money will be used is essential to know if the bill will work. We still do not have a plan necessarily for that money.

What was the response to the overwhelming criticism and skepticism of the bill? Government MPs stated that they were “making a leap of faith” and putting their trust in the minister. What was accomplished by the committee in reviewing this legislation? In my opinion, next to nothing. The Liberal members rejected amendments on how the money would be used. They rejected a requirement to publish the standards of the new SIUs. They rejected limits to reclassifying prisons. They rejected having the minister provide us with how he would implement this new plan.

On this legislation, the Liberals have turned their backs on Canadians. We are to trust the minister who has an extensive track record of misleading Canadians on things like the disastrous India trip, Bill C-59 and Bill C-71, failure to provide funding for police to tackle gangs, and I could go on.

We as a House can do better. We must do better. We can all rise to a higher level. Personally, I feel this committee failed its constituents, its communities and its country. Bill C-83 is yet another example of the many failures of the Liberal government.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that Bill C-83 had to be brought in because of superior court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia that found the current segregation policy to be unconstitutional.

In the two rulings handed down in Quebec and Ontario, recommendations were made and put in writing to explain their decision and to guide future government policy or legislation.

Bill C-83, however, fails to implement most of these recommendations, and I would like to ask my colleague why that is.

Why did the government refuse to consider the recommendations of the judges, who ruled that the situation was unconstitutional?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this new chamber to speak to Bill C-83.

When this bill was introduced, it was an important piece of legislation. However, what is even more important is that the parliamentary process has helped enhance this very important bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members who have participated in the debate, who provided information and who shared their views.

The witnesses were also helpful. Some came to us, while others provided additional information in writing that helped us improve this bill as much as possible. All of these contributions will help build a safer and more effective correctional system, which is essential.

I also want to point out that more than 100 amendments were proposed. This means that there were a lot of discussions on this bill. I should also note that every party was able to contribute to these amendments in one way or another.

One of the amendments was about broadening the scope of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that correctional policies, programs and practices respect religion, sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, and the special needs of visible minorities. Those are very important aspects.

Another amendment was about making every reasonable effort to provide inmates in structured intervention units with human contact, which is very important to their mental health. Some felt it was important to give individuals in structured intervention units a reasonable amount of time outside their cell. That does not mean waking inmates up at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.; time outside the cell must be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

In terms of health care, the bill provides further assurances to inmates by requiring an additional review when the institutional head disagrees with the recommendations of a health professional with respect to altering the conditions of an inmate's confinement or removing the inmate from the unit.

I am very pleased to say that the bill will be reviewed every five years. This is another approach our government has been taking since 2015. We are bringing in legislation that provides for reviews and allows for improvements to be made. This will give us an opportunity to examine the bill's implementation and make the necessary changes.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness also mentioned that the government would be open to an important addition, specifically, external oversight. The member for Oakville North—Burlington moved that amendment at report stage, and the government has signalled its intention to support it. This addition will address one of the main concerns raised during testimony in committee. It is also very important to ensure that the necessary resources are put in place to move this crucial bill forward. I will explain in my speech where we have made those investments.

The national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, Stanley Stapleton, shared this sentiment. I am delighted to say that the government also took his calls into account.

The Minister of Finance of Canada announced a $448-million investment in corrections in the latest fall economic update. A large part of this money will be put towards the provisions of this bill.

As the Minister of Public Safety pointed out, this funding will ensure that the Correctional Service of Canada will have properly trained staff at the right time and in the right place. This investment also includes $150 million for extensive improvements to mental health care in prisons. This money is in addition to the considerable investment of almost $80 million that was announced in our government's last two budgets.

In other words, the government has followed through on its commitment to ensure that the corrections system holds offenders accountable for their actions but also supports their rehabilitation in a safe and secure environment. The goal is to have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims, and ultimately, a safer country.

Bill C-83 will strengthen the federal correctional system by implementing a new intervention model, improve health care governance and victim support services, and better take into account the specific needs of indigenous offenders. That is very important. What is more, it will eliminate administrative segregation and make way for patient advocates, as recommended in the coroner's report on the death of Ashley Smith. It will also enact less intrusive alternatives to strip searches and body cavity searches.

The bill will help better support the role of victims in the criminal justice system by guaranteeing them access to audio recordings of parole hearings. This is a marked improvement over the former system, under which only victims who did not attend the hearing could obtain an audio recording. Now victims who attend will also get the recordings.

The bill also enshrines into law the principle by which health care providers at correctional institutions will have to make decisions based on their medical judgment, independently of correctional authorities. The bill also enshrines in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders.

In summary, we drafted a comprehensive bill that will strengthen the security of our institutional staff, inmates and our communities. It will make it possible for Correctional Service Canada to separate certain offenders while ensuring that they receive the interventions required. It will also improve the quality of their rehabilitation.

Once again, I want to thank all members who contributed to this important bill. Its passage through the House so far demonstrates what can be done when members from all parties work together to pass legislation that will help the community. I am proud to support Bill C-83 today, and I encourage members of the House to do so as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister this morning described that $448 million is allocated to Bill C-83 over the next six years. We know that a considerable amount of infrastructure renovation would be required to meet the requirements laid out in Bill C-83.

Of the portion of money that has been set aside for the infrastructure rebuild, could the parliamentary secretary please advise the House as to how much is actually going to go to the services provided and to the correctional officers' requirements in playing out all of Bill C-83?

[Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we need proper oversight in this process. We were grateful to have the testimony of many people working in correctional facilities who pushed for these kinds of oversight. As well, many in organizations that were looking for more oversight throughout this process came and testified at committee and met with members of Parliament from all sides of the House. That is a core component of the legislation that we have put forward.

I would also like to add that it is important to develop trust among players involved in this system. We have been able to do that by making them a part of the process so far of developing the proposed law, Bill C-83, and also by listening to them and ensuring that they have the resources in place through new investments and investments that have been already put in place to ensure their safety as we put in place this new methodology to deal with those particular inmates.

[Peter Schiefke, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-83.

It is a transformative piece of legislation for our correctional system. Its ultimate goal is to promote safety, both inside and outside our federal institutions, and it prioritizes rehabilitation as an indispensable part of achieving that goal.

The core innovation in Bill C-83 is the proposed introduction of structured intervention units, or SIUs. These SIUs would address a reality in any prison across our country, which is that some inmates are, at certain times, simply too dangerous or disruptive to be safely housed in the mainstream inmate population. The current practice is to place those offenders in administrative segregation.

Segregated inmates in federal institutions can be in their cells for as many as 22 hours a day. Interactions with other people are highly limited. Bill C-83 would offer a more effective way forward for all involved.

Safety will always be priority number one for our government, and should be for any government in power, but prisons are safer places in which to live and work when inmates receive the programming, mental health care and other interventions they need. Inmates who receive these interventions are more likely to reintegrate safely into the community when their sentences are over.

The solution the government is proposing in Bill C-83 is to eliminate segregation and to replace it with SIUs. These units would be secure and separate from the mainstream inmate population so that the safety imperative would be met. However, they would be designed to ensure that inmates who were placed there would receive the interventions, programming and treatment they required.

Inmates in SIUs would be given the opportunity to leave their cells for at least four hours a day, as opposed to two hours under the current system. It is worth noting that currently, those two hours are set out in policy and not in legislation. Bill C-83 would give the four-hour minimum the full force of law.

Inmates in SIUs would also have the opportunity for at least two hours of meaningful human contact. During that time, they could interact with people such as correctional staff, other compatible inmates, visitors, chaplains or elders. The goal of these reforms is for inmates in an SIU to be in a position to reintegrate into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.

Bill C-83 has undergone rigorous analysis at every stage of the parliamentary process to date. Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security went over it with a fine-tooth comb. Based on testimony from a wide range of stakeholders, a number of useful amendments were adopted at the end of the committee's study period.

Bill C-83 was a solid and worthwhile bill from day one. It is now even better and stronger for having gone through vigorous debate and a robust review process. It is worth noting that the bill that has been reported back to us reflects amendments from all parties that proposed them. I wholeheartedly reject the idea we have heard during this debate that somehow the fact that the bill has been amended in response to public and parliamentary feedback is a bad thing. I am proud to support a government that welcomes informed, constructive feedback and that respects the role of members of Parliament from all parties in the legislative process. I would like to thank all members in this House who contributed to amending and making this bill better than it was.

Most of the amendments made to Bill C-83 are about ensuring that the new SIUs would function as intended. For instance, some witnesses were worried that the opportunity for time out of the cell would be provided in the middle of the night, when inmates were unlikely to take advantage of it. Therefore, the member for Montarville added the requirement that it happen between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Other witnesses wondered whether the mandatory interactions with others might happen through a door or a meal slot, a reasonable concern. To address that concern, the member for Toronto—Danforth added a provision requiring that every reasonable effort be made to ensure that interactions are face to face, with a record kept of any and all exceptions.

To address concerns that CSC might make excessive use of the clause allowing for time out of the cell not to be provided in exceptional circumstances, the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore added a list of specific examples, such as fires or natural disasters, to clarify how this clause should be interpreted.

Amendments from the member for Toronto—Danforth at committee and from the member for Oakville North—Burlington at report stage will enhance the review process so that each SIU placement is subject to robust oversight, both internally and externally.

All of this will help ensure that the new structured intervention units operate as intended.

However, that is not all. Amendments have also been accepted from the members for Brampton North, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Beloeil—Chambly and Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would like to thank them once again for their contributions as well.

We all want safer institutions and safer communities. We all want Canadians to feel safe and to be safe. Successful rehabilitation and safe reintegration of people in federal custody are key to achieving our shared objective of enhanced public safety. By allowing inmates who must be separated from the general prison population to receive more time out of their cell and more mental health care and rehabilitative interventions, Bill C-83 represents a major step in the right direction.

Again, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues for their contributions in the House and at committee throughout the entire parliamentary process so far, and I urge them to join me in enthusiastically supporting this bill. It will ensure the safety of the inmates and those who work in the correctional institutions, and Canadians as well.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the particular item raised by the hon. gentleman obviously does not relate to Bill C-83, but on the substantive issue he has raised, I will examine the facts and get back to him with further information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. minister about one of the witnesses who testified, Senator Pate. She testified before the committee and indicated that the legislation, Bill C-83, as presented and as amended was bad legislation.

Senator Pate did a very good job of dismantling the claims of the minister and the bill on what segregation would do at the end of the day. Her experience in Nova Scotia was that one of the prisons she visited had renamed a segregation unit to the intensive intervention unit. However, at the end of the day, it did not change anything.

It appears as if whatever overhaul was intended with this legislation, changing the name of a segregation unit to the function of it is not necessarily what is going to happen in the bill. The costing has never been done for the legislation either.

Would the minister enlighten us on exactly how, other than potentially changing the paint and the name of something, it will actually make a difference in what we are trying to achieve with rehabilitation, still keeping in mind the protection of our guards and other inmates, and the rehabilitation of the prisoners who are there?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety talks a lot about the safety and concern for the correctional service officers. However, in his departmental plans for Correctional Service of Canada, on which the minister signed off, there is not one single goal or mention regarding the safety or welfare of correctional service officers.

There are obvious criticisms regarding Bill C-83 about making things more dangerous for workers. He stands again and again to talk about safety. Why has he neglected to mention even once in his plan the safety of correctional workers?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the question is a complete non sequitur. Moreover, its fundamental premise is absolutely flawed. There is no relationship between the issues that he raises in his question and what is in Bill C-83.

Bill C-83 and the amendments that are now before the House are intended to make our correctional system safer and more successful in keeping society safe and secure. The amendments that we are now considering at report stage have to do in large measure with review and oversight to ensure our correctional service has the power and authority to run the system in a way that keeps the system safe and that respects the needs of those in the institutions. This is to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, rehabilitation can be achieved.

If we reject the objective of rehabilitation, we are saying that when sentences expire, we should release inmates willy-nilly, with no concern for future public safety. That is surely a formula for disaster, which the official opposition seems to embrace.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again. I do not know exactly, but the number of times the current government has invoked closure is probably well in the sixties now. Again, I will bring us all back to day 10 of the 2015 campaign, which we have to do time and again, where the member for Papineau at that time said he would not resort to parliamentary tricks such as limiting debate. He would let debate reign.

The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers said that while Bill C-83 may have been well intended, these changes fall short as they are not feasible under the current staffing and infrastructure models. Many of the inmates currently managed within segregation units are highly vulnerable and are segregated for their own protection. The same president also expressed serious concern for the safety of the correctional officers and the work they are doing, and felt that Bill C-83 was falling short in ensuring that.

We should always ensure we are doing everything in our power to put the necessary tools in the hands of those who are protecting not only the mental well-being but also the physical well-being of the public and Canadians. Bill C-83 falls short in that regard. Witnesses who gave testimony all commented on that, with some very powerful messages from the president of the union of correctional officers. I would like to ask our hon. colleague, the minister, how that concern has been addressed by limiting debate on this important piece of legislation.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is going through all of the normal parliamentary stages, including extensive work at committee, further debate at report stage with additional amendments being considered, and a third reading debate. Then, according to our parliamentary process, it will go on to the Senate for the appropriate consideration there. Therefore, all of the parliamentary steps are being properly complied with.

I would note that back in 2014, the head of the correctional officers union in this country at that particular time was quoted as saying, “We have to actively work to rid the Conservatives from power.” He accused the Harper government of endangering correctional officers with prison overcrowding and cuts to rehabilitative programming. Some of that will be corrected by C-83.

I would also point out that the courts have said that to simply allow the present system of administrative segregation to expire in compliance with the court rulings, with nothing in place to replace it, would in fact make the system more dangerous. Therefore, all the measures in Bill C-83 are intended to address those very real issues that perpetuating the debate will not solve. Taking a decision will help us to come to a solution.

On the issue of consultation, I would point out that I have met with the correctional officers union on multiple occasions, both before and after Bill C-83 was introduced. This particular issue was discussed on every occasion.

Bill C-83—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Motions in amendment

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, in reality, Bill C-83 is going to generate more costs than the $448 million will even touch. The Liberals know that but are going to do it anyway. They do not care. They know best. They are from Ottawa. They can tell everybody else in Canada what to do. We see it in their attitude and the arrogance in their faces.

The reality is that the Liberals have to make some structural changes to buildings that were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Those buildings will not allow them to safely do what they want to do under Bill C-83. What will happen? The safety of the guards will come into play because they will be put into a facility that was not created to do what the Liberals want it to do. Who will pay? The guards will pay, not these members, and that is not right.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues for being here this Thursday evening to discuss this very serious bill and the implications it will have on employees in the penitentiary system across Canada.

When the bill came about I reached out to the correctional workers in my riding and had a chance to actually tour the facility with them. I had a chance to see first-hand what they deal with. These are some of the most courageous people I know. With their mental ruggedness and physical stamina, their work is something I definitely could not do. I really appreciate the work they do, and how they are there to protect Canadians and deal with some of the worst of the worst in our society.

One of the things they brought to my attention right off the bat was the lack of consultation. They were not involved in the process, in the creation of what the requirements were to improve the facilities. We have to understand that these facilities are very old. They have been around for generations, built in the 1960s and 1970s. They have processes in place based on experience and knowing what they are dealing with.

I will give a good example of that. When I first started the tour in the facility they took me into one of the rooms and gave me an overview briefing. They talked about the different types of gangs and groups of criminals they have within their facility. They talked about how they worked with the RCMP and special crimes units to identify these people so that when these people are in the facility they know exactly where they are and who they are mingling with at all times. They know one group cannot mix with the other group. They also know that group three cannot mix with group four, but maybe with group two on certain days. They are aware of not only what is happening within the penitentiary among these different groups, but of what is going on outside the penitentiary with these different groups, which has implications for how they treat them within the facility.

One of the things that came to light in Bill C-83 was the change to get rid of voluntary solitary confinement. One of the safety issues they brought up right away was that there were some prisoners in their facility who have fallen out with their gang who really want this and need this. However, not having the ability to get it now will put them in a predicament. What they are concerned about, and I think it is a very real concern, is that they are still going to get it. They will just assault an officer or a guard to get it, because they know they need to do it for their own safety.

By taking this away, it sounds good on paper, but in practice it will create a situation that is even more unsafe for our officers and guards. There has to be some consultation when doing this so that we can see things like this brought to light. Then we can think of a different way to treat it and handle it.

However, the Liberal government does not like to consult. No matter what the Liberals said when they were elected, they do not do it, especially when the consultation does not give them the answer they want. They want to take the suggestions and solutions from Ottawa and shove them down on people who actually have to work with them. It is those people who will pay for these guys' mistakes. They will pay through financial costs, physical harm and their safety. That is not right.

That is why I am so disappointed in the government for not actually recognizing and understanding that, taking a step back and asking what it has to do to make sure it does it right. The Liberals want to ram it through because they know best: “We are are Liberals. We know best.” With 30 years' experience what does one know? They have been elected for two years. “We know best” is the Liberal mindset, and it is wrong and they need to change it.

One of the other things that cropped up on the tour was that they are going to put body scanners in the facilities, which were built in the 1960s and 1970s. That sounds great. They are happy to have that. However, the first problem is where to put them. These are cement structures. They have solid walls. They cannot just take a sledgehammer and knock out a wall and away we go. This is a major construction problem.

The second problem is that they do not have the power requirements. These are older facilities. They do not have the wiring or infrastructure to handle something as simple as a body scanner. We look at that and say that obviously the government is going to put money aside to do that. However, there is nothing in the budget for that, so how are they going to do that? We do not know. There has been no game plan.

We heard the members across the aisle saying, “Just trust us”. We have heard that once too often from the government. Usually that means it does not know, it is not sure, it will do it anyway and Canadian taxpayers will pick up the bill no matter what it costs. If the Liberals would have just taken a step back and asked, “What do you guys think would be the best way to implement this?”, they probably would have gotten a reasonable, logical solution that would have had the same results, saved the taxpayers a lot of money and made it safer for our guards.

Here is one example of what the Liberals have not done. They talk about solitary confinement and the four hours these prisoners are going to be allowed outside the facilities mingling with each other. These facilities were not made that way. They were not made to handle that situation. If I go back to my original comments about how careful planning is done as to who is out in the yard mingling with who, for the safety of the guards and the prisoners, that is all structured and very carefully managed.

However, the Liberals are now regulating the fact that they have to break those groups up. All of a sudden, they could have the members of two gangs out in the yard together, who look at each other and just beat the crap out of each other. What would also happen is that two or three guards would intercept that, try to break it up and get hurt in the process. It is crazy. The lack of practicality from the current government is scary, yet it is going to ram the bill through because they are Liberals and they know best.

It is really disheartening when one goes to these facilities. I would never want to be in one. We joked about a cell for the current Prime Minister of Canada, because that is where he is going to end up after the SNC-Lavalin stuff. Nobody ever wants to be there, that is for sure, and the people who are there are bad people.

The other thing I have to mention is the fact that these guards go to work every day and a lot of them have not been paid or have not received their bonuses or increases in pay when changing shifts. They do not even get the shift differential when they go from one part of the penitentiary to the other. Instead of the Liberals looking for solutions and trying to find a way to fix that for these guards, they put their heads in the sand and just say, “Take it.” It is amazing. The disrespect they have for our public employees is phenomenal. It shows up in this piece of legislation, in the Phoenix pay system and in so many other ways the government has treated our employees and Canadian citizens. It has to change.

The good news is that on October 20 it will change. Then the guards will understand that there will be a Conservative government in power that will have their backs.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles mentioned, I think that solitary confinement is sometimes necessary. However, we also have to ensure security and safety as well as the mental and physical health of inmates and correctional officers.

The outcome would likely have been different, had the government properly consulted legal experts, correctional officers and all of the other stakeholders it should have consulted before drafting this bill.

I think I agree with my colleague. I am convinced that this bill will end up before the courts because, at first glance, it clearly does not respond to the British Columbia and Ontario court decisions. I am convinced that the House will have to re-examine this bill in a future Parliament because the courts will not be satisfied with the recommendations and changes made in Bill C-83.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard several of my colleagues talk about funding. Unfortunately, the announcements that were made said nothing about funding for Bill C-83.

What is unfortunate is that I did not even have time to talk about the allocation of resources in my speech. I did not even talk about the budget. I only talked about the lack of consultation and the Liberal government's failure to listen. That is what is missing. It is clear that my colleague did not bother to listen to me, because I did not talk about that at all.

When people have something to say, we should listen to them and ask them questions about the content of their speech, not about other subjects that were addressed by others.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-83, I would just like to comment on what I have been hearing since this debate began.

We live in a world where we appear to want to rely on the goodwill of others. We think that everything will be fine, that nothing bad will happen and that everything will go smoothly just because we amend a bill. We think inmates and guards will magically change their behaviour.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works in real life. There is a group of people we have not talked about enough since this report stage debate began. I am referring to correctional officers. They are the ones responsible for security in prisons, for the safety of inmates and colleagues, and for the inmates' well-being. We do not talk about them enough.

For some time now, I have had the pleasure of being the official opposition critic for agriculture and agri-food. This reminds me of some people's perception of farmers. Farmers take excellent care of their livestock, but many people think they do not care about the animals' health at all. People think farmers do not care about making sure their livestock are treated properly. The truth is that farmers care deeply about the well-being and safety of their livestock.

I think that is also what correctional officers want. They have a role to play with regard to inmates. They are there to guard individuals who are in prison and keep them away from the community. Many people think guards are only there to rap inmates' knuckles and maintain law and order. Since I know a few correctional officers, I know that they care about taking care of the inmates and ensuring their well-being. They also care about their rehabilitation. I think that is important to mention, before getting into the substance of Bill C-83.

Why am I talking about correctional officers? Because, from everything I have seen and everything I have read about Bill C-83, correctional officers have unfortunately not been consulted about the impact the bill will have on their daily reality.

No correctional officer would wilfully and maliciously deprive a prisoner of his or her rights. There are rules to follow. Some situations require correctional officers to take action. Unfortunately, the government missed a good opportunity to listen to them, to consult them and to ensure that the bill would enabled them to act and do their job to the best of their ability.

Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate administrative segregation in correctional institutions and replace it with structured intervention units. It also proposes the use of body scanners for inmates. It proposes to establish parameters for access to health care. It also proposes to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women and offenders with diagnosed mental health disorders.

The legislation also applies to transfers and allows the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary. We will have an opportunity to come back to that.

Unfortunately, Bill C-83 does not address the safety of inmates and correctional officers as a priority. As I mentioned, all those who participated in the study of the bill criticized the lack of consultation. The only people who were consulted were the people around the minister and the minister himself. Members of civil society working for inmates' rights and the inmates themselves have found that the bill does not at all meet its objectives.

It is obvious that the Liberals did not do their homework for Bill C-83. Before beginning report stage discussions, several motions were moved, including Motion No. 17.

The motion contains seven pages of amendments to the bill. The reality is that the Liberals realized that they had not done a good job. One does not move a seven-page motion if the work is done properly. They moved this motion because they realized that they had not consulted and listened to other people. They made mistakes because they improvised. That is what happened. Once again, the government improvised because two rulings were handed down.

Instead of doing things properly, the government chose to improvise, move quickly, not consult anyone, bulldoze ahead and then clean up the mess. The main problem with this bill is that it will not in any way solve the problems we sought to address. It is not a coincidence that most people disagree with the bill and that everyone opposes it.

I will quote some of the comments heard in committee. The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Workers, Mr. Godin, said that this bill is probably dangerous for others because “[s]ometimes the safety and security take precedence over mental health treatment because of the safety and security of other inmates.”

That means that we wanted to give priority to something without considering the reality of the prison environment.

Mr. Godin also said:

...by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations. We are concerned about policy revisions that appear to be reducing the ability to isolate an inmate, either for their safety or for that of staff...

Sometimes using segregation is an entirely legitimate way to protect staff and the other inmates. That is what Mr. Godin said. Unfortunately, this bill does not take that into account.

The correctional investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger, said that:

Eliminating solitary confinement is one thing, but replacing it with a regime that imposes restrictions on retained rights and liberties with little regard for due process and administrative principles is inconsistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as the charter.

As you can see, people on both sides disagree.

Today, at the last minute, the government tried to somehow save the day. Why did it not do what had to be done, namely start all over, consult and come back with a good bill that would be acceptable to stakeholders?

The government must amend the bill in order to meet expectations. In other words, it must improve security, ensure respect for the rights of inmates and support the rehabilitation of inmates when possible. If the bill's provisions support these objectives, the Canadian prison system will be cited as an example instead of being challenged in the courts again.

This government's main problem is its failure to consult. The Liberals consult one another and talk at cabinet meetings behind closed doors. Afterwards they cannot justify why they made these decisions because they cannot talk about what was discussed in cabinet. This means that we cannot get the actual rationale for the changes even though Canadians have the right to be given all the answers on this issue.

In closing, I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his excellent work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill itself, Bill C-83, will effectively make some tweaks to existing legislation, one of which is to rebrand solitary confinement as administrative segregation in what are called “structured integration units”. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court have ruled that administrative segregation is unconstitutional. This bill in and of itself does not fix that issue. In fact, as the member identified, one area of concern that he has centres around mental health.

The bill still allows for indefinite isolation and segregation of up to 20 hours instead of the current 22 to 23 hours This segregation can cause permanent mental health damage to inmates, who need to be integrated into society. I would like to have the member comment with respect to the mental health aspect of this action being taken, as is allowed under this bill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise at the report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This bill has been extensively debated and scrutinized since its introduction. I have been watching with great interest as it proceeded through the House and the committee.

At the outset, I would like to thank all hon. colleagues, witnesses and members who shared their thoughts and offered constructive suggestions throughout the process, both in the chamber and at committee. As a legislator, the debate gave me and the House as a whole much to think about, and resulted in a stronger and more comprehensive bill.

Bill C-83 proposes the elimination of segregation and the creation of innovative new structured intervention units, or SIUs, for offenders who must be separated from their fellow inmates for safety and security reasons. SIUs would allow offenders who pose particularly difficult challenges to be separated from the mainstream inmate population when and if required. However, they would continue to receive the programming, intervention and health care that are essential to their rehabilitation.

Segregation is an immoral and ineffective practice. It does not deliver the results we are looking for in our correctional system, for our prisoners or for our correctional officers. As a member, I considered incorporating similar principles in my private member's legislation, Bill C-375, which would similarly legislate the nexus between mental health and our judicial system. However, as we saw with measures previously proposed in Bill C-56, the transformation of our penitentiaries is a profound undertaking that would require measures far beyond those made possible through private members' legislation.

Bill C-83 had a series of amendments adopted during its time in committee. In fact, every party that put forward amendments had at least one amendment ultimately adopted. Specifically, I will use my time to home in on amendments that strengthen the capacity of Bill C-83 to improve the mental well-being of prisoners. I will specifically address five areas that piqued my interest.

First, when Bill C-83 passed at second reading, it had, in principle, legislation that would guarantee inmates held within SIUs four hours outside of their cells. One of the proposed amendments to the bill specified that those hours be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Those are normal waking hours for most people. This responds to the concerns raised in committee that time out of cells could be offered, say, in the middle of the night, when inmates would be unlikely to avail themselves of them.

The CMHA has connected lack of daylight to dips in mood and depression. There is also research that shows maintaining a regular sleep cycle, connected to the natural ebb and flow of the day, is important for maintaining mental health. This amendment would ensure that the four hours of time outside SIUs are not outside of the bounds of the natural day. It would prevent officials from providing these hours as an obligatory or dismissive exercise and ensure that they serve their intended purpose.

Second, human beings are built to seek out interaction with others, particularly in times of stress. Isolation can reduce cognition and even compromise the immune system. Extensive time in an unchanging environment can alter the way we process external stimuli. It can literally warp the way we experience the world around us. This is why Bill C-83 includes provisions that would guarantee inmates the opportunity for two hours of meaningful human contact each and every day.

Thanks to amendments put forward in the committee, this principle has been strengthened practically. By looking to ensure that this interaction is not hindered by physical barriers such as bars or security glass, the proposed amendment would ensure that those two hours are not just perfunctory but meaningful human contact.

Third, socializing with peers and participating in rehabilitative programming outside their cells would also go a long way toward improving the mental health and well-being of inmates in an SIU. It would put them on the right track to reintegrating into the mainstream inmate population. Beyond that, it would help their chances of successfully reintegrating into society as law-abiding members of society at the end of their sentences.

Fourth, the proposed reforms in Bill C-83 would also strengthen health care, including mental health services, in corrections in several ways. It would mandate the Correctional Service to support the autonomy and clinical independence of health care professionals working within a correctional facility. As well, it would allow for the use of patient advocates, as was recommended by the inquiry into the death of Ashley Smith.

Within SIUs, inmates would receive daily visits from health care professionals, who could recommend at any time that an inmate's conditions of confinement be altered or that they be transferred out of the SIU. These recommendations could stem from a professional mental health assessment. In turn, these recommendations could pre-empt mental health crises or imminent self-harm.

Fifth, an amendment adopted at committee would strengthen this aspect of the bill by requiring an additional review at a more senior level external to the institution if the warden does not accept medical recommendations.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these measures. Mental health is an extremely serious problem in our prisons. Some 70% of male offenders have a mental health issue. At 80%, the percentage is even higher for women offenders. The ministers of public safety and justice have been mandated to address gaps in services to people with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system. The proposed reforms in Bill C-83 support that commitment.

They also build on recent investments in this area. The last two budgets included nearly $80 million for mental health care in corrections, and more recently, in the fall economic statement the Minister of Finance announced substantial funding of $448 million for corrections. This funding will help support the transformational changes to the correctional system proposed in this bill, and it will allow for comprehensive improvements to mental health care in corrections within SIUs and across the board.

It also directly addresses calls for increased resources made at committee by Jason Godin, the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, and by Stanley Stapleton, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees.

In other words, should this bill pass into law, the appropriate resources will be in place to ensure it successfully fulfills its objectives. I know this was a concern raised at committee, and it was also raised during this debate. I am reassured there is already an effort on behalf of the government to allocate appropriate resources.

In conclusion, the number one objective of this bill is safety. Correctional staff and other inmates need to be protected from certain offenders who cannot be safely managed in the mainstream population. By ensuring inmates separated from the mainstream population get the interventions they need to increase their chances of successful rehabilitation, the bill would lead to greater safety inside correctional institutions, and greater safety in our communities when those inmates are eventually released.

We started this process with a very good bill. What we have before us today is an even stronger version of the legislation, bolstered by the productive contributions of witnesses at committee and the serious work of committee members.

In closing, I fully support Bill C-83 and I urge all hon. members to do the same thing.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit on a few topics.

One thing I find very concerning is the safety aspect for the prison guards. The reality is that they were not properly consulted, and they have told me that over and over again.

There are lots of things in Bill C-83 that sound good on paper but would not be practical in practice.

Many examples were given about whether the guards feel they are more at risk now than before because of Bill C-83, and there are no resources to offset that risk.

The committee talked to different people, and I am just curious as to how extensive the consultations were. What was the guards' reaction to Bill C-83 when the member and the committee talked to them?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

A lot of people do not realize that on any given day in Canada we have roughly 40,000 plus prisoners in custody. They are in eight maximum-security facilities, 19 medium-security facilities, 15 minimum and 10 multidisciplinary type facilities. We have 18,000 Canadian government employees looking after these prisoners, of which 10,000 are on the front line. They are either correctional officers, parole officers or health care workers.

I want to personally thank them here today for the service they do in our correctional services from coast to coast to coast. I have a facility in my community, as does the gentleman beside me. We know the problems they go through on a day-to-day basis and the great service they give our country.

This was and is a bad bill. Even worse, this is ill-thought-out legislation. It is a lot worse than the cannabis bill. Simply, Bill C-83 was a knee-jerk reaction to two Supreme Court rulings in February of 2018, regarding the clarity on indefinite solitary confinement. Bill C-83 does not correct this; it just rewords it and disguises it in flowery words.

No longer is it called solitary confinement. It has been renamed “structural intervention unit”. It sounds nice. The heads of the institutions will be allowed to designate any area of a jail to be that. Why do we need that? Structural intervention units are needed for unmanageable prisoners and those who are dangerous to staff, inmates or themselves. Perhaps they are being held for an investigation. Perhaps it is an attempted murder within the facility and he or she has to be segregated. There is a need, and there are reasons why people are held in these types of lock-ups in these facilities.

A 19-year prisoner appeared before the public safety committee. He was pretty intimidating when he first came in there, but the man talked with a lot of sense. He was originally sentenced for 14 years, but he was so bad he got an additional five years, of which a lot was in solitary confinement. He said that they were a must, that we should not get rid of them. Many more witnesses came before the public safety committee, even the Minister of Public Safety.

Again, I am going to say this is a bad bill. Every group of witnesses or individuals who appeared said that it was a bad bill. These are not my words. It was the witnesses who said that, except for the minister and his ministerial staff who said that it was such a great bill. How many amendments were read by the Speaker today?

The Elizabeth Fry Society said it was a bad bill. It said that structural intervention units were not needed, that it failed to focus on the programs and that there was lack of oversight. It is concerned about section 81, due to the workings of indigenous governing bodies.

The John Howard Society calls it a bad bill. It wanted to know what was the difference between solitary confinement and structural intervention. It said there was no difference, that the bill changed the words, but it did little to change anything.

Those are their words, not mine.

Increasing two hours outside the prison cells to four hours does little to help the prisons. There is a lack of infrastructure, physical and human resources. The bill does not address the need.

I will go back to the 19-year prisoner. He admitted to being a bad boy. He spent a very long time in solitary confinement. He said that he needed to be there, as he was dangerous. He felt these units were needed to protect guards, prisoners and even people like himself. However, he stated that prisoners must be helped with programs, counselling, etc., and that this was not happening within the institution. What he really stressed was that there was no one looking after the prisoners once they were released. They are just dumped out into society. He said that continued help needed to be there to rehabilitate the prisoners.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association says that it is a bad bill and it cannot support it. It said the bill lacks external oversight, lacks programs that are needed to assist prisoners to reform, and lacks sufficient resources and manpower for social and educational needs, health professionals, etc.

The Native Women's Association of Canada says it is a bad bill. The association was not consulted. It says the bill does not address traditions, protocol, or cultural practices, and does not clarify indigenous communities.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers also says it is a bad bill, that it is not feasible and leaves prisoners and guards vulnerable. That is where my concern is, with prisoners and guards, especially the guards, being vulnerable.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it is a bad bill. It says it is not a meaningful reform and should be repealed. It said there was no consultation, and we have heard that many times here.

Aboriginal Legal Services says it is a bad bill, and that there is a big gap between the rhetoric and reality.

When we were gathering evidence on some of the costs related to prisoners, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who is also on committee with me, was told by a witness that the cost of keeping a female prisoner in a structured living condition was $533,000 a year. He was shocked. Then he was told that the cost for males in structured living conditions was between $300,000 and $600,000 a year.

When he heard that, he asked me for an aspirin. I did not have one; I just told him he would have to cope.

I am just about done. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said in the 2016-17 report that the cost of an average prisoner is $314 a day or $115,000 a year. If a prisoner is segregated, the average cost is $463,000 plus per year. That is $1,260 a day to keep a person in segregation.

Bill C-83 will cost way more than the Liberals are talking about. When the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness what the cost would be to implement this bill, the minister replied that he had no idea. He said he had no clue, but we should trust the Liberals because they would work it out. He wanted us to just pass the bill as it was.

I have heard from a number of speakers opposite today that $400-some million is being thrown at this program to make structural modifications at our prisons and to improve the health care facilities, but I have not heard anyone from across this great room say there was any money going to hire additional staff, or to improve staff resources or staff training. Nothing. There was nothing that came from the parliamentary secretary; nothing came from anybody.

We heard the Liberals were going to fix the buildings, but I have talked to a number of the prisons around Alberta, and they have not even been asked about what needs to be done. The guards and unions have not been spoken to.

We are supposed to trust the Liberals. I think they said they are putting $448 million into this, but what about increasing staff? We know it is going to cost more to do it. We know it is going to cost more in manpower to operate these new units, especially if we are going to move them around to different spots in the prisons.

There is nothing in the Liberal plan or budget to account for that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the comments I hear from the prison guards in the penitentiary in Prince Albert are about their lack of consultation in the process, their lack of ability to have input in how this is going to happen, how this is going to work.

There are many examples, and I will use one very simple example of the electronic screening of inmates. It sounds really good, but this penitentiary was built in the sixties. It does not have the electrical requirements to do this, yet no budget has been set aside for it to put in the appropriate electrical facilities.

How are they going to implement things like this, based on Bill C-83, when there is no budget, no more resources or anything else to help them do that?

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

This legislation strengthens the act in several ways, including by eliminating administrative segregation in favour of a new system designed to achieve two objectives: ensuring the safety of staff and inmates, and offering inmates the rehabilitation programs they need. It goes without saying that our communities are safer when when rehabilitation is more successful.

First off, I would like to thank all of the witnesses who appeared before the public safety committee, as well as the members of the committee who engaged in thoughtful and productive analysis of the bill. In fact, there were amendments accepted from all parties. There were some amendments proposed by a member of one party, with a subamendment by a member of another party, that were ultimately supported by both. This is what it looks like when parliamentarians work across party lines, when ideas are seriously considered on their merits, regardless of what party they came from, and when the government listens to Canadians and welcomes constructive feedback.

The initial version of Bill C-83, introduced in October, was immediately a major step forward for the Canadian correctional system. The committee amendments made the bill even stronger and there are amendments that have now been introduced at report stage, especially the proposal to create an external oversight mechanism that will make it stronger still.

The main feature of the bill is the creation of structured intervention units. These SIUs will allow for the separation of inmates from the general population when that is necessary for security reasons. However, unlike the current system of segregation, SIUs will be designed and resourced to provide interventions including mental health care and inmates will get a minimum of four hours out of their cell daily, with at least two hours of meaningful human contact.

At committee, certain witnesses asked for greater clarity regarding when the hours out would be offered and what the nature of the meaningful contact would be. Thanks to amendments by the members for Montarville and Toronto—Danforth, the bill now specifies that the hours out must be offered between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and that the meaningful contact should, as a rule, be face to face.

There were also committee amendments related to oversight. In the original draft of the bill, the decision to place someone in an SIU would be reviewed by the warden after five days and after another 30 days, and by the commissioner every 30 days thereafter, for as long as the person remained in the unit. The warden would also conduct a review if the inmate did not get their minimum hours out for five days in a row or 15 out of 30, and a health care provider could, at any time, recommend changes to the conditions of confinement or removal from the SIU.

That was already a solid internal review system but an amendment from the member for Toronto—Danforth strengthened the health care review process even further so that, in the event the warden disagrees with the health care provider's recommendations, the matter gets elevated to a senior committee within the correctional service.

The amendment that has been proposed by the member for Oakville North—Burlington would add external oversight in the form of independent external decision-makers. These individuals would examine cases where an inmate has, for one reason or another, not received their minimum hours out of the cell or minimum hours of meaningful contact for five straight days or 15 out of 30. They would also examine situations where the senior health care review committee disagrees with the recommendations of the health care provider and they would examine all SIU placements after 90 days and every 60 days thereafter.

These independent external decision-makers will have real decision-making power, and not just the ability to make a recommendation. Both parties, the Correctional Service and the inmate, could apply to the Federal Court for judicial review.

The strength of this review system, which would include internal and external reviews, as well as the involvement of health care professionals, is unprecedented. I thank the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington for her proposal. The government will be happy to support it.

One of the other points that was raised at committee was the question of whether the new SIUs would be appropriately resourced.

For instance, the head of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Jason Godin, said that the bill was ambitious, but required significant new resources to implement safely and effectively.

Stan Stapleton, president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees said that the bill was a step in the right direction, but new resources were needed to ensure its success.

We could not agree more. That is why the fall economic statement included $448 million over the next six years to support the implementation of Bill C-83. That includes about $300 million specifically for the SIUs as well as $150 million to strengthen mental health care, both within SIUs and throughout the corrections system. That is on top of almost $80 million in the last two budgets for mental health care in the corrections system.

In other words, we are putting our money where our mouth is. This new approach will have the resources it needs to be successful.

I know I am nearing the end of my time and I cannot go into detail about all the aspects of the bill, from better support to victims at parole hearings to the creation of patient advocates to strengthened health care governance or even the consideration of systemic and background factors in decision-making involving indigenous inmates. I have not even been able to touch on all of the amendments made at committee or on all of the amendments proposed at report stage.

However, it is clear that this legislation, bolstered by a vigorous and constructive legislative process, would help achieve our objective of having a better corrections system, one that would provide employees with a safe work environment, that would provide victims of crime with information and support, that would hold offenders to account and that would offer the programs, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, skills training and other interventions necessary for safe and effective rehabilitation.

Our communities are better protected when people end their sentences prepared to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives and the bill would help make that happen.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am also pleased to be able to work with him in committee.

That is exactly the problem. Correctional officers have to make do with the resources they are given. They say that they want to abide by higher standards when it comes to the mental health of inmates. If the government allocates more financial resources to help inmates with mental health issues, it would inevitably improve prison security.

As my colleague suggested, correctional officers have to improvise in order to follow the directives they are given because they do not have sufficient resources. When Jason Godin, the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, appeared before the committee, he said that they would like to apply the new directives, but that it will be extremely problematic if they are unable to do so.

As my colleague said, there is a difference between short-term segregation for security reasons and long-term segregation because the resources are not available to deal with serious mental health problems. Many organizations working in the field raised that issue. Bill C-83 does nothing to address that issue.

We need to go back to square one because the government's bill is worse than a draft. It is unacceptable.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his intervention and his work on the justice committee.

He mentioned mental health when winding up his comments. Improving mental health in Canada is one of the most important goals we have as a government. Our efforts should not neglect the criminal justice system when it comes to mental health. The Union of Safety and Justice Employees has said it is very supportive of this legislation, provided new investments increase staffing levels. In fact, the fall economic statement included $448 million over six years, of which $300 million would go toward human resource and infrastructure updates. More importantly, $150 million would go toward much-needed improvements in mental health care in the correctional system.

How will Bill C-83 improve the mental wellness and well-being of correctional officers and inmates within our criminal justice system?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-83.

While we were studying this bill in committee, I saw something that I have rarely seen, if ever, since I became an MP.

All of the witnesses spoke out against the bill to varying degrees, with the exception of departmental officials, of course. This is very worrisome. Context is very important with Bill C-83. This bill is a response to two legal rulings, one from the Supreme Court of British Columbia and another from an Ontario court. Both courts noted cases of abuse in the use of segregation, and they declared it unconstitutional. In response, the government appealed the decision and then introduced Bill C-56 three years ago in 2016, if memory serves. Now, it has introduced Bill C-83, which is completely different.

A question needs to be posed before we even get into the substance of the bill and the amendments. Why is the government, on the one hand, appealing a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, and on the other hand, presenting legislation that it claims will be a remedy for the court's findings of practices, and certain abuses of said practices, that are unconstitutional?

It is a little confusing and extremely concerning when we hear the government continue to say that it has eliminated what is called, in law, administrative segregation, but what most Canadians understand to be solitary confinement. To that end, I want to quote Senator Kim Pate, who has worked extensively on many issues related to justice and public safety, in particular issues relating to the situation in our penitentiaries. One quote stands out. She wrote, “Ottawa cannot declare that segregation has been eliminated, while failing to address the horrors associated with this practice and gutting what minimal restrictions courts have placed on its use.”

The problem is that the new practice replacing segregation will eliminate a number of legal protections.

I will admit that several members from various parties sought to resolve the issue in committee.

The most striking example is that an amendment is usually about 2,000 words long. There was a lot of havoc in the House back in December. Several members raised a point of order because we did not have access to an acceptable French translation. The amendment was literally written moments before debate was scheduled to start. Not to mention that several witnesses in committee spoke out against the lack of consultation on the bill.

I want to come back to what Dr. Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator, who is essentially the watchdog for the correctional system, said when speaking to the bill. Given that my time is limited, I will stick to the one quote that sums up the issue of improvisation. He said, “I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.”

I apologize to Dr. Zinger for not using the full quote. As I said, my time is limited. When we have an expert such as Dr. Zinger saying that something is not fully thought out, that says a lot, unfortunately, about the lack of consultation and the kind of patchwork we are dealing with here.

These are report stage amendments the Liberal members are proposing, let us be clear, after the minister came to committee with the knowledge there would be the requirement of a royal recommendation and having clearly worked with specific members so that they could propose specific amendments to fix a bill that is so unfixable. We end up with a patchwork that in some cases would leave us looking at a period of up to 90 days, potentially, before a case of abusive use of solitary confinement would actually get properly reviewed.

When we consider the work that was done in committee and the statements made by several Liberal members, including the minister, we need to understand that this was already in the mandate letters of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice when the government was sworn in. Regrettably, the objectives of the bill before us today have not been achieved.

I will give a few examples of the direction we would like to take. The hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington was right to mention the situation of women. Very few women are placed in segregation, but those who are placed in segregation are often far more vulnerable. Consider serious mental health issues, for example.

After hearing several witnesses in committee, I proposed an amendment eliminating the use of segregation in women’s prisons. It was rejected.

Another example is the possibility of judicial review.

The opportunity for judicial review is one that is really important. It is something that goes back a number of years to a recommendation that was made by Justice Louise Arbour, after the situation that unfolded in the Kingston Penitentiary. She put it much more eloquently than I could when she explained that the abusive use of solitary confinement in Canada undermines our judicial system, because it comes to a point where administrators within the corrections system are playing a role in sentencing. When we get to a point where certain offenders are being treated in a certain way, and in a way that undermines their pathway to rehabilitation and any objectives the court might have set for them in sentencing, then we have come to a situation where the only remedy could be considering a judicial review.

I know others have proposed other tools, rather than just judicial review. I know in committee we heard that judicial review could undermine public safety. That is not so. To go back to the comment my Conservative colleague made that I did not have a chance to respond to, he talked about preventative segregation. That is fine. We understand that there can be a need for it in situations where riots ensue and where safety is in jeopardy, and that there should be an examination of the good use of preventative isolation.

However, that does not need to take place over a prolonged period of time. We are talking about a situation that could be resolved, arguably, in 24 hours. Those were some of the examples that were given to us by, among others, folks from the John Howard Society.

The last aspect I can think of, as I can see that my time is running out, concerns duration.

We have heard a lot about review and accountability mechanisms for prison administrators. Of course, there are the issues of appropriate mechanisms and accountability in the case of mental illness to avoid hindering rehabilitation and improving the mental health of prisoners in segregation.

That said, we missed a great opportunity given that Bill C-56—which was introduced by the same minister but never debated—was already firmly headed in the same direction. We missed the opportunity to enforce the standards established by the United Nations, the Nelson Mandela rules, which limit the duration of administrative segregation to 15 days. We missed the opportunity to directly address the greatest abuses of the system.

In conclusion, despite the good intentions behind the amendments, they are just attempts at fixing a bill that is so bad that it was unanimously condemned in committee. We cannot support this bill.

I hope that the government will seize this opportunity to go back to square one and to drop its appeals of two court decisions stating what we have known for far too long, which is that these abuses of segregation are unconstitutional.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today with a great deal of pride to speak for a second time in support of Bill C-83, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Bill C-83 would strengthen our federal corrections system, making the rehabilitation of offenders safer and more effective. Crucially, the bill would end the practice of administrative segregation and establish structured intervention units, or SIUs.

I am extremely proud to have had the opportunity to work on this legislation at committee stage and I commend the government for introducing this important piece of legislation.

This legislation will be transformative for our federal corrections system. My friend Stan Stapleton, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, said when asked by the media about this bill, that

There is evidence that shows that strong rehabilitative programs make communities safer and create a safer environment for both employees and offenders inside institutions. ... And so if we simply lock them up and throw away the key, we're not providing them with the tools that they require in order to safely reintegrate back into society.

I could not agree more.

The new measures introduced in Bill C-83 will create safer institutions and safer communities. By creating SIUs as a new approach to replace administrative segregation, introducing provisions for spending more time outside the cell, empowering health professionals and providing enhanced programming to offenders in these units, we will better equip offenders for safe reintegration, reduce their likelihood for recidivism and ultimately make our communities safer.

I am incredibly proud of our work at the public safety committee on the bill. We listened to feedback from witnesses and experts and worked across party lines to bring back to the House a strengthened Bill C-83. We listened to testimony from a diverse range of stakeholders and took their feedback to heart.

In addition, every party that submitted amendments to the bill saw some of theirs accepted. I would like to highlight some of those changes now.

The most significant amendment is the one I have introduced today at report stage, which would provide independent oversight of the new structured intervention units. I will not ever forget hearing the Speaker read that amendment into the record today.

My amendment would create an independent external decision-maker who will monitor a number of factors for inmates in SIUs, including whether inmates avail themselves of the time out of their cells or if there is a disagreement with a health care provider's recommendation to transfer an inmate out of an SIU.

With this amendment, if an inmate does not receive the required minimum hours outside of the cell or the required minimum hours of human contact for five straight days or 15 days out of 30, the independent external decision-maker can investigate whether the Correctional Service has taken reasonable steps to provide opportunities for those hours, make recommendations to the Correctional Service to remedy the situation, and if the Correctional Service has not acted accordingly after seven days, the decision-maker can direct it to remove the inmate from the SIU and give notice to the Correctional Investigator.

In addition, the independent external decision-maker will also have the power to review cases and provide direction in the event that the senior Correctional Service health care committee disagrees with the recommendation of a health care provider to transfer an inmate out of an SIU or alter conditions of confinement.

Finally, the independent external decision-maker will conduct a review of each offender's case after 90 days spent in an SIU and every 60 days thereafter.

The creation of an external oversight mechanism was supported by the majority of witnesses we heard at committee. I am so pleased that we were able to respond to their input and move forward with this vital independent oversight mechanism.

I applaud the government for listening and agreeing to the amendment, which would provide more confidence in SIUs and how they will function.

In addition to this report stage amendment, the committee made other amendments to the bill. We heard from indigenous groups who called for changes to the definition of “indigenous organization” to ensure that it properly captured the diverse range of those working on these issues across Canada. While the parties had some variations as to how best to do this, with the assistance of departmental officials the committee was able to unanimously approve an amendment that calls for indigenous organizations to have predominantly indigenous leadership. We also heard about the need for the Correctional Service to seek advice from indigenous spiritual leaders or elders, particularly in matters of mental health and behaviour. I was pleased that my amendment to that effect was adopted at committee.

The bill would also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve the consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. However, our committee heard testimony that these reports can be misused in corrections to impact risk assessments. My amendment to ensure that these reports would not be misused was also adopted by the committee.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands introduced several amendments that would return the threshold of “least restrictive” measures, while maintaining the protection of society, staff and offenders, to the corrections legislation, a provision that had been removed by the Harper Conservatives. I promised the hon. member that I would work with her on amendments to Bill C-83, and I was extremely happy that the committee was able to include her amendments in the legislation.

We supported the amendment of my NDP colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, which specified that corrections must take note of any reasons given as to why inmates did not avail themselves of time out of their cells.

We heard from corrections officers that they did not always have the skills or training to deal with mental health issues, so an amendment by the Conservative Party that would explicitly allow staff to refer a matter to health care professionals was a welcome addition to the legislation.

Indigenous offenders are the fastest-growing prison population. However, the member for Whitby highlighted to me that black offenders are the second-highest prison population, and their unique needs must also be addressed.

In addition, during my visit to a number of corrections facilities in Edmonton, a year ago January, I had the opportunity to meet a trans inmate and learned about their experience navigating the corrections system. I was pleased to introduce an amendment that would expand the guiding principles of CSC to respect sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and ensure that the service would be responsive, in particular, to the special needs of visible minorities.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth introduced an amendment that would further define meaningful contact so that it would not be limited to physical barriers, an amendment that would enhance record-keeping, and an important amendment that would strengthen the role of health care professionals. Finally, we amended the bill to include a five-year review by Parliament.

There are two areas that were beyond the scope of the legislation but that the committee wanted to highlight for corrections. One is the fact that there are only 10 women in all of Canada currently in segregation, while there are 340 men. Therefore, we have asked Corrections Canada to review a proposal for a pilot program in women's institutes. We also used this opportunity to draw attention to the challenge offenders face when placements or transfers mean that they are located long distances from critical support systems.

We heard from many witnesses that significant investments in corrections would be required if SIUs were to work. The entire concept rests on the premise that there are adequate staff to ensure that offenders receive time outside their cells and the health care services and programming they need. With the $448-million investment in the fall economic statement to support this new approach, we have both the legislative framework and the financial means to transform how corrections functions.

This is a case of the parliamentary process working at its very best. We had government legislation that was transformative in its approach, witnesses who passionately shared their concerns and suggestions, committee members who worked diligently as a team, a minister who listened and responded, and a Prime Minister and government that were not afraid to let committees do the good work they are meant to in this place and amend the bill.

I also feel incredibly privileged, as the member for Oakville North—Burlington, to be able to introduce a major amendment to the bill, here at report stage, that would enshrine independent oversight in Bill C-83.

I know there are those who are skeptical about whether this system will work. However, I believe in my heart that under the leadership of our Minister of Public Safety and the new head of corrections, Anne Kelly, along with the fine men and women working in corrections, we will see transformative change in our correctional system.

I want to finish by thanking all the witnesses who appeared before committee; my fellow committee members; our chair, clerk and analysts; our staff, and in particular, Hilary Lawson, from my office; the Minister of Public Safety and his staff, in particular, Michael Milech; and everyone else involved who worked tirelessly on this legislation.

I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-83.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Just because I did not mention something does not mean I oppose it. I gave a summary of Bill C-83 and our concerns.

There is nothing in Bill C-83 about the needle exchange program. However, we believe that the prison needle exchange program administered by CSC that is currently being rolled out across Canada undercuts the use of body scanners to prevent drugs from entering prisons.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 32.1.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak at report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

Bill C-83 has several elements, and the first is to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional institutions.

During the committee's study, we heard from witnesses from a number of organizations, including the correctional investigator of Canada, who was quite surprised that he was not consulted while Bill C-83 was being drafted. The correctional investigator of Canada told us that eliminating solitary confinement was one thing but that replacing it with a regime that imposes restrictions on retained rights and liberties with little regard for due process and administrative principles is inconsistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as the charter. That is a pretty strong statement.

In his testimony, the correctional investigator also said that there had been very little detail provided by the Correctional Service of Canada or the government on how this is going to be implemented. Not for the first time, my colleagues were improvising.

Canadian penitentiaries use administrative segregation under two circumstances. The first is when a prisoner behaves in a way that poses a danger to the prison's general population. One example that I think all Canadians will be familiar with is that of Paul Bernardo. He was not sent into the regular system because he was still thought to be too dangerous. Since no rehabilitation was possible in his case, Mr. Bernardo spends most of his time in the segregation area.

There are also prisoners who request segregation. They want to be segregated for their own safety, and also to have some mental downtime. This reminds me of someone I met recently at Donnacona Institution. Mr. Dumas has been in prison for over 40 years, for various reasons. He always wants to be in segregation. He says he is just fine there and wants to stay.

Considering the amendments in Bill C-83, what will happen to Paul Bernardo? Will he be told that he now has four hours of freedom to meet up with his buddies and pontificate over a nice glass of water? I do not believe this can really apply in his case.

As for the inmate I met at Donnacona, when he tells us that he prefers to stay in segregation, we will have to tell him that it is not possible because segregation will be a thing of the past. That will be a serious problem for him.

This new approach will create structured intervention units. That is a nice term, but what does it actually mean?

We never really got any answers, because it is actually a grander name for the same thing. It is an area of the prison, a wing set aside for segregation, but it might have a room where people can sit around a table and talk, and perhaps another small room where they can meet with caseworkers. When we asked questions, the government did not have any answers. They are basically trying to make us believe that segregation cells are like what we see in the movies. We think of them as bare, windowless cells that are pitch black when the door is closed. That is how it was in the days of Alcatraz. That was a long time ago.

Segregation cells are exactly like regular cells. The difference is that they are in a different area of the prison. Prisoners in segregation are even entitled to TVs and many other things. Even the size of the cell is the same. They can see outside. There is no problem.

One of the major differences, I admit, is time. Currently, prisoners in segregation stay in their cells for 22 hours a day. That will change. They will now stay in their cells for 20 hours a day instead of 22. However, the concept of structured intervention units is a very philosophical one. I doubt that any amendments will be made in this regard. After all the discussions and checks that happened in committee, there is really nothing left to change, except the name.

At any rate, change costs money. Normally, when a bill that imposes new standards is introduced, the necessary funding needs to be earmarked. Once again, we have no information about funding. We know that more than $400 million was sent to the Correctional Service of Canada last year, but we do not know how much will be allocated to the implementation of Bill C-83.

We do agree with the scanners. We do not always disagree. We think body scanners are very important. Right now, Ontario and British Columbia have body scanners in their provincial penitentiaries. They are very effective, detecting more than 95% of what people entering the penitentiary may have on or inside their bodies. They are intrusive but necessary. Some people have very inventive ways of smuggling drugs and other things into prisons.

The irony is that prisoners are going to be provided with needles so that they can inject drugs. This is a program that is currently being rolled out in Canada’s penitentiaries. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers is totally opposed to this program, and other stakeholders have also said that it makes no sense. The argument is that it is a public health issue, and we understand that, but from a safety standpoint, it does not make sense. The union says that handing out needles to prisoners could be very dangerous for correctional officers and other prisoners.

I know that there is the idea of an exchange and all that, but let us not forget that prisoners have a lot of time to think and make plans. When I visited the Donnacona prison recently, I saw all sort of things going on, things people would not even imagine. People do not realize that prisoners have nothing to do but think. They will find ways to misuse the needles.

If we introduce body scanners, which would detect drugs coming into prisons and therefore greatly reduce drug use, there would be no need to supply inmates with needles. We need to be consistent. The Conservatives think the important thing is to stop drugs from entering prisons by using scanners as much as possible. We also cannot forget the drones that are used to get drugs into prisons. If prisoners no longer have drugs to inject, they will not need taxpayer-funded needles.

There was some talk of other health parameters, and we made some suggestions. I could read out our proposed amendments, which were based on conversations with representatives from the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. For example, we proposed that:

...correctional policies, programs and practices provide, regardless of gender, access to activities and to training for future employment but provide inmates who are soon to be released with priority access to the activities that prepare them for release, including counselling and help with mental health issues.

This amendment was rejected by our friends on the other side. Here is another one:

A staff member may recommend to a registered health care professional employed...by the Service that the professional assess the mental health of an inmate, if the inmate:

(a) refuses to interact with others for a prescribed period;

(b) exhibits a tendency to self-harm;

(c) is showing signs of an adverse drug reaction;

In short, we thought our health-related amendments were quite relevant, but they were rejected.

In closing, we know that the B.C. Supreme Court and the Superior Court have ruled on administrative segregation, but Bill C-83 was introduced in response to those rulings, even though the government appealed the rulings. We are currently at report stage, and the House is being asked to force prisons to do things in a certain way that will have direct repercussions on the safety of prison guards and prisoners themselves. We think that is unacceptable.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

On Friday, December 7, 2018, the Assistant Deputy Speaker delivered a ruling relating to the motions at report stage of Bill C-83. Therefore, I shall now proceed directly to proposing Motions Nos. 1 to 27 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between getting answers and not liking the answers, but we will let the Conservatives figure that one out.

As for the work this week, this afternoon we will commence report stage debate on Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation.

Tomorrow, we will deal with report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-77, the victims bill of rights.

Monday shall be an allotted day. Tuesday, if need be, we will resume debate at report stage of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I am pleased to request the designation of an order of the day for the Minister of Finance to present Budget 2019 at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

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

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, it is always a privilege to share some thoughts on important pieces of legislation and motions that come before the House.

I listened very closely to my colleague across the way as he introduced his proposed legislation. He talked a great deal about the issue of parole hearings.

I could not help but reflect on another initiative the government brought in. I believe it was Bill C-83. Through this bill, the government made some changes regarding audio recordings in parole hearings. In the past, if a criminal was up for parole and a victim of sexual assault, for example, wanted to listen to the parole hearing in person, that individual would not be allowed an audio copy of what took place at the parole hearing. Through this legislation, the government recognized that as a problem and made the necessary correction.

I mention this because I believe that if members take a look at the issues in justice and at the legislation we have brought forward in the last three years, they will see that there is much legislation that takes victims into consideration, and that is just one example. Today, as a result of that legislation, the victim of a sexual assault would be be able to go to a parole hearing and listen and also request an audio recording of it so that nothing would be missed because of the atmosphere the victim might have been placed in when listening at the parole hearing.

That is one piece of legislation. We had another piece of legislation dealing with victims. We reformed the way our military laws were being dealt with to ensure that they conformed with the Criminal Code. A Victims Bill of Rights was incorporated into the legislation.

I use these cases as examples because I have found, when in opposition and even in listening to the current Conservative opposition, that at times the Conservatives seem to want to use our justice system and the law as a way to create wedges and to look tough on crime. It is that sort of mentality.

A good example of this was referenced earlier today. In his speech, my colleague talked about first degree murder. It is a crime that the criminal courts recognize for what it is: When people are convicted of first degree murder, they are going away for a long time. However, he is right in his assertion that this does not mean that all murders are equal. Some are far more horrendous than others.

Let us stop and think about this. Members will recall that we had a huge debate not that long ago about Tori Stafford. She was the focal point of debate in the House for a great period of time. The government of the day was being criticized because Tori Stafford's murderer was transferred to a medium-security prison facility, and there was outrage from the opposition.

I raise this issue because on the surface, the legislation that is being proposed is fairly compelling in terms of support, but there are a couple of things that come to my mind.

First, the member who brought forward the bill was a fairly influential member of the Harper government as a parliamentary secretary. He was fairly well known among the Conservative benches. No doubt that was one of the reasons why he was elevated to parliamentary secretary. That bill did not proceed. In response to the questions posed to the member, he said that it was a timing issue, that there was not enough time. The bill sat for a lot more time than what he has given this government to deal with it.

One could question why the member feels the urgency is greater today. Was he told something that did not allow the Harper government to proceed with it? I would be very much interested in hearing the ongoing debate on this. Is that a part of what is often the case with the Conservative Party, that it likes to take a tough line?

That is the reason why I am giving the second example, which is the Tori Stafford case. Day after day, opposition members gave the false impression that this Liberal government was going about it in the wrong way. We were asked how we could do that. I heard the same thing at the local restaurant I go to on a weekly basis. People were starting to listen to what the official opposition was saying.

The Minister of Public Safety did great service to the issue when he had an internal investigation conducted and we came up with the right answer.

While some of the research was being done on the Stafford file, we found that under former prime minister Stephen Harper, other murderers had been transferred from high-security to medium-security prisons. These murderers committed not only first degree murders, but some of them committed multiple murders. After the Conservatives realized the double standard, it then became a marginal issue.

The Government of Canada did what it was supposed to do. The minister said that he would look into the matter and come back to the House, and he did. We were able to rectify the problem.

This Liberal government has been very sensitive to victims of crime with respect to the legislation we have brought forward. We have been progressive in our way of dealing with individuals in our jails. Unlike the Conservatives, we recognize that a good number of those who are in jails today will be back in our communities. Many of the reforms we have made will ensure that we have fewer victims in the future.

Our government has treated the public safety file seriously. We have not reacted to the degree the opposition has at times, which has not been in the best interests of public safety.

I listened to what the member said about this legislation. I am interested in hearing further debate on it, as this is only our first hour of debate. I would like to hear particularly from some Conservative members as to why they believe Stephen Harper did not recognize the value of the legislation, as it sat on the Order Paper for a few years.

I would also like to hear a response as to why the minister responsible at the time did not incorporate this in some of the judicial legislation that the Conservatives brought to the House. Why did the Conservative public safety minister not see fit to address this? Maybe we are missing something.

I can assure the House that the government is listening, will continue to listen to the debate, and will ultimately make a determination as time goes on.

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code, increasing parole ineligibility.

The objective of the bill is to protect victims and alleviate their re-victimization by limiting the number of parole applications in which they may need to participate. The underlying assumption of Bill C-266 is that its proposed reforms would spare families from the heartache of reliving the loss of their loved one who may have been murdered in unspeakable circumstances.

As currently drafted, Bill C-266 proposes to modify section 745 of the Criminal Code in order to effect two changes. First, it would make it mandatory for a judge to impose a parole ineligibility period of not less than 25 years for all offenders convicted of the following offences committed as part of the same event or series of events and in respect of the same victim: kidnapping and abduction-related offences; sexual offences; and murder, irrespective of whether it is in the first or second degree.

Second, the bill would provide judicial discretion to set the period of parole ineligibility between 25 and 40 years for the same small subset of offenders who, given the severity of their crimes committed, are truly unlikely to obtain parole in any event.

It should be noted that Bill C-266 is similar to previous private members' bills, including Bills C-478 and C-587. Bill C-478 got through second reading stage and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but it did not get any further than that.

Unlike Bill C-266, former Bill C-478 did not require that the offences for which the offender was found guilty to be committed as part of the same criminal transaction.

Former Bill C-478 was later reintroduced as Bill C-587 by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap and essentially proposed the same legislative amendments as Bill C-266, except for slight wording differences.

Ultimately, former Bill C-587 was adopted by the justice committee, without amendment, and had commenced third reading debate in the House, but did not proceed further because of the dissolution of Parliament for the 2015 federal election.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for the laudable objective of the bill. I think all of hon. members of the House can agree that alleviating the trauma, emotional suffering and re-victimization of families whose loved ones have been murdered is a worthwhile cause that merits our full consideration.

Victims have rights at every stage of the criminal justice process, including the right to information, protection, restitution, and participation. These rights, previously recognized by internal polices of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada, are now enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and give clear rights to all victims of crime.

Once victims are registered with the Parole Board of Canada or the Correctional Service Canada, they can choose to receive information on the offender, including but not limited to: the sentence start date and length; and the offender's eligibility and review dates for unescorted temporary absences, parole or statutory release.

Upon further request, additional information could be provided to a victim, including: the date of any Parole Board of Canada hearing and the reason why an offender waived a hearing, if one was given; and whether the offender has appealed the decision of the Parole Board not to grant a release and the outcome of that appeal.

Victims' participation rights include the following: attending the offender's parole hearing or listening to an audio recording of a parole hearing if the victim is unable to attend in person; presenting a written statement that outlines the continuing impact the offence has had on them and any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose and requesting that the Parole Board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release; and obtaining a copy of the Parole Board's decision, including information on whether the offender has appealed the decision and the outcome of the appeal.

I would like to pause here to highlight Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, which is proposing other legislative changes to better support victims of crime.

Currently, victims who do not attend a parole hearing are entitled to listen to an audio recording of the hearing. However, if victims do attend, they lose their right to listen to a recording. Simply stated, parole hearings can be quite difficult for family members. Despite attending the hearing, they may not always remember everything that was said and may, for a variety of reasons, wish to listen to an audio recording at a later date. I am pleased to know that changes proposed in Bill C-83 would give all victims the right to listen to an audio recording, regardless of whether they attend the parole hearing.

The laws and policies that have been put forward were designed to be respectful of the privacy rights of victims who do not wish to be contacted or receive information about the offender who has harmed them. This recognizes the fact that victims are not a homogenous group; while some victims may choose not to attend or receive information about parole hearings in order to avoid emotional trauma, others will attend parole hearings as a means of furthering their healing and to feel empowered by having their voice heard.

In fact, on March 9, 2015, officials testifying on behalf of the Parole Board of Canada indicated during their testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on former Bill C-587 that every victim is different and that the Parole Board of Canada also has victims who are interested in attending parole hearings.

Therefore, we need to ask ourselves if the proposed amendments in Bill C-266 are the most effective way of supporting the needs of victims affected by these brutal crimes.

I also wonder, despite the bill's laudable intentions, whether some victims might feel negatively impacted by legislative changes designed to reduce the number of parole hearings they may choose to attend.

I am certain all hon. members would agree that a thorough debate on the impacts of Bill C-266's proposed changes requires consideration of these questions. Also, I would be interested to hear the views of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on these points.

It is clear that there are various ways of supporting victims. The changes proposed in Bill C-266 present one avenue for bettering the experience of victims at the very end of the spectrum of the criminal justice process.

As parliamentarians, we should strive to achieve a fair, effective, just and compassionate criminal justice system for all involved. For these reasons, I will be closely monitoring the debate on Bill C-266 and look forward to hearing the views of other hon. members on its potential impacts.

Criminal Code

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak tonight to Bill C-51. For those who are not aware, this bill is intended to clean up clauses in the law that are no longer useful or applicable and to strengthen some of the language.

First, Bill C-51 is another omnibus bill. The Prime Minister said that the Liberals would not have omnibus bills, but we continue to see them in the House day after day. I may have gotten used to the fact that the Prime Minister always breaks his promise. However, I want people to be aware of this so they understand, as we approach next year's election, that the Prime Minister does not keep his promises and if he makes new promises, Canadians can expect that behaviour to continue. The promises really are not worth the paper on which they are written. Therefore, I object to this being an omnibus bill.

Usually when we think of justice bills, we think about what the government is trying to achieve in the country with respect to justice. Normally, we try to define what behaviour would be considered criminal, sentences that would be appropriate and commensurate with the crimes and that they are enforced in a timely way. However, I have to question what the justice minister is thinking with these pieces of legislation and actions that have been taken.

The government is in the fourth year of its mandate and what priority has the justice minister been giving time to? First, she has not put enough judges in place to keep murderers and rapists from going free because time has passed and the Jordan principle applies. That should have been a priority for the government, but clearly was not.

We heard earlier in the debate about how the government was pursuing veterans and indigenous people in court. That is obviously a priority for it, but one would think that other things would make the list. The Liberals prioritized the legalization of marijuana and the legalization of assisted suicide. Then it introduced Bill C-75, which took a number of serious crimes and reduced them to summary convictions of two years or a fine, things like forcible confinement of a minor, forced child marriage, belonging to a criminal organization, bribing an official and a lot of things like that. Those were the priorities of the government.

Then there is Bill C-83 regarding solitary confinement and impacts on 340 Canadians.

I am not sure what the priority of the government is when we consider the crime that has hit the streets. There is the increase in unlawful guns and gangs and huge issues with drug trafficking. I was just in Winnipeg and saw the meth addiction problem occupying the police and law enforcement there. I would have thought there would be other priorities.

If I think specifically about some of the measures in Bill C-51, the most egregious one to me is that the government tried to remove section 176, which protects religious officials and puts punishments in place for disrupting religious ceremonies.

Eighty-three churches in Sarnia—Lambton wrote letters and submitted petitions. There was an immediate outcry. It was nice that the government was eventually shamed into changing its mind and kept that section the way it was. However, why is there no moral compass with the government? We have had to shame it into doing the right thing many times, and this was one of them.

Terri-Lynne McClintic was moved to a healing lodge. I remember hearing the Minister of Public Safety talk day after day about how there was nothing he could do. I looked at section 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It says that the minister has full authority over his department. Eventually, of course, we shamed the government into the right thing. We heard today there may be a similar opportunity with Michael Rafferty, the other killer of Tori Stafford.

There is the Chris Garnier situation. He brutally murdered a police officer. He has PTSD and is getting veterans benefits when he was never a veteran. Again, we had to shame the government into taking action.

Then there was Statistics Canada. The government had a plan to allow it to take the personal financial transactional information of people's bank accounts and credit cards without their consent. Again, there was a total out-of-touch-with-Canadians response from the government, asking why it was a problem. Eventually, ruling by the polls, Canadians again shamed the government into changing its mind on that one.

Finally, there was the Canada summer jobs situation, which was very egregious to me. In my riding, numerous organizations were not able to access funding because of this values test that the government had put in place. The hospice, which delivers palliative care, was not even able to apply. It is under the Catholic diocese of Canada, which objected to the attestation. It has taken a very long time, but again, the government has been shamed into saying that the people are right and that maybe it will change it up for next year. Why does the government always have to be shamed into these things instead of having a moral compass to know what is right and what is not?

Bill C-51 would clean up a lot of things that were obviously a big priority for the government, like comic books causing crime. We know there have been huge issues about that in Canada. It would remove offences such as challenging someone to a dual. It would clean up the section on people fraudulently using witchcraft and sorcery. It would clean up a number of things. I do not object to it; I just do not see it as a priority when people are dying because of serious crimes.

Then there is the issue of sexual assault. The government spends a lot of word count talking about the fact that it cares about this. However, does it really care about sexual assault and strengthening the language on consent when it does not appoint enough judges to keep rapists from going free?

I was the chair of the status of women and we studied violence against women and girls. We know that one out of every thousand sexual assault cases actually goes to court and gets a conviction. If we want to talk about the sentences applied, they are measured in months and not years, when the victims struggle on forever.

Although there has been an attempt to make it clear what consent really means, there has been discussion in the debate today that it is still not clear. If people are interested to see what consent really means, there is a little video clip that can be googled. It is called Tea Consent. It is a very good way of demonstrating what consent is. I encourage everyone to take a look at that.

When it comes to the justice system and the priorities of the government, I cannot believe it has not addressed the more serious things facing our nation. We can think about what the justice minister ought to do, such as putting enough judges in place so we can have timely processing of events, and prioritize. If we do not have enough judges for the number of cases occurring, it is an indication of too much crime. However, it is also an opportunity to put the priority on processing murderers and rapists ahead of people being charged with petty crimes of less importance.

When it comes to looking at some of the actions the government should be taking going forward, it should be focusing on the issue of illegal gun activity happening right now. Ninety-five per cent of homicides is happening with unlawful guns or guns that are used unlawfully. There is a huge opportunity to do something about that. This should be a priority for the justice minister.

Our leader has put together a very cohesive plan that would reduce gun and gang violence. It is a great, well-thought out plan. I wish the Liberal government had some plan to try to do something to reduce crime in the country and to ensure that the people who commit crimes are actually held to account. I do not see that in Bill C-51. I have to wonder why it took so long to bring the bill forward.

As I said, the government is in the fourth year of its mandate and Bill C-39 would have made a lot of these fixes. It was introduced in March of 2017. Here we are at the end of 2018 and still none of this has gone through.

Public Safety and National Security

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security regarding Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

Bill C-83—Motion No. 17—Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order concerning the admissibility of Motion No. 17 to amend Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly for raising this matter and all of the other members who made interventions.

The question before us is whether the House can proceed to the consideration of a motion when the French and English versions published on the Order Paper are not the same.

In this case, the English version of the motion contains some provisions that are not included in the French version.

The sponsor of the motion, the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington, submitted the text of her motion in English. Unfortunately, the French translation that was provided along with the royal recommendation for this motion was incomplete. It is this incomplete French version of the motion that appears in the Notice Paper.

Although members have the right to present motions and amendments in either official language, the Chair understands that it is important for all members to be able to understand the wording of motions and amendments in the language of their choice.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, at page 565:

If the Chair finds the form of the motion to be irregular, he or she has the authority to modify it in order to ensure that it conforms to the usage of the House.

I am therefore directing that the French version of Motion No. 17 be corrected and republished in the Notice Paper before the next sitting of the House.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Customs Act

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

Madam Speaker, the differences between Bill C-83 and Bill C-21 are vast. They are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum. It is obvious that Bill C-21 is legislation that is a piece off what was started under the beyond the borders action plan our previous government initiated. The current legislation, Bill C-83, is a dog's breakfast of we are not sure what. It is a mess, and no one supports it.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member is fully aware of Bill C-83. I am comparing it with Bill C-21. At committee, we listened to many witnesses talk about Bill C-83, and everyone said it was a bad bill. In fact, no witnesses who came forward said that Bill C-83 was a good bill, except for the minister and his entourage. Bill C-83 is a very important bill in that it is supposed to protect our jail system, the guards and the prisoners, but it is a bad bill. No one agreed that it was a bill that should go ahead, yet we were going to deal with it earlier this morning.

Here we have Bill C-21, which is necessary. It would assist Canadians and Americans travelling back and forth. It would help the security of our country. I wonder if the member would comment further on Bill C-21.

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

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act.

Our caucus is supportive of the bill, and I am pleased to rise to renew that continued support. However, I cannot help but look at Bill C-21 and compare it with another bill before the House, Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. There are significant differences between the two. The question of differences especially comes to mind with the recent passing of former United States President Bush and the eloquent eulogy offered by former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney. The friendship and skill of these former leaders stands in contrast to our leader today.

Bill C-21 was the product of two former national leaders, former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Obama. The legislation was based on an effort to improve security and trade. The two leaders were noted for making history. One re-crafted Canadian Conservative politics while the other re-crafted a new vision for American presidents. Neither could be found making the kind of erroneous tweets or statements of their successors. Despite ideological and cultural differences, they improved trade and worked together to deal with challenges, like the global economic crisis. The difference between our former leaders and the new one today could not be more stark. For me, these two bills tell a similar story. Bill C-21 is based on the work of a predecessor.

At committee, we heard numerous people speak to the relevance, importance and balance of Bill C-21. Concerns were raised, but they were manageable and moderate. In contrast, Bill C-83 fails in every way that Bill C-21 seems to succeed. Not one witness provided support for Bill C-83 at committee. The committee could not determine exactly what or how the bill would work, or even if it would meet any of promises the Minister of Public Safety made. Bill C-21, on the other hand, is a bill to implement improved border co-operation and security that would benefit both the United States and Canada. It would boost jobs and opportunity. It would reduce the regulatory burden on honest and hard-working Canadians. It would provide safe and effective borders, and it would support Canadians who follow the rules and respect the law.

In the incredible riding of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner in southern Alberta, which I have the privilege and honour of serving, we have five ports of entry between Canada and the United States. These border crossing are critical for local, regional and national economies. Products, services and people cross the border daily. Unfortunately, despite funding being set aside in 2015 by the previous government, the Liberals have yet to deliver a dime to improve and expand border crossings in my riding. That is yet another example of the way the Liberals have continued to ignore the needs of Alberta's economy.

One of the features of Bill C-21 is the collection of personal entry and exit information at the border. This information will provide better intelligence and understanding of security and trade, and ultimately better security and a stronger economy. Naturally, collection of information in the age of big data does raise concerns. This is the only issue that surfaced during Senate review.

The Senate has offered an amendment to clause 93.1, which reads:

Subject to section 6 of the Privacy Act, information collected under sections 92 and 93 shall be retained for 15 years beginning on the day on which the information is collected.

The Privacy Commissioner was concerned that the original amendment by the public safety committee would not provide enough certainty. I understand that it is the Privacy Commissioner's role to be concerned and to identify what could go wrong and how things could be abused. He stated:

The words “shall be retained for 15 years” clearly indicate that information cannot be destroyed before the end of the 15 year period. Then, there are no words to prescribe what happens after the end of the period.

I would suggest this is a friendly amendment, a minor edit over a concern about the language used to achieve the same objective. I will quote from the Hansard of the Senate. Senator Mary Coyle stated the following about the testimony of the Privacy Commissioner:

...in order to achieve greater legal certainty, section 93.1 should be amended in order to clarify that the data collected under sections 92 and 93 shall be retained by the agency for a period of not more than 15 years, so to a maximum of 15 years. He said:

'It would be desirable...to achieve greater legal certainty to amend section 93.1 to clarify that it applies only to CBSA and that it is a maximum period.'

That is, the 15-year maximum period. I have personally verified with Mr. Therrien regarding the wording of the amendment agreed to by the committee and he agrees it captures his concern regarding the retention period for the CBSA.

She further noted the following:

Bill C-21 gained broad consensus from all parties in the House of Commons and we have heard a similar level of agreement in this chamber.

I would note that it is not surprising that the Senate would find few issues with this legislation. The bill achieves many important objectives for Canada and Canadians.

The better use of information concerning people and goods that enter and leave the country will ensure that the government is better informed. It will also make life easier for immigrants and permanent residents who currently have to prove their time in the country, instead of a clear record being available to government. Informed government is better government.

The bill will support faster and more effective trade between our countries, as trusted businesses will be able to move their goods more efficiently across the border without barriers. In contrast, border agents will be able to better identify and target problems, focusing enforcement on the issues rather than honest Canadians trying to go about their business.

Like all legislation involving the collection of information, we must be conscious of the collection and use of data. As the Privacy Commissioner noted, the majority of the issues raised are addressed in the bill and the bill strikes the right balance.

Unfortunately, Bill C-21 is still not an answer to many of the issues caused by the Liberal government and faced by Canadians and our country at the border. There continue to be tens of thousands of illegal border crossers, costing taxpayers an estimated $1.1 billion, including numerous impacts on provinces. For example, the capacity of local and regional social systems are maxed out; there is a four-year backlog in asylum claims that continues to get longer; and resources from communities across the country, including CBSA border officers, RCMP and immigration officials, have been redeployed to Lacolle and other problem areas, leaving communities short-handed.

Provinces have run up massive costs, for which the federal government has offered pennies on the dollar by way of reimbursement. More than two years later, and now with two ministers, there is still no clear plan to secure the border and re-establish an orderly refugee and immigration system.

Trade between Canada and the U.S. continues to be problematic, as steel and aluminum tariffs have put manufacturing and construction jobs at risk. The energy sector continues to be subject to the whims of foreign influencers who are aligned with the anti-energy ideologies of the Liberal government.

I hope the House can move quickly to move Bill C-21 forward. The Liberal government has created a long list of problems, crises, and regional divides that need the attention of members to undo the damage to families, businesses and workers.

Bill C-83—Motion No. 17

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

After hearing all the points of order, I will take a few minutes to look at all this. I will come back quickly on these points of order.

I now have to move on to debate. I will come back with my ruling shortly.

There are 27 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-83. Motions Nos. 1 to 27 will be regrouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 27 to the House.

The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan is rising on a point of order.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-83 has been problematic from the start. Committee members even moved a motion to stop this bill. The witnesses were unanimous in their assessment that it does not work. We wanted the government to take the bill back and re-evaluate it, but the government refused.

This morning we were provided with a very sloppy French version that was all wrong, and this in the context of a conversation about how profoundly important official languages are in Canada. The government goes on and on about how it is fighting for this, and it keeps accusing the Conservatives of not being pro-French, but that is totally false.

I am the public safety critic. I am a francophone and a Quebecker. When the government hands us a document like this, as my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly said, we do not blame public servants. We blame the government for forcing everyone to do things too fast because it cannot get its own act together.

I do not think we should debate this today. It does not work.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on the Senate amendments to Bill C-57, the sustainable development bill.

Tomorrow morning, we will start debate at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-83, the administrative segregation legislation. Following question period, we will debate the Senate amendments to Bill C-21, the Customs Act.

Next week, we will be debating various government bills.

I would like to remind the House that, in accordance with the order adopted this morning, there will be an exploratory debate Monday evening at the usual time of adjournment. The debate will be on the subject of the opioid crisis in Canada.

Public Safety and National Security

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back, under very constrained timelines, with extensive amendments.

I want to take this opportunity to thank staff, officials and members for their extensive co-operation in presenting this report to the House today.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I will read this.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee has considered Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act and wishes to make the following recommendations to the government:

First, given the testimony that the committee heard from the correctional investigator and other stakeholders, and the fact that there are only 10 women currently housed in administrative segregation units across the country, the committee strongly encourages the Correctional Service of Canada to consider alternatives to segregation in women's institutions such as the pilot program proposed in 2016 by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies;

Second, that the Correctional Service of Canada examine the placement and/or transfer of an inmate to a facility far away from their home or community and the impact of the transfer on the inmate's contact with family and an individual identified by the inmate as a support person.

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

We'd like to add to the report. After the study of Bill C-83, the committee wishes to highlight the opposition members' disapproval of this flawed bill and report the following to the House:

- That the Committee’s role is to review legislation, using all the information needed to make informed decisions

- That the Minister has withheld information deemed by Members of the Government, Opposition, and witnesses to be essential in determining the effectiveness of the legislation—namely the cost and implementation of the Bill

- That Members of the Committee have decided to provide blind faith in the Minister despite the role of the Committee to hold the Minister to account

- That the House be made aware that this legislation was deemed by witnesses and Members as incomplete without any costing or implementation and should not proceed without detailed plan and explanation from the Minister.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I don't want to belabour it because it appears to have good support, but I would say that the “least restrictive” language was included in Bill C-56. It was previously absent in Bill C-83. You now have put in “least restrictive measures” in a couple places. This does ensure consistency. Also, it is congruent with advice from many of the witnesses. I won't take time at this late hour to remind you of all the witnesses who think this is a good amendment.

Thank you.

[Angela Connidis]

With all respect, I would say that there are two things to consider when you are making your decision.

One is that the major tenet of this provision is about “least restrictive measures”. You've just passed two amendments dealing with least restrictive measures, and you would want to have consistency throughout the act.

As well, one of the provisions in Bill C-83 dealt with audio recordings before the parole board, so in fact we have opened up provisions relating to the parole board.

[Jim Eglinski]

Chair, I just move that we make an amendment that Bill C-83 in clause 31 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 14 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph 96(v) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(v) for the organization, training-including training related to mental health and to safety-discipline, efficiency, administration and good management of the Service;

This came to light when Stanley Stapleton was here, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, who suggested that additional training was needed within the institution, especially with the new sorts of guidelines coming into place under section 83. We would like to add that the training become part of section 83.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is again looking at the question of how Gladue principles inform actions, but there's nothing in the current legislation that actually puts those principles into practice. This would ensure that the Criminal Code Gladue provision will be incorporated into BillC-83. It's a very simple amendment. It's one that is supported by the Native Women's Association of Canada, by Aboriginal Legal Services, and by Lois Frank, who gave evidence before this committee as the Gladue report writer from the Alberta department of justice.

Thank you.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you again.

This amendment is that Bill C-83, in clause 23, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 11 with the following:

79.1 In recognition of the systemic discrimination Indigenous offenders face in the correctional system and the Service's obligation to advance equality in correctional outcomes for Indigenous offenders, the Service shall, when assessing an Indigenous offender' s needs in order to make a decision under this Act affecting the offender, take the following in-

Again, in my opinion, this something that we just need to do. I hope we have support.

[Juline Fresco]

It would not allow the specificity that we believe Bill C-83 clarifies, which is that when the CSC is entering into an agreement with a community, what they're actually entering into is an agreement with the indigenous organization or indigenous governing body. It wouldn't give us the clarity that we believe the bill has at this point.

[Juline Fresco]

Thank you. I'm going to talk a bit about what was done in Bill C-83 with respect to the definitions.

Subsection 81(1) of the act is amended by replacing the term “aboriginal community” with “Indigenous governing body” and “or any Indigenous organization”. The reason is that when a contract is entered into with an indigenous community, it can't be with the “community”; that's not an entity you can actually enter into an agreement with contractually. In fact, it's the “indigenous governing body” and an “indigenous organization”, so that is the change that we made in the act.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

That's me. Let's see if I get it right this time.

I move to amend Bill C-83 in clause 23 by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 11 with the following:

lndigenous community means an organization, a community, a band, a tribal council, a nation or any other group with a predominantly Indigenous leadership.

I further move to amend it by adding after line 14 on page 11 the following:

predominantly lndigenous leadership in relation to a group, means a group—the majority of whose board of directors are First Nation or non-status First Nation, whether residing on reserve land or not, Métis or Inuit—that advocates for culturally appropriate and community-based alternatives to confinement for Indigenous inmates.

As I hope everyone in this room appreciates deeply, this is important terminology to have moving forward.

Thank you.

[Angela Connidis]

I think the prescriptiveness of it means that some indigenous leadership groups may not fall within this definition. It would limit which groups could be part of an indigenous community. Recognizing that Bill C-83 actually refers to indigenous “organization” rather than indigenous “community”, that definition wouldn't apply to what we have: indigenous organization.

[Luc Bisson]

Essentially, strip searches are currently available under the act. My understanding is that under Bill C-83, they would continue to be available.

To reiterate, the concern is about what this would mean if there are medical conditions, or if the body scanner is at the front entrance and we're moving an inmate from one area to another where a body scanner isn't present. What would this mean in terms of how we would operationalize this?

There are concerns from that perspective.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would move this new language after line 21 on page 5. We're suggesting, or moving, that the following be added:

(1.1) The institutional head may, after consultation with qualified persons, develop alternative means to fulfill the obligation referred to in subsection (1) if those means mitigate the impact of confinement in a structured intervention unit on the mental health of inmates while improving the safety of persons or the security of the penitentiary.

We have written in absolute rules and attempted to define a meaningful relationship for human contact under the law, which is challenging without consideration of its being a prison. Bill C-83, though, doesn't leave much room for considering alternative treatments in the future, which is concerning. I believe that if a technology comes along and we universally accept that meaningful human contact can be achieved, thus meeting the terms of the act while being implemented through other means, the act should be ready for that.

Therefore, I would move that the minister and correctional service staff have the ability to implement new technologies or systems to meet the requirements of the act.

[Angela Connidis]

That's in proposed subsection 37(1) of Bill C-83.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that Justice Arbour's recommendation dates back to when I was in elementary school. I'm not saying that to be glib. I'm saying that to demonstrate how long-standing this issue has been.

I think it's pretty clear from the minister's comments and his inability to provide me with an adequate response that he has already prejudged what he believes this will look like.

Both Bill C-56 and Bill C-83 have had nothing in terms of proper independent review with any kind of teeth. Moreover, I think the very fact that the government is appealing the B.C. decision has just left a bunch of bread crumbs that do not allow me, unfortunately, and with all due respect, to make the same leap of faith. I believe, from what I've heard from witnesses, what I've read and what I've heard Justice Arbour say many times over the years, that this is the way to go.

At the end of the day, I go back to what Justice Arbour articulated as the reason here: The minute you start going beyond a certain number of days without this type of review, you're actually influencing sentencing. You're changing the punishment that has been brought out by a court of law on an individual.

I understand that circumstances can change within a prison, but unfortunately, history has borne out that this has been abused and has gone against the way our system is supposed to work. I believe this is the only way we can properly correct that abuse. Having heard witness testimony, and through my own discussions with stakeholders, that's what I believe.

Unfortunately, on this file, with the dithering we've seen from the minister, both with his actions in appealing the decision through the Department of Justice and in his own testimony, I just do not have that same faith.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this amendment we're trying to be ambitious on two fronts: applying the Mandela rules relating to the number of aggregate days in a 365-day period, and going back to Justice Arbour's recommendation for judicial review.

I didn't have time to finish debating the minister on that point, but I don't believe it's something that requires royal recommendation or I imagine I would have had a ruling from the chair on this front. I will ask for a recorded vote.

The amendment would read that Bill C-83, in clause 10, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 4 with the following:

unit is to end as soon as possible, and may never be, subject to subsection (2), for more than 15 aggregate days in a 365-day period.

(2) The Federal Court may, on request by the institution head, authorize the confinement of an inmate in a structured intervention unit for up to an additional 15 aggregate days in a 365-day period, as long as the aggregate days of confinement of the inmate in such a unit, irrespective of the penitentiary, do not exceed 60 in the 365-day period.

[Angela Connidis]

Yes, that's correct. A health care professional is involved. Under Bill C-83, a health care professional could recommend the alteration of conditions or the termination of confinement, and the institutional head would have to take that into account. A health care professional visits daily, and health care advice has to be taken into account in any decision related to placement in an SIU.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Again, this is new language in clause 8, adding, after line 31 on page 3, the following:

(2) If the Commissioner plans to assign a new security classification to a penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary, he or she must undertake consultations with nearby communities, staff members and any other impacted stakeholder identified by the Service.

(3) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a new security classification in writing, publish it on the departmental website at least 15 days before the change takes effect and notify the Minister of the change.

The whole idea behind this is that currently, the way Bill C-83 reads, it provides powers that are far too broad for the reclassification of facilities. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that all authorities have the appropriate checks and balances in place. As we've seen recently with healing lodges and other prison transfers, there is a limited accountability of the service to local communities, to victims and the stakeholders. That is the motive behind this amendment: that public consultation is required when the commissioner wants to reclassify an institution. I believe it needs to be in law, not in regulations, so that it's set in stone.

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

Thank you.

This is similar to the other one. The new language, because there is no current one, is replacing line 31 on page 3 with the following:

any area in a penitentiary by taking into account the physical limitations and staffing needs of the penitentiary as well as the services it offers.

(2) The Commissioner must record the assignment of a change to a security classification in writing and notify the Minister of the proposed change at least 15 days before the change takes effect.

Bill C-83 seems to provide unlimited powers to the commissioner of corrections to reclassify institutions or parts of institutions. While this is perhaps a necessary use of authority in many circumstances, it should have checks and limits within it.

I think a very reasonable amendment is to put a limit on this. You can't [Technical difficulty—Editor] segregation unit unless it meets the needs of the type of classification. The government, through regulations, sets what these parameters are, and the commissioner has to operate within them.

That's the whole purpose behind this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you for that.

With that, we will engage in the business of the day. I thank the officials for being here.

We start off with what I hope is a pattern here, which is, shall clause 1 of Bill C-83 carry? There are no amendments.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

That puts us into clause 2. The first amendment to clause 2 is NDP-1. We'll go with NDP-1 and note the relationship between NDP-1 and PV-1.

Go ahead, Mr. Dubé.

[Jim Eglinski]

I think, Mr. Minister, that the group is aware of that, and there are differences of opinion from a number of different people who gave us evidence.

I'd like to step away from Bill C-83 now.

You were talking about different finances. Last year you talked about $327.5 million over five years going for guns and gangs, and $291.2 million over five years going to the RCMP to support first nations policing.

Has any of that $291.2 million been spent to date?

[Jim Eglinski, Yellowhead, CPC]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I want to start off with Bill C-83 again. I've listened to most of the witnesses—the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the correctional investigator, the union, etc. They weren't all Conservative witnesses; they were Liberal witnesses as well as our witnesses, but no matter where they came from, I cannot recall even one of them, throughout the evidence that they gave us, who said that they were consulted prior to the implementation and the drawing up of Bill C-83.

Now, I did go back and talk to some union people I know. I asked them if they had anything to do with that, and they said they'd been told about it, but they'd had no input as to the laying out of the framework.

Your government talks a lot about transparency and working together. How did Bill C-83 come about? Who drafted this legislation that seems to be opposed by everyone who comes to see us?

We're going to have a very interesting time discussing it in the near future.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Funding for improved mental health services has been included in the last two federal budgets. We have already taken some steps to begin to address those issues, which went unaddressed for so very long.

In addition to that, we are proposing the very strongly enhanced mental health care services that are envisaged in this new concept of a structured intervention unit. There's some funding that was put in the system in the last two budgets. This new funding, to go along with the implementation of Bill C-83, will add further resources still.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

We can continue to debate that particular piece, but I do want to get to some of my other points with the limited time that I have.

In keeping with that spirit, the last correctional investigator report talked about the lack, for example, of psychiatric services in corrections, and when I look at the numbers that are here, it seems very backloaded.

One of the concerns that has been raised about Bill C-83 is that notwithstanding this debate that we may have over whether it's essentially the same thing under a new name or not, putting that debate aside, the fact remains that there is concern on whether the lack of psychiatric services and other mental health services would mean that some individuals would still find themselves being put into these units because of a lack of resources. When you see such back-ended funding, is there not a concern that more needs to be done to address that issue, something that was raised in the correctional investigator's report just a few weeks ago or a week or so ago?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope I make it to the end of my seven minutes without my voice conking out here.

Minister and officials, thank you all for being here.

I just want to continue on the Bill C-83 piece there, and what you talked about with respect to royal recommendations. I want to delve into that a little bit, since you did bring it up.

It seems to me that you aren't imagining a specific solution, because there are some solutions that would not require a royal recommendation, one of them being, for example, judicial oversight, which dates back to a recommendation from Justice Arbour. There's currently a regulatory framework that has been used as an example of something that could be used for independent oversight, which is the independent chairperson, which exists in the disciplinary context.

Given that you've mentioned the need for a royal recommendation, that precludes there being a specific remedy in mind for this particular criticism, and to Mr. Motz's point, he did steal some of my thunder, because I have never seen a bill get panned so unanimously by committee witnesses the way this one has.

I'm wondering if you're envisaging something in particular and if you've already discounted the possibility, for example, of judicial oversight, which would not require a royal recommendation.

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

I'm just going to move to Bill C-83, Minister. You spoke to it briefly, and your estimates say that $448 million will be flowing to CSC over the coming years to deal with this legislation.

Now, I don't know if you've been following the testimony at committee, but pretty much everybody except your own officials, on both sides of the political spectrum, has spoken against this bill. They've said it's a bad bill. I'm just curious to know whether you're going to be withdrawing it. If you don't withdraw it, will you at least take it back to the drawing board and redo it so that it actually will receive public support?

There's been no consultation. Everybody who came said they were never consulted. I'm just kind of curious to know.... If you're spending that kind of money and we're supposed to trust you that the regulations are going to lay out how this money is going to be spent, the bill certainly doesn't. I'm at a loss, and everybody who came in as witnesses from, as I said, all sides of the issue was very concerned and confused as to how it will actually play out and whether it will make a difference.

Most of them said it would not make a difference on offender rehabilitation. It would not make a difference on safety within the institution. It wasn't going to meet the objectives that, as you had indicated, Bill C-83 was intended to meet. I'm just curious to know how the regulations are going to identify what $448 million is actually going to do to improve our correctional system.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The funding is largely dedicated, Ms. Damoff, to the purpose you have indicated. Clearly, for Bill C-83 to be successful and effective in eliminating the old practice of administrative segregation and in instituting the totally new concept of structured intervention units, two things have to happen: The law needs to be changed—that's what Bill C-83 accomplishes—and then you have to back it up with the necessary resources. You have to make sure that the Correctional Service of Canada has people with the right skill sets in the right places at the right times to provide the kinds of intervention that will be effective with the offender population, interventions that will be entirely new and that will not—I say this very deliberately—simply be administrative segregation with a different coat of paint.

I know there has been concern expressed around this table and among some of the stakeholders about the effectiveness of the reform. That's why the funding is critical. It's to make sure that this is real and meaningful change. The old procedures will be gone. There will be a new system in place. That will require money, and that's largely what the commitment in the economic statement was for.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us. As always, we welcome your testimony before us.

I want to start with your last comment, if I could, on Bill C-83. Ms. Dabrusin and I have both been quite interested in introducing an amendment on the oversight issue. I certainly will take you up on your offer to work with your staff to include that in report stage when it comes back to the House.

On Bill C-83, we had Stan Stapleton from the Union of Safety and Justice Employees here last week. He talked about there being evidence showing that strong rehabilitative programs make communities safer and create a safer environment for both employees and offenders inside institutions. He also stated that Bill C-83 would require additional funding in order to complete the mandate we're hoping to complete with Bill C-83.

I think many of us were quite pleased to see, in the fall economic statement, $448 million allocated to corrections. I'm just wondering if you could tell the committee how that significant investment will be spent.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you again to discuss the estimates today.

I have a familiar cast of characters with me. Malcolm Brown is the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. John Ossowski is the President of the Canada Border Services Agency. Anne Kelly is the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada. Jeff Yaworski is the Acting Director for CSIS. Gilles Michaud is Deputy Commissioner for the RCMP.

I would point out that as of last week, Deputy Commissioner Michaud has been elected Delegate for the Americas to serve on the executive committee of INTERPOL, representing our continent in that important organization.

Again, I want to thank members of the committee for the diligent work that you do on matters related to public safety. The volume and gravity of the key pieces of legislation, the policy changes, and the major investments that we have been making are very substantial. Your scrutiny and advice have helped to inform that work, which includes, for example, the new regime that Canada now has in place with respect to cannabis, a modernized national security framework that was developed in the context of Bill C-59 and new strong actions in relation to gun and gang violence. That's just to name a few.

We are in the midst of extraordinary changes to Canada's public safety environment, and Canadians are seeing some direct benefits. This month alone, we have announced millions of dollars in new funding for public safety projects from coast to coast. Those projects help our communities plan and prepare for natural disasters like floods. They improve our collective ability to effectively counter radicalization to violence in new and innovative ways. They help communities steer youth away from criminal and risky behaviour, such as guns, gangs and drugs.

Of course, there is also the $86 million that we announced earlier this month to support both the RCMP and the CBSA in their efforts to combat gun and gang violence. Keeping Canadians safe clearly requires efforts at every level, from communities to NGOs to governments to law enforcement and security agencies and beyond.

Today, in these estimates that are the subject matter for this meeting, we're looking at the spending authorities the portfolio needs to accomplish those objectives. Through these supplementary estimates (A), the Public Safety portfolio is requesting adjustments resulting in a net increase of $262 million. That represents a change of 2.6% over existing authorities. It's largely because several portfolio organizations have now received Treasury Board approval to increase appropriations and have received or are making transfers to and from other organizations.

All told, the approval of these estimates, including in-year adjustments, would result in total portfolio authorities increasing to $10.5 billion for the current fiscal year.

For my part today, I'll try to break down the key highlights of these changes across the portfolio, and I'll speak to just a few current priorities.

First, I note that these estimates provide a great snapshot of just how closely this portfolio must work together. Thirteen of the spending initiatives, with a total value of over $144 million, are horizontal in nature, requiring close collaboration among the organizations within this portfolio. I'll single out three in particular.

One of the most prominent is the $29.9 million requested in these estimates for the initiative to take action against guns and gangs, to which I alluded earlier. The evidence is clear: Gun and gang violence is a growing problem for Canadians.

Last year, I announced a total of new funding of $327.6 million over five years to help address this issue. A portion of that total—over $200 million over five years—will help provinces and territories address gun and gang issues through initiatives specific to the needs of their local communities.

The nearly $30 million that is requested in these estimates will help the CBSA, the RCMP and Public Safety Canada to carry out this collaborative new guns and gangs initiative.

On the theme of collaboration, I would also highlight the $50.3 million requested by my department to be transferred to the RCMP in support of the first nations policing program in various communities across Canada. Indigenous communities, like all other communities in Canada, should be safe places where families can thrive and economies can flourish. Public safety is essential for social and economic development. That's why I announced last year that the government is investing an incremental $291.2 million over five years in policing in first nations and Inuit communities currently served under the first nations policing program. That is the single largest investment in the program since it was first created back in 1991. For the first time, the funding will be both ongoing and indexed so that first nations communities can have the confidence that their police forces will have the resources they need into the future.

A third horizontal initiative is reflected in the $7.1 million requested for CSIS and CBSA to support the 2018 to 2020 immigration plan. As you know, Minister Hussen announced a multi-year plan that would welcome some 980,000 new permanent residents to our country by 2020. Public Safety portfolio organizations are very important partners in the immigration and refugee system, helping determine admissibility to Canada and providing security screening. Again, this funding will support their efforts.

Mr. Chair, that's just a quick snapshot of some of the collaborative work the portfolio is undertaking.

I'll briefly outline some of the other more prominent dollar amounts requested by some of our portfolio partners.

These estimates would provide the CBSA with a net increase in budgetary expenditures of $94.1 million. Along with supporting action against gun and gang violence, as well as immigration activities, that funding will also enhance the passenger protect program and other priorities.

The RCMP is seeking a net increase of $163.3 million in these estimates for the first nations policing program that I mentioned, and the guns and gangs initiative, as well as for G7 security, efforts related to the new cannabis regime, and much more.

Finally, I'll also highlight a requested net increase of $16 million to the spending authorities for CSIS, and an increase of $2.3 million to the Correctional Service of Canada. Minister Blair will have more details to share on today's estimates during the next hour of your meeting.

With respect to immediate priorities, it's safe to say that we won't be slowing down in the near future. For example, you can expect to see new measures responding to the mandate that we have given to the new commissioner of the RCMP. With the new cannabis regime in place, we'll be presenting legislation soon to make things fairer for Canadians who have been previously convicted of the offence of simple possession.

In closing, I understand that this committee will begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-83 later this week. I have been following the testimony and your lines of questioning very closely. Even though we are eliminating the practice of administrative segregation through this bill and introducing the new concept of structural intervention units, it is clear that some form of independent review mechanism for individuals who do not take part in programming within the structured intervention units would make stakeholders more comfortable with this very ambitious legislation. As indicated previously, I would be amenable to such a change, and I look forward to your work on clause-by-clause study.

As members likely know, creating a review mechanism would be a new and distinct function that would require a royal recommendation. That includes changing the terms and conditions of the original royal recommendation that was included at the beginning with Bill C-83, which of course would make such an amendment inadmissible at the committee stage.

If members are interested in such an amendment, my office would be more than willing to work with you in preparing such a report stage amendment. I would seek the appropriate royal recommendation from my cabinet colleagues.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear, Mr. Chair. Welcome to you in your role as chair today. I'm glad to be here and to have the opportunity to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have seven seconds.

On behalf of the committee, I do want to thank you for your contributions to this study of Bill C-83, Professor Parkes, Ms. Finestone, Mr. Pink and Mr. Rudin. This is all helpful.

With that, it does bring an end to our witness list.

I remind colleagues that you must have any amendments in by 4 p.m. on Monday. Also, given that I left for one minute and you brought a motion, I'm a little nervous about Tuesday with the ministers. I'm hoping that when I'm sitting here next Thursday I'll have no reports of any difficulties with the ministers.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I feel that at this time I need to suggest a motion. We've had nearly eight hours of testimony from witnesses. We've had numerous witnesses here testifying on Bill C-83. Other than Mr. Stapleton's cautious optimism about Bill C-83, and the minister's staff who support it, obviously, no one is supporting this legislation.

We're required and asked by the committee to have our amendments to committee on Monday. Right now, it looks like the entire bill needs to be redone. The entire bill needs amending. Our role as a committee, as I understand it, is to give oversight of the minister's legislation and to provide direction. We are to suggest changes based on the needs of Canadians as well as the expert advice we receive.

It is therefore imperative to me that this legislation be right, since the rehabilitative capacity of Corrections for our inmates as well as other lives are on the line—other inmates, guards, as well as the people in our communities. Given our committee's role and the importance of the legislation, I cannot in good conscience move ahead with this legislation. I don't think this committee should either. It is deeply flawed. Making minor amendments would only paint over a problem.

Additionally, this government appeared before the court of appeal yesterday and asked for an extension on this particular piece of legislation. They did so for a number of reasons—i.e., to meet the demand of the 2017 court order that the government had under December 18 to get this passed to make its solitary confinement oversight process compliant with the charter.

I, therefore, move the following:

That, in light of recent testimony the Committee has heard during its study of Bill C-83, the Committee suspend its study in recognition of the Bill's flaws and inadequate consultations; resume its study once the Government of Canada has consulted with involved parties and ensured there are no flaws; and that the Committee report this recommendation to the House.

I put this motion before the clerk in both languages.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'll start with Mr. Pink or Ms. Finestone.

The Elizabeth Fry Society states that administrative segregation isn't necessary, whereas the John Howard Society, the correctional officers and the Correctional Service of Canada maintain that it's sometimes necessary.

In your opinion, does Bill C-83 seek to eliminate segregation or to ensure the safe and secure implementation of segregation?

[Elana Finestone, Legal Counsel, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you for having us here.

I plan to show you that when you consult with the Native Women's Association of Canada you get comprehensive answers. I would like to discuss NWAC's answers with you today.

I'd like to tell you a little bit about NWAC. NWAC is a national indigenous organization with a mandate and resources dedicated exclusively to empowering disadvantaged and discriminated against women, girls and gender-diverse persons who are first nations, Inuit and Métis. NWAC examines and understands the systemic factors that contribute to their criminalization, their overrepresentation in federal prisons and their confinement under stringent conditions. We have extensive experience in advocating for indigenous women in the House of Commons, at inquests and in various courts. We know that indigenous women are now the fastest-growing population in Canadian prisons.

When discussing Bill C-83, it's important to understand the underlying factors leading to indigenous women's criminalization. I want to highlight the gendered effects of colonization on indigenous women and how these effects should meaningfully respond to their needs. Simply stated, it's about needs: how to assess their needs, how to support their needs and address them in the institution, and how to address those needs outside of the institution.

I don't have enough time to address all of NWAC's concerns about this bill. Suffice it to say that NWAC endorses the Aboriginal Legal Services' submission and echoes their call for more significant reforms in structured intervention units to—as they say—truly “address the underlying reasons” people are placed in segregation. NWAC also supports the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies' recommendation to abolish administrative segregation and similar isolating and restrictive practices in women's prisons.

First, I will touch on assessing indigenous women's needs. It is clear that the intergenerational effects of Canada's history of colonialism, residential schools, the gendered implications of the Indian Act on indigenous women's status and many other forms of displacement harm indigenous women. Almost all federally imprisoned indigenous women have had previous violent and traumatic experiences, such as physical and sexual abuse and problems with substance misuse. It's important for federal prisons to meaningfully respond to their realities in a way that's sensitive to these gendered impacts of colonization.

CSC's obligation to advance substantive equality and correctional outcomes for indigenous prisoners underscores the importance of using the Gladue principles to assess and respond to their needs, not their risks, but that is not what happens. Corrections overclassifies indigenous women's level of risk. A high-risk classification translates into restrictive and isolating prison conditions, where they don't have sufficient or culturally appropriate care. These restrictive, isolating and culturally inappropriate conditions are mentally and physically harmful to them. They perpetuate the gendered effects of colonization.

As you can see, indigenous women in federal prisons require the most support but are the most punished. CSC conflates risks with needs, and this is troubling, since the systemic and background factors elucidated in Gladue are intended to be mitigating. That's why NWAC wants to ensure that systemic and background factors affecting indigenous people are applied correctly.

We recommend that you amend proposed section 79 of Bill C-83 to ensure that every decision affecting federally imprisoned indigenous women and the gendered impacts of their systemic and background factors are considered and used only to assess prisoners' needs.

Now I'd like to talk about how these needs can be addressed in prison. The necessity of providing culturally appropriate and trauma-informed care was underscored during the community hearings at the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Those who testified about traumatic and harmful events needed resources to heal their reopened wounds. Proposed section 79.1 of Bill C-83 will likely call for federally imprisoned indigenous women to disclose their Gladue factors in order for their systemic and background factors, culture and identity to be properly understood and applied to CSC decisions.

Bill C-83 cannot ignore the re-traumatizing impacts their disclosure will have on them in the aftermath. In our brief, we recommend that culturally appropriate care be provided in these instances. NWAC recognizes the value that culture and spirituality can have in healing from the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual harms caused by Canada's colonial history. That's why it's important for federally imprisoned indigenous women who choose this healing path to have elders or indigenous spiritual advisers available to them. The element of choice is worth emphasizing when it comes to cultural and spiritual healing.

NWAC takes issue with the lack of consultation CSC affords indigenous communities, especially concerning culturally appropriate healing. The pan-indigenous approach to cultural healing in federal prisons is one example of CSC's culturally inappropriate practices. First nation, Métis and Inuit women are significantly different from one another. There are different communities within each of these groups, and each elder within these communities has their own teachings, traditions and protocol.

NWAC finds it concerning that not all people hired to be elders in prisons have earned the title of elder from their communities. To ensure that elders are responsive to the needs of the diverse groups of federally imprisoned indigenous women, NWAC recommends that CSC meaningfully and respectfully consults with federally imprisoned indigenous women and indigenous communities across Canada about the culturally appropriate use of elders and indigenous spiritual leaders in federal prisons.

We also call for a definition of “indigenous communities” that characterizes what legitimate indigenous organizations across Canada look like and excludes organizations that aren't legitimate. I'm happy to answer questions about that during the question period.

Thank you very much.

[Jonathan Rudin]

Again, thank you for the invitation to be here.

I don't want to spend too much time talking about Aboriginal Legal Services, but I do need to say that our spirit name is Gaa kinagwii waabamaa debwewin, which in Anishinaabemowin means “All those who seek the truth”.

We have often appeared as an intervenor at the Supreme Court of Canada and before committees of the Senate and the House.

As you know, aboriginal people are grossly overrepresented in the prison system. In the context of this bill, we have to recognize that aboriginal people are also overrepresented in administrative segregation. The correctional investigator reported that the percentage of segregated aboriginal inmates increased by 31% between 2005 and 2015, and that is compared to a growth of 1.9% for non-aboriginal inmates. Aboriginal offenders have consistently had the longest average stay in segregation of any group.

As was recently stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ewert, the reasons for aboriginal overrepresentation in prison do not lie with the inmates, but with the system they are living in. The Supreme Court said that discrimination experienced by indigenous persons extends to the prison system.

We want to focus our submissions today on three issues: the structured intervention units, the failure of the legislation to require the consideration of Gladue factors and the need for independent oversight, and finally the issue of community reintegration.

In our submission, as many other people have said, we have said that the creation of structured intervention units runs the risk of repeating the same harms that are acknowledged to be created with solitary confinement. The bill fails to meaningfully address the underlying reasons that inmates are placed in SIU. The focus on inmates' safety and institutional security in the bill fails to address the finding of the correctional investigator that many inmates who are placed in administrative segregation are primarily at risk to themselves because they are suicidal, engage in other self-injurious behaviour or pose challenges to management because they have mental health or cognitive limitations.

Instead of addressing the mental health needs of inmates, this legislation only guarantees a minimum of four hours outside the cell each day. Clearly, more significant reforms are needed to truly address the underlying reasons people are placed in segregation. Reforms, such as those proposed in the jury recommendations in the Ashley Smith inquest, would ensure that, rather than warehousing inmates with cognitive disabilities or mental health issues and those who are emotionally distraught, CSC would be required to provide appropriate assessment and treatment.

We echo NWAC's submissions about the crucial importance for aboriginal inmates of access to appropriate cultural and spiritual advisers.

Second, in this bill, proposed subsection 37.3(1) ensures the head of an institution reviews the situation of an inmate in SIU on a regular basis, but that protection was also provided for in the previous regulations. Those protections have failed to protect inmates from long periods of time in solitary.

The proposed legislation offers no change to the discretion an institution has had to continue to approve continuous segregation. What is glaringly absent from the proposed legislation is any recognition that the deprivation of an aboriginal person's liberty occasioned by placing them in solitary confinement requires the consideration of the Gladue factors. While CSC has repeatedly stated that the Gladue principles inform their actions, there is nothing in Bill C-83 that actually puts that into practice. The gap between rhetoric and reality in this regard has been remarked upon a number of times by courts that have said that, despite CSC saying that they apply Gladue principles, they simply don't.

Given the inability of CSC to incorporate Gladue principles into its work, and specifically with regard to solitary, it would be naive to think that simply adding those words to the legislation would change anything.

That's why it's so important that there be an independent oversight officer position created that would allow for actual meaningful use of Gladue. This recommendation came from the correctional investigator in 2014-15. That should be adopted and the present legislation should be amended to allow for this position. If that were to occur, we think the wording that Gladue principles would apply to the decisions of that person would actually have some meaning.

To wrap up, our last point is on community reintegration. We're very concerned about the change to the wording on who can participate in an inmate's return to an aboriginal community. This is outside of the admin's say, but it's part of the legislation. The amended legislation deals with who can work to take inmates in under sections 81, 84, or 84.1.

Under the current act, the law says that this can be done by an aboriginal community and that “aboriginal community means a first nation, tribal council, band, community organization or other group with a predominantly aboriginal leadership”.

In this bill, it's proposed that the term “Indigenous governing body” be used, which means “a council, government or other entity that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group, community or people that holds rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

We're very concerned about this. We have no sense of what it means to be “authorized”, and the addition of the link to section 35 certainly will disqualify many urban aboriginal communities from participating in the reintegration of their members. As you know, over half of the indigenous community in Canada lives in urban communities, and urban communities want to provide resources to those people who are being released from prison. We have an organization in Toronto, the Thunder Woman Healing Lodge, that is actively working to do this and would be denied this opportunity under this legislation.

We support the definition in an amendment that has been provided by NWAC, which would essentially take the definition in the current legislation, update the language and provide a better definition for what it means to be “predominantly” led by indigenous people. That, we suggest, is a change that would restore us to where we are instead of moving us back.

Meegwetch.

[Prof. Debra Parkes]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I've been researching issues associated with imprisonment in Canada for more than 20 years. My research focuses on charter rights issues in imprisonment, including solitary confinement, segregation, oversight and accountability of corrections, and on the imprisonment of women in particular.

In 2013 I convened an international conference on human rights and solitary confinement at a time when the issue was not on legislative and judicial agendas, so it's heartening to see attention being paid in courts and in Parliament to the human rights crisis and now well-known harms associated with segregating and isolating human beings. However, I have to say, it's disheartening to see this particular legislative response.

I'm going to spend my short time today on what I see as three key issues or problems with Bill C-83, with a focus on the regime for segregating prisoners.

One, the proposal for structured intervention units actually expands rather than eliminates segregated conditions. Two, the proposal for SIUs, as I'll call them, has many of the same deficiencies and even fewer procedural safeguards than the existing regime, which has been found unconstitutional. Three, implementing this bill will be costly in human and fiscal terms in ways that are counterproductive to its ends. These issues lead me to the conclusion that the bill won't achieve its objective of eliminating segregation, and in my opinion, it is also unconstitutional.

The first point is that the proposal for structured intervention units actually expands rather than eliminates segregated conditions. These provisions give incredibly broad powers to the commissioner to designate whole prisons or areas of prisons as SIUs. Purposes for placing in SIUs are also very broad, including from proposed paragraph 32(a), to “provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons”, undefined and unclear. It's very broad.

Proposed section 37.6 authorizes the imposition of SIU conditions and restrictions even before someone is in one of these new units, in other parts of a prison not designated as an SIU.

Also, with respect to time out of cell, proposed section 36, the opportunity for four hours out of cell and the opportunity for two hours of meaningful human contact are clearly a key aspect of this new regime that is said to make it very different from segregation, but there are many reasons built into the legislation that it might not be possible to actually achieve those hours out of cell. There is no actual way or mechanism or enforcement in the bill to ensure that prisoners are going to get the four hours outside of cell. I think you've heard from other witnesses this week and earlier that prisoners often don't even get the two hours outside of cell that they are supposed to be getting currently. There is no new provisions to make sure that actually happens.

The second point is that the proposal for SIUs has many of the same deficiencies and even fewer procedural safeguards than the existing regime, which has been found to be unconstitutional in the British Columbia case, and parts of it in the Ontario case. I know other speakers have and will speak about this. Not only is there no external oversight, but all of the reviews are internal. The regime itself has fewer safeguards and more discretion accorded to correctional officials. The internal review process includes vague factors such as “the appropriateness of the inmate's confinement in the penitentiary”, in proposed paragraph 37.3(3)(b).

Very much in this regime is left to regulations, which we, of course, do not have now and which are not subject to the legislative review process and this very process that the committee is engaged in right now, such as those proposed or future regulations related to the review by the commissioner after 30 days from the institutional head's decision to keep the person in SIU—which is actually 60 days from an initial placement, as I read the legislation.

As far as I can see, the much-discussed daily visit by a member of health care staff does not actually move the needle. As I read the legislation, it could be the nurse distributing medications. There is no requirement that it be some new form of review or care.

In addition, the existing requirement that the warden or designate visit the segregation area, or SIU, seems to be no longer required under Bill C-83 although it appears in the transfer part of the legislation.

Similar is the fact that health care staff recommendations that a person not be in SIU do not need to be heeded by the warden. There is no mechanism for that, again, and even the obligation is now gone that the warden meet with the prisoner who they have decided must remain in segregation to explain reasons and allow representation. It's replaced with a basic provision that the institutional head will meet with everyone in SIU every day.

Why are there fewer procedural safeguards? The reason for this seems to be that the government has attempted to create a system of isolating prisoners that is not called segregation, and they argue it's sufficiently different from segregation. Therefore, I think the logic goes that none of the findings of fact in the courts, in international human rights standards or the charter rulings about segregation apply. Minister Goodale said in his testimony to this committee:

The point is this. We are getting rid of administrative segregation. The arguments pertaining to administrative segregation are thus no longer relevant.

That is what is so concerning, the idea that slapping a new coat of paint and a new sign on a segregation unit and aspiring to have people confined for fewer hours in there, but not ensuring it, takes us out of the purview of the charter and human rights laws. In my view, of course, it's clear that the charter does apply and this regime suffers from many of the same deficiencies as the existing one, and some new ones, and will likely be found to be unconstitutional.

I will leave it there.

[Jonathan Rudin, Program Director, Aboriginal Legal Services]

Thank you very much.

Aboriginal Legal Services appreciates the opportunity to speak to the public safety committee today on Bill C-83—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank Ms. Frank, Mr. Stapleton and Mr. Paterson for their contribution to our study of Bill C-83.

With that, we'll suspend for a moment or two and re-empanel.

[Jim Eglinski]

Thank you for the comment you made. I think Ms. Dabrusin said the same thing earlier. The interaction between prison guards and the inmates is so crucial.

I know when I attend the Grand Cache Institution in my area, which is medium security, I've wandered through there with the guards and intermingled with the prisoners. You see a very strong relationship between some guards and the prisoners, a very good working relationship. Then you see some intensity, as I guess I'll describe it.

Are we training our young prison guards adequately to deal with these prisoners? I used to escort prisoners for a number of years in my role as a police officer, and if you work with them and have a good relationship, it makes it so much easier.

Are we giving enough training, and will Bill C-83 do it for us?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That was the part that I was hoping....

About the oversight, it seems like a smaller point, but I've been looking at the Ontario legislation, which never did come into effect but did pass three readings. It requires that written reasons be provided when a person is transferred into, in that case, a segregation unit.

I was wondering whether it would be helpful if Bill C-83 were amended to include a requirement for written reasons, including what alternatives were considered for that transfer. There would be some type of a record provided to the inmate, and it would also just be available so that when you get to the oversight part, you have something at least to track it back.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to begin with Mr. Paterson. I was wondering if you have a copy of Bill C-83 on your computer in front of you.

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

Thank you.

With the time I have, my last question goes to Mr. Stapleton.

The minister has stated, in his statement to the committee, that the priority of corrections, and his priority, is to ensure the safety of staff, inmates and the public with Bill C-83. Do you feel this legislation ensures that happens in the way that it's intended?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Paterson, the minister stated, when he appeared at committee, that C-83 would effectively eliminate segregation altogether.

Do you believe, as you understand Bill C-83, that statement is an accurate description of what will happen inside the bill?

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

With that, what would you recommend to be the change?

If we're saying that the phraseology or the description that was used needs to changed in Bill C-83, what would you recommend that it should be?

[Stanley Stapleton, National President, Union of Safety and Justice Employees]

Thank you.

I certainly agree with my colleague before me that oversight is critical with anything that happens within corrections because, sometimes, that is certainly missing.

I bring to the table my years of experience. I have over 30 years in corrections. I started off as a correctional officer at the medium-security Drumheller Institution in 1980. In 1983, I moved to the maximum-security Edmonton Institution. I was a correctional officer for 22 years there, and now I'm a program officer. That's still my substantive position.

As the president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, I represent thousands of employees who go to work every day in corrections to prepare offenders for their safe return to society.

Today we're talking about Bill C-83, measures to make Canada's federal prisons more humane and improve offenders' chances of rehabilitation. USJE believes Bill C-83 is a first step in this direction. However, from my experience, I can say that new resources are needed to ensure its successes. Today, front-line workers burdened with heavy caseloads are at a breaking point. Something has to give.

Since implementation of the reforms proposed by the new bill will fall on front-line workers, this is what USJE recommends. From what we understand, there is approximately $484 million earmarked to support these changes. From USJE's perspective, some of these funds must be used to recalibrate ratios of parole officers and program officers to offenders.

Currently for parole officers, ratios are 30:1 at a max, 28:1 at a medium, and 25:1 at a minimum, but there's no back filling if a parole officer goes on a long-term sick leave or when they take vacation leave. There's no back filling. This means that, when the parole officers are not there, the offenders have significantly less support.

USJE believes that the ratio should be 20:1 for parole officers, and we also believe that back filling must be reinstated. For program officers working in the SIUs, the ratio can be no more than 3:1. At times, due to the complexity of the offenders, the ratio needs to be 1:1.

The changes Bill C-83 proposes for more meaningful interaction with offenders are positive, and that's important, because in all my years working in federal prisons, I've always felt that you need to treat people like people.

I spent an accumulation of approximately four years working in segregation units, and I can tell you that in all those years I never saw one offender who went in to segregation come out of segregation a better person.

The one thing I can tell you is that, when I'm on the street and I have offenders approach me—and they do approach me—or when I'm working bingo for my daughters to raise money for sports, they talk to me there. The one thing I've heard over and over again is, “Thank you, boss. Thank you for treating me like a person when I was inside. That helped me, on the outside, to understand.”

Those interactions definitely need to take place, and they need to take place inside the prison. Preparing offenders for their safe return to society requires real interaction, and that means programs, counselling sessions, mental health care and more face time with individuals. Providing this interaction is necessary to even the most challenging offenders.

Bill C-83 addresses some of these issues, but as it moves forward, the system needs to be better resourced to undertake these changes. Funding matters. Having been so long in the service, we've been through several deficit reduction action plans with the latest, of course, by the previous government. Previously, the action plans have not had a huge impact on the front line. Most of the effects were at middle management and upper management; however, the last time, the effects of cutting resources at the front line really had a significant impact.

As I said earlier, the members that I represent, particularly programs and parole officers, are really feeling the stress. USJE believes that new legislation is a good step in the right direction if resources are identified and put in place to improve offenders' chances for rehabilitation, to help keep Canadian communities safe and to ensure the safety of all employees working inside federal institutions.

Thank you.

[Josh Paterson, Executive Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association]

Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to testify today in unceded Algonquian territory.

I'm from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which along with the John Howard Society, are the organizations responsible for the B.C. court decision that I know most of you probably read around the table. I'm not going to belabour the legal conclusions there. I'm going to take it as given that you understand what the court ultimately decided. I want to talk about a particular aspect of it today.

The minister has urged this committee to note that Bill C-83 represents an entirely different regime and, therefore, that the findings of the courts in B.C. and in Ontario really aren't that applicable.

As you've heard from other witnesses, including the correctional investigator and in our view, the harms of the existing regime remain possible under this new bill because nothing that this bill promises is guaranteed in relation to segregation. I would suggest to you, with respect, that the government's argument, which is that we're in an entirely new world and, therefore, the rulings have no or little relevance is misplaced.

While I don't have time to get into all of the bill's significant shortcomings today in that regard, I will point you again to the submissions of John Howard, the CCLA and the correctional investigator, with whom we largely agree. I want to focus my time today on the issue of oversight.

Without taking you through all of the facts, the B.C. ruling found, as a fact, that there has been a long history of a culture of non-compliance with law and rules in the prisons, specifically as it relates to segregation, to solitary confinement and to isolation. Also, there has been a similarly long history of resistance to the idea of external oversight of segregation placements. The court drew a clear connection between those two trends and I hope that the connection will also be evident to this committee.

The B.C. court spends pages and pages on this, starting with the government's own Vantour report in the 1970s, which concluded that the penitentiary service—as it was then known—had failed to comply with existing laws, regulations and policy. Justice Leask goes on to the MacGuigan report, which the court found “was a damning indictment of the absence of the rule of law in the penitentiary system.” It was actually after that report that the government put in place the independent chairpersons for disciplinary segregation and for disciplinary hearings.

He arrives at the Arbour report on what happened at the prison for women, which found that there were not individual instances of failure to respect the law, but rather a culture that failed to respect the law. Of course, she recommended hard caps for segregation and judicial, or at least independent adjudicator, supervision.

Following Arbour, there were at least six other internal CSC reports, House of Commons reports, correctional investigator reports and the Ashley Smith inquest. Each of them made recommendations that pointed to the need for independent adjudication of segregation decisions. Every time, the government has decided to ignore those recommendations.

Here we sit again. We have a court decision, in which the conclusion, based on the evidence and findings of fact, is conceded as true by the government and the finding is that internal oversight won't do. That ruling sits atop a heap of expert recommendations, stretching back decades, and the undisputed findings of fact that there is systemic widespread failure in the prisons and a culture of non-compliance. In our view, Parliament should pass no bill without ensuring that this long-standing issue is resolved.

Just last week, at the Court of Appeal in British Columbia, Canada tried to argue again that what had happened was just a bunch of individual bad decisions, like misapplying the law, poor exercises of discretion and so on. The judges of the court of appeal actually interrupted and stopped the lawyer for Canada. The lead judge said words to this effect, “Canada, you're not challenging the findings of the trial judge. The trial judge found that there were systemic problems and that these problems were widespread and systemic in nature, not a series of individual issues. Why are we arguing about individual issues?”

This is really critical. The Government of Canada doesn't challenge those findings. In fact, it conceded that there has been serious systemic and persistent mistreatment and that there were breaches of rights.

When you're considering what to do about this bill, and indeed what to do perhaps about oversight, I think it's really important for the members to sit within that context, not the context of hope and aspiration that CSC has shown itself capable of administering these things properly. In fact, that isn't the finding. The Government of Canada has agreed with those findings by not challenging them.

That brings me to the issue of independent external oversight. To be clear, we don't support this bill in its present form. A particularly egregious shortcoming is that it continues the decades-long record of rejecting external oversight in favour of an internal system. We ask that Parliament not repeat that mistake.

It's been raised in this committee that the Ontario court said the review could be internal. In questions, I'd be happy to get into the differences between the two judgments and why there's that discrepancy.

Here's what the judge in B.C. had to conclude:

...I believe that the evidence led before me...demonstrates that CSC has shown an inability to fairly review administrative segregation decisions. I therefore conclude that procedural fairness in the context of administrative segregation requires that...reviewing a segregation decision be independent of CSC.

By systematically failing to treat prisoners fairly, whether through a lack of resources or whatever other reason—I'm not saying it's malfeasance—CSC has not only breached the Constitution, but it's avoided the will of Parliament.

Is that the one-minute signal, sir?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Before I suspend, I want to thank Senator Pate, Ms. Mendelsohn Aviv—I hope you make your flight—and Ms. Zwibel. Thank you for your contribution to the study of Bill C-83.

We'll suspend for a minute or two while we clear the room for an in camera discussion.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Director, Equality Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

I'll be going first. Cara will come in a little bit later.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members.

When we raise concerns about solitary confinement, this is not an abstract discussion. We are expressing concern about the harms caused to human beings by the practice of extreme isolation.

These harms are well established by experts and were recognized by courts. Associate Chief Justice Marrocco found that the effect of isolation and prolonged isolation include—I won't even give you the whole list—hopelessness, depression, confusion, hallucinations and delusions, re-traumatizing of women and eroding of their self-worth, rage, loss of control, self-mutilation, declines in mental functioning, a sense of impending emotional breakdown and a vicious cycle in which a prisoner's extreme behaviour and acting-out leads to an increase in physical altercations with prison staff—frustrating them both, and of course leading to further isolation.

Fifteen consecutive days of isolation poses a serious risk, the court found, of permanent, observable, negative mental health effects. It's because of these harms to people that courts in B.C. and Ontario found the current administrative segregation regime to be unconstitutional and have ordered change. In order for Canada to uphold the law—as it is its duty to do—and obey the court orders, a new law must prohibit indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement, however it's called, and it should not exceed 15 days. It should prohibit placing people with mental illness and/or disabilities in solitary, and it should ensure the use of solitary doesn't discriminate against indigenous persons, as it currently does.

Bill C-83 does not include these protections.

Both Ontario and B.C. courts noted the absence of independent oversight and independent review. This is critically necessary, because a strong, external independent review process could help build public trust and ensure that prisons are obeying the law, that inmates are not being placed in isolation unless in absolutely necessary and exceptional circumstances, that no one is held in prolonged solitary, that indigenous individuals receive sensitive and culturally appropriate programming, and that a person who is mentally decompensating receives treatment rather than being left alone to deteriorate.

Any new law should also prohibit solitary for people under the age of 21 and people in need of protection. There is no justification to impose this status, whatever it's called, on young and vulnerable inmates.

The costs of isolation are not just to the individual but to correctional staff who have to manage individuals who are losing their grip on reality or their ability to control their reactions. It has a cost to our society, because people complete their sentences and are going to be reintegrated. The rehabilitation of inmates so that they are able to reintegrate requires an investment of resources in our correctional system. We need clear legislative protections, and this investment of resources is critical to making our society in Canada safer. As complex as it may appear, there are significant tools available for reform—real, implemented, effective alternatives as well as countless recommendations, models, reports and legislative blueprints. My colleague Cara will speak to some of them in a moment.

Justice Arbour's report is over 20 years old. The Ashley Smith jury inquest, with its 104 recommendations, is five years old. Two commissioned expert reports on segregation and corrections from Ontario are extremely recent.

I'll take a minute to talk about the U.K. prison system, which is up and running. They have all but eliminated solitary. Individuals there needing protection or supervision are placed in smaller units appropriate to their needs, to their population, and only the most exceptional of cases are kept in the special closed-supervision units. Of a prison population of roughly 85,000, approximately 60 men and zero women are held in this special unit.

As Senator Pate was saying, if we want to deal with extreme isolation of inmates, changing the sign will not create the change or provide sufficient relief to people held alone in tiny cells with mesh on the windows and a tiny concrete yard. What defines the experience of solitary is extreme isolation, which causes the harms discussed above. This bill, or this act, needs to be amended to say that any protections provided must be for anybody held in those circumstances of isolation. “Solitary” needs to be defined in the law.

Of course, any relief for people in those circumstances is better than no relief, including time out of cell, including human contact, but I note that there are enormous exceptions under proposed section 37, each of which is subject to possible overuse or misuse, and documentation and oversight are critically necessary to ensure that does not happen.

In addition, the broad language of proposed paragraph 37(1)(c) could exclude a huge number of people who would therefore be held in extreme isolation without four hours out of cell or two hours of human contact.

In any event, isolation is still practised and it would still be the order of the day. If some people believe that administrative segregation is necessary as a measure of last resort to be used in exceptional circumstances—say in the event of a riot—this bill is doing the very opposite. It is institutionalizing and attempting to justify isolation as an ordinary prison practice. Canada can do better.

It is a far cry from the kind of prison reform that we need and that we deserve for our safety and for our well-being. We need it as well because not only will it reduce harms, financial and mental, to inmates and to correctional staff, but it will be better for our society as well.

I'll add one more word before I turn it over to Cara.

For meaningful reform, which Canada needs, there has to be a meaningful process. None of the organizations that challenged this law successfully in court were invited to consult on the bill before it was introduced. I note with strong objection the absence of key indigenous rights groups from these committee hearings, including Aboriginal Legal Services and the Native Women's Association of Canada—both of whom asked to appear—despite the fact that indigenous individuals are overrepresented in solitary and that this bill has a section dedicated to indigenous offenders.

People's mental health is at stake. People's lives are at stake. This is no time for a slapdash attempt at a band-aid solution. I echo Senator Pate's proposal that there be a repeal of the bill and a proper effort at reform. Canada has had plenty of time and needs to do this properly.

I turn it over now to my colleague Cara to share some remarks on recent work in Ontario and possible alternatives.

[Kim Pate, Senator, Ontario, ISG]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of the committee for inviting me to appear.

As someone who lives and has worked in this unceded Algonquin territory for now approximately 27 years, I want to say that the impact of colonization on our indigenous peoples is particularly acute when you have the privilege and responsibility, as I have for almost four decades now, of walking in to—but, most importantly, being able to walk out of—prisons for youth, prisons for men and, for 25 years before my appointment, prisons for women.

All that is to say that when the minister introduced Bill C-83, it was described as ending the practice of segregation by the Correctional Service of Canada and as the government's response to the recommendations of the jury regarding the homicide death of Ashley Smith. If in fact it were either or both of those, I would certainly be one of the most vocal supporters of the bill.

In fact, as we know, October 19 of this year marked the eleventh anniversary of the preventable death of Ashley Smith in the segregation unit at Grand Valley Institution for Women. Since that time, we have seen the implementation of very few of the recommendations put forth by the coroner's jury.

One of the things that is outlined in the bill and is certainly foreshadowed as though it were in response to the jury recommendations is the potential use of mental health advocates. In fact, what was being recommended by the jury were peer advocates and peer supports as well as mental health advocates, who are currently in place in the various prisons for women. The jury also recommended advocates to be available in some of the federal penitentiaries, particularly the regional psychiatric centre, which is dually designated as a psychiatric hospital and a federal penitentiary, but these have not in fact been used.

I'd be happy to talk more about why they have not been used. In part it's because of the process by which corrections implements the mental health legislation, invoking the mental health legislation for the purposes of forcible treatment when they wish to do so and then abandoning it before all the protective mechanisms, which include mental health advocates, kick in.

Therefore, the practice and procedure of the Correctional Service of Canada in this regard to date does not hold out great hope that a new process would be put in place just because of this bill, particularly in light of the fact that the bill also removes a number of the other procedural safeguards that currently exist for segregation.

I want to draw particular attention to the fact that prior to the bill being introduced and since the bill was introduced, going into federal penitentiaries both in my capacity as teaching a prison law course at Dalhousie University and in my capacity as a member of the human rights committee of the Senate, it is clear to me that what is likely to happen as a result of this bill, if it is passed as is, has already started to happen within the federal penitentiaries.

Certainly, we've seen this trend in the prisons for women for some time. All of the women who are classified as maximum security prisoners have been living in a state of segregation, because segregation is both a place called segregation and a status of separation. All federally sentenced women who are classified as maximum security have been living in these kinds of units since they were developed in the regional prisons across the country.

As I visited the last couple of penitentiaries when this bill was introduced, I was advising students on the sections that we were in. At one point, for instance, we entered the Nova Institution for Women, and I advised the students that we were in the segregation area. I was quickly corrected that it was no longer the segregation area; it was pod C of the intensive intervention unit. It was a very clear and very graphic example of how nothing has changed—merely the change of the name of the unit in that context.

In the men's prisons we saw the same thing, and similarly—unbeknownst to me before I started on the human rights committee review, because it had been some time since I was going regularly into the prisons for men—all the men's maximum security units and prisons are also now a series of segregated units.

That brings me to a point that has been raised in some previous testimony, which is that the majority of those in segregation are there voluntarily.

Some of you know that in fact there are very few members of Parliament, senators or judges who enter the penitentiary, despite their right of access according to section 72 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Well, for all of us who have entered and who have asked prisoners this precise question, for almost all of them, if they say that they are there “voluntarily”—and I would put that in quotation marks on purpose—it is because they are looking for a time out, for protection, or to be separated from the general population for some other reason. It is usually generated by the pre-existing conditions of confinement.

When we ask them if they would like to be in any other type of conditions, whether that would be in the private family visiting unit if they're looking for time to themselves or to have access to programs and services so as to have some time away from the very small, contained segregated units, in every instance prisoners have indicated that they would prefer that. Equally important is that when we've talked to staff, they have talked about the fact that increasingly people are segregated, and that is raising tensions in prisons and raising concerns.

The other piece I'm working on separately from the work of the human rights committee is in starting to go in and meet with the groups of men who have been gang-involved and who are the other rationale that is often given for segregating. There is a very good program in the Stony Mountain Institution. There is also a very good intervention being run by a man named Richard Sauvé, who is himself serving a life sentence. A number of senators and others are going into the prison in the coming weeks to actually meet with him and talk about the work they're doing to de-escalate situations and assist people, and in particular both African-Canadian and indigenous men who want to drop their colours so that they can actually start to desegregate, if you will, within the prison population.

There are a number of initiatives that have not actually been adequately canvassed, in my view, and it remains my view that in fact we could be looking at truly doing what this bill says it wishes to do. I for one would be happy to work with any and all of you on the committee, as well as with others, to ensure that the bill actually does that. My suggestion, actually, is that this be repealed and that we start from a new perspective and really try to do what is a very laudable intention brought forth by the Minister of Public Safety.

Finally, I would say a word about what you've already heard from Dr. Zinger, the correctional investigator, on the lack of accountability.

The very few procedural safeguards that exist now for administrative segregation will essentially be thrown out the window and the monitoring of it will largely rest on the Correctional Service of Canada. I would suggest respectfully that there is a very important role for this committee and possibly for the human rights committee or the legal committee of the Senate to jointly look at implementing a recommendation that this committee made around oversight. I would recommend that annual reviews, not just reviews every five years, be conducted in accordance with the recommendation you made earlier with respect to the review of prisons.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Jim Eglinski, Yellowhead, CPC]

You suggested in your report that the CSC no longer has credibility to investigate itself, yet we are asked to look at this Bill C-83 and pass it. Once we pass it, the minister and CSC will tell us how it works. Then they'll tell us how much it costs, because they say they don't really know today.

That leaves a big question mark, so my question to you is, would you recommend passing this legislation as it is?

[Dr. Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada, Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee. It is a pleasure to be here.

I present to you Marie-France Kingsley, executive director of the office. She worked for many years as director of investigations and has a lot of expertise in operations.

As correctional investigator, I welcome the intent of Bill C-83, which proposes to eliminate the use of solitary confinement as defined by the United Nations in the newly revised Nelson Mandela rules—that is, less than 22 hours in cell. I am concerned, however, that this bill as it stands may not lead to the intended and laudable outcome and may even result in an increase in the use of restrictive confinement. lndeed, the structured intervention units, or SIUs, which would replace administrative and disciplinary segregation as we know it may simply become “segregation lite”.

I am specifically concerned that the bill fails to provide for independent or external oversight of SIU placements and eschews the need for procedural safeguards of any kind. Eliminating solitary confinement is one thing, but replacing it with a regime that imposes restrictions on retained rights and liberties with little regard for due process and administrative principles is inconsistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as the charter.

Whenever rights and liberties are deprived, there is a corresponding obligation to provide safeguards proportionate to the degree of the deprivation. SIUs are, by design and intent, restrictive confinement environments, even if they allow for more out-of-cell time than current administrative segregation. The simple fact of the matter is that an inmate housed in an SIU would have not the same rights as other inmates or be able to exercise those rights, due to what the bill itself concedes are “limitations specific to the structured intervention unit or security requirements”. ln effect, Bill C-83 proposes a softer version of segregation without any of the constitutional protections. The bill is uniformly short on specifics and places too much discretion and trust in correctional authorities to replace segregation with an unproven and not well-conceived correctional model.

Before I go further into these concerns, I would like to first acknowledge some progressive and positive aspects of the proposed legislation.

I am pleased to see that Bill C-83 would entrench in legislation the clinical independence and autonomy of prison health care professionals. This measure would effectively mean that clinical decisions could not be overruled or ignored by non-medical prison staff.

The bill also proposes to enshrine access to patient advocacy services in federal corrections. Such a measure would help ensure inmate patients understand the implications of their health care decisions and fully exercise their right to free and informed consent. These measures are consistent with evolving international standards in the care and treatment of people in custody, including the revised Mandela rules, and are responsive to addressing outstanding recommendations from the coroner's inquest into the preventable death of Ashley Smith.

I am also pleased that the bill would obligate the service to consider systemic and background factors that contribute to the overrepresentation of indigenous persons in the criminal justice system. This provision reaffirms and codifies the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gladue, which already requires CSC decision-makers to take into consideration the unique circumstances of indigenous offenders whenever their rights and liberties are at stake.

Returning to the bill's intent, it is instructive to note that the grounds for SIU placement would remain virtually identical to current segregation law. ln other words, an inmate could be placed in an SIU if the warden believes, on reasonable grounds, that he or she jeopardizes their own safety or that of any other person, or the security of the institution.

It's important to note that these are the two most-used grounds for placement in administrative segregation. Today, there are 380 segregated inmates in CSC facilities. Just under half of the segregated population is held there voluntarily, meaning they seek out or request to be placed in segregation out of fear for their own safety and well-being.

The proposed legislation has nothing to say about how an SIU, program or intervention would deal with a population that voluntarily requests segregation, a situation which effectively represents a failure of the Correctional Service of Canada to provide safe, secure and humane custody for inmates regardless of one's crimes or vulnerability. It is also not clear how the proposed legislation would deal with the disproportionate number of indigenous people, who currently make up 43% of the segregation population.

It's been said that SIUs are different from solitary confinement because inmates would have four hours out of cell each day, which is twice as much as current segregation practice allows. While four hours minimum out-of-cell time is an improvement, 20 hours maximum inside a cell is still a lot of time to be locked up.

I commend the effort to comply with the Mandela rules in this regard; however, it's important to be reminded that these are minimum standards for the preservation of human dignity and sanity behind bars. Surely Canada is not resigned to simply meeting minimum standards. As a recognized world leader, we have to get this legislation right, and for the right reason.

Simply increasing the out-of-cell hours that inmates could avail themselves of does not mean that Canada will have eliminated all the harm associated with restrictive confinement. Any potential gain in time out of cell is potentially compromised by a requirement that allows CSC to conduct a routine strip search without individualized suspicion whenever an inmate is entering or leaving the SIU. In effect, this means that an inmate residing in an SIU could be strip-searched multiple times in a day, which could prove a major disincentive to participating in out-of-cell activities.

The bill intends to provide inmates placed in SIUs with meaningful human contact. That is the same wording and intent behind the revised Mandela rules for reforming the solitary confinement regime worldwide. Forgive my skepticism, but it is not clear how the objectives will be met by this particular piece of legislation. Since we can only assume that SIU environments will be physically similar to existing segregation units—because we have not been provided with information that would suggest otherwise—we have to ask whether these environments will be conducive to meeting the test of meaningful human contact, much less the effective delivery of programs and services.

We know that current segregation units are not conducive to group learning. Indeed, segregation interventions, insofar as they can be called that, are typically delivered in-cell, behind a door, through a food slot or in small common spaces located in or near segregation ranges. Needless to say, these spaces are hardly conducive to effective delivery of therapeutic interventions.

It is important to note that the bill proposes to eliminate both administrative and disciplinary segregation. I have previously pointed out that disciplinary segregation is rarely used in federal corrections, largely because it is considered too much of an administrative burden. Because of the liberties at stake, disciplinary segregation provides for significant procedural safeguards, including sharing information with offenders, providing access to legal representation, holding a hearing before an external independent chairperson and meeting the high burden of proof.

Over time, administrative segregation became the default option, used to circumvent the due process requirement of a formal disciplinary system. Administrative segregation placements are simply easier, quicker and more responsive in serving the same population management ends: removing an individual who poses a risk to oneself or others or who jeopardizes the security of an institution.

Let me just conclude.

In terms of how I see this bill moving forward, I would say that at the very least, adequate procedural safeguards and some kind of independent monitoring and oversight of SIU placement need to be incorporated. Otherwise, the commendable intention of this bill cannot be met.

I will be happy to answer any of your questions, and I would ask if the chair could enter the complete text of these remarks into the record, if that's possible.

[Jason Godin]

I should hope we would be. It's our understanding, based on the decisions, that there is an urgency to push the bill through. Again, we're going to be the first to tell you that we need to slow things down a little bit. If there is a plan B, we would really like to know about it, but often what happens with us is that we get cabinet confidentiality thrown at us. I understand the rules of Parliament, but at the same time, they have to engage us at some point. At the very least, I have to give the commissioner a little bit of credit that she did have a pre-discussion with us before Bill C-83, not to the level of detail we would like but nonetheless there was a conversation.

But if there is a plan B, our expectation is that our deputy head, being the commissioner, would sit down with us prior to plan B being unveiled. We should have some input into what plan B would look like.

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

It's about safety. It's about making sure that we have a safe work environment, and that's exactly what Bill C-83 says it's going to do, improve safety.

I'm just curious to know their thoughts on whether that program will improve safety.

[Jason Godin]

Unfortunately, due to cabinet confidentiality, as our commissioner often tells us, we weren't really consulted. The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody. I don't see the bill before it comes onto the table, so we weren't officially consulted on Bill C-83.

[Jason Godin]

It does, yes. If you're asking about the health care services, yes, of course, when we're delivering health care services to inmates, for the safety of the health care professional, the inmates and other staff, we're usually accompanying the health care professionals.

If we're going to expand on that with Bill C-83, you can imagine what kinds of resources that will take. Normally when we're managing health care, with the health care professional there are usually two correctional officers. You could also be dealing with inmates who are extremely volatile or extremely violent, or they could be self-harming. That sucks up a lot of resources.

Yes, currently we do have that model, but to maintain that in this current bill is going to be extremely costly.

[Dr. Allen Benson, Chief Executive Officer, Native Counselling Services of Alberta]

I will. Thank you.

First, I'd like to acknowledge that I am on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

It's an honour to be here to speak to this bill. I am the CEO of Native Counselling Services of Alberta. I have been involved in this business since being a parole officer, originally, 40 years ago, so I'm speaking with many years of experience, both in Canada and overseas. We operate two section 81 healing lodges in Edmonton, one for men and one for women, which is the only female section 81 healing lodge.

I'm going to stay focused mainly around the indigenous part of Bill C-83. My focus is going to be around the accountability of the healing lodges. I'm going to speak to a couple of key things around the work we do.

First, I'd like to talk about the language used in the bill itself and address some of the changes in proposed sections 79.1 and 84.1, where the language proposed in the first section is to be “Indigenous governing body” meaning “a council, government or other entity”.

We're proposing that it be changed to “Indigenous governing body” meaning a council, government or “indigenous organization” that is authorized to act on behalf of an indigenous group, community or people that holds a right recognized under section 35 of the Constitution.

It's expanding that language a bit. There's a reason for that. I heard from my colleague from Elizabeth Fry about their concern for it. Our concern comes from a conversation with the Alberta chiefs and some of our leaders in the community about ensuring that it is an indigenous organization that is in fact delivering these services.

Later in proposed section 81.1, indigenous organizations are mentioned. However, we also propose that the government clearly define what an indigenous organization is—that is, that an “indigenous organization” is one that has a majority of its board of directors as first nations, Métis or Inuit; demonstrates expertise and program delivery that are grounded in an indigenous world view; and over two-thirds of the staff, in healing lodges in particular, of the agency identify as indigenous.

Proposed section 80 states:

Without limiting the generality of section 76, the Service shall provide programs designed particularly to address the needs of Indigenous offenders.

We highly recommend that either in law or in policy the Correctional Service of Canada be directed to offer programs for indigenous offenders that are both culturally relevant and grounded in indigenous evidence-based research.

Further on section 81, for the proposed changes, we recommend that a proposed subsection 81(4) be added so that the minister may delegate full authority through section 81 agreements so that the director of the section 81 may carry out his or her full responsibility of the care and custody and supervision of offenders in a healing lodge. I'm speaking specifically about that because we have just renewed our agreement, and there's nothing in legislation that allows for the minister to delegate that authority. We've included it in our agreement, but it's not in law. We'd certainly like to see it in law.

In addition, proposed subsection 83(1) currently states:

For greater certainty, Indigenous spirituality and Indigenous spiritual leaders and elders have the same status as other religions and other religious leaders.

We recommend that the following be added: “Elders should be utilized in all interventions regarding Indigenous offenders, including but not limited to mental health, behavioural issues and discipline”.

We currently utilize the elders' services in all of those areas in our healing lodge. It's very effective. It's a very effective means of accountability and it's an intervention status. A number of years ago, I was involved in an institutional riot where we brought elders in to help settle down the matter. It was very effective. It doesn't work in all cases, but it certainly should be considered as a key option.

Finally, in regard to sections 86 and 87, the proposed changes are that:

health care means medical care, dental care and mental health care, provided by registered health care professionals or by persons acting under the supervision of registered health care professionals;

While this is costly, we don't agree with this proposal. We suggest that the health care providers be on site. Further, this means to stipulate that the health care professional is on site at all times. Health care is an ongoing concern for all offenders. This change could make the situation a lot worse.

Again, I'm not going to speak to the specific issues, but I'd like to address in general the structured intervention unit. In answer to your earlier question, I'd like to believe the intent of this bill is honourable and that it can be effective.

I am aware of the violence. I am familiar with the level of violence in the institutions and the importance of the safety and security of other offenders and staff. I am also aware that elders have been at risk at times, because of the violence. We are in support of that type of separation of offenders.

However, if the question is whether we are sure these policies are actually honoured and being implemented, let's guarantee that. One of the ways to guarantee it is to ask for all medium- and maximum-security institutions to have an on-site ombudsman who reports to the correctional investigator. If that's the public's concern or the concern of my colleagues, then one of our guarantees would be to ask for that on-site ombudsman to be in place to review these cases. That would help us eliminate the kinds of concerns that some of us and some of my colleagues have.

I want to thank you. I am prepared to answer any questions.

[Jason Godin]

I'll see what I can do.

Our recommendations are as follows: a more robust reassessment of policy changes influenced by Bill C-83; the implementation of a more robust incident tracking system to better understand the operational impacts of these changes; the reversion of language that now recommends response options to be “least restrictive” to what was previously “most appropriate”; a commitment to supplementing existing infrastructure within federal penitentiaries to address the impacts of the elimination of administrative and disciplinary segregation; and a review and augmentation of the disciplinary system, which must occur prior to the elimination of disciplinary segregation to effectively respond to the most difficult behavioural inmate cases.

We also recommend a commitment to the availability of health care professionals 24 hours a day within all CSC institutions; the expansion of alternative response options, such as chemical restraints similar to those used within provincial psychiatric hospitals; the supplementation of existing training and the implementation of new training to provide correctional officers with additional tools to allow them to safely respond to the diverse needs of inmate populations; increased inclusion for UCCO-SACC-CSN in future discussions—

I thought you said 47 seconds, sir, but that's okay.

Anyway, you have my brief.

[Jason Godin]

Thank you, Chair.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers represents over 7,300 members working in federal institutions across Canada. As law enforcement professionals, we represent a critical component of the Correctional Service of Canada, enabling the service to achieve its public safety mandate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Recently, much consideration has been given to the role segregation plays within Canada's correctional system, both provincially and federally. It has been thoroughly studied and its effects analyzed and debated, both by academics and by critics of justice systems globally.

With the recent introduction of Bill C-83, CSC will be forced to significantly change the manner in which it manages its offender populations. The passage of Bill C-83 will result in changes to operational policies that will markedly affect the operations of our federal penitentiaries, impacting staff and inmates alike.

Accordingly, UCCO-SACC-CSN, whose members represent a significant partner in the discharge of effective corrections, seeks to participate in the discussions about these changes. That being the case, the goal of this report is to provide perspective on the potential impact of these changes from a correctional officer's perspective.

Should Bill C-83 be successful, CSC will be forced to implement policy that will drastically alter the manner in which the most difficult segments of its population are managed. As we have seen through recent CSC policy changes to segregation in CD 709, by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations. We are concerned about policy revisions that appear to be reducing the ability to isolate an inmate, either for their safety or for that of staff as noted in proposed section 37.3.

This is not to suggest that Bill C-83 is not without merits. Tools such as body scanners provided for in Bill C-83 will enhance correctional officers' abilities to reduce the various types of contraband that threaten the safety of those working and living in federal institutions. However, in order to implement the bill in its entirety, there will be a much greater commitment required from the federal government to ensure its success.

While Bill C-83 seeks to amend several key components of the CSC framework, perhaps the most significant in relation to security operations is the elimination of segregation units within federal institutions. While UCCO-SACC-CSN recognizes that effective corrections require the ability to adapt, our members are also tasked with ensuring the safety and security of all offenders and staff in the institutions.

Eliminating disciplinary and administrative segregation will significantly impact the ability to maintain control over diverse populations. We accept that an overreliance on segregation as a disciplinary consequence may lead to negative outcomes. However, there are incidents in which swift and immediate responses to dangerous behaviour are necessary options.

In 2007, we witnessed the unintended impact of changes to correctional policy, namely CD 709, “Administrative Segregation”, and CD 843, “Interventions to Preserve Life and Prevent Serious Bodily Harm”. These policies significantly reduce CSC's ability to manage its institutions through the use of segregation. Although well-intended, these quickly led to a sharp increase in violence within federal penitentiaries.

Early data released through the Office of the Correctional Investigator on the impact of these amendments provide some indication of the operational outcomes of these changes. An analysis of the numbers found a clear correlation between release back into regular population and violent incidents. Releases declined to 4,025 in 2017 from 5,501 in 2012, while the number of those leaving segregation who were implicated in an assault rose to 321 from 244, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

Furthermore, Correctional Investigator Ivan Zinger stated that the new strategy to limit prolonged segregation has had the unintended consequence of more violent attacks behind bars, and he's urging the Correctional Service of Canada to strengthen supervision and risk assessments to improve safety for inmates. While Mr. Zinger may suggest that these changes lead to unintended consequences, UCCO-SACC-CSN has been unequivocal in its position that this outcome would occur.

In the last two years we have seen institutions that, despite shrinking populations, are becoming more violent due to an organizational repose that reduced control measures—namely segregation—which appears to be correlated with further increases in assaults. While UCCO-SACC-CSN does not advocate for the unnecessary segregation of inmates, it does strive to ensure its continued availability as a population management tool without unreasonable policy-based restrictions or outright elimination.

Consideration also needs to be given to the transitional nature of Bill C-83. Should this bill be implemented, all inmates who are subject to disciplinary segregation will no longer be the subject of this sanction, in sections 39 and 40. This will result in immediate changes to the management of violent offenders in institutional populations without apparent consideration for how they will be managed moving forward.

Bill C-83 seeks to replace segregation with the implementation of structured intervention units, the details of which are still vague. The bill will allow the commissioner to “designate a penitentiary or an area in the penitentiary as a structured intervention unit” for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream population for security and other reasons. This is proposed section 31.

Furthermore, within Bill C-83 references to segregation have been eradicated and replaced throughout by structured intervention units. As it currently stands, UCCO-SACC-CSN is of the opinion that the only units suitable for managing inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons are CSC's existing segregation units. It remains unclear whether this bill will result in actual closures of segregation or more simply their renaming with something more politically appropriate, as in proposed section 31.

Regardless of where structured intervention units are situated within federal institutions, Bill C-83 also seeks to amend the manner in which the most difficult portions of the institutional population are managed. SIU inmates will be provided with the opportunity to interact with other inmates for at least two hours as well as the right to spend four hours outside their cell.

While these changes are undoubtedly well intended, they are not feasible under the current staffing and infrastructure models. Many of the inmates currently managed within segregation units are highly vulnerable and are segregated for their own protection. In order to provide them with the amount of interaction proscribed within the new bill, they will require direct and constant supervision from already limited numbers of correctional officers.

Conversely, the inability to adequately manage incompatible inmates will lead to consequences like those seen at Archambault and Millhaven institutions where inmates were murdered in separate incidents in early spring 2018.

In general, should we proceed to the SIU model as a replacement for segregation, it is our hope that these changes will be implemented gradually so they can be properly assessed and amended as necessary.

It is promising to note the discretionary power will remain with the commissioner to extend the proposed SIU status over 30 days, allowing correctional officers the ability to manage high-risk, volatile or self-harming offenders without hard-cap time frames.

As with the implementation of the SIUs, the ability for CSC to repurpose existing infrastructure to meet the criteria of Bill C-83 is unclear. Policy changes resulting from the passage of Bill C-83 will restrict an institution's ability to respond to the needs of specific inmates, the broader population, to meet its current mandate and to provide a safe work environment for staff.

Should these changes occur in order to continue to meet critical strategic priorities effectively, significant infrastructural changes at the institutional level are necessary.

Changes proposed by the bill will allow the commissioner to “assign the security classification of 'minimum security', 'medium security', 'maximum security' or 'multi-level security', or any other prescribed security classification, to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary.” This is in proposed section 29.1.

From an operational standpoint, this wording appears quite vague. Historically, CSC institutions have been constructed with a security standard in mind. To attempt to retroactively change the security ratings of not just individual institutions, but areas within those institutions, seems to be at odds with the original vision of them. This would significantly complicate population management strategies.

The powers of the commissioner are also broadened in relation to transferring inmates within the various security levels of their institutions. It will reinforce the power of the commissioner to transfer inmates to different security levels, for example, transfer a maximum-security level inmate to a medium-security area. Given the security implications of these transfers, we feel that it is prudent to solicit correctional officers' input in these decisions, as we are most familiar with their behaviour and potential outcomes.

Additionally, UCCO-SACC-CSN has been calling for the creation of a special handling unit for female inmates since 2005. Despite every effort, some female inmates exhibit behaviour that simply cannot be safely controlled in regular institutions within the current infrastructural model.

In similar instances involving male offenders, CSC has the ability to transfer otherwise unmanageable inmates to the special handling unit. Historically, due to a lack of alternate options, this has resulted in female inmates being placed in segregation for exceedingly lengthy periods of time. However, under the new guidelines of Bill C-83, CSC may be forced to involuntarily transfer these inmates on a regular and ongoing basis in order to be in compliance with the law.

The same set of circumstances that marked Ashley Smith's incarceration will become even more prevalent. This will serve neither the inmate nor CSC's legislative mandate, yet until changes to existing infrastructure are realized, they will be a necessary reality.

As a result of eliminating the segregation tool, CSC will be forced to rely on managing groups of inmates through the creation of subpopulations. Effectively, they are segregating inmates, without actually physically placing them in segregation.

I notice the chair is giving me the nod there.

[Jim Eglinski]

—that Bill C-83 is all about rehabilitating the prisoners. You talked about administrative detention, preventive detention and disciplinary detention. In your experience—and you spoke about your vast experience—you said there's a need for it.

I wonder if you can quickly explain to the people why there's a need. Certain people need to be protected from the other inmates. Others need to be separated because of investigations and so on.

[Jim Eglinski, Yellowhead, CPC]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank both the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society for coming out, but I'd really like to thank both of the other two witnesses, Alia and Lawrence. It takes a lot of nerve to come up here, and congratulations. I think you're giving us a clearer picture of the situation that's really out there.

I have a medium-security facility in my riding of Yellowhead, the Grande Cache Institution, which I think is probably one of the most beautiful settings for an institution anywhere in the world. It's right on top of a mountain. I've had the opportunity since Bill C-83 came out to talk to the guards, to the prisoners, to former guards and former prisoners. They don't like it, I don't like it and it's obvious you folks don't like it.

Lawrence, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions and some of them might be a little pointed, but I'm not trying to be.... First of all, I want to compliment you on the way you've handled yourself here.

We kept hearing from the commissioner and the other people—

[Alia Pierini, Regional Advocate, Pacific, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Okay. I'll really speed here.

My name is Alia Pierini. Thank you, guys, for having me here today. As Savannah mentioned, I am a regional advocate out in British Columbia, where I meet with the women out there, and I'm also a woman with five years' lived experience inside the Fraser Valley institution.

To make this brief, while I was incarcerated I spent over half of my time in segregation. I've been out for almost 10 years now and I still suffer psychological effects on a daily basis in getting to work, managing my parenting and simple social things like going to the grocery store. I still have bad anxiety and mental health issues surrounding this, which I did not have before entering prison.

I truly fear that the structured intervention units described in Bill C-83 are going to end the downward pressure they have surrounding segregation and that these new units will be the new first-line response to the ongoing challenges that prisoners and the correctional system face. Although in the eyes of the public Bill C-83 seems like an answer to ending administrative segregation, I know from first-hand experiences that implementing this into the prison will be beyond challenging.

I guess I'm short on time, but basically, for example, those four hours out are at CSC's discretion. It's a system where unfortunately correctional staff have the power to pick and choose who gets what. It happens constantly. If staff doesn't like you but likes other inmates, those inmates will get their hours out and other inmates will suffer.

[Savannah Gentile, Director, Advocacy and Legal Issues, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Thank you. I want to start by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

As stated, I am the director of advocacy and legal issues with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. We are an umbrella organization composed of 24 Elizabeth Fry Societies across Canada working with and for criminalized women and girls. Together, we work towards a Canada without prisons as we support human rights-based training, provide preventative programs and services, and facilitate women's reintegration into the community.

As the director of advocacy and legal issues, I have the privilege of working with and supporting over 20 volunteer advocates—some of whom, like Ms. Pierini, who you will hear from in a bit, were formerly incarcerated—as we go into the prisons for women on a monthly basis to monitor conditions of confinement.

Though I am trained as a lawyer, the best education I have received to date has come from the women I meet going into Canada's prisons. I hope to communicate some of the concerns that they have presented to me regarding Bill C-83.

When the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was first introduced, it was seen as human rights legislation, responding to human rights abuses and rising rates of imprisonment. Since its introduction, however, we've seen the exploitation of the security-focused provisions and the underutilization of provisions like sections 81 and 29, aimed at decarceration. CAEFS, along with the Office of the Correctional Investigator, has documented this pattern for decades, and we believe that Bill C-83 will not have the impact intended and, in fact, that portions of the bill actually represent a regression in terms of legislative safeguards like those Ms. Latimer has already referenced and in terms of decarceration.

I want to focus first on section 81. The bill replaces the term “indigenous community” with “indigenous governing body”. However, this is an undefined term, and it will definitely have an impact on who is able to apply for section 81 agreements. There are no corresponding changes to the legislation to ensure or even to support the development of more section 81s, as has been called for by the Office of the Correctional Investigator in his latest report. This leaves us to believe that the changes will actually further limit an already underutilized provision at a time when the number of indigenous women in prison is described by many, including the OCI, as representing a human rights crisis.

Amendments to section 29 frustrate the provision's legislative purpose and will have a particular impact on women prisoners. The number of women with complex mental health needs is on the rise, according to the OCI's latest annual report. More than half of all women in prison are identified as having mental health needs, compared to 26% of men. The nature of women's mental health needs is impacted uniquely by the lasting effects of past abuse.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission reports that women use self-injury as a coping mechanism to survive the emotional pain rooted in traumatic childhood and adult experiences of abuse and violence. Corresponding to the higher rates of abuse experienced by women prisoners, the rates of self-injury and attempted suicides are significantly higher among women in prison as compared to among men. The multiplier effects of race and sex create a distinct discriminatory impact on federally sentenced indigenous women that affects their experience of incarceration from beginning to end.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator reported extensively on a similar repurposing of section 81 in its report “Spirit Matters”. CSC redirected money and resources meant for decarceration through section 81 agreements to internal halfway houses that were meant to provide indigenous-focused programming. To this day, section 81 is underutilized, and access to indigenous programs inside is seriously restricted.

Section 29 has also been historically underutilized and this amendment makes it possible to transfer women to structured intervention units within the prison, despite numerous reports and commissions stating that the prison environment is an inappropriate and inadequate environment for dealing with complex mental health needs. That applies to both men and women. A more robust investment in section 29 to decarcerate is needed, and the amendments, as they stand, will likely impede decarceration strategies.

Further, proposed section 29.1 enables the creation of additional classification systems, which will be done in accordance with what are unwritten regulations, so we have no way of knowing what those will look like or addressing them here today.

This is despite the fact that CSC's classification scheme, according to the fall 2017 report of the Auditor General, results in women being needlessly placed in higher security, unnecessarily causing them to be segregated in higher-security settings, delaying access to programs and prejudicing their chances of release and reintegration success. We have reason to believe—Ms. Pierini will dive into this later—that this will not be any different in these structured intervention units.

CAEFS has long recognized, likely because of our in-prison visits and our meetings with women affected, that segregation is practised in Canadian prisons in many forms and under many names, much more so than what is usually talked about as solitary confinement or administrative segregation.

I will quickly address a few of the points around the structured intervention units and, first, this idea of meaningful human contact, which Ms. Latimer has already talked about.

In the recent BCCLA and Canada case—it's 2018 BCSC 62—the attorney general actually argued that administrative segregation is not solitary confinement since prisoners have daily opportunity for meaningful human contact, but the court found that prisoners did not have meaningful human contact, and that routine interactions between staff and prisoners do not constitute meaningful human contact.

Without a definition, we have no way of knowing what this will look like. It's left completely to CSC, which has a history of poorly implementing or not at all implementing recommendations, to determine what meaningful human contact will look like, or later, it will be left to the courts to decide. In the meantime, how many will suffer as a result?

On the idea of duration, in the BCCLA case, the 15-day maximum prescribed by the Mandela rules—which are minimum standards—were stated to be a “generous” maximum, given the overwhelming evidence of the psychological harm that can occur after just a few days in segregated conditions.

Finally, the reasons for transfer are listed n Bill C-83, including to:

(a) provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons;

“Other reasons” is very broad and leaves it well open for many people to be captured by this because of mental health behaviours that are deemed bad behaviours.

CSC has a duty to accommodate prisoners with mental disabilities who cannot cope in the general population. If it is unable to accommodate those prisoners without escalating their security classification or segregating them, whether in segregation units, secure units or SIUs, then it should be transferring them to an appropriate in-community treatment facility.

I'll close by saying that as Dr. Zinger mentioned in his press release following the tabling of this year's annual report, units much like the SIUs proposed by this bill already exist in prison. At Nova prison for women, staff have renamed the segregation unit “Pod C” and allow women there additional time out of their cells and more social interaction. Many of the women being held in segregation in Pod C were placed there because of incidents of self-harm. The women in this pod believe that they are in segregation, and their mental health is deteriorating just as it would in segregation.

Calling these segregated conditions something other than segregation, even with slight improvements, does not change the detrimental experience or impact of those conditions.

I'll hand it off to Alia.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the invitation to be here to talk about this important bill that you're considering.

Some of you may know that the John Howard Society provides services to support the reintegration of prisoners into communities, and other services across the country. We serve about 60 communities. We are particularly concerned and all committed to just, effective and humane criminal justice in corrections. Administrative segregation has been a long-standing issue of ours. While Bill C-83 purports to end solitary confinement and administrative segregation, there is a very real risk that this bill will perpetuate the harms of prolonged solitary confinement under another name. In these brief introductory remarks, I really want to highlight what those risks are.

An analysis of Bill C-83, in terms of its fairness, effectiveness and humanity, reveals its vulnerability on all three counts.

First of all, prolonged isolation is inhumane due to its devastating physical, psychological and mental health consequences. The UN has defined prolonged solitary confinement as the confinement of inmates for 22 hours a day or more without meaningful human contact for more than 15 consecutive days, and it is regarded as a form of torture. Whatever the confinement is called, whether solitary confinement, segregation or structured intervention, if the actual result is that people are in cells for 22 hours a day or more without meaningful contact for more than 15 days, it's inhumane.

There are a number of points that I would like to highlight with respect to the inhumanity.

Mental illnesses are exacerbated by placements in isolation. There is nothing in this bill that would protect mentally ill prisoners from being subjected to prolonged isolation. Daily visits by health care professionals are required now, and they didn't protect the many who have committed suicide in segregation cells, Devon Sampson being a recent example. In the bill, the health care professionals can only make a recommendation to the decision-maker, who is a non-independent CSC official. Mentally ill prisoners could seriously deteriorate and suffer in SIU isolation.

Proposed subsection 36(1) provides opportunities for a prisoner to be out of a cell for four hours or more per day and for a minimum of two hours per day in “programs, interventions and services that encourage the [prisoner] to make progress” on the correctional plan. I highlight the word “opportunities” because I think that the previous panels that appeared before you made it sound as though prisoners would be out of their cells for four hours a day. An opportunity is a chance that something might happen, but unless it actually happens, federal Canadian prisoners will be subject to cruel, isolating segregation.

The infrastructure—both the physical and human resources—is not in place to allow prisoners to have this amount of constructive time out of cells. The proposals in Bill C-83 have not been costed, and thus no resources have been allocated to implement the bill. It seems that this bill is being presented a bit prematurely because there's no real way of knowing the range of program supports that will be available to people in these structured intervention units.

While the opportunities are presented in proposed subsection 36(1), proposed subsection 37(1) takes those opportunities away for a variety of reasons. It lists three main ones. The first is if the prisoner refuses. The second is if there's a failure to comply with reasonable instructions, and the third is undefined prescribed circumstances reasonably required for security purposes.

If there is inadequate infrastructure, it's easy to decline to give prisoners four hours out of cells per day for security reasons. There are a lot of other reasons why prisoners remain in cells now, and we'll get into that a bit more later.

There's also no definition of “meaningful human contact” in this bill. It can't be simply communication with correctional officers or other prisoners, or walking alone in a concrete yard. We need to have a clear definition of what is meant by “meaningful human contact”.

The second point is that the process is unjust. It is settled correctional law that a denial of residual liberties triggers section 7 charter rights. As the Supreme Court of Canada case May v. Ferndale Institution determined in 2005, a placement in more constrained circumstances constitutes a denial of residual liberties. Fundamental justice is not reflected in Bill C-83.

By eliminating disciplinary segregation, the bill actually rolls back procedural rights for those placed in segregation or SIUs for disciplinary reasons. There is no longer an independent chair as a decision-maker. There are no caps on the length of time the residual rights can be limited, and there is no right to representation for those who are being subjected to this more confined containment. All decisions relating to the SIUs are within the discretion of CSC, with no independent oversight or adjudication, no limits on the duration of placement and no counsel or representation for prisoners. The lack of fundamental justice protections when residual liberties are denied is unjust.

Moreover, many mainstream prisoners, particularly those at higher levels of security, do not get two hours per day of programming interventions or services to help them make progress on their correctional plans. If that level of programming and intervention is not also available to the mainstream population, perceptions of unfairness will arise that could lead to unrest in the prisons.

Disciplinary segregation provisions allowed for prisoners who committed institutional infractions to be held accountable through a proportionate denial of residual liberties in a system that provided some measure of due process protection. Under this bill not only will the prisoners be stripped of those protections, but they will be given a minimum of two hours per day of programming to help them make progress on their correctional plan. Given that rule-respecting prisoners would not likely have access to such intensive programming, a perverse system of rewards is established, which will be perceived by other prisoners as being unfair.

Third, abolishing administrative segregation in favour of SIUs will likely be ineffective. The abolition of administrative segregation is a radical change in an institutional climate that is resistant to change. The success of the SIU vision presented to the committee by Minister Goodale is dependent upon the adequacy of the resources for infrastructure programs and appropriate personnel and upon correctional authorities, who are generally resistant to change, implementing these provisions consistent with the vision and providing opportunities to be out of cells.

Abolishing administrative segregation may affect the safety of prisoners and staff. The ability to move inmates who are attacking each other or staff quickly away from each other is an important short-term measure to reduce violence. Prisons can be terribly violent places and people can get hurt. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers is telling us that the loss of administrative segregation will result in greater violence. If correctional authorities believe their ability to prevent violence is being curtailed, it will affect the manner in which the bill is implemented.

The John Howard Society did not advocate for the total abolition of administrative segregation, fearing that the inability of correctional officers to quickly separate prisoners attacking each other would be dangerous. It also feared that unless the existing legislative framework was the basis for fixing administrative segregation, new units would emerge that serve to isolate prisoners but without the needed legislative protections—solitary by another name.

The John Howard Society wants any regime that could lead to prisoners actually being alone in their cells for 22 hours a day to be more just and humane. We think the way that we can do this is by capping the amount of time spent in such isolation to 15 consecutive days and 16 a year, having independent adjudication relating to decisions, and placement and maintenance around those decisions being delivered by an independent adjudicator.

In conclusion, there is nothing in Bill C-83 that would prohibit prolonged confinement in isolation. The devastating harms that have befallen Ashley Smith, Eddie Snowshoe and countless others would not have been relieved by this bill if CSC had decided to continue their isolation. In clear conscience, the John Howard Society of Canada urges you not to pass Bill C-83.

I have with me Lawrence Da Silva. I think it's important that you hear from people who have actually experienced long periods in administrative segregation and other types of placement. I think he can explain more clearly the realities and the effects of prison culture that will make it difficult for people to be out of their cells for that period of time and that will make this a difficult regime to work with.

I suspect I've used all of our time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank Commissioner Kelly and her colleagues for their appearance here today.

Colleagues, before I adjourn this meeting, I need a motion to pass the budget for the study on Bill C-83.

I see Mr. Picard, and I see that Mr. Eglinski is also enthusiastic about this.

Is there any debate?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to discuss the exceptions proposed in clause 10 of Bill C-83, which amends subsection 37 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. One of the exceptions would allow inmates to refuse the opportunity to spend at least four hours a day outside their cell or interact with others for at least two hours a day.

Are there any mechanisms in place in the event that the opportunities offered pose a problem? I didn't see anything in the bill. I'm thinking of something like a snow storm, heavy rain or ice storm. Are there any provisions that protect the inmates' right to spend time outside their cells in reasonable conditions?

[Anne Kelly]

I can't speak to that.

What I can say is that what is being proposed in Bill C-83 is addressing the underlying behaviours of offenders who will be going into structured intervention units. Hopefully we can address those behaviours, which will mean they can then integrate into the mainstream population, be engaged in their correctional plan, and go before the Parole Board. If they are eligible, they could then potentially get released and become law-abiding citizens.

[Jim Eglinski]

Okay. Thank you.

As Ms. Sahota mentioned earlier, the cost was up to about $1,269 a day for a person in solitary confinement.

In your experience of 30 years—and I think collectively our witnesses today have well over 100 years' experience in the institutional facilities—do you feel there will be a greater cost incurred, per prisoner, than we are incurring currently, just because of the new demographics that are being given to you under Bill C-83?

[Jim Eglinski]

Based on some rough stats I have, on any given day in Canada we have 40,147, or approximately 40,200 prisoners. About 36% of them are held in our federal institutions, and about 64% are held in our provincial institutions, which usually means two years less a day.

The Liberal government is bringing in Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, and I have two questions for you. First, why are we only concerned with the federal prisoners' rights and not the rights of provincial prisoners?

Second, does your organization work with its provincial counterparts, and is there any action going to be taken to see if they are going to come on board with similar standards?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay, thank you.

At the technical briefing, something that came up a few times was the resources needed for institutions to be able to adapt to everything in the bill, if it passes.

We heard that the spaces currently being used for segregation could be adapted. Would any physical changes need to be made to those spaces, or could they be used as they are? Commissioner Kelly, you could designate those spaces according to the criteria outlined in Bill C-83, could you not?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Bill C-83 seems to indicate that these scanners would be used to examine inmates, but it seems that they are not necessarily meant to be used for all visitors. Do you think it would be a good idea to go that far?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The answer to that, Ms. Dabrusin, is that this lies at the core of what Bill C-83 is all about. That is, to provide the capacity in the segregated intervention units through mental health professionals and others to make the interventions, and to provide the treatment and care that will in fact address those mental health issues.

I think I mentioned in the debate in the House that, with respect to the overall population of offenders, the number of those with significant mental health issues is in the neighbourhood of 70%, I believe, when you add men and women together. The number for women is much higher and the number for men is a bit lower. Mental health difficulties are involved with the vast majority of offenders. If we're not addressing that and just sort of storing people until the time runs out and they're eventually released, they're very likely to come out of the system in worse shape and more dangerous than before they went in.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The language used in Bill C-83 is intended to refer generally to social interaction and psychological stimulation that is conducive to mental health and rehabilitation. That is what, by definition, is lacking in administrative segregation. For 22 out of 24 hours a day, a person is alone.

We intend to change that substantially. That may be programming staff from the outside. It could be elders. It could be various kinds of counsellors. It could be mental health professionals, a whole range of people. It could indeed, from time to time, be other compatible inmates.

The whole point is to try to change the course of behaviour of these individuals so that they pose less of a risk to themselves and less of a risk to others and to society generally.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

The finances to allow the implementation of Bill C-83 will be forthcoming through the appropriate budget allocations and estimates.

I'd make the point that one doesn't wade into the detail of that until one actually has the legislative authority to do it. You've made that point yourself, so I take that point. When we have the legislative authority, we will then come forward with the budgetary allocations to implement this plan.

In terms of the physical structures, that will vary from institution to institution, but let me just ask Commissioner Kelly if she—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

One of the fundamental changes being included in Bill C-83 is the increase in the number and role of health care professionals in these SIUs. The fact is that in the past, administrative segregation has been used for individuals with mental health issues. Can you comment, Minister, on whether or not these mental health professionals will have the ability to move individuals from an SIU to a treatment facility?

Also, is additional funding at some point for more treatment facilities being contemplated? Often, in my opinion, many of these individuals should actually be treated for their mental health issues and not put into segregation, which is what was being done in the past. Could you comment on that a little?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Monsieur Dubé, I hear your point, but your question assumes that the system being examined is the same system under Bill C-83 as the one that exists today. Our objective is to change that system fundamentally so that it's no longer in any way, shape or form administrative segregation. It is a new approach that focuses on intervention, treatment and programming that does not have the dark aspects that Justice Arbour was rightly concerned about.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here.

I just want touch on this issue of independent review. You'll recall that in the 1990s, when Justice Arbour commented on the situation, her notion was around this fact that essentially power was being taken away to a certain extent from the courts because of the abuse and misuse of solitary confinement.

She would probably not like me paraphrasing, but I'll do my best. Her assessment was that, essentially, the courts were being to a certain extent impeded on because the nature of the punishment was changing through the way that solitary confinement was being used at the time. From what we've seen with these court decisions, arguably that hasn't changed. She called for judicial oversight.

In Bill C-83, there is this notion that with the commissioner—and I say this, of course, with all due respect—and the institutional head, the warden essentially, will be reviewing and that's satisfactory. However, my issue is that even the Ontario decision, which didn't go as far as the B.C. decision, says that the person who is reviewing shouldn't be in any way influenced, or in the circle of influence, or reporting to the person who made the decision.

If the commissioner is designating an area and designating an inmate, and the warden is then the one who is reviewing every—what is it?—five days or so, does that not contravene what the judge's assessment was about the circle of influence that can prevent this review from being truly independent?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

That is a separate issue, Mr. Paul-Hus, which does not pertain directly to Bill C-83. As you know, however, some weeks ago I asked the commissioner to examine the circumstances around a particular transfer, and beyond that particular case, to also examine the transfer policy in general to determine, first, whether the policy had been properly applied, and second, whether the policy needs to be changed.

Toward the end of last week, the commissioner completed her work and provided me with a report. I have that report under very careful consideration and I expect to be in a position very soon to offer a response to the findings and to the advice I have received from the commissioner. As soon as I'm in a position to do that, Mr. Paul-Hus, I will make my comments public.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister Goodale.

Before I call on colleagues for questions, I just note that we are studying Bill C-83. Occasionally, when colleagues have a minister present, they seem to have an enthusiasm for questions that are possibly of limited relevance to the actual study. I just suggest that the chair be humoured by some tie-in to the actual bill itself, Bill C-83.

With that, we have Monsieur Picard.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

It's nice to be back with you once again dealing with another piece of very important legislation concerning the security and the public safety of Canadians. That is Bill C-83, which is legislation that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

I am pleased to be joined here today with representatives of the Correctional Service of Canada. The commissioner of the service, Anne Kelly, is to my left. Fraser Macaulay is the acting senior deputy commissioner. Jennifer Wheatley is the assistant commissioner for health services.

To my right, from the Department of Public Safety is Angela Connidis, the director general of crime prevention of the corrections and criminal justice directorate.

In every aspect of corrections, our priority is always the safety of staff, inmates and the public. The best way to ensure that is to support safe, effective rehabilitation.

Institutional safety and staff safety above all is a prerequisite for all the rehabilitative work that happens in the federal corrections system. For safety reasons, sometimes certain inmates need to be separated from the general population.

Currently, the tool for doing that is administrative segregation, which involves keeping someone in their cell for as many as 22 hours a day, with very little in the way of rehabilitative programming, interventions or meaningful human contact.

However, in the last year, two court cases—one in Ontario and the other in British Columbia—have found in different ways and for different reasons that segregation is unconstitutional, as currently practised. Those decisions are currently being appealed. One is being appealed by the government, while the other is being appealed by the other party.

As things stand, those rulings will take effect in the coming months. In fact, with one of them in December and another one in January, we need to be prepared for those legal inevitabilities.

Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate segregation altogether and establish structured intervention units, or SIUs, as an alternative. These units will be separate from the general population, so that the safety imperative in our institutions will be met, but the SIUs will be designed and they will be resourced to ensure the people who are placed there receive the interventions, the programming and the treatment that they require.

There will be a minimum of four hours daily out of the cell and a minimum of two hours daily of meaningful interaction with other people, including the staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains, visitors and other compatible inmates. There will also be a particular focus on mental health care, with new mental health professionals hired and assigned to the SIUs.

The idea is to ensure that people can be separated from the general inmate population, when that is necessary for important safety reasons, but only for as long as necessary and without sacrificing the access to rehabilitative programs, mental health care and other interventions that help reduce the risk that offenders pose, both while they are incarcerated and upon release.

There were a number of issues raised by various members about this part of the bill, during second reading debate in the House, and I will try to address as many of them as I can.

First, the question of staff safety was brought up several times, so again, I will underscore that the safety of correctional personnel is absolutely priority number one. Employees, including correctional officers, parole officers, program staff, health care providers and others, do a very important, difficult job in challenging circumstances. But only when they are safe is it possible for the correctional service to achieve its mandate, which is carrying out sentences and rehabilitating offenders.

Under this legislation, Bill C-83, institutions will retain the ability to separate offenders who pose a safety risk from the general population, and within SIUs incompatible inmates will never be mixed together. In other words, the new system will not increase the safety risk to correctional staff in any way.

Questions were also asked during the debate about why the bill doesn't include an external oversight mechanism and a cap on the number of days an offender can spend in an SIU.

The fact is that these were measures proposed as a way of guarding against the overuse of administrative segregation, because that system has been criticized as having harmful effects on inmates' mental health.

The point is this. We are getting rid of administrative segregation. The arguments pertaining to administrative segregation are thus no longer relevant. Structured intervention units will, compared with the previous system, have mental health care at their core, along with other interventions, programs and meaningful human contact. They are therefore qualitatively different from segregation.

Nevertheless, there is a robust system of review built into this legislation. The law is clear that placement in an SIU may only last as long as absolutely necessary, and the warden will review an SIU placement within five days to ensure that the necessity remains the case. If a person is still there after another 30 days, the warden will conduct another review. The commissioner will conduct her own reviews every 30 days thereafter. Additionally—and this is an important point—a health care professional can recommend removal from the SIU at any time.

Having said that, we of course understand the important need for accountability. To ensure that the new system is implemented as intended is our goal. To that end, once SIUs are up and running, the correctional service will publish statistics on a quarterly basis so that Canadians can see exactly how many people have been in SIUs and for how long. The commissioner will notify the correctional investigator whenever someone hits the 30-day mark and every 30 days after that. Community partners, such as the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, St. Leonard's Society of Canada and others, will be welcomed into the SIUs to see how they are functioning and to provide important feedback. That feedback and transparency are an important part of the way we want to make this system work.

Finally, speaking of making it work, we know that the new system will require new resources. Providing interventions, programs and treatments to offenders outside of the general population is a labour-intensive proposition. We understand that and we will be providing the resources necessary for it to happen effectively and safely.

Safety is the bottom line. The legislation prioritizes the safety of correctional employees and of the people in their custody. In fact, by enhancing the interventions and treatment provided to inmates who pose a particular risk, the new SIU system will help lower that risk and make the institutions safer. Ultimately, when their sentences are over, offenders are more likely to return safely to our communities if they have received effective rehabilitative programming, interventions and treatment.

I've only dealt with one aspect of the bill, that dealing with the SIUs, which is the largest aspect of the bill. There are several other components to this legislation. I would be happy to answer questions about those other components.

I would just make the point that they are all in aid of the same objective, to run a system that is safe and secure, and to run a system that is ultimately successful in rehabilitation so that in the future we will have fewer offenders, fewer victims and safer communities.

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the unfortunate adjournment of the debate on the motion to authorize the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to expand the scope of Bill C-83 in order to forbid those convicted of the murder of a child from serving any portion of their sentence in a healing lodge, given that the minister just announced in question period that he had received recommendations from the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada relating to the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic from prison to a healing lodge in Saskatchewan and given that members in this place did not have the opportunity to vote on this very important motion, I believe it is incumbent to allow the House the opportunity to take a position on the motion and to give the public safety committee the required authority to consider any recommendations that the commissioner has to offer and to amend Bill C-83 accordingly.

To this effect, there have been consultations and I hope that should you seek it, Madam Speaker, you would find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That Motion No. 1082, listed on the Order Paper today under the rubric “Motions”, in the name of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, proposing to authorize the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to expand the scope of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act in order to forbid those convicted of the murder of a child from serving any portion of his or her sentence in a healing lodge be deemed adopted.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my friend rose on a point of order. He wants to hear the names of other murderers.

Well, it was not that long ago when member after member of the Conservative caucus stood in the chamber, and in great detail, talked about Tori Stafford and that horrific incident, which revolted many Canadians. One of the reasons many members on this side of the House were so upset with members of the official opposition was because of the way they were dealing with this issue.

For the sake of argument, let us say that the Conservatives had a change of mind on policy. When in government, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there were child murderers going to healing lodges, and they did not oppose it then. However, let us say that they had a road to Damascus experience. Now they are in opposition, and now we want to cut them some slack, and they want to see a change in policy. Even with that, I do not believe it justifies the graphic descriptions that were being given day in and day out by the official opposition.

Now those members want more names of these child killers tabled. Is it so they can again look at these cases and reveal the graphic details? Is that what they want?

At the end of the day, this is about good governance and policy that addresses the issues Canadians truly care about. That is why the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada was asked to do the job she did. As I have indicated, that report has now been brought to the attention of the minister responsible. I can assure members of this House that the report will be gone through and we will see something that can provide assurance to Canadians that we do have the victims in our hearts and that we are respectful of our civil servants. We believe that we need to have a policy that delivers on what the public expectations are of the government of the day.

I made reference to Bill C-83, and my colleague made reference to it in her speech. The reason I want to bring this up is that often, the Conservatives try to give the impression that they are about the victims, as if they are the ones who protect the interests of the victims. Well, we have seen legislation brought in by this government that enshrines victims' rights in legislation. We have seen other aspects that are important.

For example, my colleague made reference to audio tapes. There are many crimes that are so horrific that when a perpetrator in jail goes before a parole board, and the victim wants to attend the hearing, we would allow the victim to be provided an audio tape of what takes place, because one can only imagine what a victim goes through when sitting in that Parole Board hearing.

There is a different mentality between the Stephen Harper Conservatives and this government when it comes to justice. I will give the Conservatives that. We truly believe that there are certain actions the government can take that will ensure that we have fewer victims in the future. That is a reality that often escapes my Conservative friends across the way.

Bill C-83 is a good example of that. Within the bill are reforms to the legislation that would enable programming, such as mental health care services and others, to be made available to individuals leaving our prison system. That is important. Unlike the image the Conservatives try to give Canadians, that once people go to jail, each and every one of them is so bad that they should stay in jail forever, the reality is that a vast majority will come out and they will be in our communities. We need to ensure—

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

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the last question. The member tries to give the impression that the government has not done a good job on this file. I would like to make it very clear to those who might be following the debate just what the government has done. In order to appreciate what the government has done, one needs to have a better sense of what has been happening over the last 10 years.

I would emphasize what I believe is uniformly felt across all regions of our country. No one this country could every imagine how horrific the actions against little Tori were. I think I speak on behalf of anyone who has a heart and understands what a parent or family members have to go through mentally and physically when something horrific takes place against a child. I cannot imagine the pain and agony. In my heart, and I know I am not unique, all of us in the chamber extend our sympathies and empathy to the family. Having said that, sadly, it is not the first time that has happened in Canada.

I had the opportunity to ask a question, trying to provide a little history. A past Conservative administration decided that we should move from correctional facilities to healing centres, which would be part of the medium-security correctional facilities. I believe these healing centres were brought in a Conservative administration.

Indeed, let us fast forward to when Stephen Harper was prime minister. If we listen to the Conservatives, we would think this situation were truly unique, as if children have not been murdered in the past and murderers have not been put into healing centres in the past. We know that is not true. Even when Stephen Harper was prime minister, we know there were murderers in medium-security facilities who were transferred to healing centres, dozens of them. Not one, two or three, but literally dozens of murderers have gone into these healing centres. This was when Stephen Harper was prime minister.

We often hear about some of the worst crimes in society, such as terrorist acts, but what ranks very high for me are child murders. These as horrific and I want there to be consequences for that crime. So do my constituents and a vast majority, 90%-plus, of Canadians.

Do members know that child killers were sent to healing lodges while Stephen Harper was prime minister? If we follow the debate on this issue, we would never believe that to be the case, but that is the reality. Child murderers, even under Stephen Harper, went to healing lodges. We did not hear any Conservatives jump up at that time asking why it was happening. No one condemned Stephen Harper and the minister responsible. It was implied earlier that maybe they did not know about it. That excuse does not cut it.

I listen to many members of the opposition yell from their seats how horrific it is and how irresponsible we were by not taking action, as they point fingers at the member for Regina—Wascana, the Minister of Public Safety, for not taking action. Here is a reality check: Even though Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did not take any action, this minister and this government have taken the most appropriate action of all. We created a dialogue with the commissioner of corrections and asked the commissioner to review the policy and to come back to the government with some recommendations. That is the responsible approach to dealing with this issue.

I understand that yesterday the commissioner brought forward that report. I suspect that the minister, knowing he is one of the hardest working members in the chamber, will go through that report in great detail. I know this government as a whole understands and appreciates the very important role that our civil servants play in providing the services that we receive from Correctional Service Canada. We will factor in what those professionals have to say, because good government does that. Good government respects the fine work that our civil servants do for Canadians as a whole.

Knowing the Minister of Public Safety, his primary concern is the safety of Canadians. I believe that is the priority of this government. We have seen that in the legislation we debated, namely Bill C-83, which I will soon get to. For now, let us realize that unlike the former government under which we know that child murderers went to healing centres, we are looking at ways to improve government policy. This is one of the files that no doubt will be taken into great consideration as we try to ensure that we have the confidence of Canadians as we move forward on this.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have no idea what that question has to do with the motion before us today on Bill C-83, but I am happy to respond to it.

Our government has brought over more than 1,200 Yazidi refugees. How many did the Conservatives bring over? Three. This side of the House is providing mental health services for those Yazidi refugees. What did the other side of the House do? It removed health services for refugees in Canada. Not only that—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the member for Beauce has called the Conservative Party of Canada “morally corrupt” and has said that Canadians need a new coherent Conservative option to vote for.

As just one recent example, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recently completed a committee report that recommended:

That the Government of Canada ensure access to healing lodges for Indigenous female offenders with a medium security classification.

It also called for expanding the number of healing lodges.

The Conservative members of the committee did issue a dissenting report, however they made no mention of this recommendation, and in fact solely focused on social impact bonds. I would take from the dissenting report that the Conservatives tabled in the House that they agreed with our recommendation on access to healing lodges.

Meanwhile, other Conservative MPs, including members of the status of women committee, have spent the past month demonizing the use of healing lodges. The ability for Conservatives to speak out of both sides of their mouth on any given issue may make them feel nimble while debating in the Ottawa bubble, but it is very confusing to everyday Canadians who cannot tell if the Conservative Party actually stands for anything anymore.

While the Conservative Party continues to play games, trying to slow down any piece of legislation that would be good for Canada, good for Canadians and good for public safety, as Bill C-83 is, we on this side of the House remain focused squarely on governing this great country. That is why I will not be supporting the member's motion.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the member's motion regarding Bill C-83, which the House has already voted on and passed at second reading.

The hon. member for Durham just mentioned that sometimes politics gets done in this place, and I would argue that the only thing being done by the Conservative Party right now is playing politics.

I cannot imagine what the family of Tori Stafford has gone through or any family that has lost a child in this manner. My heart goes out to all families who have lost children to crime.

I will start by discussing Bill C-83 and some concerns that have been raised about the working conditions of those working in corrections. It is challenging work. From guards to parole officers, program staff to medical professionals, corrections employees work hard, around the clock and in challenging environments to keep our institutions safe and in support of effective rehabilitation, which ultimately protects Canadian communities. They represent a professional workforce of nearly 18,000 employees, all engaged in the success of the corrections system and the fulfilment of Correctional Service Canada's mandate. That is complemented by some 6,000 volunteers in institutions and communities, not to mention elders, chaplains and the many other unsung heroes working in corrections. I want to assure all of those individuals that as we study Bill C-83 at committee, their voices will be heard and we will be listening to them.

Regarding the transfer referred to in this motion, when it came to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety, he asked the commissioner of corrections to review the transfer decision and the long-standing policies in place, which existed prior to our becoming government, that led to the decision, to ensure that they remain appropriate or to recommend if they need updating. As the Minister of Public Safety indicated in the House, he received the report from the commissioner of corrections late yesterday, a report that came with several policy options for him to consider. The minister is studying the report carefully and has said that if there are any changes that need to be made to these long-standing policies, they will be made in the near future.

In the meantime, the public safety committee is expected to begin its study of Bill C-83 next week. This transformational piece of legislation will eliminate segregation in Canadian corrections facilities, but is unrelated to the issue of this particular transfer. Through Bill C-83, the government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that we not only have the tools to make guilty parties accountable for breaking the law, but also create an environment that fosters rehabilitation so there are fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities.

Virtually everyone in federal custody is eventually going to be released. It is in the best interests of public safety to ensure that when offenders are released, they are well prepared to participate meaningfully in society and that they are unlikely to reoffend. That is why we are strengthening the federal corrections system and aligning it with the latest evidence and best practices so that offenders are rehabilitated and better prepared to eventually re-enter our communities.

Bill C-83 would replace the long-standing practice of using segregation and replace it with the use of structured intervention units, or SIUs. This is a bold new approach to federal corrections. An offender may be placed in an SIU when there are reasonable grounds to believe that they pose a risk to the safety of any person, including themselves, or the security of the institution. It will protect the safety of staff and those in their custody by allowing offenders to be separated as required, while ensuring that those offenders receive effective rehabilitative programming, as well as interventions and mental health support. These things are not in place right now but we would put them in place with Bill C-83.

Currently, placement in segregation basically suspends all interventions and programming for an offender. The offender is essentially kept isolated from everyone. In a structured intervention unit, on the other hand, the offender will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell and a minimum of two hours of meaningful interactions with other people, including staff, volunteers, visitors, elders, chaplains and other compatible inmates. They will have access to structured interventions to address the underlying behaviour that led to their placement in the SIU. These will include programs and mental health care tailored to their needs. It is a system that will allow for the protection of inmates, staff and the institution while ensuring that the time an inmate spends there does not interrupt his or her rehabilitative programming. Make no mistake, rehabilitative programming is essential to ensure that when the person is released from corrections, they will be able to live a life free of crime.

We will ensure that the correctional service has the resources it needs to ensure the safe and secure management of offenders within the SIU while delivering all of the important programming and allowing for visitations.

In addition, the new system will be subject to a robust internal review process. By the fifth working day after movement to an SIU, the warden will determine if the inmate should remain there, taking into account factors such as the inmate's correctional plan and medical condition. If the inmate remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews will happen after 30 days by the warden and every 30 days thereafter by the commissioner of corrections.

Reviews can be triggered by a medical professional at any time, and will be strengthened by the fact that Bill C-83 also enshrines in law for the first time the principle that health care professionals within the corrections system must have the autonomy to exercise their own medical judgment. As recommended by the Ashley Smith inquest, it would create a system of patient advocates who will help ensure that people get the medical treatment they need.

Bill C-83 would also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. These amendments are based on the 1999 Gladue case and reflect what the Supreme Court has found to be the constitutional right of an indigenous offender.

The bill would also improve support for victims. Currently, victims may attend a parole hearing of the perpetrator of the crime. Alternatively, victims can request audio recordings of the parole hearing if they are unable to attend. Unfortunately, due to a glitch in the existing act, if a victim attends in person, he or she is not able to receive an audio recording. We have heard from victims that parole hearings can be such an emotional time that afterward the victim often cannot remember the full details of what transpired. Bill C-83 would ensure that even if the victim attends in person, he or she will be able to get a copy of the recording.

The legislation would also allow CSC to use body scanners for the first time. These scanners are a less invasive way of searching inmates and visitors to a penitentiary while ensuring that correctional staff have the tools they need to detect and prevent contraband.

During Stephen Harper's time in office there were many inmates in healing lodges who had committed very serious crimes. In fact, dozens were convicted of murder and at least 14 were convicted in cases in which the victims were children. They were sent to healing lodges under the Harper government because, apparently, the Harper government understood that healing lodges were in the interest of rehabilitation and public safety. I would like to read a quote from the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, who said, “Healing lodges developed in collaboration with aboriginal communities provide supportive healing and reintegration environments.”

In our country, we rely on our courts to deliver sentences and the corrections system to supervise offenders, to uphold public safety and to rehabilitate those in their care. We do not have a vigilante system in Canada. We do not allow public opinion or political rhetoric to determine the penalties dealt to individual offenders. Yet the opposition has been playing political games with this case and our entire justice system during the past weeks.

Let us be clear. There is no doubt that this offender should be in prison. There is no doubt that she remains in prison. The facts of the case are well known and they shake us to the core. She was tried and sentenced to life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. She has been in the custody of Correctional Services Canada since sentencing. Let me reiterate that she is still in prison and continues to be supervised while incarcerated and will remain under supervision for the rest of her life.

Neither the Minister of Public Safety nor the House has the ability to overturn the decision on where that individual offender should be serving her sentence. To make the public believe that we do is irresponsible for the opposition, and I, for one, do not want to live in a country where our justice and corrections systems rely on political rhetoric and public opinion in their decision-making processes.

Recently, we had the new commissioner of corrections at the public safety committee. She stated several times, just as the Minister of Public Safety has done here as well, that she was asked to review the circumstances surrounding this transfer decision, as well as the long-standing policies regarding transfers in general. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Public Safety received the commissioner's report late yesterday and is in the process of reviewing it.

Both of committees that I sit on, the status of women and public safety committees, tabled reports in June on the corrections system and, in particular, on indigenous people in corrections. The public safety committee's report was unanimous in calling for additional funding for healing lodges. Members from all parties heard from witnesses and agreed that healing lodges were doing excellent work and should be expanded and supported. The Conservative members of the committee agreed with us that they play an integral role in our corrections system. The status of women committee also recommended additional funding for healing lodges and heard extensive testimony on their benefits.

I wonder how many on the opposition benches have actually visited a women's medium-security institute or healing lodge. I have visited both. I suspect most people, including those in the House, expect prison to look more like what they see on television and in movies. They might be surprised to see what a medium-security institute like Grand Valley actually looks like.

Let me be clear. A healing lodge is still a secure corrections facility. Perhaps if it were called a women's indigenous corrections facility, we would not even be debating this issue, nor having the motion before us today. It is not a spa. It is not a summer camp. There are no luxury linens. Prisoners must follow the rules if they want to stay there.

A healing lodge is different from what Canadians might expect a prison to look like, but these institutions are also very different in their outcomes for prisoners, and in turn, better for Canadians and public safety in the long run. In fact, I would argue that is why the Harper Conservatives sent individuals who had been convicted of murder to healing lodges, because they recognized the benefits for offenders when they spend time in these institutions.

Claire Carefoot, executive director of the Buffalo Sage Wellness House, an Edmonton healing lodge, has 29 years of experience in corrections. She appeared before the public safety committee during our study, and stated:

It's not a get-out-of-jail-free [card].... We have the same kind of supervision and restrictions they have in a prison. Only we're doing it in a healing way.... they have to accept responsibility for their offences, for their victims, and they have to accept responsibility for their own behaviour.

Our government knows that a corrections system focused on accountability rather than simple retribution is better for corrections outcomes and, therefore, better for the public safety of all Canadians. We know that taking a rehabilitative approach is the best way to protect the public safety of Canadians. I think Canadians would agree that when people leave prison, we do not want them to commit a violent crime. It is not in the interests of public safety.

As we know, regardless of the length of their sentence, the vast majority of those incarcerated in our system will be released from prison at some point. They may very well move into our neighbourhoods. What kind of person do we want released from prison at the end of his or her sentence living next door to us? I feel strongly that, regardless of our feelings, public safety is best served when we take steps to prevent violent recidivism.

I mentioned the fact that the previous government sent individuals who had committed murder and individuals who had committed crimes against children to healing lodges.

I would argue that is the problem with the Conservative Party today. It has no moral centre. It has no principles around which to build policies. Conservatives simply swing from one issue to the next, with no sense of cohesion or principles to guide them. Almost every issue or policy that the Conservatives supported in government is one that they have a knee-jerk reaction to while in opposition.

It is the reason the member for Beauce has left the Conservative Party and founded a new Conservative movement. He says that today's Conservative Party of Canada has become “morally corrupt”, and that Canadians need a new coherent Conservative—

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join my friend, the hon. MP for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, in this important debate with respect to Bill C-83 and sentencing in Canada.

It concerns me that the government, like on many things, has a communications plan rather than a plan to actually lead, and this is an example. In fact, the deputy House leader for the Liberals is referring to a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada that was provided to the government just mere minutes before a protest on Parliament Hill, which was organized by people from the community of Tori Stafford, the young woman who was killed by Terri-Lynne McClintic and her partner.

We have seen the comments from Rodney Stafford, her father, and the outrage with the transfer of Ms. McClintic to a healing lodge in Saskatchewan. However, just in time for this protest, the Liberals have the report. Members will recall that they defended this decision and in fact their recently appointed commissioner defended the decision herself. Her decision was wrong, and it is up to ministers of the government to recognize that. I am hoping the commissioner is listening to my remarks, because I will inform her why I think the decision was wrong.

I have not read her report today. I am working off her comments after defending the decision to sort of support the government's inaction. I will use the government's own material to prove my point.

I learned a lot about restorative justice principles in law school at Dalhousie and restorative justice can be used in certain circumstances. However, the case of Ms. McClintic is not one of those. In fact, her own family has questioned whether she is of indigenous background.

However, leaving that aside, on the website of the Department of Justice, it says that the first principle of restorative justice recognizes “Crime is Fundamentally a Violation of People and Interpersonal Relationships...Victims and the community have been harmed and are in need of restoration.”

It starts with a reflection on the victim. In this case, the victim, Tori Stafford, a child, was lured away by Ms. McClintic and horribly killed. I do not want to get into the details. They have been recounted several times. However, restorative justice starts with an examination of the victim and the crime. This is the worst crime. The victim and her family have suffered the most horrendous circumstances imaginable under our Criminal Code. This is not a crime of poverty or circumstance. This was a premeditated act. The vision of Ms. McClintic luring young Tori Stafford away was caught on videotape. It is seared in the minds of people from that part of Ontario. The ministers involved here should review that tape and the file. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada should review it as well.

As a primer, they can look at the Department of Justice's own materials on restorative justice. They should also look to section 718 of the Criminal Code, which outlines sentencing and the sentencing principles and purpose. I invite all Canadians to read it. This is the underpinning of our justice system, particularly when it comes to a crime committed against one Canadian by another, and in this case, a child.

The purpose of sentencing is found in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Some of my Liberal friends in the House are lawyers. They may think back to criminal law at law school. I refer them back there. I refer the commissioner there as well.

What are the purposes of sentencing? First is denunciation of conduct. The killing of a child deserves the highest denunciation possible. Second is deterrence, deterrence for the worst of crimes, violence against other people in our civilized society. Separation of offenders is the third purpose, which is for the protection of the public, when someone involved with the worst of crimes should be a high priority. The fourth is rehabilitation. That is where we want to not give up on anyone. The fifth is reparation, which is to make amends to the victims and the people impacted. The final purpose of sentencing is promotion of responsibility.

Ms. McClintic is responsible for her role in the death of Tori Stafford. She should be making reparations, both on a restorative level and on a Criminal Code level, for that crime. She must be separated from the public for her involvement in the worst of crimes.

We must have deterrence and we must have denunciation. In the worst of crimes, those take precedence over rehabilitation. Those take precedence over transferring someone to a healing lodge. A healing lodge is really designed for restorative justice principles for people who have committed crimes because of their circumstance in life, because of poverty, or because of higher instances of incarceration of indigenous peoples. I support healing lodges, but not for child murderers.

Let us continue from section 718 of the Criminal Code to sections 718.1 and 718.2. It begins with the principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the nature of the offence. I remind everyone, and the commissioner of corrections, that this is the worst crime our society faces. There is no need for a balancing test.

In my view, the proportionate nature of the offence means that Ms. McClintic should serve her entire sentence in a maximum security prison. Certainly the restorative healing lodge approach, generally saved for indigenous offenders, should not be available for first and second degree murder cases. This should be a policy that is brought to the chamber immediately. That is what Canadians expect.

There is no way under the Criminal Code, under Justice Canada's principles of restorative justice that could defend the transfer of Ms. McClintic to a healing lodge. There is no way to defend it. What is more troubling than the decision itself, and the Liberals' shell game of having a report from the commissioner show up on the day that people are protesting on Parliament Hill, is that this is another example of a government that is actually impotent to act. There is an organization chart. The minister is at the top of that department. The Prime Minister is responsible for each minister. We see countless cases where there is an inability to take action and acknowledge errors made by departments.

The Statistics Canada stats grab that is going on right now, which Canadians find obscene, is when the minister responsible should say “Statistics Canada, hands off.” When Veterans Affairs finds out that a convicted murderer who developed PTSD from killing a police officer in Nova Scotia, a murderer who who never served, is receiving funding that is for our veterans, that is a mistake and it should be rectified. Ms. McClintic is probably the best example of a mistake that should be rectified. There is no excuse for it.

I would like the commissioner of corrections to go through the same analysis I just did, Section 718 of the Criminal Code and the principles of restorative justice, and give me one reason why Ms. McClintic should be transferred to a healing lodge. It is time for the Liberals to step up and show some leadership. Our job in the House as the loyal opposition is to bring the concerns of Canadians to this Parliament. In fact, I applaud the Canadians who were braving the rain and cold today to bring their outrage in the transfer of Ms. McClintic to the steps of Parliament Hill.

The trouble is that we have Liberal government ministers who are impotent to act. They act like they are powerless. It is because the job, the image and the car mean more to them than the actual responsibility they have. In this case, it is undermining confidence in our judicial system, in our corrections system. I have yet to see one iota of a response to why this should happen. The Liberals should take ownership, remove Ms. McClintic and ban any further transfers of anyone who took a life to a healing lodge like this.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, the Committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the Bill in order to forbid those convicted of the murder of a child from serving any portion of their sentence in a healing lodge.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham.

This morning, we moved a motion that we consider to be very important. I would like to give a brief overview of Bill C-83, which seeks to change inmates' conditions, since the motion is very closely related to the bill. Bill C-83 seeks to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities and replace it with structured intervention units, to use prescribed body scanners, to establish parameters for access to health care, and to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders.

This bill obviously contains some reasonable measures that are worth considering. We should all consider how we can change and improve the overall prison program. However, we have a problem in that regard.

Everyone agrees that a criminal has to serve their lawful sentence, but we cannot allow penitentiaries to become five-star Hilton hotels. Otherwise, there will be no incentive for individuals to give up their life of crime.

After our initial reading of the bill, we are not only disappointed, but also discouraged to see that this government is still working to help criminals instead of thinking of the victims.

Three weeks ago, we asked the Prime Minister and his team why they transferred a child murderer to a healing lodge instead of keeping her behind bars at a maximum security penitentiary. The Prime Minister was either incapable of answering the question or unwilling to do so. On this lovely, rainy Friday on Parliament Hill, hundreds of people are outside asking the same question. They do not understand why this child murderer is at a healing lodge in Saskatchewan.

I gave notice of this motion at the beginning of the week, and it just so happens that, on Wednesday, October 31, Global News published an article by Abigail Bimman about the brother of murderer Terri-Lynne McClintic. Her own brother is disgusted by what is going on. He says his sister is not indigenous, that she manipulated the system, and that she should be sent back to a maximum security penitentiary to serve her sentence. Her brother says his sister “is no more indigenous than I am green from the planet Mars”.

This case has been the subject of much debate here in the House of Commons. The government accused us of raising a sensitive issue and said we should not take advantage of the death of a police officer, but I believe Canadians understand that the Liberal government's position was untenable. It is unacceptable for a child killer who claims to be indigenous to be sent to an indigenous healing lodge. To be clear, healing lodges are minimum security facilities. There is no security, so people can come and go and do as they please, even if they do not have that right. A child killer should not be in a place like that.

I believe that what our motion is calling for is very reasonable because Canadians believe that child killers should not be held in healing centres or minimum security prisons. They should serve their sentence in maximum security penitentiaries.

Furthermore, we just learned that the Minister of Public Safety received a report from Correctional Service Canada regarding its investigation of the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Ms. McClintic from a maximum security prison to a healing centre. I am therefore asking the minister to table this report at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security so we can consult it, read the recommendations concerning Bill C-83 and ensure they are implemented.

At some point, there must be some common sense in this country. Unacceptable things are happening. I know it is not that easy to govern a country. We will be in that position next year, but in the meantime it is the Liberals' job.

All we are doing is proposing a few things to help keep the country running smoothly and ensure that Canadians continue to trust our justice system and believe that criminals will have to face consequences. Giving criminals a chance to live a good life while leaving victims to cope with sadness and sorrow is simply unacceptable.

Record Suspension Program

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 161, which calls for a study of the impacts on people with a criminal past who seek a record suspension, formerly known as a pardon. It is a term perhaps more familiar to those who are watching the debate at home, but a term that the previous Conservative government removed to reflect that this was not a purging of their past, but rather a recognition of their efforts to change and live productive lives within our communities.

More specific, the motion, if passed, will instruct the public safety committee to undertake an examination of how record suspensions can help those reintegrate into society, to look at the fees associated with the application for record suspensions and whether they should be changed and, finally, a catch-all directive to identify any improvements to better support applicants through this process.

lt is interesting that the motion is being debated in the House rather than being simply moved to the committee itself, which could be a much quicker option.

lt is also interesting that this comes on the heels of the debate on Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

While Bill C-83 and the motion we are discussing today are different in substance, at the heart of these two items is the watering down or perhaps the repeal of the previous Conservative government's Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Bill C-10 enhanced victim's rights and enhanced the safety of Canadians, which lengthened the crime-free waiting period to 10 years before a serious offender could apply to suspend indictable convictions and to five years from three for summary offences. It disqualified anyone with more than three convictions for an indictable offence from ever being able to apply and disqualified those convicted of child sex offences from ever being able to apply.

A review of the fees associated with the applications for record suspensions is in order, particularly if the fees are hindering the rehabilitation of individuals back into their community, as the hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay has indicated. However, if this is another attempt by the Liberal government to prioritize the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims, that is something Canada's Conservatives will not accept.

Motion No. 161 instructs the public safety committee to look at how suspending a criminal's record would assist in the reintegration into society. The hon. member for Saint John—Rothesay included this in his speech. He also included references to people convicted of minor offences, like theft under. The member mentioned that these people were having difficulty finding jobs because of their criminal records and that they could not afford to apply for record suspensions. This in effect hindered their ability to reintegrate into their community and effectively raise themselves out of poverty.

As I indicated earlier, a review in this narrow context at committee I feel is more appropriate. However, I say narrow because the examples used by the hon. member in his speech are narrow in scope as well. The motion does not say those convicted of minor offences, as we might believe from the examples the member for Saint John—Rothesay has used in his speech.

I refer to the speech by my hon. colleague, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, which he gave in the House a short time ago. He said, “Record suspensions should not be something that anyone with a criminal past can get. Some crimes can and should remain forever on someone's record.” He continued, “serious criminals and repeat offenders that are generally the concern, not one-time shoplifters. The fact is that one-time shoplifters are usually dealt with by means of alternative measures.”

Let me be clear. Canada's Conservatives do not want criminals like Terri-Lynne McClintic getting their records suspended for their heinous crimes. We must enure that those who commit crimes against children will never be able to volunteer at a children's day care centre, for example. The shocking indifference for victims and a disturbing compassion for criminals that the Liberal government has demonstrated over the past weeks needs to be re-examined by the Prime Minister.

As I mentioned earlier, it is interesting that the member chose to raise this matter through a motion in the House, rather than the more expeditious route of presenting a motion to a committee, for example. Obviously, I am not a member of that standing committee. I sit on the natural resources committee. I do not know the public safety committee's agenda, what studies are being conducted and what studies it plans on doing in the future. The committee members themselves are best placed to determine how the study fits within the current pressing public safety or national security issues of, say, gang violence, illegal border crossers, cybersecurity, threats by foreign states or extremist attacks, and yet we are being asked to set the agenda for this committee.

Also, considering this draw, not every MP in this House will have the opportunity to bring forward such legislation. for the benefit of those watching at home, I am referring to the procedure by which we choose the order in which private members can bring private members' business to this House. While I recognize that this motion would impact the hon. member's constituents, it could, as I have said earlier, more appropriately have been dealt with at committee, which would have allowed the member to raise another substantive legislative concern for his constituents.

While it may raise questions for the constituents of Saint John—Rothesay, the member is perfectly within his right to do so. As a result, I have some recommendations for the committee during any review that it may have down the road.

I would encourage the members of the public safety committee to remember that they are the public safety committee, when reviewing this motion.

I recommend that the committee consider the difference between someone who steals a pair of jeans and someone with a record of a serious crime, like sexual assault, child abuse, trafficking, homicide and other violent crimes. It may come as a shock to some of my Liberal colleagues, but there is a difference.

I also recommend that the committee consider the concept that deterrence is also an important factor that could be considered in the prevention of crime. The last message we want to send is that when people steal a pair of jeans and get caught, all they need to do is pay a pittance and there will be no record of their crime. Having a record creates a deterrent and reminds us that crime is not welcome in our communities.

Let us not forget that with every crime there are also multiple victims. I strongly urge the committee not to recommend a reversal of important provisions found in Bill C-10 that put community safety first, and were grounded in a philosophy that victims matter. I recommend not allowing criminals like child predators and repeat offenders with three or more indictable offences to be eligible to receive record suspension. I recommend not altering the required number of years that people with serious criminal convictions, like violent and sexual crimes, have to demonstrate their rehabilitation, before they can apply.

I ask the committee to consider the balance Bill C-10 struck between recognizing the role record suspensions play in facilitating reintegration, ensuring the protection of our communities, particularly the most vulnerable, and placing victims rights at the forefront. We need to ensure that record suspensions do not become a right for criminals. We need to ensure that criminals cannot buy a pass on their criminal behaviour. We need to ensure that a record means something, and we need to ensure that rehabilitation is still the overarching factor in the record suspension process.

The Liberals have demonstrated, in the past few weeks, a concerning preference to coddle criminals rather than champion the safety of the public and respond to the victims. Whether it was giving a convicted cop killer Chris Garnier veterans benefits, despite spending not one second in the Canadian Armed Forces and, something Chris Garnier openly claims, despite the fact that he contracted post-traumatic stress disorder in the process of committing his crime when he murdered a female police officer; whether it was deciding to move a child killer from behind bars to a healing lodge with no fence and with children living inside; or whether it is a lack of transparency in the Liberals' plan on dealing with returning ISIS terrorists, the trend must stop there.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

As we know, Bill C-83 proposes to implement a new correctional intervention model to eliminate segregation, strengthen health care governance, better support victims in the criminal justice system, and consider the specific needs of indigenous offenders.

The purpose of prisons, though, is clear. We have prisons so that we can protect society from those who, as a consequence of various criminally repugnant acts they have committed, have proven to be too great a risk to the broader safety of others. I believe there are cases where criminals can be reformed. We have programs. We provide opportunities for those deemed to pose a reduced security risk to reintegrate into society and become fully functional and productive members of our community.

In general, Canadians believe this and we would not want it any other way. However, there are those in our society who cannot be reformed and have committed acts so heinous that we never want them to be free to walk among our families and friends, in our towns and cities, ever again.

I am not just thinking of murderers and those who commit assault, like Olson, Bernardo, Homolka, Magnotta, and McClintic. I am also thinking of those individuals whose names will not make headlines across the country, the nameless violent criminals who beat, and steal without remorse from, the most vulnerable in our society.

Prisons are their own societal microcosm. We expect that prisoners will follow the rules of the institutions, that they will behave and participate in programs to improve their situation, as I said earlier, in the hope they can reintegrate back into their communities.

This speech is not about the goals of sentencing or to debate the merits of different forms of punishment. It is about protecting society in general, victims in particular, and protecting society from those who are most dangerous.

It is no wonder that there is violence in prisons. It does not take an academic to explain why, when criminals are placed in a community together, there is a high incidence of crime. Some might say, who cares, that they get what they deserve? However, that is not the consensus within our society.

Our correctional facilities are not designed to put prisoners in harm's way. They are designed to protect prisoners from each other, and to protect the men and women in the correctional services.

Bill C-83 proposes to change that by removing an important tool in our correctional services staff tool box to protect prisoners and themselves from violence. Indeed, the argument about prison safety often focuses on the most violent prisoners harming other prisoners, or on protecting the most evil, those who have committed such heinous acts, from retribution.

We often feel and sometimes forget those who are on the front lines in our institutions who deal directly with these acts of violence, who put themselves in danger to protect prisoners from each other. Eliminating the ability of corrections officers to segregate prisoners from each other will not only put prisoners at serious risk, it will also further endanger our correctional officers. That is unacceptable.

Jason Godin, the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has told the Vancouver Sun that attacks on officers and inmates have increased as the use of segregation has decreased. If Bill C-83 passes, he predicts that “The bloodbath will start.” While I do not understand the minutia of administering a prison, Godin does as the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. He is not speaking haphazardly or without merit.

Bill C-83 calls for more meaningful, human contact. Human contact is important, but not when it is at the end of a fist or a broom handle. Across Canada the number of assaults on staff is projected to rise 32% this fiscal year compared with last year, coinciding with the projected 15% decrease in segregation bed use during that same time.

Solitary confinement is a common and legitimate safety measure that many western countries use to protect correctional staff from dangerous and volatile prisoners. Rather than removing this tool, we should be looking at how to prevent the incidents that cause segregation in the first place. We should ensure that mental health screening is completed, that there is a mental health strategy for prisoners, that psychological counselling is available, and that there are adequate staff on duty to ensure the safety of everyone.

We can reduce the use of segregation by other means without removing the tool of segregation for use when necessary. Rather than prioritizing the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals, the Liberals should be prioritizing the safety of the general population within our institutions and the officers who run them. Correctional officers are calling for serious consultation and resources to make it work. They are asking the committee not sacrifice this segregation tool as a necessary tool to deter violent behaviour. Correctional Services Canada has already limited the use of segregation. What correctional officers want now are alternatives to segregation to ensure that prisoners understand there are consequences for their bad behaviour.

In the recent ruling, the Ontario Superior Court called into question the legality of indefinite solitary confinement, and the current government has set its sights on appealing that decision. With this I have no issue. However, I wonder why, while appealing this decision, the government is moving forward with Bill C-83. Logically, the introduction of major changes that are at the heart of its appeal make little sense. However, that is not the only thing that does not make much sense.

Under this bill, a maximum-security classification could be assigned to any area of a medium- or minimum-security penitentiary. The facility in question, whether minimum, medium or maximum, is built to protect society from prisoners designated as a minimum-, medium- or maximum-security risks. There are different procedures and expectations in place.

I am getting the signal that there is no more time, which, unfortunately, is a shame because I had a lot more to say.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve with my colleague from Oxford on the justice committee. He brings a wealth of experience as a police officer and former chief of police.

One of the things that we know about Bill C-83's allowing an additional two hours for prisoners to be out of their cells is that it will cost a lot more resources for that to work. While the government is moving ahead with its legislation, the Liberals at the same time are proposing an 8.8% reduction in funding for the Correctional Service of Canada. Out of the 22 priorities for the Correctional Service of Canada, not one of those priorities includes the safety of correctional officers. In the face of the government's mixed up priorities, is it any wonder that the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has criticized Bill C-83?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. I rise in the House today to address some serious concerns that the Conservatives have with regard to Bill C-83.

This bill seeks to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities and replace it with structured intervention units; to use prescribed body scanners for inmates; to establish parameters for access to health care; and to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health conditions. While this bill contains some reasonable measures that are worth considering in order to change and improve the overall prison program, we need to examine it closely to ensure we are making the best decisions and changes possible to the prison program.

In recent Supreme Court decisions, the legality of indefinite stays in solitary confinement has been challenged. However, the government is appealing both of those decisions. This legislation applies to transfers, and would allow the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary or to any area within a penitentiary. In a maximum-security penitentiary, nothing gets in or out without the strictest controls. Maximum security means maximum security. As I understand it, with this new legislation, a maximum-security classification could be assigned to any area of a medium- or minimum-security penitentiary. If that is not the case, we need some clarification. A maximum-security facility has an entire perimeter and security system that is designed to guarantee maximum security. If they were to change a section of a minimum- or medium-security penitentiary, would the security measures also be put into place?

This bill has one very good idea, and that is to use body scanners. However, it should be expanded to include anyone who enters the facility who is not an inmate or an employee. Body-scan searches would make it possible to control at least 95% of the substances that individuals bring into prisons because they show whether there is anything hidden on a person's body. It is no secret that all kinds of things are brought into prisons.

This legislation also proposes to eliminate administrative segregation in corrections facilities and replace it with a newly created structured intervention unit. Solitary confinement is a common and legitimate safety measure that many western countries take to protect guards from dangerous and volatile prisoners. The introduction of structured intervention units may pose a risk to prison guards, other inmates and the inmates in question for whom solitary confinement is used for their own safety.

Another problem with this bill is reflected in the spirit of the law. These are the worst criminals in Canada. They are murderers, rapists, etc., and they are in maximum-security prisons. The intent of these proposed changes is to create a structured intervention unit for these people. They would spend less time in cells and would be put together to interact. The prison environment is a unique environment. It is a closed environment. The officers who work there are at risk every day because they have to deal with the worst thugs and criminals in Canada. Prisoners want to control their environment as much as possible, like anyone else. This is difficult for our officers who work 24-7 to keep prisoners under control and keep the guards and the rest of the prisoners safe. Taking away disciplinary segregation would make prisons less safe and more dangerous for the guards as they would have to deal with the most volatile prisoners being out and about from their cells for four hours a day.

We cannot support Bill C-83 in its present form. There are some things that would work, such as installing scanning equipment; however, we believe that creating structured intervention units would not.

Additionally, it is concerning that the government has not been able to tell Canadians how much the implementation of these measures would cost. Correctional Service Canada has confirmed that it is not able to estimate how much the measures in this bill would cost Canadians. The government seems to believe it is acceptable to table uncosted legislation that would increase the comfort of the most violent prisoners at the expense of the taxpayer.

Let us look back at the McClintic case again. This murderer's transfer from a maximum-security prison to an indigenous healing lodge has had a lot of people concerned, upset and talking. This is someone who should be serving her sentence in a maximum-security prison. In a maximum-security prison, such an offender has her own cell. Those offenders eat, sleep and take classes if they so choose, and they can go back to their cells. They are protected because they are living in a maximum-security environment. However, for reasons still not understood, it was decided to send that person to a place with virtually no security. From what I understand, Bill C-83 would allow McClintic's room in the healing lodge to be designated a maximum-security room. Again, it appears as though it is the Liberal government's priority to put the rights and comforts of violent murderers and rapists ahead of the rights of victims.

If what I understand is true, then Bill C-83 would be dangerous to Canadians' safety. It does not care about what a maximum-security prison sentence means or what keeping Canadians safe means. Instead, it prioritizes the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals.

Instead of changing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to make sure that killers like Terri-Lynne McClintic are kept behind bars, the bill defines and softens the law to make prison time easier for criminals.

I think Canadians know that the government is not serious about being tough on crime and it puts Canadians' safety at risk. If this keeps up, things are bound to get worse. The government should be taking rational measures that are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Prisoners have rights, of course, but it is all in the way things are done. The approach outlined in Bill C-83 is not in line with what the Conservatives consider to be an effective way to manage penitentiaries.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, our government's Bill C-83 will strengthen the federal correctional system, aligning its practices with sound evidence. It will also use the latest best practices to rehabilitate inmates and better prepare them for safe reintegration into our communities. Reintegration into society is important. I talked about that earlier. We need everyone's talents. When people reintegrate into society, everyone wins.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would pose a question in response to the speech from my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

She touched upon the review process. At the heart of the British Columbia Supreme Court decision, as well as the Ontario Superior Court decision, both courts called on an independent review process upon a determination being made as to the status of an inmate from an institutional head.

That independent review mechanism is noticeably lacking in Bill C-83. If the purported objective of Bill C-83 is to respond to court decisions, why the absence?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

As my colleague said, administrative segregation has been widely criticized by stakeholders and has been subject to legal challenges.

This bill will eliminate administrative segregation and replace it with structured intervention units, which provide secure environments for inmates who must be separated from the general prison population to receive targeted interventions and real human interaction.

The bill will also make changes in connection to health care, the management of indigenous offenders, victims' access to audio recordings of parole hearings, and search technology to keep contraband out of prisons. These are the objectives of Bill C-83.

I was here on Friday, like many other colleagues, when we were studying this bill at second reading. We talked about it and we are still talking about it today.

Earlier our colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame said that the purpose of detention centres is to rehabilitate inmates so they can reintegrate into society. Yes, they are there because they have committed a crime, but we need to help them reintegrate into society so they can eventually contribute to it once they have made it through the detention part of their sentence.

The unemployment rate is at its lowest in 40 years. We need all the talent we can get in our society. Once inmates have served their sentence, they need to integrate and participate in our society. This means that, during their incarceration, they must be able to take training and, if they have mental health issues, they need to see the appropriate professionals.

Before I was an MP, I was fortunate to be in business, and I had contracts supplying food to some of the detention centres in my region, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, including the Federal Training Centre in Laval and Leclerc Institution. There were maximum-security and medium-security detention centres, as well as centres for inmates who were nearing the end of their sentence and were getting ready to reintegrate into society. Yes, some inmates do reintegrate into society.

Some of those contacts were with family living units, where people work as a team to learn to cook. When inmates are released from a detention centre, they need to be independent. In short, I had those kinds of interactions, and the ultimate goal was for inmates to be able to reintegrate and participate in society.

As I said earlier, there are maximum-security penitentiaries for inmates who are not yet ready to be transferred to a medium-security centre or a centre where inmates are getting ready to be released.

Mental health services must also be available for people who need them. That is true, and should be one of the first things noted. We need to prepare inmates to return to a normal life in our society and help them get the training they need.

The bill requires inmates in administrative segregation to spend four hours outside their cell so that they have contact with other people in the prison system and health professionals, but also with outside visitors. They need to be able to continue to see people from outside the prison walls if we want them to be able to reintegrate into society. Of course, they also need to continue to have access to training programs.

One of my colleagues said earlier that this bill needs to go further, that we need to continue the debate and that all members need to have an opportunity to express their views.

I would like to continue to talk about the purpose of this bill. Our priority, as a government, is to ensure the safety of Canadians. It seems to me that the Conservatives would be happy to leave people in solitary confinement for years and then send them directly back into our communities. That is what I have been hearing. There are steps to follow, and inmates need to take training.

The best way to protect Canadians, our fellow citizens, is to ensure that offenders serving their sentence in a controlled prison environment, whether it is a minimum, medium or maximum security facility, get the help and treatment they need to reduce their chances of reoffending.

What is more, what we are proposing is very different from the current system. Structured intervention units will double the number of hours inmates spend outside their cells and guarantee them a minimum of two hours a day of real human interaction, whether it be with staff, volunteers, health care providers, seniors, chaplains, visitors or other compatible offenders. Inmates will have daily visits from a health care professional and access to intervention programs and mental health care. That is very important and we need to always keep that in mind. The whole system will be designed so as to address the factors that make the individual a risk and help that individual reintegrate into the general prison population.

In structured intervention units, the conditions and resources available will be different than those in the current system. This bill will also put in place a robust review system. The assignment to a structured intervention unit will be reviewed by the institutional head in the first five days. If the inmate remains there, the head will again review the case after 30 days. The commissioner will also review the case every 30 days after that.

The bill will also allow a professional to recommend at any time a change in conditions or the transfer of an inmate. The objective will always be the inmate's safe reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.

There is more. The bill will also formalize the possibility of having, for example, maximum security and minimum security institutions in the same location. As I mentioned earlier, many years ago I dealt with maximum security and medium security prisons. Institutions will always have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate their security level.

I asked some questions a little earlier. At present, victims do not have access to audio recordings of parole hearings. The bill will change that.

There are also the body scanners. When visitors, inmates or employees enter the institution, the search will be less invasive, but we will be able to scan people to ensure no contraband enters the prison.

We will be very pleased to support Bill C-83, and I hope that my colleagues will have second thoughts about not supporting it.

[Richard Martel, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about Bill C-83 because it is of personal concern to me and because I was asked to do so by a number of correctional officers who told me that they feel as though they were not sufficiently consulted during the drafting of this bill.

If the government would take the time to listen to our correctional officers, it would find that they think eliminating administrative segregation in correctional facilities is a bogus solution to a bogus problem. Administrative segregation is not used as punishment. It is a risk management tool. The threat of solitary confinement must always be present in order to act as a deterrent, guarantee a certain amount of discipline and enforce compliance in correctional institutions. That discipline is essential to the health and safety of our correctional officers.

Segregation is a tool of last resort. By taking that tool away from correctional officers, the government is saying that it does not care about their reality. It does not care that more assaults on officers have happened since the use of segregation was restricted. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has stressed that violence in prison will go up once administrative segregation is scrapped. Union president Jason Godin foresees a bloodbath. Administrative segregation is not used arbitrarily. It is a tool of last resort that protects inmates from others and, sometimes, from themselves.

When a new criminal arrives, conflicts can escalate rapidly. The prison population varies from institution to institution. Sometimes, a new inmate is not welcome, and his new peers will be waiting for him. Administrative segregation is used to ensure that inmate's health and safety until such time as officers find appropriate solutions to de-escalate conflict.

What should be done with an inmate in medium security who becomes more and more violent and has to be transferred to a maximum security institution? Should such an inmate be allowed to keep living by his own rules for four hours a day while awaiting transfer? That makes no sense to me.

Some inmates altogether refuse to join the general population and also refuse the protective wing. How are we supposed to accommodate these inmates, who want peace and quiet, without abusing public funds? Is it a prison or a five-star hotel? What do I tell my constituents who tell me they would rather go to prison than live in a seniors residence? Correctional officers legitimately wonder what they will do. What tools will be at their disposal when administrative segregation is eliminated? The officers fear that there will be an escalation of violence. They fear for their health and safety, but also for the health and safety of the criminals.

Again, what tools will they have to defuse potential retaliations or thwart revenge plots that they may have caught wind of? Are they to leave the inmates to take justice and discipline into their own hands? Correctional officers cannot turn a blind eye and ignore the warnings they get. How are they supposed to enforce compliance? These are bogus solutions to a bogus problem.

The commissioner's directives, including CD 843, already cover exceptions for indigenous and female offenders, and offenders with mental health problems.

Mental health is taken very seriously in prisons. Offenders have access to care, and correctional officers are quickly informed when an offender is struggling with mental health issues. They find out fast. Correctional officers have faith in the commissioner's directives, and they refer to them regularly in the performance of their duties.

Correctional officers already take mental health issues seriously because they know what kind of impact these issues can have. In fact, they or their colleagues have been through it themselves.

Thirty-five percent of first responders, including paramedics, EMTs and correctional officers, will develop symptoms associated with work-related PTSD.

This is not an easy work environment. Officers must sometimes use a lot of psychological tactics to de-escalate conflicts. They may face moral and ethical dilemmas that they would not face in the world outside the prison. For example, it is not easy to be a mother or father and to be around a pedophile every day. One of the worst things that could happen would be for an officer to get to work and learn that an inmate had taken his or her own life. Prison guards face many risks. This kind of situation makes them very susceptible to PTSD.

Last week, I met with veterans and first responders who spoke to me about Project Trauma Support, a new Canadian program that treats post traumatic stress and operational stress injury in military personnel, veterans and first responders. I was deeply touched by their story and how the centre, located in Perth, Ontario, helped them turn their lives around.

It is often very difficult for anyone affected by work-related post-traumatic stress syndrome to access the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, disability insurance or compensation. They may have to wait a long time before accessing counselling or treatment, which is very unfortunate. We know that the earlier problems are addressed, the better the results and the chances to return to active service. Their families also suffer.

My colleagues and I hope that Bill C-211 will provide a comprehensive solution to this scourge.

However, I wonder why Bill C-83 does not say more about the health and safety of our correctional workers.

The Liberal government's history shows that it favours criminals rather than victims. I should not be surprised to find it more interested in the comfort of criminals than the safety of correctional officers.

The government also did not consult the union and employees when it announced a needle exchange pilot project.

I wonder how providing access to needles to take drugs or create tattoos, thereby providing a potential weapon to criminals, can be perceived as being a good thing.

Canadians need to know about the needle exchange program. When an inmate manages to illegally bring a drug into prison, he can ask the nurse for a needle and he will get one. The nurse and the government know very well that the needle will be used for illicit purposes.

The correctional officer does not know that he will be at greater risk during the next check of the inmate's cell. What message are they sending?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit here during last Friday's debate, where I listened to some of the best lawyers and legal minds who are members of Parliament, including the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. When we start listening to the statistics, when we are talking about all these things that are occurring in our correctional system, there are many different things we have to look at. We have extremely diverse opinions here.

One thing we talked about was the fact that correctional officers have not been talked to, so I am going to start with something I put forward last week. It is a quote from my friend Jason, who is a correctional officer. He said, “No profession has hit the toilet [like] corrections in the last several years. Violence, contraband, assault on staff are skyrocketing. Why? Total lack of consequence for behaviour. Eliminating segregation has handcuffed us. Now, no question segregation exacerbates mental health, but we have no choice. Assaultive offenders continue assaulting, and easy victims continue being preyed upon. We continually have people making changes based on concepts, not reality.”

Today we are discussing Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. With the members in this House, I recognize that these views are greatly diverse. I am listening to the questions and answers today. What one member may say goes against my entire moral code on this. We have different ideas on the rights of criminals versus what the rights of victims, the use of segregation versus proposed intervention units, and drugs in prison.

Drugs in prison has become a huge issue. It is not just an issue that has come about in the last 10 years. We can find studies done decades ago that show the same trend. While the Liberals put forward policies for needle exchange programs in the jail, I believe we should focus on getting the drugs out of the jails altogether.

We can talk about safe injection sites. This is a huge debate in Ontario. What do safe injection sites do to communities and what should we be doing to help those who have long-term addictions? One of the things they say is that it is about saving people's lives, getting them back on track, and making sure that people do not die in back alleys.

I am going to remind the government that prisons are not those dark alleys. When we talk about safe injection sites, we are talking about getting people off the streets, putting them into an area where they can have safe injections, and truly hoping that wraparound services are available to them. I question why we are starting at step one and providing safe injection sites in prisons in the first place. Yes, it is a very difficult thing, but this is not a back alley. It is a prison, where there are well-educated, trained and skilled staff who deal with these issues. We should actually be going in a trajectory moving forward, not just compensating for the drugs.

There have been so many concerns about convicted criminals and the use of illegal drugs. We have to keep in mind that we are talking about convicted criminals. We are talking about people who are being put in jail for summary or felony offences and what their lives should be like.

We have talked very much about Tori Stafford and her abuser, the person who murdered her. We have talked about maximum-security and minimum-security. We are talking about a horrific murderer going from a place where there may be institutional walls to a healing lodge. I have heard from hundreds of constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London who are saying that she is living a better life than they are.

When talking to Canadians, a lot of times it is one of the things they are going to say, that people in jail have a better life than they do. They get meals, they get their hydro paid for, all those things that some people living in poverty, and especially in our middle class, have to deal with every day.

I want to continue with the segregation part. Yes, I believe there are extreme situations where we must look at the use of segregation. Sometimes it is used to protect the criminal from the rest of the population, and other times it is used because an offender is a danger to the rest of the population, including the guards.

In a court decision by Justice Marrocco, he found that administrative segregation itself was constitutional. Of course, we are going to have others who believe that this is cruel and unusual punishment. There are parties that will disagree with this whole philosophy and say that we cannot segregate people and that they need to have personal time and the humanity side of it.

I have a problem when talking about this. We are talking about humanity for someone who is alive versus humanity for somebody who may have been murdered or is disabled for the rest of his or her life because of a criminal. I think the mother in me is asking, “Where is the justice here?”

Those are some of my key priorities when we are looking at this.

I have always believed in putting victims first. I think we have lost that side of this debate, because we are always asking what can we do to rehabilitate these criminals. I totally agree that there are some criminals who can be rehabilitated, but there are those people who have done horrific things, and we are sitting here saying that they have to have poetry readings and they have to learn how to cook and their lives will be better. We have to take a really hard look at ourselves and ask if we are really going to manage that. It is a compassionate idea, but it is not reality.

We have to recognize that crimes have a harmful impact on victims and on society. A bill was put forward by the last government on the Victims Bill of Rights. It is something I want to share with the House today.

When I work for the people of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I work for victims' families 100% of the time to make sure that they are taken care of. I am going to read the preamble of the bill to the House:

Whereas victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, including respect for their dignity;

Whereas it is important that victims' rights be considered throughout the criminal justice system;

Whereas victims of crime have rights that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

Whereas consideration of the rights of victims of crime is in the interest of the proper administration of justice;

Whereas the federal, provincial and territorial governments share responsibility for criminal justice;

Whereas, in 1988, the federal, provincial and territorial governments endorsed the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and, in 2003, the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, 2003;

All this being said, I recognize that some circumstances should be reviewed, including sexual violence and abuse. A lot of times when we are talking about vulnerable communities in these institutions, there may be issues that put people in there in the first place.

Not everyone agrees with the use of Gladu reports, but if we have Gladu reports, with appropriate writers, people who understand how to write a Gladu report, they can put all that imperative information forward at sentencing to decide how the person should be treated.

We talk a lot about truth and reconciliation. We recognize that we have had residential schools and that there has been intergenerational trauma. By no means am I saying that the person should not be looked at a bit differently. I am saying that. That may go against what some of my fellow Conservative colleagues may agree with, but I think these are things we have to go forward with. We have to look at all of these things. Gladu reports are something I support.

I will return to my friend's quote and the concern about drugs and contraband in jails. We need to find a solution. Is the solution making sure that we have needle exchange programs? For me, the concept of scanners is a positive option to find out what is actually entering prisons. We know that we have a problem. What is the reason, and how can we find a solution? The concept of these scanners is really positive. I look at them as a solution.

I want to go back to my daughter, who has graduated from the protection, security and investigation program. She has had the opportunity to work in some different facilities. She is currently working in security with a large company, and she works on a hotline dealing with victims of crime. Her bottom line is, and this is a quote from Marissa, "There is something missing, and drugs continue to get into the jails".

In putting in scanners, should we be expanding that to guests as well? As a graduate and employee in the security field, Marissa's concern about drugs in jails has only been elevated since she graduated, because she sees it more and more each and every day.

We have a big social issue in these places. We always have to remind ourselves that we have to be there for the victims of crime, because they have had their rights taken away. Some people see justice differently. I see justice as the fact that I would want to know that if someone murdered my child, he or she would remain in jail for a long time.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke quite a bit in her speech about the importance of safety. However, an aspect of segregation and solitary confinement is safety, the safety of not only the inmate who is the target of other inmates but the safety of inmates who may be at risk from the inmate who is to be segregated. It is also a safety issue for the guards and personnel who work in those facilities.

I am curious as to what measures the Liberals have taken. We have certainly heard from the employee unions that are involved, which have great concerns about parts of Bill C-83. I would like to ask the minister what steps the government has taken to ensure the safety of those guards. If steps have been taken to ensure their safety, why are they so concerned about the steps being taken in Bill C-83 to eliminate solitary confinement?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, it is a joy to be here today in support of Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

I heard some of the debate this afternoon, and I would say we all share the goal of safe communities. We all want to be secure in the knowledge that when offenders return to their communities, our corrections system has done its job, supported their rehabilitation and prepared them to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives.

For the corrections system to succeed in that regard, safety and security have to go hand in hand with rehabilitative programming and treatment.

I am proud to stand here today and know that principle is at the core of the bold new measures the government is taking to transform federal corrections. Bill C-83 will strengthen the federal corrections system, making it safer and more effective at rehabilitation. The bill will end the practice of segregation. It will establish structured intervention units, or SIUs, to safely manage inmates when they cannot otherwise be managed in the mainstream inmate population, without denying them access to programs, interventions and treatment.

Bill C-83 will also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. It will also strengthen health care governance, allow for the use of new search technologies, and enhance support for victims at parole hearings.

Key to this landmark legislation is that with SIUs, the practice of segregation will become a thing of the past. Currently, if an offender is considered dangerous to themselves or others, or is at risk of being harmed, they can be placed in segregation if there is no other reasonable alternative. Segregation has remained a common practice over the years.

Recent policy changes by the Correctional Service of Canada led to a significant decline in segregation placements, from over 700 on any given day a few years ago, to just over 300 today. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the practice remains subject to criticism in and out of the courts. Stakeholders, including the Office of the Correctional Investigator and offender advocacy groups, have raised concern about its effects, particularly on inmates suffering from mental health issues.

In the courts, recent decisions in both Ontario and British Columbia called for legislative reform to the practice, and they have called for improvements to the provision of mental health services within corrections institutions. All of this is on top of class actions and human rights complaints.

At the same time, others have argued that segregation is necessary to ensure that correctional institutions remain safe for employees and for people in custody. The safety of correctional staff must always be an overarching consideration. Our correctional institutions are full of dedicated, hard-working staff who work long hours in sometimes very challenging circumstances to make a positive difference by promoting rehabilitation and protecting communities.

Until now, they have had very few alternatives to segregation when isolating an inmate for security or safety reasons. However, we now have an opportunity to address this problem. Bill C-83 will eliminate segregation altogether and establish structured intervention units. These SIUs will provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in difficult circumstances. They will help to manage offenders who could not otherwise be managed safely.

In an SIU, inmates will receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs. Every day, they will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell, and that will include at least two hours of meaningful human interaction.

In the existing segregation system, by contrast, people only get two hours out of their cell and little or no meaningful interaction with other people. With Bill C-83, offenders will have the ability to work towards the objectives in their correctional plans, thanks to a focus on interventions. They will have daily visits from health care professionals. Ultimately, the idea is to facilitate safe reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.

To that end, placements in SIUs will be subject to a robust system of review. An initial review by the institution's warden will happen within five days. If the person remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews will be done by the warden after 30 days and by the commissioner every 30 days thereafter. Also, at any time, a health care professional can recommend a change in conditions or a transfer out of the SIU.

Importantly, the bill would also enshrine in law the principle that health care professionals within the correctional system must have the autonomy to exercise their own medical judgment. As recommended by the Ashley Smith inquest, it would create a system of patient advocates who would help ensure that people got the medical treatment they needed.

For all these reasons, Bill C-83 would represent a substantial change in the right direction. We have an opportunity to act now to improve correctional outcomes, reduce violent incidents and ensure a safe environment for inmates, staff, volunteers and the institutions as a whole. We have the opportunity to contribute to community and public safety by supporting bold new proposals that would assist with the rehabilitation of offenders, reducing the risk of reoffending and keeping our communities safe.

I urge all members to join me in supporting these very important changes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague across the aisle.

Bill C-83 does actually contain legislation that is quite progressive. At present, victims have the right to access audio recordings of parole hearings only if they do not attend. However, some people fear that given the emotional nature of those hearings, it might be hard for victims to recall all the details of the proceedings. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on that.

I wonder if he could also talk about body scanners. In an effort to combat drugs and contraband, the bill authorizes the use of body scanners, like the the ones used at airports, which will be less intrusive for inmates and visitors.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. I will start by saying that it should come as no surprise that this side of the House feels quite differently than the government side with respect to the legislation.

One of the more profound statements I have recently read on this was in a newspaper article by Jason Godin, national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. He was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying, “attacks on guards and inmates have been increasing as the use of segregation has decreased ahead of new legislation to change the prison system.” His words are profound, likely prophetic, when he says, “When this goes through, the bloodbath will start.” That was his prediction with respect to this legislation. We should all heed the advice of somebody like Mr. Godin as we look at enacting legislation that has some serious flaws with respect to the protection of prison guards and what the implications of that could mean for them and their families.

Bill C-83 proposes to make changes to how inmates are treated when incarcerated. It also makes changes to that which will affect the safety of corrections staff, guards, health care providers and others. We must remember as well that it is not just guards in the prison system. There are health care providers and resource people who work there as well. It should be the ultimate goal of any legislation to ensure we protect them.

The bill proposes that new safety procedures be put in place. The government believes it will keep inmates safe and prevent any unwanted items from getting into correctional facilities. The government is also planning to introduce body scanners to federal penitentiaries. As well, it is very keen to discuss the SIUs, the new model for the structured intervention units, a replacement for solitary confinement, formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with mental health issues. All of these exceptions are important to having correctional services that can obviously help offenders while they are in jail.

Let me take a few minutes to speak specifically about solitary confinement. I have no knowledge or any sort of familiarity with it, but the use of solitary confinement is a serious one. It is used for serious criminals who are convicted of some of the worst crimes that anyone can imagine. The need for the use of solitary confinement must also be balanced with the care that the inmate receives and, more important, the safety of the guards and other staff within the prison system.

Sadly, in some cases, the use of solitary confinement has been abused. In Ontario, for example, two official offices have investigated the use of solitary confinement. First, the provincial advocate for youth published a report in 2017 called, “Missed Opportunities: The Experience of Young Adults Incarcerated in Federal Penitentiaries”. The report called for sweeping changes to how youth were treated in federal institutions.

Among some of the key recommendations in the report were that Correctional Service Canada, CSC, add a flag in the offender management system that would allow the CSC to track individuals with a youth sentence transferred to an adult federal penitentiary; that CSC develop a gang disaffiliation strategy that would be responsive to the needs of young indigenous offenders, women offenders as well; and ensure that non-gang affiliated young offenders were not placed where there would be gang members who might attempt to recruit, indoctrinate or intimidate them.

The Ontario chief human rights commissioner also wrote about the use of solitary confinement and added that there was, in that case, a need for a culture shift in how indigenous prisoners, women prisoners and prisoners with mental health issues were treated. Of course, many in the House and those who have followed this closely will recall the tragic incident involving solitary confinement in the case of Adam Capay.

Adam Capay spent four years in solitary confinement while waiting for a trial, and he had not even been convicted while he was in solitary. It is a very sad story. Adam was held in solitary for 23 hours a day with the lights on, and was in solitary for more than four years when we combine his time in the Thunder Bay facility with time in the Kenora jail. We can all agree that what happened to Mr. Capay and what he went through should never happen again.

The Ontario government looked into this following reports by the chief human rights commissioner on the treatment of Adam Capay in Thunder Bay. Solitary confinement is a common and legitimate safety measure that protects guards from dangerous prisoners. Solitary confinement is also a tool for keeping other inmates safe from dangerous offenders, but again, we should all agree that it should never be abused.

What about the guards? What about the health care providers? What about the staff and those who work within the prison system, including mental health professionals, for example?

It has been stated by others on this side of the House that Bill C-83 does not take into consideration the safety of corrections staff. The men and women who work in those institutions deserve to be able to go home every day to their husbands, their wives, and their children. The spouses, parents and children of corrections workers deserve to have their spouses, daughters, sons and parents in a safe workplace.

Bill C-83 would give more flexibility to the lives of inmates while almost maintaining the status quo for staff. The bill would take away solitary confinement as a tool. As I just mentioned, it is also used to protect other staff and other inmates from very dangerous inmates and extremely critical and dangerous situations. Bill C-83 would do nothing to deter the bad behaviour of inmates.

When we look at some of the financial implications of how this bill is being rolled out, I wonder if what is being proposed in Bill C-83 strikes the balance of what we need when it comes to the use of solitary confinement.

There has been no cost assigned or studied in Bill C-83. I wonder if what the government wants to achieve with this bill can be fully met, considering the reduction in funding to federal correctional services. There will be a very large impact, with up to 150 full-time employees lost through reductions in budgets.

On Thursday of last week, my colleague from Calgary Shepard raised important issues about the cost of Bill C-83. He also raised some serious concerns that the government is reducing budgets for Correctional Service Canada.

Let me read what the member for Calgary Shepard said when he asked the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith a question, because he expressed it far better than I can:

[I]n reading the British Columbia decision rendered by Justice Leask he looked at the cruel and unusual punishment provision and said, in paragraph 534, that it is actually not cruel and unusual. He declines to rule against it as a section 12 violation. He finds that it is not unconstitutional to have solitary confinement, only when it is indefinite and prolonged.

The member for Calgary Shepard continued:

I want to talk about the budgetary impact of this legislation. In the public safety minister's departmental plan there is a projected reduction of 8.8% in real terms, in actual financial resources, being given to Correctional Services, and a reduction of 150 FTEs over the next few years.

This bill seems rushed; it is thin on concrete actions and needs to be looked at long and hard at committee. I know that when we vote on this later tonight, there is a strong likelihood that it will pass at this reading and end up at committee, but when it gets there, serious work will need to be done, in particular in relation to making sure that correctional facilities staff are better protected.

Members of the opposition and the NDP have all expressed concerns with respect to Bill C-83 that need to be discussed in committee. The Conservatives are very concerned that the government is again giving priority to dangerous offenders; this needs public scrutiny and to be talked about at committee.

As I close, I will quote some words of wisdom from the member for Spadina—Fort York, who said, “No one wants to be in jail.” Well, some people deserve to be in jail.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Although I do believe he has good intentions, I am still a little confused, so I am hoping he can clarify a few things for me.

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the indefinite nature of isolation is unconstitutional. While it has introduced Bill C-83 as a solution to the problem, the government is also appealing the ruling at the same time.

If solutions to this problem, which has been deemed unconstitutional, can be found in Bill C-83, why is the government appealing the ruling?

Are we supposed to believe that the introduction of structured intervention units is really going to address the concerns raised in the court ruling, when really all this does is reduce the number of hours spent in isolation from 22 or 23 to “just” 20 hours a day?

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, again, I come back to my opening statement about how things connect, like Bill C-83 connects with my meeting today with the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention and with my seatmate talking about indigenous efforts and isolation.

Bill C-83 would provide a different approach and eliminate solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is probably worse than anything indigenous women experience. Indigenous peoples in my area are family-oriented, have a strong family culture, work together and are very close. To be in solitary confinement or isolated completely would be extremely difficult for indigenous women. I cannot speak for them, but that is my observation based on my experience.

I have a really interesting indigenous population in my riding. I work very closely with the people. They are extremely good to work with and very helpful. They are interested in bettering themselves. They are perhaps the most industrious people in my riding. Hopefully this will improve the plight of indigenous women in prison.

[Eva Nassif, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impressive speech.

I sit on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We heard witnesses from the indigenous community. We noted that a large number of indigenous women who are victims of domestic violence are in prison.

Can my colleague explain how Bill C-83 will improve living conditions for women who are victims of domestic violence knowing that a great many of them are in prison?

[Bill Casey, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand and speak in support of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

It is amazing to me how things connect here in the House of Commons in our parliamentary duties. Bill C-83 today ended up in a discussion with the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention. Bill C-83 also has a direct connection to a town in my riding. It has direct connections to first nations issues as well.

I am going to talk about a few different things. I am going to talk about how this affects my own community and also a little about the health impact of Bill C-83.

In my own community, in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, I have two correctional facilities. One is the Springhill Institution and the other is the Nova Institution for Women in Truro, Nova Scotia.

I will talk about Springhill first. That institution was built in 1967.

Partly in response to a natural disaster that happened at a coal mine on October 23, 1958, 60 years ago today, in Springhill, 174 miners went to work. At 8:06 in the evening, there was an underground earthquake, which is sometimes called a bump. It was the most severe bump in North American history in one of the deepest coal mines in North America. Of the 174 who went to work that day, 75 lost their lives. There were 99 survivors, and many of them were trapped underground for many days. Six days after the bump, 12 survivors were rescued by creating a tunnel to get them. Later, on November 1, a second group was saved. That was 60 years ago today, and I want everybody to know that Springhill is remembering that bump today as we speak. Many people who work at the Springhill correctional facility are relatives and descendants of the miners who were lost 60 years ago today.

They never forget in Springhill about the people who were lost. They built a beautiful memorial with a number of stones with every name of every miner who lost his or her life in the mines. Every year they have a Davis Day to make sure that people do not forget the lives lost in the Springhill mines. Tonight, at 7 p.m., in the St. Andrew's-Wesley United Church there is a hymn sing led by three daughters of one of the miners, Maurice Ruddick, who was one of the miners trapped underground. He is often credited with helping other survivors underground survive that ordeal. Being trapped 4,000 feet underground, he led them in song and prayer. He was cited as citizen of the year for Canada at the time. Just a month ago, Herb Pepperdine, one of the last men in the mine who was trapped for eight days, died at the age of 95.

Therefore, for me, today is a special day, and 60 years ago, I remember the day. I remember the ambulances, the police cars, the turmoil and the TV. Just two years before that, there was another explosion when 39 Springhillers were lost. In just two years, Springhill lost 114 miners.

However, the Springhill Institution was built and opened in 1967. It has been very successful since and has expanded several times. It provides correctional facilities for medium- and minimum-security prisoners.

I mentioned the connections with the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention. I talked to them today about suicide prevention and what causes people to attempt suicide. Also, earlier this morning, I was talking to my seatmate for Kildonan—St. Paul and she was telling me about a first nation in her riding in Manitoba, the Berens River First Nation. She gave me a document that reads “Isolation with no road access Kills (feeling of 'entrapment' resulting in high suicides)”, which is exactly what we are talking about today: isolation, confinement, solitary confinement and the impact it has on prisoners.

Not all prisoners should be in prison for their whole life, as some opposition members would lead us to believe. I have visited the prison in my riding several times, and often I am struck that the prisoners are just regular people who made a mistake. They want to get back into society. They want to be rehabilitated. They want a second chance and they are certainly entitled it. It is certainly worth the effort to try to help them.

Bill C-83 will take steps to eliminate solitary confinement, which is harmful to people. One of the members just said that prisons needed solitary confinement, and I do not believe that. Bill C-83 proposes to do away with solitary confinement and replace it with structured intervention units, so at least prisoners will always have some human contact with health care workers, guards or other people, as opposed to solitary confinement where there is no contact at all.

In my area, just a short way from my riding, there is Dorchester Penitentiary, the Westmorland Institution and the Shepody Healing Centre. These are three different institutions, with three different levels and approaches to rehabilitation and incarceration. I am hopeful the rehabilitative nature of these facilities will be enhanced and built on. That is the way we should go. I do not believe there is any point in putting people who have just made a mistake away, throwing away the key as some members have suggested here.

A 2017 report from Correctional Service Canada noted that Atlantic Canada had the highest rate of administrative segregation, or solitary confinement, in the country. In addition to that, we seem to segregate them for longer terms than their counterparts in other regions of the country.

Five percent of Atlantic Canada's inmates are in administrative segregation, which is five times higher than in Ontario. The same report also noted that Atlantic Canada accounted for more than one-third of all inmates who were in administrative segregation for more than 100 days. A hundred days in segregation is extremely unhealthy for anybody. It is perhaps cruel and unusual punishment.

I welcome Bill C-83 and the change to a structured intervention unit. This is a giant step forward. It will be better for rehabilitation, better for health and safer for prison guards, the other prisoners and the people who work beside them. I am glad we are moving forward on it.

Our government intends to invest heavily in mental health care within the correctional system, and I am talking exactly about that. I referred to the paper that said that isolation caused a feeling of entrapment, resulting in high suicides. This first nation community I mentioned had a high rate of suicide. After a road was built to it, the feeling of isolation was eliminated and suicides stopped. There were no suicides last year in this community. Prior to that there had been many. The indigenous peoples attributed it to the fact that they no longer have the feeling of isolation or entrapment, which is exactly what solitary confinement does.

Again, in the interest of mental health, we are moving in the right direction. This is a great move to follow through on, but I also support rehabilitative steps so people can re-enter society and play a productive role in it.

The prisoners I meet when I go to the prisons impress me. Most of them have just made a mistake. They are serving their time. They want to get back out. They want to play a role in the community and be productive citizens. The bill is all about that.

We know the administrative segregation rules need updating, and Bill C-83 would do just that. By replacing solitary confinement with structured intervention units, we are going to provide better avenues for our inmates to be productive citizens, finish their terms and come out better trained and be productive citizens.

I thank the House for letting me talk about Springhill. Again, this is the 60th anniversary of that horrible disaster on October 23, 1958. I wish all the people in Springhill, who I know are remembering this right now, well. I wish I were there with them.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, a position I used to hold.

To start with, I want to say that I will be vigorously opposing this bill. With respect to the point raised a moment ago by my colleague, I would like to remind her that the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Jason Godin, has already pointed out the detrimental effects that this bill would have on security in our correctional institutions. He says that the number of assaults on prison guards by inmates has increased as a result of the reduced use of segregation under the new legislation that has been tabled.

I am strongly opposed to this bill, because its very basis is wrong. The first reason I oppose this bill is that it makes our correctional facilities less safe. I am sure members on both sides of the House would join me in acknowledging the remarkable work that our correctional officers do. Much like parents raising children, our correctional officers need respect. Our role, as parliamentarians, is to give them tools to ensure that they get respect, which is essential to keeping our correctional facilities safe. Unfortunately, this bill would weaken the tools available to our correctional officers.

I commend these officers, and I want them to know that I oppose this bill, because it will make our facilities less safe and will put our correctional officers at greater risk.

The second reason I oppose the bill is that any legislation meant to improve our correctional services needs to take into account a fundamental principle that is missing from this bill. The conditions of detention must reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and must also reflect each individual inmate's risk level. This bill is clearly misguided because it removes tools that help our correctional officers keep our facilities safe.

The third reason I oppose this bill is that it does not contain any significant rehabilitation measures. I remind members that our correctional facilities are meant to ensure that when an inmate is released back into society, he or she is able to contribute to this society again.

With less respect, less safety and, unfortunately, more violence in our correctional facilities, it will be harder for inmates to focus on their rehabilitation.

As members have mentioned, Bill C-83 seeks to eliminate the use of administrative and disciplinary segregation. The Liberals are fixated on that. It seems that those who drafted the bill never had an opportunity, as I did when I was minister of public safety and as our public safety critic did, to simply go and visit correctional facilities to talk to correctional officers and inmates. Our public safety critic and I had the opportunity to meet with inmates who told us to leave this measure in place because it is good for their mental health.

Sometimes inmates need to be alone and to get away from others for awhile. There are some inmates who ask to be sent to administrative segregation, as I witnessed first-hand. We therefore see that the Liberals are taking tools away from correctional officers and inmates that help with inmates' rehabilitation.

What the Liberals are proposing instead is another mechanism for incarcerating inmates who cannot remain in the general inmate population for safety reasons.

This bill will require Correctional Service Canada to give inmates access to patient advocacy services and consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making.

That brings me to the Liberal approach. It took the Liberals 10 months to appoint a federal ombudsman for victims of crime, but far less time to appoint an ombudsman for criminals. That is definitely not in the interest of society. The government should make victims a priority too, but for the past three years, the government has been silent on that subject. Navigating the justice system is a painful experience for victims, and the government needs to make sure they get the support and respect they deserve.

I just want to point out that our government was the one that brought in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and thank goodness we did, because the Liberals are not doing anything, on top of which they are taking ages to fill key positions. Clearly, the government does not think victims are all that important.

This bill has other flaws. It seeks not only to get rid of administrative segregation, but also to have body scanners installed. We do not take issue with that idea, but we do have a problem with how this is being handled. We know that a lot of contraband is smuggled into our penal institutions by visitors. It is therefore equally important to include those people in these measures. If the bill gets to committee, I would hope that these measures are given another look.

What is more, instead of giving inmates tools to overcome addiction, the Liberals are doing the opposite and providing them with syringes. We know that having syringes in penitentiaries is dangerous for our correctional officers considering the spread of disease associated with their use and the fact that they might even be used against correctional officers. That is something the bill ignores, but the government is okay with that.

I hope that the government will get back on track and, like our government, have a zero tolerance policy instead of aggravating inmates' health problems. It is important that the government, as legislator, send a clear message about the presence of drugs in our institutions. Everyone remembers the measures our government put in place.

Superior court judges ruled recently on the appropriateness of administrative segregation. I wonder if, much like the members opposite, those judges even bothered to go and speak with officers and corrections officers. Today my colleagues asked the minister, her representatives and other government members if they consulted officers and corrections officers, since this will have a serious impact on their work environment. We have heard nothing but radio silence so far in response.

I have so much more I want to say, but I see that I am running out of time, and I would not want to repeat what I have said in the past, which has been reported by my friends at Infoman.

In closing, I want share Jason Godin's view. He said that introducing this legislation could have a detrimental affect on conditions in our prison facilities, increase violence and make the situation worse. The government is going in the wrong direction and I urge it to change course. For now, I oppose this legislative measure.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is more of a comment than a question for my friend from Oakville North—Burlington. Given her speech and the commitment to work on amendments in committee, I am changing my vote and I will vote for Bill C-83 at second reading.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.

I certainly do not claim to be an expert in this area, though I have very definite ideas about rehabilitation. However, two courts have ruled that certain measures are unconstitutional. I have to admit that I do not see which measures in Bill C-83 will keep us from ending up in court again. I am not an expert, so I would like the member to enlighten me.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lend my voice to the debate today in support of Bill C-83, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We all want our communities to be safe, and we all want to be secure in the knowledge that when offenders return to the community, our corrections system will have supported their rehabilitation and prepared them to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives. Our government believes that for the corrections system to succeed in that regard, safety and security must go hand in hand with rehabilitative programming and treatment. Today, I am proud to know that principle is at the core of the bold new measures the government is taking to transform federal corrections.

Bill C-83 would strengthen the federal corrections system, making it safer and more effective at rehabilitation. The bill would end the practice of segregation. It would establish structured intervention units, or SIUs, to safely manage inmates when they cannot otherwise be managed in the mainstream inmate population, without denying them access to programs, interventions and treatment.

Bill C-83 would also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. This change reflects testimony we heard at both the status of women and public safety committees, and I am very pleased to see this included in the proposed legislation. Bill C-83 would strengthen health care governance, allow for the use of new search technologies and enhance support for victims at parole hearings.

Key to this landmark legislation is that with SIUs, the practice of segregation would become a thing of the past. Currently, if an offender is considered dangerous to themselves or others, or is at risk of being harmed, they can be placed in segregation if there is no other reasonable alternative. Segregation has remained a common practice over the years. Recently, policy changes by the Correctional Service of Canada led to a significant decline in segregation placements, from over 700 on any given day a few years ago to just over 300 today.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that stakeholders, including the Office of the Correctional Investigator, advocacy groups, the Ashley Smith inquest and the courts, have raised concern about its effects, particularly on inmates suffering from mental health issues. I have seen a segregation unit in a maximum security prison. I cannot imagine a human being left there hour upon hour, day after day. Imagine a room with a bed, or more like a cot, a toilet and sink, and maybe a small desk attached to the wall, which might or might not have a seat, and being confined there for 22 hours a day with limited to no human contact.

In the courts, recent decisions in both Ontario and British Columbia called for legislative reform to the practice. They have also called for improvements to the provision of mental health services within corrections. At the same time, others have argued that segregation is necessary to ensure that correctional institutions remain safe for their employees and the people in custody. The safety of correctional staff must always be an overarching consideration. Our correctional institutions are full of dedicated staff who work long hours in challenging circumstances to make a positive difference by promoting rehabilitation and protecting communities.

As a member of the public safety committee, I have had the opportunity to tour a number of corrections facilities across the country and to get to know many of the men and women who work in the corrections system, including the commissioner and correctional investigator, regional managers, wardens, corrections officers, parole officers, aboriginal liaison officers, program officers, nurses and more. They work incredibly hard with very little recognition, working day in and day out to rehabilitate those in our corrections system. They develop correctional plans for offenders to ensure that they are receiving programming throughout their sentences. They are passionate about their work and often make a real difference in the lives of offenders so that they can become more productive and healthy members of society upon their release.

Until now, correctional staff had few alternatives to segregation when having to isolate an inmate for safety reasons. We now have an opportunity to address that problem. Bill C-83 would eliminate segregation altogether and establish structured intervention units. These SIUs would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in difficult circumstances. They would help manage offenders who could not otherwise be safely managed. In an SIU, an inmate would receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs. Every day, they would have a minimum of four hours outside their cell, including at least two hours of meaningful human interaction.

In the existing segregation system, by contrast, people get only two hours out of the cell and little or no meaningful interaction with other people.

I find some of the rhetoric on the bill coming from my Conservative colleagues to be disturbing. I have heard my colleagues on the opposition benches argue that the bill would make life easier for offenders in corrections facilities. I have said it before in the House and I will say it again. I believe it is essential that our system does all within its power to rehabilitate offenders, if only because we know that it leads to lower recidivism rates and ultimately makes all Canadians safer.

As my friend Stan Stapleton, president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, has said with regard to the bill:

There is evidence that shows that strong rehabilitative programs make communities safer and create a safer environment for both employees and offenders inside institutions...The reality is these offenders--almost all of them--will return to the community. And so if we simply lock them up and throw away the key, we're not providing them with the tools that they require in order to safely reintegrate back into society.

I could not agree more and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill. With Bill C-83, offenders will have the ability to work toward the objectives in the correctional plan thanks to a focus on intervention so they are better placed to become productive members of society once they are released. I think we can all agree that this is good for the public safety of Canadians.

With these changes, offenders will have daily visits from health care professionals. Ultimately the idea is to facilitate safe reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.

To that end, placements in SIUs will be subject to a robust system of review. An initial review will happen within five days by the institution's warden. If the person remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews will be done by the warden after 30 days and by the commissioner every 30 days thereafter. Also, at any time a health care professional can recommend a change in conditions or a transfer out of the SIU.

Importantly, the bill also proposes to enshrine in law the principle that health care professionals within the corrections system must have the autonomy to exercise their own medical judgment. As recommended by the Ashley Smith inquest, it creates a system of patient advocates who will help ensure people get the medical treatment they need.

Having spent considerable time studying this issue at the committees on which I serve and having visited several corrections facilities, I can say with confidence that Bill C-83 represents a substantial change in the right direction. We have the opportunity to act now to improve correctional outcomes, reduce violent incidents and ensure a safe environment for inmates, staff, volunteers and the institutions as a whole.

We have the opportunity to contribute to community and public safety by supporting bold new proposals that assist with the rehabilitation of offenders, reducing the risk of reoffending and keeping our communities safe.

I look forward to the opportunity to study the bill further at committee and I urge all members to join me in supporting these important changes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to take the floor after that ruling, but I am pleased that we can pursue that other matter through other channels.

I am here now to address Bill C-83. I appreciate that the Liberal Party gave me a time slot, in recognition of the fact that there has been an allocation of time on debate and I otherwise might not have been able to speak to this at all. I wish to go on record, and I am not feeling any sense of cognitive dissonance in doing this, to thank the government party for allowing me to speak for 10 minutes, and I also wish that the government party had not decided to use time allocation on Bill C-83.

In any case, this bill comes to us in a context I want to address first, which is a political context and a political climate that has been created by recent debates in this place, in which, I regret to say, I felt demeaned. I felt displaced, demeaned and diminished by a tactic of the official opposition to turn the House of Commons into sort of a secondary chamber for the review of punishments meted out through the proper system, the courts of law. We have taken days and had people's names and the horrors of gruesome, cruel murders repeated on the floor of this place.

There is clearly some thought in some quarters here that it is a good campaign tactic to talk about punishment a lot and to regret when our correctional system responds in ways that might appear to some as lenient. However, we are a country built on the rule of law. We recognize that our prison system is not merely for punishment. We have to have this discussion, I think, fairly constantly. What is the point of our correctional system? What is the point of our prison system?

As many MPs have said on the floor of this place today in response to Bill C-83, many of the people in our prison system are going to re-enter society. We would like them to re-enter society with the life skills they will need to be contributing members of society, having paid, in that terminology, their debt to society.

It is in that context, where on one end of the political extreme we are told that we have become too lenient towards prisoners, that we turn our attention to an appalling situation, where rights have been infringed and lives have been lost through the failure of the prison system to handle certain kinds of prisoners, those who find themselves in likely incarceration in solitary confinement.

Of course, this bill comes to us in the context of one of the most egregious of those examples, again, as has been mentioned in this place today, the case of Ashley Smith. I think we forget sometimes how horrific her death was, how hard her life was, how hard her mother tried to help her and how the prison system made her survival impossible.

The coroner's inquest into Ashley Smith's death found that although she died from self-inflicted choking, while the guards watched, the context and the circumstances of her death amounted to a homicide. That coroner provided 104 recommendations.

We also know of the cases of Adam Capay, a young indigenous man who spent 1,600 days in solitary confinement; or Richard Wolfe, who did not actually die in solitary but collapsed in a prison exercise yard, at 40 years old, having spent 640 days in solitary confinement; or another indigenous man whose case comes to mind, Eddie Snowshoe, who spent 162 days in solitary confinement before hanging himself.

We can note from those cases that it is quite often those with mental health issues, those who are marginalized, those who are racialized and particularly those who are indigenous who end up in solitary confinement. Therefore, it is certainly welcome that the Minister of Public Safety has brought to this place a bill that promises to end this ongoing stain on the reputation of Canada as a civilized country. Solitary confinement for those lengths of times has been found internationally to constitute torture, and we are a people who are convinced that we do not practise torture.

Therefore, I am sad to share my disappointment with this bill and my concern that we do not have it right yet.

Coralee Cusack-Smith, mother of Ashley Smith, speaking for her family on Bill C-83, said “it's a sham and a travesty that it's done in Ashley's name. It's just a different name for segregation. It's not ending segregation. Not ending segregation for anyone with mental health issues. It's just a new name.”

It seems that the fact it is merely a rebranding is reflected in a statement by the hon. Senator Kim Pate who, having spent time before entering the other place to dedicating her life to the fair treatment of women prisoners, in particular through the Elizabeth Fry Society, described Bill C-83 as disappointing and even as weakening the limitations on how often a segregated prisoner can experience solitary confinement. We have this idea that structured intervention units will be entirely different from solitary confinement. I hope they will be. I have to say that it is one place where I would like to emphasize the positive in this place.

I was a member of Parliament, at the same desk, in the same chair, for an opposition party through the 41st Parliament. I could add up on the fingers of one hand the number of times I saw a single amendment made to a government bill. In a four-year term of a majority government under Stephen Harper, bills were rammed through from start to finish without a single amendment. Therefore, I will credit the current government and the administration of the current Prime Minister with being more open to amendments. However, it is a mixed bag. Some bills I would have been so happy to support if they only had been amended enough to make them acceptable. Bill C-69, the environmental assessment omnibus bill, is in that category. It is a tragedy that the Liberals did not get that one right. It will be a tragedy if we collectively in the House do not get it right on this one.

We have an obligation as a civilized society to re-examine what we mean by “incarceration” and “corrections” in the criminal justice system and what the purpose of incarceration is. In the 41st Parliament, the former government got rid of prison chaplains in that system. It got rid of prison farms where some prisoners could have the first experience in their lives of a day outdoors doing an honest day's labour. I suppose it is ironic that an honest day's labour took place in a prison farm context. However, those programs were killed by the previous government.

The prison system in our country cannot just be seen as a place where some parts of the political spectrum can score political points by talking about life being too easy there for people who have committed heinous crimes, as the language always describes them. I am not sympathizing with criminals. I support the rights of victims. However, it is not an effective prison system if it kills people who have committed minor crimes, who become stuck in a Möbius loop where they cannot get help. We have to break that cycle now. We have to find ways to focus our prison system on fairness, respect, reconciliation and rehabilitation. This is not the stuff of bleeding hearts; this is what makes a society whole. This is what allows people who have been in prison to come back out and function in a civilized society and not pass on the patterns of behaviour they have experienced to their family and children.

I have hope for Bill C-83. I will do everything I can at committee, and everything I can by working with members of the groups who have given their lives to this, whether it be the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and those very brave people who have been incarcerated and are willing to come forward to say, “This is what would have helped me. This is how it did not help me.”

Yes, a prison system is to ensure that people pay their debt to society and are punished for things that are morally indefensible and a huge assault on our society. However, there are also a lot of people in prison who have committed relatively minor crimes who, if they were wealthier and had better lawyers, might not be there. There, but for the grace of God, go members and I. Therefore, let us fix Bill C-83.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-83, I will focus mainly on administrative segregation because it is one of the key measures that should have been greatly improved. Unfortunately, we are not seeing this improvement.

There are two rulings on the use of administrative segregation that, in essence, have profoundly challenged the use of this technique because of the psychological and psychiatric effects it can have on people. For example, a number of studies show that administrative segregation could trigger or aggravate certain psychiatric symptoms such as hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, depression, impulsiveness, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, self-harm, insomnia and problems with thinking, concentration and memory. The use of administrative segregation increases the risk of suicidal thoughts and suicide.

In light of all that, the government should have engaged in a profound re-evaluation of the circumstances justifying the use of administrative segregation as well as the guidelines for the duration and supervision of this practice, among other things. Unfortunately, there are no options.

Segregation is also used in the health system. It is one measure used to restrain patients. Clearly, I am not referring to the same clients. Nevertheless, there are many linkages that can be drawn. The health system previously used many restraint measures on a regular basis. For example, a lap belt was used for seniors with dementia and the bed rails were raised so they would not fall out of bed. That was how things were done.

Quebec's health system has seriously questioned the circumstances that justify the use of restraints. There have been questions about how health institutions should determine whether their protocols for the use of restraints are effective.

Several documents were written about this, and I will be referring to a document put out by the Government of Quebec called Cadre de référence pour l'élaboration des protocoles d'application des mesures de contrôle, which deals with restraint, isolation and chemical substances. Chapter 4 is extremely interesting and so I hope that members will look into it, especially at committee. It talks about the ethical and clinical principles that health institutions should use to establish their protocols for the use of restraint. The first principle is this:

Control measures are only used as safety measures when immediate threats are identified

The protocol should state that control measures must be used in a therapeutic context only and must under no circumstances be used to punish, intimidate or correct a person, to modify a behaviour, or to deal with organizational constraints. If a control measure is used, it must be used with the sole object of preventing the person from imminently causing harm to themselves or others.

These ethical principles make many interesting points, especially where they say that restraint measures, such as segregation, must never be used to deal with organizational constraints. In other words, if segregation can be avoided by doubling staff numbers, that would be the ethical thing to do, rather than placing people in segregation just because it is the easiest option and money is tight.

This is also a very important principle from a legal perspective. Administrative segregation should not be used as a substitute for increasing staff numbers due to a lack of means. If segregation can be avoided by increasing staff, whether that means more security guards or other professionals, then increasing staff is the better option.

Another ethical principle is that control measures should be used only as a last resort. That seems logical.

I will continue after question period.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for our hon. colleague.

I just want to know, first, if the changes in Bill C-83 have been fully costed. As well, how is the government going to measure the deliverables outlined in Bill C-83?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. I will bring some perspective to this debate dating back to October 2004, when I first came to the House. At the time, it was the tail end of a minority government.

We did not deal too much with legislation that addressed crime and other matters as such. I remember when the Conservatives came to power in 2006. They came in on a wave of their getting tough on crime and criminals. Over the years, to say it has been a mixed bag of success is to be somewhat generous. I do not mean that in a harsh or partisan way, but in a way that reflects that it is somewhat disappointing that we never had a decent conversation about crime, and certainly not about rehabilitation. Crime had become a superficial way of trying to gain popularity and votes. I say this not against the Conservatives specifically, but the debate has drifted in that direction. I think the tag line was “Do the crime, do the time.”

The problem is that we had seen what happens in jurisdictions around the world, and especially in the United States, where they truly used it, amping it up to the point where it became absolutely deafening, to the point where it was a matter of “Lock them up and throw away the key.” I mean nothing specific by that.

I will say, however, that tag line was used quite a bit. Unfortunately, we now find that so many people in the United States who originally used that as a way of gaining popularity and a way of pushing forward a very good public policy are now winding back some, but not all, of that. I am sure some of it worked out in the end. In many cases, there were a lot of people in the system who deserved to be in the system and should continue to be in the system, and that worked.

However, we realized over the years that a lot of people should not be in the system that long and were not given the tools to go back into society. There are people in society who do not belong in society. I get it. I think we all get that. However, there are people in the system administered by CSC who will go back into society. Who will that person be coming back into society, as opposed to who they were when they left society and went to prison for the first time? It is us who make the decisions to be there for the people who help rehabilitate the criminals.

I understand, on this particular legislation, that there are opinions on both sides of it, people who like what we say, and others who say that we need to look at furthering this debate about rehabilitating a person who has been incarcerated and is now going back into society. It takes several steps to get to that point. There are many examples around the world that we could use to get back to that point.

We also have the court system, which has pointed out that the old system has discrepancies that we need to fix, like solitary confinement. Let us look at the concept of solitary confinement for just a moment, the separation of someone from others for the safety of everyone involved. To a great extent, that has to happen within the system.

I have never worked in the prison system. I have never been in prison myself. However, I certainly know enough about the situation. Over the past 14 years, I have certainly heard enough about those who feel that rehabilitation in the prison service is deficient in many ways, federally and provincially in many cases. In my opinion, Bill C-83 is a way to take a step, so that when people go back into society, they will not be the same people who went into the prison. It is incumbent upon us to have that wide debate.

Now, we want to do several things in this particular bill, which I will point out.

This legislation proposes to eliminate segregation, following recent court decisions, as I pointed out. It introduces more effective structured intervention units. It proposes better support for victims during Parole Board hearings and it proposes increasing staff and inmate safety with new body scanner technology. Bill C-83 proposes to update our approach to critical matters like mental health supports and indigenous offenders' needs, as well as the needs of the general population.

What CSC really needs is the authority to separate offenders from the general population for the sake of institutional safety.

While someone is segregated in solitary confinement, there is still a way that we can reach that person to effect a major change. Therefore, there is a minimum. Yes, we do segregate that person from the general population for the safety of the institution, but we also need to provide the structure so that we can tackle the problem in a responsible and mature manner. This is what the SIUs this legislation introduces are about. Four hours of human contact could alleviate the problem.

The problem may have started with a particular person. I am not blaming anyone else. However we must look for the reason why that person needs to be segregated. Why is the individual like that? We need to make sure that it does not happen again. In order to do that, as the courts have pointed out, human contact is needed, which would make the situation it that much better for the institution itself and for the prison population in general.

For many years CSC has been criticized for the practice of administrative segregation, better known as solitary confinement. The case of Ashley Smith is a good example. Ashley died in custody in 2007. Her case highlighted issues related to segregation and mental health care in the Canadian correctional system.

In 2013, a coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith resulted in recommendations, one of which was instituting a cap on the amount of time an inmate can spend in segregation. We realized from that case alone in 2007 that there was a problem and that we needed to go further.

We need to protect institutions and instill institutional safety by taking an inmate from the general population. But then what? What is the right answer?

The right answer involves our listening to the experts who have to deal with these people every day. I know they are on different sides in this particular step that we want to take, but it is our responsibility to have this debate and send the bill to committee so that opposition members who have some concerns can make the proper amendments.

We must remember that key here is the fact that a lot of these people will face society once again. We want to make sure that an individual who goes back into society is not the same person who went into prison.

We know these people through families, through friends, through contacts who have been in prison and had a rough time. We hear about them all the time. That is one of the major things that happened in 2007 with the case of Ashley Smith.

The number of inmates in segregation on any given day in 2011 was over 700. It is now about 340. Why is that the case? We need to explore the reason why.

As we look for answers to this particular situation, I realize that these units, these SIUs, are not the perfect answer for everyone involved in the system, including the guards.

My support for Bill C-83 comes from my understanding of the need to take that step of providing human contact to protect society at large. Of course, there are people here on both sides of the issue. We need to have a debate here and the bill sent to committee so that we can look at any amendments that might be brought forward.

I thank everyone involved in this debate. I also thank the superior courts of both British Columbia and Ontario for helping us guide the way.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the news on the radio, for example, we hear about how the Liberals want to scrap administrative segregation. I heard that three times during the member for Kildonan—St. Paul's speech too. That says to me that nobody will ever again be isolated in a cell for several hours a day or several days in a row.

However, that is not what Bill C-83 says. All it says is that the term “administrative segregation” will be replaced by “structured intervention units”, that the number of hours will be reduced from 22 or 23 to a maximum of 20 hours, and that the inmates will have contact with other people. They can still be segregated for 20 hours a day for an indefinite period of time. There is no limit on the number of days an inmate can spend in a structured intervention unit.

How can the government tell people it is doing one thing even as it is doing another? How can it mislead people like that?

To me, that is outrageous.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and speak to Bill C-83 and the impacts of the corrections facilities and our justice system on real people. In particular, my interest is on indigenous people, and how they are treated by the justice system and in our correctional facilities.

We are looking at a bill that will actually do what it promises and what it needs to do, which is eliminate solitary confinement. That was the major goal, and that is what this bill will do. It is also going to hold guilty parties accountable for breaking the law. Each and every Canadian wants to ensure that we have a justice system and a corrections system that are going to hold offenders to task, that they are receiving the proper penalty, and hopefully that they receive rehabilitation services to make them meaningful and active participants in our society.

Ultimately, we want fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and safer communities. That is why our government is strengthening the federal corrections system, aligning it to the latest evidence and best practices so that inmates are rehabilitated and better prepared to re-enter our society safely.

This bill will eliminate solitary confinement, following recent court decisions and introducing a more effective system that will be called the structured intervention unit system. It will also provide better supports for victims during parole board hearings. It will increase staff and inmate safety with the new body scanner technology. It will also update our approach on critical matters like mental health supports and becoming more sensitive to indigenous offenders' needs.

There is no stronger case to reflect on than the Ashley Smith case, where a young girl was throwing crabapples at a mailman. She ended up in a youth facility, and her experience was then compounded with various acts of aggression and hostility because she felt she was not being treated fairly. Young people who are faced with a situation of hopelessness reach out in any way they can. Ultimately, Ashley hanged herself in a correctional facility operated by the Government of Canada.

It is hard to understand how a young woman would feel so hopeless in a facility that is supposed to be providing rehabilitative services. Ashley Smith's story is one that we should all reflect on. We would reflect on the fact that here was a young girl who was placed in a youth facility for a month in 2003, at the age of 14, after throwing crabapples at the mailman.

I am sorry, but this hardly seems like a reason to end up in confinement, whether it is in a youth facility or not. I have three children. I do not believe any one of them has ever actually thrown a crabapple at a mailman, but I am sure they have done things that might even be worse. The point is that this young girl was thrown into jail, a youth facility, and that experience was compounded. Instead of getting out and rejoining society, she might have had another small infraction, and then it was extended and extended to the point where her life held no hope that she could see, and where she would rather commit suicide than go on living in her condition in solitary confinement. It was a tragic situation and one that this bill is addressing.

We know more can be done, and more needs to be done. We know from the statistics that many of the people in our correctional facilities come from an indigenous heritage. Indigenous people far outnumber those from other communities. We must address the root causes, and that is a much more complicated and longer journey. However, I am proud to say that this is a government that is finally taking steps forward. We have a Prime Minister who has made a commitment to the indigenous people of this country, and to all of us, that this is an issue that we are finally going to address. Progress is being made.

When we go back to look at the bill itself, there is a need to make changes. This is a government that has taken steps forward, and there is no doubt that there are those in our community who will be concerned that some prisoners may be dangerous to the guards, to other inmates and to themselves, and that solitary confinement plays an important role in our correctional facilities. However, they need to understand that this was not the best way to help people. In fact, people in solitary confinement do not receive the supports they need to become stronger and healthier: the mental supports, the health supports and the supports they need to function in a very stressful circumstance.

Therefore, I am very pleased to see that we are eliminating solitary confinement and looking for new alternatives that would keep those offenders from the general population while allowing them to retain access to rehabilitation programs, mental health care and other interventions. Ultimately, effective rehabilitation and safe reintegration are always the best way to protect Canadian communities.

This is an issue that we are looking at federally, but it has also been addressed provincially. I note that in May 2018, Ontario passed Bill 6, the Correctional Services Transformation Act. On May 7, 2018, the province implemented a hard cap on days spent in segregation.

The number of inmates who are in segregation has been dropping, and we are glad to see it. In 2011, there were 700 inmates in solitary confinement, and now that has dropped to 340. I am pleased to say I am a member of a government that is finding a way to eliminate solitary confinement.

While the correctional investigator has looked at the situation and acknowledged that the reduction in the use of solitary confinement is an improvement, he has also raised concerns that this decline may be related to increased violence among inmates. There is more to do, as we know, and we must continue to move with society to make appropriate amendments.

The structured intervention units would replace solitary confinement. Individuals would be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for safety reasons, and they would be assigned to a secure intervention unit. This would separate inmates when necessary, while continuing to provide them with rehabilitative programming, mental health care, and other interventions and services that respond to their specific needs.

This bill does several other things, including providing supports to victims. The bill would allow audio recordings of parole hearings. At this point, these are only available to victims who do not attend. The recordings would now be available to any victims, even if they attend, and would be an important record for them to review for the future.

The proposed bill also puts in law the guiding principles to affirm the need for CSC to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders. This is an important and positive step for all Canadians, in particular our indigenous members of our society.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is absolutely right. The broad review that the judge was calling for is simply not to be found in this legislation. There has been some tinkering, and there have been some modest improvements. The Liberals have referred to them in those terms.

It is unclear whether or not higher courts are going to confirm the unconstitutionality of the past system. It is unclear to me whether Bill C-83 goes the distance in achieving the justice that the courts require for those in solitary confinement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the position the NDP has taken on this piece of legislation.

Looking at this legislation, as I know my colleague has, there is absolutely no doubt it improves the current system. It deals with the issue of segregation. It deals with audios for victims. It includes body scans. I would ultimately argue that Bill C-83 is a progressive piece of legislation.

Why would the NDP not support this legislation? Maybe that party could attempt to get some amendments made at committee, or something of that nature. Would those members not at least acknowledge that the bill would improve what we currently have in place, even by NDP standards?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton is absolutely right, and I would go further.

Both judgments talked about the lack of external review. There is no independent third party to review the discretion of the CSC administrator, and that is shocking. That was one of the key elements of both decisions, as the member correctly pointed out.

What is also shocking is that despite losing both of these decisions so dramatically, the government sees fit to bring in a halfway measure in Bill C-83, and to continue the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. These appeals cost lots of money, and for what purpose? Why can the government not accept what the courts have said so dramatically, improve the bill, and save people having to go all the way to the Supreme Court for the government to be told external oversight is required?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with all that the member for Victoria said, he certainly put forward a compelling case for some of the arguments he put forward.

The member for Victoria alluded to the British Columbia Supreme Court decision. We also have, as he alluded to, the Ontario Superior Court decision. He noted that in the British Columbia Supreme Court decision, there was a fair bit of elaboration on the part of the judge about the lack of an independent review. Going through the Ontario decision, what seems to be one of the key elements of that decision was the lack of an independent review.

Meanwhile, we have a government that says it is introducing this legislation to respond to these court decisions, but if that is true, it seems that one of the key elements of both of those decisions is lacking in Bill C-83. Would the hon. member agree?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this important debate today on Bill C-83, that would deal with the abolition of early parole and the issues on conditional release and corrections. I say at the outset that I will speak in opposition to the bill at second reading. I do so for a number of reasons I will try to describe.

I will first talk about the nature of what the bill has tried to respond to, the difficulties, the dilemmas, the torture, as some people have called it, that is involved in solitary confinement. Perhaps one can call it by other words, but that is what it is. Then I will talk about what a couple of our superior courts have said about this practice and the constitutionality of it, the fact that the government has continued with the appeals of those judgments and yet brought in a bill which by all measure is a very modest response to the very strong language of our courts in addressing the issue of solitary confinement.

I would say that this is a modest improvement. I do not want to be misunderstood. There are some things that are in the right direction in this legislation, but it is a pity that, in light of the long and thoughtful decisions in both the Ontario Superior Court and Mr. Justice Peter Leask's decision in the B.C. Supreme Court, this is the result. It is a very modest, to use a neutral word, response to their very strong language.

Let me talk initially about what they said. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and others brought a constitutional case to the B.C. Supreme Court. In a landmark decision that was handed down in January this year, Mr. Justice Leask in his last judgment before leaving the bench provided what can only be described as a blockbuster decision. Among the things that he talked about, to build on what I asked my friend a moment ago, is the need for an independent review of segregation placements and that is entirely lacking in this decision.

He decided that the practice of solitary confinement, as it was practised at that point in time, breached the security of the person. He said: "I find as a fact that administrative segregation as enacted by [the statute] is a form of solitary confinement that places all Canadian federal inmates subject to it at significant risk of serious psychological harm, including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of self-harm and suicide." He wrote a 54,000-word judgment after hearing days and days of testimony, a very carefully reasoned decision and he held that it violated the security of the person that is guaranteed in our charter.

He also said that it discriminated against first nations, disabled and mentally ill individuals. The findings for that again are based on a thorough analysis of the situation at hand. He said thousands of prisoners have been subjected to solitary segregation over the years, isolated for up to 23 hours a day, sometimes for months and sometimes for years. Indeed, we know the sad story of Mr. Edward Snowshoe, an indigenous prisoner who died by suicide after languishing in solitary for 162 days without any meaningful attention from staff.

This is akin to a form of torture. This is not unlike the harm we have heard about in other contexts in this place of post-traumatic stress disorder that leads to the serious risks of suicide and self-harm as has happened so many times. Thousands of prisoners have been subjected to that isolation for so long and for so many hours a day and for so many days in a year.

There are about 14,000 inmates in federal institutions, 679 of them women. One in four of the incarcerated men spend some time in segregation. To my surprise, more than 40% of women do. This is a prevalent problem across our institutions and it is not just limited to some prisoners and some institutions, but is endemic across the country.

Those who believe that prisons are there to provide punishment but also for rehabilitation purposes should listen to what the judge concluded after days and days of testimony. He stated, “I have no hesitation in concluding that rather than prepare inmates for their return to the general population, prolonged placements in segregation have the opposite effect of making them more dangerous both within the institutions’ walls and in the community outside.” This is not serving the community and it is certainly not serving the people who have been in institutions for that long. The kinds of concerns he talked about include anxiety, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, hallucinations, aggression, rage, paranoia, hopelessness, self-mutilation and suicide ideation behaviour.

There is no question that we have dealt with a serious problem. It is not only the judge who said this. The correctional investigator of Canada and the United Nations Committee Against Torture have looked at that and concluded that there were serious issues that had to be addressed. Indeed, Justice Leask said there should be time limits of 15 days in solitary, longer periods are considered torture by the United Nations and the government indicated it could implement that standard. That is what led to the legislation before us today.

As I said at the outset, there are some tweaks in here that are helpful. The administrative segregation or solitary confinement has been rebranded as structured integration units, sort of an Orwellian term I suppose, but maybe the language will change things to some degree. Importantly, instead of spending up to 22 or 23 hours in segregation, the new scheme proposes up to 20 hours a day, but for an indefinite period of time. The Ontario Superior Court found that harmful effects can manifest in as little as 48 hours, so I ask whether that is likely to change anything in a significant fashion. I think not.

One of the things Justice Leask spent pages on in his decision was the need, as so many have said, to have an independent check on the discretion of the prison head or the Correctional Service of Canada's top official. That is lacking entirely in this bill. Senator Pate put a press release out and referred to this legislation, saying it is “only merely a rebranding of the same damaging practice”, now called structured intervention unit. She said that this bill “also virtually eliminates existing, already inadequate limitations on its use”, it “maintains the status quo regarding a lack of effective external oversight of correctional decision making”, it does nothing to deal with what Justice Louise Arbour concluded when she studied the prison for women in Kingston and she acknowledges, as the courts have, that the way segregation or solitary confinement is applied is disproportionately affecting “indigenous and racialized prisoners and those with mental health issues”.

This bill needs improvements on the checking of the discretion that is available to officials by way of appeals. The involvement of counsel on disciplinary hearings is a step forward, but there is so much that needs to be done to address the horrific practices that have been castigated by our courts in thoughtful decisions. This bill does not go far enough to address their disturbing conclusions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. The key point in this legislation relates to Correctional Service Canada's policies, especially the practice of administrative segregation.

I should point out at the beginning that the bill would do four key things. One, it proposes to eliminate segregation, based on recent court decisions, and it introduces more effective structured intervention units. Two, it would better support victims during parole board hearings by, as my previous colleague mentioned, providing audio recordings of those hearings. Three, it would increase staff and inmate safety with new body scanner technology. Four, it would update Correctional Service Canada's approach on critical matters like mental health supports and indigenous offenders' needs. There are fairly extensive policies in this bill on both those latter points: mental health and indigenous offenders' needs.

There has been much criticism of the policy on administrative segregation within the Correctional Service of Canada, and rightly so. I have listened to the debate on the other side, and some have said it is a necessary tool. I do not necessarily agree with that, but something certainly has to be done. In the previous Parliament, I was a critic for public safety and at one time served as solicitor general and was in charge of the Correctional Service of Canada, so I have read a lot of the criticism related to administrative segregation. We have to understand in this place that administrative segregation was there for very legitimate reasons: to protect the inmates themselves from the general population if they were causing trouble; to protect others in the general population from things that those people put in administrative segregation might otherwise have done; and to protect correctional officers from possible harm by moving these inmates to segregation. I understand those key points.

I do not know if many people in this place have seen those segregation units in many of our federal penitentiaries and prisons. I have, and it would not be a great place to spend days on end without mental health services. In fact, as my colleague from Central Nova mentioned earlier, we have to understand that our correctional system in this country is not just about throwing somebody in a cell and throwing away the key. Our system is based on the premise of rehabilitation, and that is the ultimate objective. Yes, there have to be penalties, and severe penalties, for crimes done and, yes, some people stay in the system their whole life after they have committed a crime. However, we must keep in mind that many people, the great majority we hope, will come out and be productive citizens in society. That is what we have to attempt to do.

Therefore, what this particular bill proposes is basically to try to put a new system in place, called a “structured intervention unit”, where people who have to be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for reasons of safety, will be assigned to a secure intervention unit but not in the same style as in the past.

In addition to being assigned to that secure intervention unit, or cell, Correctional Service Canada would be mandated to provide them with rehabilitative programming, mental health care, and other interventions and services that respond to the inmate's specific needs. That especially relates to those with mental health problems, for whatever reason, and especially applies to the indigenous population, which has different customs and patterns. I have heard a lot of talk in this place about healing centres. The fact of the matter is they work, and we need to keep that in mind too.

Beyond meeting those specific needs of an inmate, keep in mind that we want to protect the individual, the rest of the prison population and the corrections officers working in the system. Under this approach, it would be done in a different way from what is currently in place, as we would address the mental health care needs of inmates and could intervene with other services where appropriate.

Beyond all of that, there are a number of reviews that have to take place. I have talked to a lot of corrections officers, and I can understand that when an inmate challenges them within the prison system, it is really hard not lose one's temper and to want to be vindictive. This is supposed to work at preventing that from happening as well. However, for the inmate, there are several reviews that would take place. There would be a review by the warden within five days, and there a couple of other reviews in place as well.

This bill tries to move away from a system that we know has been challenged in the courts. Yes, we have appealed the decision in question, because we want to keep all options open. It is a system that has been strongly criticized by the correctional investigator, and this bill tries to come up with a better system that would work. In part, that is what this bill is about.

In closing, as my colleague mentioned earlier, there is a real attempt to provide better services to victims in this bill. For example, the recordings of the Parole Board hearings would be provided so they could be reviewed in a quieter place at another time to see what was said. This legislation would add a guiding principle to the law to affirm the need for Correctional Service Canada to consider systematic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all the decision-making done within the system.

This bill does not change the world. Keep in mind that we have a system of penalties in this country that, overall, is designed to try to make individuals who have committed a crime, for whatever reason, better citizens when they come out of prison, not better criminals. Our objective is to make them better citizens so they can contribute to their family, their own life's work and to the Canadian economy. This bill does not change the world, but it is a fairly major step forward in how we would handle inmates, how we would work with them within the prison system and how we would try to give victims better services. At the end of the day, this is a bill that members should support.

[Sean Fraser]

Mr. Speaker, I think most people across Canada understand that indigenous Canadians are incarcerated at a disproportionally high rate compared with the general population. There are a number of reasons this might be the case, but we know from the court's Gladue decision in 1999 that there are certain factors we have to consider to determine whether there are alternatives to incarceration that would leave an indigenous offender better off not only for themselves but also in terms of how they would pose a reduced danger to the community. This decision enshrined into law a principle that has been used subsequently that requires CSC to consider the historical and cultural factors that may be involved with an offender's life circumstances that led them to commit an offence, although there has to be individual responsibility as well, recognizing that their treatment inside the prison system may actually be detrimental to society on the back-end if they are released.

Bill C-83 requires us to consider similar principles that were outlined in the Gladue decision to ensure that we are giving a person the tools they need to be successfully reintegrated into the community on the back-end of their sentence.

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-83. This bill would do a number of things. At its core, what it seeks to do is abolish the use of administrative segregation in Canada and replace it with structured intervention units. However, it would do more than that.

The bill would also make a serious change in the way we deal with the right of victims to obtain audio recordings of parole hearings. It would take certain steps to consider, in particular, the unique circumstances that pertain to indigenous inmates. It would include serious changes to the way we deal with patient care in the inmate population. As well, it would introduce certain changes to the use of body scanners in institutions run by the Correctional Service Canada.

This bill is ultimately about enhancing our justice system to make sure that our system holds guilty parties to account and that it respects the ability of victims to obtain information about offenders who may be released into society.

Importantly, it would also deal with certain measures that would help make our communities safer by ensuring that during a period of incarceration, individuals would have access to services that would actually help them reintegrate more effectively into society on the back end. This is not about being soft on crime. This is about being smart on crime to ensure that in the long term, Canadian communities are safer on the whole.

What have perhaps been the most controversial pieces in this legislation are the changes to administrative segregation in Canada contained within Bill C-83.

Administrative segregation, in common parlance, can be roughly equated to solitary confinement. Today, for a lot of good reasons, the good public servants who work on behalf of Correctional Service Canada want to maintain institutional safety. When they are dealing with particularly difficult inmates who might pose a threat of violence to either the staff who work at CSC or the inmate population, the practice has been to segregate them entirely from the prison population. They essentially confine them as individuals, separate from meaningful human contact and separate from different services.

While this may address the short-term problem of preventing harm to the prison population and to the staff who work at Correctional Service Canada, there is a greater social problem it also contributes to. The inmates who have been subjected to solitary confinement or administrative segregation are subjected to treatment that leaves them worse off and puts them in a position where they are more likely to reoffend upon their release into the community, which is not something we want. We aim to reduce recidivism to ensure that our communities are safer when inmates are inevitably released back into society.

We all know that there are certain incredibly heinous crimes that will result in people potentially being in the custody of Correctional Service Canada for their entire lives, but there are many circumstances, in fact the vast majority of circumstances, in which a person who commits a crime is eventually going to be released back into society. We have to make sure that we are not putting our communities in danger by denying services to those people who are incarcerated that would help them become whole and become functioning members of society upon their release.

Most members of this House would be familiar with the details of the Ashley Smith case. To me, it illustrated, tragically, the problems that exist within our current system. We have young people who may be suffering from certain mental illnesses who, to solve a short-term problem, are completely separated from meaningful human contact. They are separated from the population in which they live while incarcerated. The damage this can cause to a person who is living with mental illness can cause them to harm themselves, and potentially, in the long term, to harm others upon their release.

In light of this case and others, the need to take action is apparent. In fact, the need to take action is frankly not a choice. We have now had two cases, at least, that I am aware of, one in Ontario and one in British Columbia, that have indicated that the practice of administrative segregation, at least going beyond a certain period of time, is unconstitutional. It violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, it is a responsibility of Parliament to enact a new regime that is in compliance with our charter. If we cannot respect the values that are enshrined in our charter, then we are not worth much in this House.

I would suggest that the measures implemented in Bill C-83 would strike a balance that would allow Correctional Service Canada to maintain order within an institution and maintain the safety of the prison population. Introducing structured intervention units would help ensure that the person who was causing a problem for the prison population and the staff at CSC could maintain some sort of meaningful human contact and be provided with the services that would help communities be safer in the long term. At the same time, these would maintain order within our institutions.

In particular, I want to point to the fact that inmates in the structured intervention units would have a minimum of four hours out of their cells daily, including at least two hours of meaningful human contact with staff. This is not a lot of time, but it could make a difference to a person who had actually pulled away from society and had been denied meaningful human contact, particularly those in incarceration who were living with mental illness. It would allow them to become better off in the long term and would reduce the threat posed to society, which is what this bill is really all about.

Currently, there is a very limited amount of time a person who is subjected to solitary confinement is allowed out of a cell to have any kind of contact with anyone within the greater population. The harm that impacts the individual also has long-term consequences for our communities and needs to be addressed.

In light of the court cases I have mentioned previously, we have to take some kind of meaningful action to allow us to maintain order in our institutions and do better in protecting our communities.

This bill would not just deal with the issue of administrative segregation. In particular, we would make a change in the way victims were able to access information about parole hearings when they were threatened with the circumstance that an individual who had committed a crime against them was up for parole. Currently, if victims do not attend a parole hearing in person, they are not entitled to the recordings that are part and parcel of those hearings. Members can imagine the trauma victims might go through if they had to see in person the hearing for an individual who had committed a crime against them or a family member. To force them to go through that experience, when they may not be mentally prepared, seems like a step too far, in my opinion. I think the sensible thing to do, which is embedded in Bill C-83, is to allow recordings to be given to the victims of crime, whether or not their personal circumstances allow them to attend in person. I think this would be an important change.

Bill C-83 would also embed the principles from the Gladue decision in the legislation, which require the Crown to take into account the unique circumstances of an indigenous person's background when making decisions of this nature.

When it comes to health care, there is an important change built into Bill C-83 that would ensure that there were new patient advocates. They would have the opportunity to work with CSC to ensure that order could be maintained in institutions while they also, for inmates who had certain health care concerns, ensured that those concerns were met.

Again, this is not about doing favours for people who have committed crimes against other individuals or communities. This is about protecting Canadians in the long term by ensuring that our communities are made more secure. If we deny basic mental health care to people who are separated from society not only because they are in prison but because they are completely segregated and left on their own, the damage they may cause to our communities in the long term, upon release, when their sentences come to an end, is something incredibly important that we need to address.

The final element I would like to turn our attention to today is the use of body scanners. This is similar to the technology we pass through when we go to an airport to come to Ottawa every week to advocate on behalf of our constituents.

The introduction of contraband drugs, weapons and the like into prison communities can be a very serious problem. The use of body scanners, which I understand certain members on different sides of the aisles may actually support, would be an important step, because it would not be invasive but would still protect prison populations.

The suite of changes included in Bill C-83 are important ones. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the essential point that changes to the administrative segregation regime that exists in Canada today are coming with or without Parliament's action, because a court has deemed them unconstitutional. We need to take steps that not only protect the rights of the individuals who are incarcerated but respect the rights of victims, keep our communities safe, and in the long term, ensure that people who are released from prisons into our society do not cause greater harm to our communities than they already have.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we rise in the House today to debate Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

This is a very serious matter that requires appropriate analysis and study. Above all, we must not move too quickly on this bill. Unfortunately, just a few moments ago, the government forced a vote that will minimize the time spent debating this bill. Canadians run the risk of being on the losing end.

The bill deals with what happens inside our penitentiaries. To put it bluntly, we want to know what happens in these segregation units that the inmates call “the hole”, where people are isolated from other inmates.

Let us co-operate and try to see the the positive elements of the bill. We are delighted to see that one measure included in the bill is the body scanning of inmates, which is a very good thing.

Unfortunately, even though, in theory, nothing should enter Canadian detention centres or prisons without authorization, this is not always the case. The Canadians working in our detention centres or correctional institutions must have the necessary tools to keep themselves safe and to make life better within these institutions.

We think that body scanners are a good idea, but that is the only positive in this bill.

With Bill C-83, the government wants to change administrative segregation into structured intervention units.

I remind members that inmates in prison or, for example, at the Donnacona institution in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, are sadly not society's finest. These are the most hardened criminals. They are murderers. I could list off all of the people in this prison, the crimes they committed and the reasons they were arrested and found guilty, but that would be infinitely sad. These people are serving their sentence in prison.

Everyone knows those inmates are not exactly nice guys. Severe disciplinary measures are sometimes called for. People with experience in corrections say that the administrative segregation unit serves not only to isolate criminals who may be a danger to other inmates, but also to protect individuals from other inmates. I will come back to that later.

The impression we get is that the government is in a hurry to take action. As the public safety critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, said, there is a disconnect in the government's approach.

A little while ago, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a very clear ruling with respect to administrative segregation. The court questioned the legality of indefinite administrative segregation as a severe detention measure.

The Liberal government decided to appeal the ruling. How interesting, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles astutely pointed out, that the government would appeal the ruling then turn around and introduce a bill having to do with none other than the matter raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Beyond these philosophical considerations, we are also concerned with the fact that the government has no plan to pay for these measures. We have no idea where the measures proposed in the bill are heading.

Stating the goal and backing it up with dollars to make those changes happen is pretty basic, but the government has done neither.

The proposed changes would allow people in administrative segregation to leave their cells for four hours a day to spend time with their fellow inmates.

I do not want to scare anyone, but the staff and unions of our detention centres are sounding the alarm about this proposal, which they do not think this is a good idea. Sadly, the government has not listened to them. One of them even said that this Liberal approach to administrative segregation could lead to bloodshed.

I will remind members of a certain cruel and persistent statistic: 100 assaults have occurred in our detention centres over the past 12 months. That is 100 too many, of course, because even one assault is one too many. As I was saying earlier, these are some of the most hardened criminals in the Canadian correctional system, and letting them out to spend four hours with their fellow inmates can create highly undesirable situations.

I want to mention that body scanning, which is one element of this bill that we agree with, is not a bad idea. However, we think it might be worth considering the possibility of extending it to include people visiting inmates at a detention centre.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member just made reference to the importance of the bill getting to committee for the purpose of consultation. Where was the government up until now? Should there not have been consultation in drafting the bill in the first place instead of drafting a ramshackle bill that will be criticized at committee and will require amendment at committee?

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers on one key aspect of the bill, which is to eliminate segregation in all circumstances, stated, “the new Bill C-83 must not sacrifice disciplinary segregation as a tool to deter violent behaviour.”

Why would the government not have consulted the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers before it introduced Bill C-83? Why is the government waiting for it to get to committee to hear from the union?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, while Bill C-83 proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in half a dozen ways, the centerpiece of the legislation is really ending the use of segregation in our penitentiaries and the launching of what would be called “structured intervention units”, or SIUs.

I will get into the details of what SIUs are in a bit, but first I recognize that many stakeholder groups have spent years advocating for a limit to the length of time in administrative segregation.

The correctional investigator has recommended a 30-day cap. The UN Mandela rules call for one at 15 days. We asked ourselves, though, if that did not just leave people without meaningful contact for 15 or 30 days. Did that not just keep people from their needed interventions and training for 15 or 30 days and from the mental health treatment that they might need?

Therefore, what if we were able to create a system where, when people need to be placed in a separate secure facility within the penitentiary, they could continue to have access to all those things? What if we could ensure the safety of inmates, correctional staff and the security of facilities without having to segregate inmates from all those important points of contact and their treatment regimes? What if there were zero days without meaningful human contact in our penitentiaries?

That is what is at the heart of Bill C-83. It is legislation that balances the need for security in our penitentiaries with the need to ensure that we end segregation and create a system that is better able to rehabilitate inmates.

Inside an SIU, inmates will have double the time outside of their cells compared to the current administrative segregation regime. However, it is not unsupervised, as was suggested previously by the member for Lethbridge.

Correctional Service will be provided with funding to staff up on guards to help ensure the safe and secure movement of the inmates inside the SIUs, whether that is to a classroom-type setting, or to attend part of their programming or to interact with another compatible inmate. In short, this is a complete revamping of Correctional Service in a way that will be better for staff, better for inmates and ultimately better for society.

The reason this is so important is that the vast majority of federal inmates will eventually be released into our communities. It is safer for our communities when those offenders with mental health issues have been treated and diagnosed properly. It is safer for our communities when they have successfully undergone Correctional Service rehabilitation programming and had the training they need to help find employment when they finish their sentence, so they can support themselves and are less likely to reoffend.

I have seen some commentary that while this legislation looks promising, there is some skepticism about its implementation. I can assure the House that we intend to ensure the implementation fulfills the promise of the legislation, with all the resources required to make this work. I even asked the minister earlier in the debate about that fact.

Let us be clear that the status quo may not be an option any longer. Courts in both Ontario and British Columbia have struck down large portions of the Correctional and Conditional Release Act that legally allow for an inmate to be placed in administrative segregation. While both of those cases are being appealed, one by the appellant and one by the government, come December and January, administrative segregation may not exist as an option in those provinces. Without a system to replace it, that will be a dangerous situation for Correctional Service staff and it will also be dangerous for offenders. As well, effective rehabilitation cannot happen in a dangerous environment, so it will be dangerous for all of us.

Now let me turn to some of the other parts of Bill C-83. We have heard from victims that parole board hearings are often such a highly emotional blur that once they are finished, they are often unable to remember many of the important details of what went on. The proposed legislation will allow victims who have attended a parole board hearing to receive an audio copy of the hearing. Currently, registered victims who are unable to attend can request and receive such a copy. However, if the individual was there in person, the legislation does not allow for that. That simply is not right, which is why Bill C-83 would amend the law to ensure that all registered victims, whether they attend a parole hearing or not, would be able to receive that audio copy.

The proposed bill will also allow for Correctional Service to acquire and use body scanners on those entering the prisons. From drugs to cellphones, the phenomenon of contraband inside prison systems is a problem worldwide. New technologies now allow for better and easier searches of those entering correctional facilities, which are less invasive than traditional methods such as strip searches.

I am sure we all remember the tragic death of Ashley Smith who took her own life while under suicide watch in 2007. Her death, and the subsequent coroner's inquest, was a wake-up call that tremendous improvements were needed in our women's correctional facilities. Bill C-83 would deliver on one of the most important recommendations from that inquest.

The legislation would require Correctional Service to provide patient advocacy services to inmates to help them better understand their health care rights and responsibilities. It would also create a statutory obligation for Correctional Service to support health care professionals in maintaining their professional autonomy and clinical independence, a founding principle of the medical profession.

The bill would also enshrine in law the principles of the landmark 1999 Gladue Supreme Court decision that would ensure, from intake, that indigenous offenders' programming and treatment incorporates the systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders.

Ultimately, all of this will advance the cause of public safety in all of our communities.

When our corrections system works effectively to rehabilitate offenders within a secure custodial environment, we all benefit.

I am proud of Bill C-83, and I encourage all members to vote in support of it.

Since I have a few more moments left, I will talk a bit about Newfoundland and Labrador.

Newfoundland and Labrador's primary penitentiary is not a federal facility, so it will not be governed under the rules of the proposed legislation. However, we can see from media reports and in the damning history of Her Majesty's Royal Penitentiary in St. John's what can happen in penitentiaries where the right supports and services are not put in place to protect both inmates and the people who work in the prisons.

PTSD is a huge problem for people who work in the correctional system, as well as for people incarcerated in these facilities. We need to find a better way to manage inmates through their periods of trouble while they are incarcerated so they can continue to receive the supports they need.

Once the federal government's new higher standard can be met federally, that will put additional pressure on provinces, where people are serving two years or less, to have similar supports and standards in place, so the system is better able to manage not only the distress being caused to other inmates in the facility by the person who is going into the SIU, but also to provide additional funding and support for additional Correctional Service staff to maintain and manage the supervision of those inmates. That is key.

We have seen throughout our first three years in office that many of the proposed changes that were brought in by the previous government, whether it be Phoenix, or in IT transportation or in Correctional Service, that unless we fund the transition, unless we fund the additional requirements of legislation, we are doomed to fail.

The minister mentioned that $80 million would be available for additional mental health supports within prisons over the next two budgets. That is extremely important. Funding will be available for additional corrections staff and for the very body scanner technology that will help reduce, if not eliminate, the problem of contraband in our prisons, which is so pervasive.

We have heard a lot in the debate by opposition members today about their concern that we are not giving sufficient time to debate this topic. However, it seems to me that many of the points that have been circulating in the room today are starting to retread similar ground. We have not heard a lot of new arguments even in the short amount of debate that we have had.

It will be great to see the legislation go to committee, where any of the legitimate concerns that were raised by the opposition regarding sufficient feedback from stakeholder groups can be addressed and their comments can be incorporated. If there are constructive ways in which the legislation can be amended, committee is the best place to do it.

In light of the fact that December and January present real significant deadlines for ensuring there is a replacement in place to administrative segregation in our prisons, it is important that we get the legislation finalized and passed through the House and the Senate in order to avoid a type of Doomsday scenario that could arise without the ability to properly manage and maintain security in prisons in British Columbia and Ontario in the next year.

For all of these reasons, I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of sending the legislation to committee.

[Dan Vandal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise on behalf of the citizens I represent in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

I am very pleased to rise in the House to support the government's legislation, Bill C-83, which revolutionizes our correctional services.

As the Minister of Public Safety said, the government is recognizing two things. The first is that institutional security is an absolute imperative that the Correctional Service of Canada must always meet. Second, it recognizes that the safety of Canadian communities depends on the rehabilitative work that happens within secure correctional institutions.

Safety is indeed at the heart of this legislation. We know that some inmates are simply too dangerous or too destructive to be managed within the mainstream inmate population. Our correctional officials must therefore have a way to separate them from fellow inmates.

The current practice is to place those inmates into segregation or, as our American friends call it, solitary confinement. However, two court rulings have found that practice unconstitutional. Those rulings are being appealed, one by the government and one by the other party, but the facts remain that they are scheduled to take effect in the coming months.

As a Parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that the correctional service has the legal authorities it needs to keep its staff, as well as the people in their custody, safe in a way that adheres to our Constitution. We can do that by adopting this bill, which proposes to eliminate segregation from federal institutions and replace it with a safe but fundamentally different approach.

Under Bill C-83, structured intervention units, SIUs, would be created at institutions across the country. These units would allow offenders to be separated from the mainstream inmate population when and if required, but they would also preserve offenders' access to rehabilitation programming, interventions and mental health care.

Inmates in an SIU would receive structured interventions and programming tailored to address their specific risks, as well as their specific needs. They would be outside their cell for at least four hours a day, which is double the number of hours under the current system. Four hours is an absolute minimum. I need to stress that it is a minimum. It could be more.

The inmates would also get at least two hours of meaningful human interaction with other people each day, including staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains, visitors and other compatible inmates. This is something that hardly exists under the current system. A registered health care professional would visit them at least once a day.

In other words, this bill introduces a new and more effective approach to managing the most challenging cases in our federal correctional system. It would promote not only the safety of correctional institutions, but also the safety of Canadian communities all across our country.

I would remind members that nearly all federal inmates will one day finish serving their sentence and be released. Accordingly, providing them with the opportunity to continue their treatment and rehabilitative work will increase their chances of successfully reintegrating the general prison population and, eventually, society.

Reducing the risk of recidivism will better protect Canadians and all communities, from our biggest cities to our smallest towns.

Other important measures in this bill complement the proposed creation of SIUs. For example, the bill would enshrine in law the correctional services obligations to consider systemic and background factors when making decisions related to indigenous offenders. This flows from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision in 1999. It is something that has been part of correctional policy for many years, but we are now giving this principle the full force of law.

This is part of achieving the mandate commitments the Prime Minister gave the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety to address gaps in service to indigenous people throughout the criminal justice system. The two ministers have likewise been mandated to address gaps in services to people with mental illness in the criminal justice system.

As I noted earlier, inmates with an SIU would receive daily visits from a health care professional. More than that, the proposed reforms in Bill C-83 would require the correctional service to support the autonomy and clinical independence of health care professionals working in correctional facilities.

The proposed legislation would also allow for patient advocacy services to help people in federal custody understand their health care rights and to ensure they receive the medical care they need. This was recommended by the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith.

There is also an important measure in this bill to better support victims of crime. Currently, victims are entitled to receive audio recordings of parole hearings but only if they do not attend. If they show up, they are not allowed to receive a recording. That does not make sense. Victims advocacy groups have said that attending a hearing is sometimes so emotionally difficult that victims simply cannot always remember what was said, which is entirely understandable. Under Bill C-83, victims would have the right to a recording of a hearing, whether they were present or not. They would then be able to listen to it again, later on in a more comfortable setting whenever it is convenient for them.

The first priority of any government should be protecting its citizens. When someone breaks the law, there are consequences. In the interest of public safety, we need to have a correctional system capable of addressing the factors that lead to criminal activity, so that offenders become less likely to reoffend and create more victims.

A proper, effective correctional system holds offenders to account for the wrongs they have done, but it also fosters an environment that promotes rehabilitation. Canada's correctional system already does an excellent job of providing rehabilitation and reintegration support for inmates under very challenging circumstances. However, Bill C-83 would strengthen that system, and public safety would be improved with safer institutions for staff and inmates, fewer repeat offenders, and fewer victims in the long run.

For all of these reasons, I fully support this important and transformative piece of proposed legislation, and I invite all honourable members to do the same.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that both the British Columbia and Ontario decisions made no such determination of banning segregation in all circumstances, as Bill C-83 provides for. In the Ontario court decision, the heart of the decision related to the independent review process. As opposed to fixing the independent review process, the government instead has decided to eliminate a tool that is necessary to keep our institutions safe.

On the issue of whether segregation violated section 12 of the charter or targeted inmates with mental illness disproportionately, so on and so forth, the court ruled against all of those arguments against segregation.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely we on this side are against Bill C-83 and we are going to do everything that we can to defeat it, a bill that the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers said is problematic. It raises the question of whose side the Liberals are on. Are they on the side of criminals or are they on the side of the men and women who work in correctional institutions?

I know which side Conservatives are on. We are on the side of the men and women who work in our correctional institutions. Their union has spoken out against problematic aspects of this bill. We are absolutely against taking a tool away from them to protect other inmates, to protect the integrity of criminal investigations and to protect inmates from themselves.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue discussing Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. When I last spoke on Friday, I referred to the fact that the government's justification for rushing the bill forward is that the courts made them do it, that the courts made them ban both segregation for administrative and disciplinary purposes in all circumstances. The problem with that justification is that it is simply not so.

Neither the British Columbia Supreme Court decision nor the Ontario Superior Court decision provide for that. Indeed, in the case of the Ontario Superior Court decision, the primary basis of that decision related to the independence of the review upon the determination made by the institutional head to put an inmate into segregation. The Ontario court determined that the lack of an independent review mechanism contravened fundamental justice under section 7 of the charter. That was the basis of the Ontario decision.

I need not remind the government that aside from these two court decisions, neither the Mandela rules nor the Arbour commission of 1996 called for the elimination of segregation in all circumstances. It is simply the government doing so with this rushed legislation without real, meaningful consultation with the men and women who work in correctional institutions, the most dangerous, difficult and stressful workplace environments. It is really quite unfortunate, but what is worse is that the changes the government is proposing to make will require a lot more resources to handle inmates.

Each time an inmate is removed from their cell to have some time out of it and away from segregation, that requires two guards to accompany them. What the government is proposing is to extend that to four hours. For this to work, it is going to require more resources, and so where are the resources for this from the government? They are nowhere to be found.

Instead of providing our correctional officers with the tools they need to keep our correctional facilities safe, what is the government proposing? It is proposing an 8.8% reduction in Correctional Services Canada's budget. That is what the Liberals are doing. While they are putting a greater burden on correctional officers, taking away vital tools that correctional officers need to keep institutions safe, the government is cutting back at the same time. It speaks to the misplaced priorities of the government and the fact that once again it just cannot get it right.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the government that I am deeply disappointed that it is imposing a time allocation motion on Bill C-83 because this bill was introduced in response to court rulings.

This bill does not call into question administrative segregation by proposing other solutions. All it does is call administrative segregation by a different name and make slight changes to a few measures. I am very concerned because this bill does not seem to respond to the courts' decisions. I would like the House to come up with a solution that truly addresses the courts' decisions so that we do not end up back at square one in a few months when the bill is once again challenged because it did not respond to the court rulings.

Why rush the study of this bill when we know why it was introduced?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants us to send the bill to committee quickly. Naturally, we on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will study it and propose the necessary amendments, but the majority will probably vote down our amendments.

That is why debates in the House are so crucial. Many opposition members have important speeches to give, because they also have concerns about the correctional system. Yes, there are some important judgments, and certain things need to be taken into consideration in that regard. However, the correctional officers' unions have been largely ignored, although it is vital that they be heard.

My colleague said that he met with union representatives from three correctional institutions in his riding. However, I myself met with people from Donnacona Institution two weeks ago, and they made it clear that the government was not listening to them.

This week, even union president Jason Godin said there would be a blood bath in the penitentiaries if Bill C-83 were passed. Those are his words. This government does not want to listen to what we have to say and just wants to rush things through. Many concerns remained unaddressed and the answers we have been given so far are incomprehensible.

I would like the minister to tell us why he does not want to listen to what we have to say.

Bill C-83—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

While there are some measures in the bill that are positive, on the whole, I cannot support Bill C-83. I cannot support Bill C-83, because important aspects of the bill, significant aspects of the bill, put criminals ahead of public safety. They put criminals ahead of our correctional officers, employees in correctional institutions. These are folks who work in some of the most difficult and dangerous work environments in Canada. Indeed, one could say that Bill C-83 is part of a Liberal scheme to put criminals first.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Bill C-83 is the fact that it would eliminate, right across the board, in all circumstances, both administrative and disciplinary segregation.

Under section 31 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, segregation is a last resort. The institutional head may only order that an inmate be segregated when there are reasonable grounds under one of three criteria: first, the inmate poses a security risk to the institution or to an individual in that institution; second, again as a last resort, there is a need to protect the integrity of an investigation; and third, it is necessary to protect the inmate from harm. Not only that, under section 31 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, an inmate must be released from segregation at the earliest opportunity.

If we listened to the speeches from members on the Liberal side and the NDP side, we would think it was something that occurred on a routine basis. In fact, when it comes to segregation, the criteria are high, the standard is high, and very few inmates are subjected to it.

Indeed, if one looks at the statistics, in 2014-15, 638 inmates across Canada were subject to administrative segregation. That number fell to 430 in 2016-17, and as of July 31, 2017, fewer than 300 inmates were subject to administrative segregation. The number of inmates who were subjected to disciplinary segregation is even lower: five in 2010-11 among male inmates, down to three in 2014-15; among female inmates, the number was zero, other than one year, 2012-13, when one female inmate was subjected to disciplinary segregation.

While the standard is high, and while it is only used in the rarest circumstances, make no mistake about it, segregation is an important tool to deal with, in some cases, the most dangerous and violent offenders in our institutions. Members do not have to take my word for it. They can take the word of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who said, in regard to Bill C-83, “the new Bill C-83 must not sacrifice disciplinary segregation as a tool to deter violent behaviour.” This is the union that represents the men and women who work in correctional institutions.

However, instead of listening to them, the government ignored them. The government totally disregarded them and said that it had no choice, because the courts made it do it.

Balderdash, that the courts made the government do it. There are two court decisions. The parliamentary secretary said the Supreme Court of Canada made the government do it. He had to stand up in his place and admit there was no Supreme Court of Canada decision. However, neither of the lower court decisions contemplates the elimination of segregation in all circumstances, nor does the 1996 Arbour commission, nor do the UN Mandela rules.

It seems the only people who want to eliminate it in all circumstances are the Liberals at the expense of the safety and security of correctional officers and at the expense of the safety and security of inmates. The government should be ashamed.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-83.

One of the things that I find truly remarkable about this bill is that specific measures were taken for the rehabilitation process of inmates with mental health problems.

Before becoming an MP, I promised myself to go see things that I could not see as a regular citizen. The first such thing was to visit a military base and meet the men and women who are committed to serving the country.

The second was to visit a prison. I knew that the reality in penitentiaries was quite different from that of ordinary Canadians. In December 2016, I had the privilege of visiting a penitentiary and that experience had a real impact on me. I saw the conditions that criminals are living in. There certainly are people who deserve to be there, but they will leave prison one day. It is important to provide all the necessary services to give them the best chances to reintegrate into civil society.

I visited two men's prisons. The inmates not only have trouble obeying the law, but also have mental health issues. I am very proud that this bill will give them access to services that can help them learn to deal with their mental illness. I think a holistic, comprehensive solution to all this is key to ensuring that people have a chance to deal with their problems. In many cases, mental illness is what led these people to break the law.

That is why I am very proud to participate in this debate and support this bill. The program will enable inmates to reintegrate thanks to better services that help them deal with their mental illness.

The second reason I am so proud to participate in developing this program is that it will give us an opportunity to take a close look at issues affecting indigenous populations. As we all know, 4% of Canada's population is indigenous. I went to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to visit the penitentiary, where the majority of the population is indigenous. In general, penitentiary populations are between 26% and 28% indigenous.

That is six to seven times higher than their demographic weight, which I think indicates a number of things. First, we need to do better with respect to many issues affecting indigenous communities. Second, systemic discrimination exists in our criminal justice system. We need to do everything we can to tackle these issues. I was very proud to hear the speech given by the Minister of Justice last June, I think, when she was introducing Bill C-75. She said that we are going to try to address this, because it is extremely important.

As a black Canadian, I am well aware that people in the black community are also victims. There were a lot of black inmates in the prison I visited in 2016, even though it was in a very remote area of Saskatchewan. This also indicates that there is a problem with systemic discrimination in our justice system. We need to address and resolve these issues. I am proud to say that the provisions of this bill will give us the opportunity to ensure that all services are provided, which is very important and can improve the chances that these individuals will be able to successfully integrate into society. That is the goal.

We are not like some people who believe that humans can be treated like animals, that you can put them in a cage, lock the door and throw away the key. That is not acceptable. That is inhumane. That view is not worthy of a civilized society such as ours. We must ensure that we properly address these issues. When people break the law, there definitely will be consequences. Those people deserve to be in jail, but we must plan for and consider the day that they will get out of jail.

We cannot just punish them. We also have to teach them how to be members of our civilized society and how to be good citizens. In order to do that, we have an obligation to ensure that they receive all services they need to better adapt and better reintegrate into our society. I encourage all my colleagues who have not yet done so to follow my lead and visit a penitentiary or a prison.

That will change their minds. That will encourage members to focus on finding solutions that will help these people to get out of jail, learn their lesson and learn to obey the laws and customs of a civil society. If they do not, there will be consequences. However, we want to ensure that these people are ultimately well reintegrated into our society. That is why I am delighted to learn that we will have services to try to help these people address their mental health issues.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be rising in the House to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Before I go any further, I want to express my unqualified admiration and appreciation for the incredible and very important work done by the employees of the Correctional Service of Canada and Drummond Institution, especially the mental health professionals.

I have had the opportunity to meet with their union representatives on several occasions to learn more about what they are dealing with. What they go through every day is not easy. I take my hat off to them for doing such a terrific job. They deserve the highest praise.

I should note that these employees have been affected by the infamous Phoenix pay system problems. In 2017, 60% of the employees of Drummond Institution had issues with the Phoenix pay system. Sadly, the people at Drummond Institution have had a rough time, whether because of their poor working conditions or because of the Phoenix pay system fiasco.

Again, I thank the people at Drummond Institution who work hard to keep our communities safe while inmates serve their sentences. They also do all the work involved in rehabilitating the inmates so that they can contribute to our society and our community when they leave prison.

I now want to get into the context around Bill C-83 because that has an impact on today's debate. By the minister's own admission, the bill was only ever meant to address some of the concerns expressed by the courts in their rulings.

First, the Supreme Court of British Columbia explicitly said that there are not enough tools for ensuring that a lawyer is present during administrative segregation hearings. Inmates are put in administrative segregation without independent third-party oversight, which would allow for a second opinion before proceeding.

It also mentioned the inhumane conditions resulting from overuse of administrative segregation and the fact that a predetermined time limit on the use of administrative segregation had been ignored. That is extremely important. There has to be a limited number of days and even hours during which inmates can remain in administrative segregation.

That ties in with part of the ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which states that more than 48 hours in administrative segregation may cause serious and irreversible mental health problems. Earlier we were talking about rehabilitation. That is another very important aspect. When people have served their sentence and reintegrate into society, we do not want their mental health to be aggravated by their stay in prison. We want them to be rehabilitated so that they can contribute to our community in a positive and constructive way.

That is the most troubling part.

The use of administrative segregation has been found to be abusive by the correctional investigator countless times and in countless reports that he has published over the past decade.

In addition, some vulnerable populations, such as women with mental health issues and indigenous peoples, are overrepresented in administrative segregation. More than 42% of inmates in administrative segregation are indigenous. This situation is obviously quite problematic.

What exactly does this bill do? We are concerned that it is nothing more than a repackaged administrative segregation system. The name is different, but inmates can still be kept in segregation for an indeterminate period of time, for up to 20 hours a day. The government claims that this is a big step forward, since the maximum will be 20 hours instead of 22, but that is essentially the same. This is obviously just window dressing.

This can cause permanent damage to inmates' mental health. These inmates will be returning to society. We do not want their mental health to be permanently damaged. On the contrary, we want them to be rehabilitated and to reintegrate into society.

I am a teacher by profession. Some of my colleagues teach in the adult education program at the Drummond Institution to help inmates do everything they can to improve their situation when they return to society. These are good things that are happening in our correctional institutions. It is important to mention them and to point out all the work that is being done, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

The current situation is very difficult. Very painful things have happened. There was the tragic death of Ashley Smith and the subsequent recommendations from the coroner. In June 2017, 399 federal inmates were in administrative segregation and 94 of them had been there for over 90 consecutive days. Over 90 consecutive days in administrative segregation can have an impact on a person's mental health. It is just not right.

Instead, we need to improve the situation in our correctional institutions. How is it that we still have overcrowded prisons? How is it that we still have a lack of mental health care professionals? How is it that there is a lack of programs for inmates so that they can get the training they need to find jobs when they get out of prison?

That is extremely important. We need a different approach to administrative segregation, with limits and external oversight so that there is a different point of view from that of prison workers.

In recent years, the two rulings that I mentioned earlier have shown how important it is to implement legislation that is much more structured than Bill C-83, which will do little to to change the situation.

Many studies have shown that prolonged administrative segregation can trigger or aggravate certain psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, depression, impulsiveness, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, and more. It can increase the number of suicide attempts or make inmates suicidal.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up some very good points. There are some parts of Bill C-83 that we support, like the scanners that we would like to see a bit further.

Earlier, we asked two different members of the Liberal government about whether they had done the costs. We note in the Liberals' departmental plans that even before wage increases for our correctional officers it is showing, with inflation, about an 8.8% cut in spending. We asked the parliamentary secretary and she said to ignore that because they have spent so much in the last two years. I introduced a Library of Parliament report that shows they actually cut spending to Correctional Service in their first three years of government. We asked another Liberal member of Parliament, who said that the Conservatives cut money to border services. I would be happy to table this report that shows the Liberals have cut money to CBSA since they came to power.

Has the member across the way done the study on how much this is going to cost in services? Where are they going to find the money to provide the extra officers to escort the prisoners and to renovate the prisons, when they are showing in their own departmental plan that they are cutting resources to Correctional Services? This is not a partisan question. This is a safety issue for our corrections officers. How are we going to provide resources to them when we are showing at the same time that we are burdening them with extra work, but we are cutting their resources in the Liberals' plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on second reading of Bill C-83, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

As the Minister of Public Safety told us, our government's top priority is protecting Canadians from natural disasters, threats to national security, and, of course, crime. We are doing a number of things to protect Canadian communities from criminal activity.

One of the most significant things we can do to enhance public safety is make our correctional system as effective as possible in dealing with people who have committed crimes so when their sentences are over they do not commit new ones. Bill C-83, the legislation before us today, will significantly strengthen the ability of our corrections system to achieve that objective and keep Canadians safe.

Following recent court decisions on administrative segregation, Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units, SIUs, which will allow offenders to be separated from mainstream inmate population as required while maintaining their access to rehabilitative programming, interventions and mental health care. If passed, the bill would allow Canada to take a major step forward to having a modern evidence-based correctional system that understands clearly the nexus between the mental health of offenders and the safety of communities.

As colleagues may not be familiar with the concept of administrative segregation, let me take a moment to provide the chamber with a foundational understanding of what it means.

The Correctional Service of Canada defines “administrative segregation” as “the separation of an inmate to prevent association with other inmates, when specific legal requirements are met, other than pursuant to a disciplinary decision.” Even now, while administrative segregation remains a tool that the Correctional Service of Canada has at its disposal, the objective is always to ensure that it is only used for the shortest period of time necessary when there is no reasonable or safe alternative. Clearly, isolating someone almost all day, every day is an extreme measure that must be used rarely and with caution.

In 1955, the United Nations congress on the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders was convened. There, delegates adopted the first iteration of the standard minimal rules for the treatment of prisoners. These represent the very first universally acknowledged minimal standards for the management of prison facilities and the treatment of prisoners. They inform the development of prison policies and practices the world over. They stood the test of time, serving as a standard-bearer for nearly half a century.

In 2011, it was decided that these ought to be updated, and by 2015 a new set of revised rules had been crafted. In December 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the revised rules, known as the “Nelson Mandela rules”, to honour the legacy of the late president of South Africa, who spent 27 years in prison in the course of his struggle for global human rights, equity, democracy and the promotion of a culture of peace. This is important to understand, because one of the primary updates that were made when the Mandela rules were released in 2015 was in the area of discipline and the use of solitary confinement. For the first time, solitary confinement is clearly defined and strict limitations are recommended for its use.

The Mandela rules define “solitary” as “the confinement of inmates for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact.” They prohibit prolonged solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days.

Many have argued that these kinds of conditions have the potential to be damaging to the mental health of inmates, with outcomes such as claustrophobia, anger, depression, hallucinations, insomnia, and obsessive ideation or fixation on dying. I am sure all members in this chamber will agree that these outcomes are not ones that we want to see for inmates, who I will remind members are, by and large, going to be released into Canadian society. It is in no one's interest, least of all the general public's, for offenders to enter a correctional institution and come out worse off than when they went in. Although the Mandela rules are not binding on Canada or any other UN member country, they are an important source of guidance and information.

We know that we can always strive to do better when it comes to our criminal justice system and the safety of our communities. That is the spirit behind this bill. Under this new legislation, SIUs would be established to provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety and security risks of inmates who cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. Inmates in an SIU would receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific situation, have an opportunity for a minimum of four hours a day outside of their cell, have an opportunity for at least two hours a day of meaningful human contact and receive continued programming to help them progress toward their correctional plan objectives.

At the end of the day, all members of this place must remember this. Almost all federal offenders will return to the community one day. Safe and humane custody and access to programs and services while incarcerated increase the chance that offenders will come back as law-abiding contributing members of society. This creates greater public safety for all Canadians.

It is for these reasons that I support Bill C-83 and encourage all members to do the same.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on Bill C-83. I have been intently listening over the last few days to the debate and the argument being made by the Liberal government on the need for this. Several members on the government side have now said that administrative segregation, solitary confinement, is simply unconstitutional. In fact, the parliamentary secretary just said that again and was rightfully corrected by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

I will read into the record exactly what Justice Leask said in paragraph 534 of his B.C. Supreme Court decision. He said, “The plaintiffs do not argue that administrative segregation as a practice is unconstitutional”, circa section 12, which is the prohibition in our charter against cruel and unusual punishment, only that it is unconstitutional under a certain set of conditions. The judge, in fact, said no, he did not accept the argument based on section 12 and that it was not unconstitutional to be used.

What BillC-83 would do instead is rename administrative segregation, which is just words, as if the punishment is just being told that one is going into solitary confinement.

It would double the hours and makes additional changes that would make it more difficult for corrections officers to look after violent prisoners in their workplace. Let us be honest. Corrections is not the workplace of prisoners; it is the workplace of guards. Their needs should actually come first. Guards in the prison system have agreed to take on violent criminals on our behalf to ensure the safety of the public.

I am not saying that prisoners should be treated poorly. I heard the parliamentary secretary mention before that Conservatives believe in some kind of medieval dungeon system. That is absolutely ridiculous. Hyperbole is something I have come to expect, particularly from the member. Hyperbole does not belong in the House. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a reasonable use of administrative segregation, the way these two courts have determined it should be used. That is not what Bill C-83 would do. It would actually modify it completely.

There is an additional issue we should look at, which is the financials. If we look at the Correctional Service Canada departmental plan 2018-19, signed off by the Minister of Public Safety , we see that over the next few years, there will actually be a drop in real financial resources of 8.8%. In real terms, Correctional Service Canada will have less money to deal with a bigger workload, because let us be frank, this will lead to a bigger workload for prison guards. We are asking them to take violent criminals out of solitary confinement, and I will keep calling it solidarity confinement or administrative segregation, for longer periods of time. We have heard other members on this side of the House mention what exactly is involved. Oftentimes, it is a group of guards who escort a particular criminal for their time out of segregation.

An additional point I want to raise is that in the same departmental plan, over the next two or three years, we see a reduction in full-time equivalent employees of 150 individuals. On one hand, in Bill C-83, the government is saying that it wants to do more. It wants more mental health services. That is great. It wants more for our indigenous prison population. That is great. I am very thankful that it is actually looking after it in that lens. However, where are the financial resources? Where are the people resources to match the lofty language we are hearing in this place? Again, the Liberals say one thing and do another. That is the most I have come to expect from the government.

There is a Yiddish proverb that says, “God punishes but man takes revenge.” The prison system should not be about revenge. It should be about reform. I fervently believe that.

Many members know this, but I studied in the United States for my master's degree. Part of it was local and state administration, where we learned about the prison system in the United States. Every single state is different, but I will give members, as a corollary, the debate that was happening in 2017 in the State of Massachusetts, which has been using solitary confinement. The debate was this: Is 10 years too long to keep someone in solitary confinement? I think all of us here would say, absolutely. That is absolutely wrong. It destroys people's lives. It destroys their mental health. There is ample evidence of that.

However, what we are talking about in Canada is 15 days. What the government is proposing to do is burden prison guards with having to care for sometimes violent criminals, doubling the amount of time they will spend outside, on top of the other exemptions they will provide for them, without providing sufficient financial and people resources in a plan the Minister of Public Safety himself has signed off on.

That causes me to wonder why, who is approving this legislation on the government side and who is approving the departmental plan. I would assume the Minister of Public Safety would have been well versed in the departmental plan that he signed off on and now this piece of legislation I know will lead to greater costs down the road, both in personnel and in financial resources. Personnel do not work for free.

I have a great concern more generally with the Government of Canada's behaviour. On the one hand, it talks a good game and puts out flowery language. We heard about the housing strategy. There is no money in it until late into future governments that will actually have to do something about the so-called housing strategy. There are news releases and pretty photo ops. In fact, the Auditor General of Canada, in the last report, accused the government of putting photo ops ahead of doing anything. That is pretty typical now for the Government of Canada.

We have the Auditor General slamming the government for its behaviour on photo ops, public relations, its public image management in a government report, so we know there is something wrong. It is pretty typical. The Liberals have done this constantly. During the election campaign, they said they had costed out the so-called tax on the rich, which would be paid off by the so-called middle-income bracket tax cut that all of us here enjoyed and that those earning less than $45,000 got zero. They got nothing. The working poor got nothing.

However, the Liberals talked a good game. Then the Department of Finance numbers came out and they were wrong again. They failed at it again. They lost money by the scheme of fleecing the rich, so called, in a vain attempt to try to win public support on the backs of others. It is the bait and switch that we have seen in the House of Commons on a consistent set of issues, and Bill C-83 just happens to be the latest one.

Many of my Conservative colleagues were not calling for a return to medieval dungeons or a return to house segregation. We have heard of the cases where people have died in administrative segregation because it was misused, there were no good rules surrounding when, how and to whom it should apply. What Liberals are proposing with this piece of legislation is completely taking it apart. We know, by looking at the departmental plan, that they have not done their homework. Again, that is pretty typical of the government.

They have not done their homework, they have not consulted with the guards and I am wondering why not. Why would one not ask the men and women in the workplace? This is where they go on a consistent basis. We talk so much in this House about how we work and the type of work environment we want here, but we are going to make it more difficult for prison guards to do their work in their work environment? Prisoners are supposed to be there temporarily to ensure the safety of the public and for rehabilitation. The guards will possibly spend their entire lives there because this is where they work and we are going to make it more difficult. There will be less personnel at Correctional Service Canada by 2020-21 and there will be a real cut of 8.8% in financial resources. I am not the one saying that. That is in the Minister of Public Safety's plan. That is what he has put forward.

I will not be supporting this bill because there is nothing to it. It is a bunch of words on paper that Liberals have put together. They have misapplied the two court rulings and provided no financial or people resources to make it happen. It is bad legislation, it is poorly thought out and it is poor administration on the government's side.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today in support of the bill in front of the House. It is an important step in the reformation and the improvement of our criminal justice system, in particular, our corrections facilities.

The proposed legislation will eliminate the practice of administrative segregation where inmates are confined to their cells for all but two hours a day, with little or no contact with other people and, most important, with little or no contact with rehabilitative programming, which is fundamental to the restoration of their presence in our society.

Under the new bill, people who need to be separated from the general inmate population for safety reasons will have at least double the amount of time out of their cells and they will have access to programs, interventions, mental health care and meaningful human contact with staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains, visitors and other compatible inmates.

This is good policy and it is also necessary in light of two court decisions declaring administrative segregation unconstitutional, which are scheduled to take effect in the next few months.

In addition, the bill would enshrine in law the clinical autonomy of health care providers in the corrections system. It would create patient advocates, called for through the Ashley Smith inquest, to ensure people in correctional institutions receive the medical care they need. It would also codify the principles stemming from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision, which requires systemic and background factors be considered in decision-making, particularly when it involves indigenous inmates.

This is fundamental to ensure that the majority of inmates who eventually return to society after they have served time are reintegrated in a healthy way, in a productive way, in a human way, in a compassionate way so recidivism is reduced if not eliminated. The absence of these interventions historically and the impact of the absence of them on indigenous peoples have been catastrophic. The rate of recidivism is one of the challenges we have to deal with as a result of the problems we face by not providing this care inside corrections facilities.

The bill would also gives victims the right to an audio recording of their parole hearings, whether or not they attend in person, and it also allows for new search technology to be introduced to the system to once again keep inmates safe and, in this case, corrections officers safe as well.

Bill C-83 would make correctional institutions safer, and it will make all of us safer, because we are all better off and better protected when people who have served their sentences return to our communities prepared to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives.

The response of the Conservatives to the legislation is incredibly disappointing. They have almost made a parody of themselves. They put out a press release on Tuesday that called solitary confinement “common and legitimate” despite what the Supreme Court said. For a party that prides itself on law and order, members sure have a tough time listening to the orders of the court system, especially the Supreme Court. It is a pattern.

In other words, the Conservatives go right past arguing that segregation does not meet the international definition of solitary confinement. They are now saying that solitary confinement in and of itself, which the United Nations calls torture if it lasts longer than 15 days, is a good thing. They are not interested in trying to minimize or restrict the use of segregation in Canadian prisons. In fact, they would be fine if it were routine and more widespread. The Conservatives apparently yearn for the good old days of medieval dungeons.

As someone whose parents are Australian, the relationship we have to the corrections system as a culture in the country where my family comes from is a little different. The lack of compassion for the conditions in the prison system traditionally led precisely to recidivism in Australia. The Australian prison system was one of the harshest on the continent at the time it was in operation during the period of transport and the punishment destroyed people's lives.

The corrections facility is not about destroying the lives of people; it is about protecting the public. It is about rehabilitating those who have offended and focusing on reintegration, because not every sentence is a life sentence. When convicted individuals return to our communities, we have a responsibility to try to make them safer, both to themselves and to society at large.

The Conservatives are back in the period of transport as far as one can tell. I do not know where the member who made those statements received his criminology degree, if he has one, but I would bet he is referring to a phenomenon that is being reported by people who are homeless. There is a belief somehow that people try to get into jail because it is so nice. It just is not true.

The reality is that the poverty people are subjected to, the lack of a housing strategy, the lack of supports for people, particularly indigenous people in urban settings, is one of the reasons people have no alternative to prison systems at times. However, no one wants to be in jail. People want an opportunity to have good health and to lead productive lives. The corrections system has to respond to this. We cannot, we must not and we should not make it worse for people, because the impact on the larger population will be present one day.

If the Conservatives, who now suddenly seem preoccupied by poverty and the lack of housing, as they sometimes speak to it in the chamber, are really focused on these issues, I invite them to support the national housing strategy, the poverty reduction strategy. I invite them to support the initiatives and the advancements we have made in indigenous housing, health care and education. We create a safer country by ensuring we do not have crime to begin with. However, when people fall afoul of the law and end up in corrections facilities, we have a responsibility as a society and as a country to make things right and to ensure that when people are released from corrections facilities, they do not present an even greater danger to the public.

When we listen to the Conservatives focus on razor wire and bars and not on the rehabilitation of people who have made terrible mistakes in some cases, we are left speechless as to how they are making society safer through a rehabilitation program. It is not just about punishment; it is also about corrections. That is why the system is called a corrections facility.

One of the things we are investing in through this program is ensuring that the prisons and the correction facilities themselves are safer places for guards to work. When segregation is overused and is used as a tool of punishment, the prisons become more dangerous. It is not fair to corrections workers to jack up the system in such a way that their lives are put at risk as they go about doing their critically important work.

The Conservative public safety critic has caricatured these new units by saying that the inmates will be invited to cuddle together in the exercise yard. The way in which the Conservatives talk about the corrections system is beyond the experience of anyone I have ever talked to who has been through it. Nonetheless they perpetuate these myths and they do at the expense of not only the correction facilities, but also the officers who work there and ultimately society at large.

The truth is that the proposed legislation will create units that are highly structured and secure and within these secure settings, inmates will interact with staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains and visitors. They will get the health care they need to become more productive citizens upon release. They will only interact with other inmates if compatible and that interaction can happen safely and is part of a restorative justice process. It is about making people safer and making our country safer.

The Conservative critic also said in his speech that the current system responded to the needs of prisoners. It does not. More important, it does not respond to society's needs.

We need safer communities and that means reintegration has to be a focus of correction to ensure that when people are released, they do not do more harm to communities.

Most people incarcerated in our federal prison system have some combination of mental illness, addiction, a history of physical or sexual abuse and an upbringing in poverty. None of these excuse the behaviour that put them in jail. If people break the law, they face the consequences. Sentences are real.

However, while they are in custody, we can either leave them to languish in conditions that might aggravate their problems and make them more dangerous upon release or we can take measures within a secure correctional environment to reduce the risk they pose and increase the safety of our communities.

Bill C-83 is all about that. It is why it has my strong support. It is why we are focused on ensuring that the criminal justice system is not just tough on crime, but is also smart on crime. We are using the best practices from around the world to ensure we have the best results after incarceration.

Absolutely people should be jailed for serious crimes. Nobody disagrees with that. Anybody who pretends there is a party in the House that does not think that is fooling folks. The reality is this. When individuals are released from prison, when they are exited from corrections and they are reintegrate into society, we have a moral and a legal obligation to ensure they do not reoffend. That requires us addressing mental health issues, addiction issues and underlying issues which might have been part of the factor as to what put them in prison to begin with.

This is a good bill. It deserves the support of all parties in the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the top of his speech, my colleague said that Bill C-83 would end the practice of administrative segregation. That is technically true, but only because the name is changing. Instead of administrative segregation, it will be called structured intervention units. However, what does this change actually mean? It means two hours less a day and a little more support for people with mental health issues.

Does my colleague not think it is misleading to tell the House and the media that the administrative segregation process is being eliminated completely?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned the amount of dollars seized in terms of drug seizures. It is why, as part of that response, we will be putting body scanners in prisons to ensure those drugs do not get into our prison system. I agree with the member, there should be a lot more technology. My question to the member is, will he support Bill C-83?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-83.

This bill represents a fundamental change in the way we approach corrections in Canada. It would end the practice of administrative segregation in all federal correctional facilities. What is more, it would implement a new correctional intervention model that would ensure that offenders are held to account while creating an environment conducive to their rehabilitation in the interests of everyone's safety.

This is the right thing to do and the safe thing to do. It would keep correctional staff and volunteers safe. It would keep inmates safe, and ultimately it would keep communities safe.

An effective corrections system with appropriate, safe and targeted interventions to deal with difficult, challenging or dangerous situations within a secure environment is in everyone's best interests. That is why Bill C-83 would eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units or SIUs. These units would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in these challenging situations. They will be used to manage inmates who cannot be managed safely in the general population.

However, unlike segregation, inmates in these units will receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs to address behaviours that led to their SIU placement. They will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell every day, double the number of hours in the current segregation system. They will have a minimum of two hours of meaningful human interaction every day, including through intervention programs and services. Currently in the segregation system, inmates can spend entire days with virtually no meaningful human interaction.

Inmates in these units will also have daily visits from health care professionals, and because of the strong focus on intervention, inmates in an SIU would be able to continue working on rehabilitation and achieving their correctional plan objectives.

All of this will help facilitate their safe return into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. The result will be better correctional outcomes, fewer violent incidents and enhanced safety for inmates, staff, volunteers, institutions and, ultimately, the general public.

This bill is a significant step forward for the Canadian correctional system and builds on the good work already under way.

The government has provided almost $80 million over five years through budget 2017 and budget 2018 to better address the mental health needs of inmates. That includes $20.4 million in the last budget specifically for incarcerated women.

There was also about $120 million in budget 2017 to support restorative justice approaches through the indigenous justice program and to help indigenous offenders safely reintegrate and find jobs after serving their sentences.

The goal is to make Canadian communities safer through effective rehabilitation in a secure correctional environment. This is the right policy direction, and it is in line with recent calls for the kind of transformation this bill lays out.

Two constitutional challenges in Ontario and British Columbia found the legislation governing administrative segregation contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are also pending class actions and human rights complaints related to both the use of segregation and what constitutes appropriate mental health care.

In this regard, the bill would also strengthen health care governance. The bill would provide that Correctional Service Canada has the obligation to support health care professionals' autonomy and clinical independence.

It also creates a legal framework for a patient advocacy service to ensure that inmates get the medical care they need.

The bill also enshrines in law CSC's obligation to take into account systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders are considered when making offender management decisions.

The Minister of Justice and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness were given a mandate to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. The government is delivering on that promise.

The bill also includes additional measures to round out all of those elements. It also provides for less invasive alternatives to intrusive body searches. It places greater emphasis on the role of victims in the criminal justice system by allowing them greater access to audio recordings of parole hearings. This is a major improvement over the old system.

Thanks to Bill C-83, going forward, victims will have access to an audio recording of the offender's parole hearing, regardless of whether they attend the hearing.

As I said, this bill is all about safety. It focuses on improving interventions in order to better meet the needs of vulnerable inmates. We need to enhance the safety of our inmates, our correctional staff, our institutions and our communities.

This bill will transform Canada's correctional system in order to achieve those objectives.

Today I am proud to support this bill, and I encourage all members to join me in voting in favour of this historic piece of legislation.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in the bill about extra training or education for either the prisoners or the guards. My concern at the present time is the safety of the guards and prisoners in our institutions. The member can talk about programs for them, and those are good. We need to interact with and get prisoners back into civilization as law-abiding citizens, but it is the safety of our guards that I am concerned about and their proper training. There is no mention of that in Bill C-83.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-83 because I am concerned that the changes it would make may put in jeopardy the safety of our institutional staff and that of the inmates who are under our care and control.

I was confused when the government introduced the bill.

In February of this year, the government appealed a ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court that struck down Canada's law on indefinite solitary confinement, arguing that it needed clarity on the decision. Therefore, why is the government introducing legislation before receiving that clarity? Why are the Liberals fighting the court decision to strike down solitary confinement, while at the same time introducing legislation to do just that? Are they just changing the words and calling it a structural intervention unit?

I have a federal prison in my riding of Yellowhead, the Grande Cache Institution. It is a medium-security institution with approximately 300 employees and 240 offenders. I have a lot of respect for my constituents who work there. Working for Correctional Service Canada often means working with violent offenders. Proposed section 36 of the new act will deal with the obligations of service and the rights of prisoners in structural intervention areas. It states:

...The Service shall provide an inmate in a structured intervention unit

(a) an opportunity to spend a minimum of four hours a day outside the inmate’s cell; and

(b) an opportunity to interact, for a minimum of two hours a day, with others, through activities including, but not limited to,

(i) programs, interventions and services...

(ii) leisure time.

Proposed section 37 of the new act states that proposed section 36 does not apply if the inmate refuses or the inmate “does not comply with...instructions to ensure their safety or that of any other person or the security of the penitentiary.”

As part of their job, employees are responsible for providing a safe, secure and positive environment for offenders, which is an essential element in helping offenders reintegrate into society. However, is the government fostering a safe and secure environment for our prison guards to work within these institutions?

Solitary confinement is a common safety measure many western countries take to protect guards from dangerous and volatile prisoners. I wonder if any of our front-line workers have been consulted on taking this tool away from them. Are we properly training our guards who deal with the most dangerous of offenders, offenders with possible mental conditions and psychological problems? Are these guards being given the necessary tools and knowledge to recognize, work with, protect and, for their own safety, help reintegrate these prisoners?

I am concerned that the bill does not mention new training programs to assist prison guards in these changes or in the current programs. It is paramount that the guards dealing with the most dangerous of our offenders have the knowledge and expertise to deal with them. This is for everyone's protection and safety.

I have heard concerns from prison staff members that more training should be given to them when they are dealing with high-risk offenders, such as murderers, compared to someone serving six months for theft. We need to ensure they feel prepared and comfortable, instead of taking away the tools they use to manage inmates.

Instead of solitary confinement, the government would create structural intervention units, SIUs. Let us be fair: This is just white-washing with some finely tuned words.

Under the new SIU model, inmates who misbehave and cannot be safely managed in the mainstream population will get personal programs tailored to their own needs. Are we forgetting the protection and safety of other inmates and prison staff in order to meet the new guidelines as outlined under the SIU? The segregation of certain prisoners in some cases has been done to protect those persons from internal conflicts with other inmates because of their character or mental disposition. In other cases, it is done for legal reasons that could cause interference with an investigation that could lead to criminal charges or a charge relating to serious disciplinary offences within the institution.

Under the new act, prisoners segregated for their own safety may spend up to four hours outside their cells each day. This is where I am concerned. This will require more resources and will create longer periods for the chance of an incident to occur. The replacement of solitary confinement strips the ability of guards to use segregation for disciplinary purposes. This change will make prisons more dangerous for the guards as they deal with the worst and most volatile prisoners.

Because the guards are dealing with the most violent criminals and those who do not care to follow the prison rules, when an incident does occur, it is going to be a lot more serious and require more force. Why are we putting our front line workers at risk?

I am also concerned that these prisoners who are segregated for their own safety may demand equal opportunities under the new act. This may open up an opportunity for their safety to be jeopardized and also put the safety of our guards in question.

This is just another example of the Liberals going soft on criminals and showing indifference to everyone else. Once again, the Liberals are prioritizing the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals.

Let me remind everyone of Bill C-75, which proposes sweeping changes to the Criminal Code and reduces the penalties of crimes to fines. Through Bill C-75, the Liberals are reducing penalties for terrorism, gang members, prison breaches, human trafficking, and the list goes on and on. It is not a surprise to me that the Liberal government is now prioritizing the rights of convicted and violent criminals inside our prison system.

Another aspect of the bill that I find deeply concerning is the new provision that would allow the commissioner to sub-designate parts of institutions to be a different level of security. It reads:

The Commissioner may assign the security classification of “minimum security”, “medium security”, “maximum security” or “multi-level security”, or any other prescribed security classification, to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary.

Theoretically, could the commissioner authorize that a room, say in a healing lodge, to be designated as maximum or medium security by adding an extra lock on the door? There needs to be clarification on whether this is to be used as a temporary measure or if this is a declaration that can be made indefinitely of an area. If so, what is the security protocol that would be put in place to change an “area” to a higher designation than the rest of the facility? Under what circumstances would it be used?

This provision will lead to more cases where higher security prisoners are allowed into lower security spaces, all based on technicalities. Why are we allowing prisoners who should be in maximum or medium-security facilities into lower designated facilities?

I agree with one part of the bill, and that is body scanners. Already in use in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, body scanners should be used to scan prisoners in federal institutions. The more effective we can be in our searches, the better. That means fewer drugs, weapons and other contraband entering our prison systems.

I wonder why the government decided to stop there, though. Why only scan prisoners? In 2014, the CBC broadcast an article on the statistics of contraband entering prisons. The data obtained by CBC showed that corrections seized almost 9,000 unauthorized and contraband items, up almost 2,000 from a few years earlier. That was an increase of 20%. The article noted:

CSC spokesman Jonathan Schofield said the spike is due to enhanced security measures brought in to stem the flow of drugs and other contraband into institutions, including increased searches, random urine tests, and tools such as metal detectors, X-rays, drug-detecting ion scanners and dogs.

Howard Sapers, the former correctional investigator of Canada, said that likely sources of contraband included other people coming in to the prison and sometimes even trusted personnel.

Maybe we should be using body scanners to scan everyone, not just the prisoners, entering our institutions. This will help ensure that everyone inside the institution, prisoners, staff and visitors, all have a safe and secure environment in which to live and work. There are different types of body scanners, some detect drugs, others detect metal. We use them in our airports, and there is no reason we cannot use the most sophisticated equipment in our jail system.

I am not in favour of the recently announced needle exchange program and a good scanning system would eliminate the need for such a program.

We must remember that any legislation brought in that changes how we manage our prisons must take into consideration the safety of our government employees and the safety of other inmates within our institutions. This to me is paramount over catering to the needs of convicted criminals. We must remember they are there because they have committed crimes and are being punished for those crimes. Yes, they have rights to a certain extent, but our institutions are not summer camps or recreational retreats.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quite rightly raises the issue of indigenous incarceration. I had the honour of serving on the public safety and national security committee last year, which studied that very issue. I am sure she is aware of this, but I would ask the hon. member to again review the sections in the proposed bill, Bill C-83, that focus on bringing to life what was called for in the landmark decision of the Supreme Court, the Gladue decision of 1999, almost 20 years ago.

This is an incredible step forward, a very positive step forward for all those Canadians concerned about indigenous incarceration, about which we have to do more. This is not the end of the line; this is a beginning. It is a new opening. In that light, the bill offers an entirely new and different approach, a more effective approach, to the issue of segregation. I think we will see more positive results as a result of the bill going through.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, specific details relating to budgetary costs of Bill C-83 and the changes that it will bring about I believe will be announced soon, as my colleague knows.

I take great interest, however, in his focus on the Conservative era in office, the most recent reign of conservatism in Canada at the federal level. I have a lot of respect for my colleagues across the way, but I cannot help but notice them, time and again, draping themselves in the flag not only of Canada but of law and order, when actually, if we review the record of the Harper government, we see cuts to the RCMP, we see cuts to the CBSA, key legal agencies enforcing law and order in Canada.

We have listened to the folks in corrections. I would ask the hon. member to go back and take a look at what some key folks in corrections have said about this particular bill and the changes it would bring about. It focuses on rehabilitation, reintegration and strengthening the system and making it more effective. That is what Bill C-83 would do.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the parliamentary secretary about how she reconciles the fact that there are going to be all of these added costs for the changes to Bill C-83, but at the same time their departmental plan shows, with inflation adjusted, an 8.8% cut to funding for correctional services, as well as a cut in staffing, her comment was that it is because it is the money the government invested in the first two years. The library of Canada produced a report for me that actually shows that in the first two of the Liberal government, it has actually cut funding to CSC from the Harper era and then going forward for the next five years, is going to cut a further 8.8%.

Perhaps my colleague could answer, where the parliamentary secretary refused to or did not know the information for, what the added costs are with Bill C-83, how the government is going to achieve these things when it is cutting a further 8.8% from current funding on top of the funding it cut from the Conservative era to Correctional Service Canada.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-83. Among other measures, the bill proposes to eliminate segregation from federal correctional institutions, and would do it in a way that protects the security of correctional institutions.

The reality of any correctional environment is that certain inmates at certain times will need to be separated from the rest of the inmate population. Some inmates pose safety risks. Bill C-83 introduces a new approach to manage those risks. This new approach would ensure the safety and security of staff, the general offender population and the inmate who needs to be managed separately from the mainstream population. However, it would also help ensure the safety of our communities, because inmates would be able to continue the rehabilitative programming that is so crucial to their eventual successful reintegration into society as law-abiding citizens. This is a transformational change for a correctional system, and one that comes in the midst of a debate over segregation, an ongoing one we have had as a society in Canada.

Correctional Service Canada is responsible for managing the lives of more than 14,000 inmates in its custody. Correctional staff do a tough job in a difficult environment. We have to ensure they can do so safely, and that they have the tools to effectively rehabilitate offenders. Canada is incredibly fortunate to have an independent watchdog and ombudsman, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, to oversee and report on the operations of our system. From time to time, the Auditor General of Canada also investigates and identifies issues of concern within the system. In recent years, the issue of inmate segregation has come under its microscope. The Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Auditor General have raised concerns about the effects of segregation, particularly on inmates with mental health needs.

Under Bill C-83, segregation would be eliminated altogether from the federal correctional system. In its place, the government is proposing to create structured intervention units, or SIUs, to manage inmates whose behaviour poses a safety risk that cannot be managed within the mainstream inmate population. The key, as I noted earlier, is that although they would be separated from the mainstream inmate population, inmates in an SIU would maintain their access to rehabilitative programming and interventions. Upon placement in an SIU, their correctional plan would be updated. This would be done to ensure they receive the most effective programs at the appropriate time while they are in the unit. Also, it is meant to prepare them for reintegration into the mainstream inmate population. They would also spend at least four hours a day outside of their cell and have at least two hours a day of meaningful human contact interaction. Under the current segregation system inmates only get two hours out of the cell and interaction with people is extremely limited.

In addition to all of this, inmates in an SIU would be visited by a registered health care professional at least once a day. That health care professional could recommend changes to the conditions of confinement, or transfer back to the general population. As well, for the first time ever, the health care professional's autonomy and clinical independence within a correctional facility would be enshrined in law.

The correctional service would also have the obligation to provide patient advocacy services to inmates at designated institutions to help them better understand and exercise their rights, and ensure they get the medical care they need. As hon. members may recall, that was one of the recommendations of the inquest into the tragic death of Ashley Smith.

These proposed reforms build on recent investments in mental health care. Budget 2017, for example, invested $57.8 million over five years, and $13.6 million per year thereafter, to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities. Budget 2018 invested another $20.3 million over five years, and $5.5 million per year thereafter, to support the mental health needs of federal inmates, particularly women offenders.

However, segregation and mental health are not the only challenges facing our correctional system. Another major and very much related concern is the overrepresentation of indigenous inmates in federal custody. Indigenous individuals currently make up roughly 4% of Canada's population, but they account for more than a quarter of federal inmates. That is unacceptable.

To help address this discrepancy and help those who have been incarcerated to heal, rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, budget 2017 invested $65.2 million over five years and $10.9 million per year thereafter. Bill C-83 would enshrine, again not in regulation but in law, that systemic and background factors unique to indigenous inmates would be considered in all correctional decision-making. This, indeed, flows from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision in 1999, nearly 20 years ago.

The number of inmates in segregation has been trending downward for several years. There were, for example, 780 inmates in segregation as recently as April of 2014. However, by March of 2018, that number had dropped to 340, a decrease of more than 50%. This legislation would put an end to this practice once and for all. It would replace it with a far better and more effective approach.

SIUs would protect staff and inmates from offenders who exhibit particularly disruptive and dangerous behaviour and ensure that inmates separated from the general population can continue with their treatment and rehabilitative programs. Programs like these prepare inmates for reintegration as law-abiding members of a community, the Canadian community, at the end of their sentences. In other words, they are essential to public safety because almost all inmates will eventually be released from custody.

Bill C-83 would help make our correctional system stronger, more humane and more effective. It would mean better correctional outcomes for the most challenging and difficult-to-manage inmates. We have to focus on outcomes. With enhanced rehabilitation and reintegration support, I believe this would lead to a safer environment for those who work or are incarcerated inside of our institutions and fewer victims of repeat offenders outside. That is why I strongly support this important piece of legislation. It is also why I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate it when members in the House continue to raise the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Bill C-83 would address two of the specific calls to action, number 30 and number 36, in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

This is being done right across government. We have responded to nearly three-quarters of the recommendations in that report. Some action has been taken on all those recommendation that could be actioned by government, but many of them are outside the government's purview, as members may know.

Bill C-83 would have a meaningful impact on indigenous people who have been incarcerated, especially those who suffer from mental illness and other health and addiction challenges. The bill is designed to reach out and provide them with the programs and services they need so that they do not continue to be repeat offenders.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indigenous women make up 2% of Canada's population but 38% of women in prison. Eighteen of the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were about justice reform. There has been virtually no progress on most of them, according to witnesses at the status of women committee.

The legal counsel for the Native Women's Association, who appeared before the status of women committee, described solitary confinement as “a particularly cruel practice for women with histories of trauma and abuse, another area in which indigenous women are overrepresented.... [They are] particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of isolation.”

Bill C-83 does not seem to have a lot of friends who think that the government's actions are the right thing to do. Kim Pate says it would virtually eliminate “already inadequate limitations on its use.” Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator, says “[t]here's no procedural safeguard” in Bill C-83. The Elizabeth Fry Society says that this legislation would not meet its needs.

Could the member let me know which indigenous women say this is going to make their lives better, because it sure does not sound like it to us?

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to speak to this bill. Over the last couple of days, I have heard a number of speakers in the House who have had varying and interesting opinions with respect to this bill. I think it is safe to say that a lot of work and extensive consultation went into getting to where we are with Bill C-83 at this time.

I want to start by congratulating the people who work in our correctional centres across this country. Many of them I have had the opportunity to meet at many different institutions, and some of them I know personally, so I know that their work in our institutions is often not valued in the way it should be. I really believe that the work they do is exceptional and in the best interests of ensuring safety for all who are in our institutions, including themselves.

A correctional institution is a unique environment. I believe that all Canadians realize that. They also realize that it needs to be controlled and managed effectively. Doing so in the best interests of the people who work there, the inmates and, ultimately, public safety is going to be truly important and a key to success.

When inmates are at risk of causing harm to themselves or others, it really puts our correctional institutions to the test in handling those risks and challenges and mitigating any harm that could come. Correctional staff are tasked every day with making sure that everyone is safe. They need to factor in physical and mental health concerns and consider inmates' correctional plans. High-risk inmates can pose serious management challenges, and in all cases, safety is paramount.

Today we have a new opportunity to move forward with a bold new approach to these challenges. Bill C-83 would eliminate the use of segregation in the Canadian federal corrections system. In its place, the bill would create what are called structured intervention units, or SIUs. SIUs would provide an appropriate living environment for inmates who could not be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons. An inmate could be transferred to an SIU only if the commissioner or delegated authority was satisfied that there was no other reasonable alternative and that the inmate's stay there would end as soon as it possibly could.

The SIUs would provide inmates with the opportunity for meaningful human contact through programs. They would allow for interventions and services tailored to respond to their specific needs and risks. We have already heard from many of my colleagues about some of the specific needs that are currently not being met and that are causing unsafe and harmful practices.

Structured interventions would address the underlying behaviour that led to an inmate's placement in an SIU. Correctional programming would continue. I think it is important that people understand that.

During their time in an SIU, inmates would have an opportunity to spend a maximum of four hours a day outside their cells. That is double the number of hours in the current segregation system.

As the bill stipulates, an inmate's stay would be subject to ongoing monitoring, including monitoring of their health while in a structured unit. A registered health care professional would visit the inmate in an SIU at least once every day.

These are welcome changes that would make correctional institutions safer and enhance the safety of Canadian communities.

I should have said at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for London North Centre.

As I said, a registered health care professional would visit the inmate at least once every day. This is necessary because of the health care needs of certain incarcerated individuals. However, it is important to say that this bill would include additional measures that would strengthen our corrections system. It would establish a patient advocacy service to ensure that inmates understand their rights and get the medical care they need. This would not only address the concerns raised at the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, who was in segregation at the time, but would address calls from the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

Providing health care in a correctional institution is a challenging job. It requires a unique skill set that can make a real difference in improving living conditions within a correctional institution and in contributing to better safety. The bill would affirm the obligation of the service to support these health care professionals in maintaining their autonomy and clinical independence.

The service would also have an obligation to ensure that systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders were considered in all correctional decision-making. For the first time, that obligation would be enshrined in law as a guiding principle. That could mean, for example, that if an indigenous offender was placed in an SIU, individual or small group interventions would be tailored to their particular needs. Under this model, resources such as elders, aboriginal liaison personnel and specifically trained parole officers would provide culturally appropriate and responsive interventions for indigenous offenders. This would support calls to action 30 and 36 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and it would advance key mandate commitments to address gaps in services for indigenous people and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.

This focus on indigenous inmates would complement steps the government has taken to enhance indigenous communities and to invest in the rehabilitation and safe reintegration of indigenous people who have come into contact with the criminal justice system. In budget 2017, we allocated $65.2 million over four years to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice and correctional system. Of that money, $10 million has been allocated to indigenous community corrections initiatives. Under this program, public safety support projects help previously incarcerated indigenous people reintegrate safely and productively into their communities.

As I close, I feel that it is helpful to look at this proposed legislation in a much larger context. Overall, Canada is a very safe country, but we must not take that for granted. Strengthening our correctional system is an ongoing process and one that requires our constant attention. Bill C-83 would take us further down that path.

Our government wants to help ensure that we not only hold guilty parties to account for illegal behaviour but that we also create a custodial environment that fosters rehabilitation. The goal is fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and safer communities.

While there is much more work to do, Bill C-83 would bring us closer to where we need to be. I encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill C-83 and in supporting those Canadians who are asking for this reform and modernization of the correctional centre program.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

I do so because I have a duty to give a voice to the victims of crime and their loved ones here in the House because, ever since the Liberals came to power in 2015, the voice of the people has been growing weaker and weaker and their rights are being increasingly trampled.

The Canadian justice system is not perfect. A lot of work remains to be done to make it better, fair and equitable, and to ensure that it upholds the rights of victims of crime and their families. There is still a lot of work to do to make victims' rights equivalent to the rights of criminals.

Fortunately, the previous Conservative government took an honest look at the imbalances that persisted for many long years.

The excellent work done by former prime minister Stephen Harper for the advancement and respect of the rights of victims of crime resulted in the creation of the position of federal ombudsman for victims of crime, an end to prisoners serving only one-sixth of their sentence, the drafting of Bill C-452 to support victims of procuring, minimum penalties for certain sexual offences, a financial compensation program for parents whose children are missing or killed as a result of a criminal offence, a review of the faint hope clause bill and, finally, the victim surcharge bill.

Since 2015, the government across the aisle has not passed a single piece of legislation to support victims. Worse still, it has not introduced a single bill to improve the lives of victims of crime.

On top of that, even though the House unanimously voted in favour of Bill C-452 in June 2015, the government has backtracked and still refuses to sign the order in council to implement the act, which would protect young girls from sexual exploitation. It claims that the bill is too harsh on pimps.

The Liberals also want to eliminate the mandatory minimums in some acts. Further evidence that the Liberals would much rather support criminals than victims is that they took nearly a year to appoint a new federal ombudsman for victims of crime, but the new federal ombudsman for offenders was appointed in less than a month. Furthermore, they voted against my private member's bill, Bill C-343, which would have made the position of ombudsman for victims of crime the same level of authority as the corrections one.

Now, with Bill C-83, the government continues on its path, seeking to punish criminals as little as possible, even the most dangerous, aggressive criminals who pose serious risks to the safety of other offenders and corrections officers. The government wants to stop placing inmates in segregation, commonly known as the hole.

I must say that, these days, being sent to the hole is not the same thing as before. I come from a family that worked in the prison system for a long time, so I know what I am talking about. My father was a prison warden and my mother was a prison guard.

The Minister of Public Safety wants to replace the administrative segregation cells reserved for the most dangerous and problematic offenders with structured intervention units, which would separate these offenders from the rest of the prison population, when necessary, but continue to give them access to rehabilitation programs, interventions and mental health care.

We all agree that mental health issues must be treated. However, we also all agree that, when inmates are in solitary confinement, it is because they are endangering the lives of others. Because of that, I will have to vote against this bill. For me, victims of crime come well before criminals themselves.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to stand again. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-83, the flawed reforms to our correctional system the Liberals are trying to push through. This issue is very important to me because of the hundreds of correctional staff who call my riding home and who rightfully expect me to stand up for their safety and best interests.

The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers told me at meetings that the government did not bother to consult front-line correctional officers on these reforms. These people put their lives in harm's way every day to ensure that the most dangerous and violent offenders do not harm the innocent. These courageous men and women, at the end of the day, should be able to go home safely, and we must consider how these changes will affect their safety in the workplace.

Recently I had the opportunity to meet with the union representatives who interact with these criminals. These people have first-hand knowledge and experience of what is happening in the system. These are the people we should be looking to for solutions. They are very concerned about this legislation and many other policies the Liberal government is bringing forward with regard to correctional reform. These concerns involve the safety of correctional officers. They believe that the government is ignoring them and running over them with legislation that would grant extraordinary new privileges to prisoners at the expense of public safety and rehabilitation.

One of the main problems is the policy of administrative segregation. This policy is used to separate dangerous, violent offenders who are threats to the safety of fellow inmates and staff. Administrative segregation is a means to both protect and punish. It acts as a deterrent to committing violence against staff and inmates. Some cases brought to me by correctional staff have included inmates telling each other that it is not a big deal to assault a corrections officer, because they will only get five days. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to deter.

I wonder why the Liberals are reducing punishments for inmates who assault staff and make the workplace dangerous for those who serve in this risky environment.

Let us be clear. We are not talking about an oppressive system like that outlined by the United Nations. We are not even talking about how prisons operated in decades past. Canadians, when they think of administrative segregation, might conjure up images from movies such as The Shawshank Redemption, where corrupt wardens can place inmates in solitary confinement, in darkness, with no amenities or opportunities for meaningful human contact. That is simply not the case.

Although there have been mistakes in the past, several government members today have noted that the CSC has taken great strides in recent years to improve administrative segregation.

Administrative segregation is restrictive, but we are not talking about Club Med resorts. We are talking about prison. Inmates in administrative segregation have the right to exercise and leave their cells for an hour each day. These cells are lit, not dark. Prisoners have access to services to better themselves. If one listened to some groups, one would believe that these inmates were being thrown into a hole and forgotten about, and that is simply not the case.

It is clear from several high-profile cases that administrative segregation cannot be used as a replacement for effective psychological health services in the prison system. I know that Correctional Service Canada has taken many positive steps in recent years to integrate recommendations to ensure that past poor practices are reformed.

Many of those suffering from mental health challenges have been administratively segregated, and the consequences to their health and the overall outcomes for rehabilitation have not been positive. No one wants to see anyone fall through the cracks, and ensuring that services are available to those who need mental health services is absolutely critical, but this does not mean that we have to get rid of administrative segregation. It means that we need new tools to address these issues. Reforming administrative segregation needs to involve an assessment of risk and needs to seek the improvement of rehabilitation and mental health outcomes.

I am sure we could all agree that people who find themselves in the prison system are troubled individuals, but that does not mean that all criminals suffer from mental health issues. Abolishing administrative segregation as a practice would take an essential tool away from front-line personnel for protecting themselves and the inmates. In that sense, although these new secure intervention units may hold some promise, there is no reason they could not operate alongside an effective and responsibly used system of administrative segregation.

Those who do not suffer from mental health issues and who choose to assault other inmates or staff should not be rewarded with the secure intervention units. In fact, the union representing correctional officers is asking that these tools be maintained. The government is ignoring the wisdom of front-line personnel who put their safety on the line every day.

The Liberals' action to move full steam ahead in abolishing administrative segregation is a concerning move, but they are also introducing other means for threatening staff and other inmates by condoning drug use and needles in prisons.

Most Canadians would be shocked to hear that the Liberals are pushing forward with a policy to provide needles to prisoners so that they can self-administer harmful drugs. Not only is this counter-productive for the rehabilitation of prisoners, it is a threat to the security and safety of prison staff.

Violent incidents are not uncommon in a correctional environment, and handing out needles to prisoners can be akin to handing out weapons. Vulnerable inmates, guards and other staff will now live in a state of new fear that these potent tools could be used against them, possibly even lethally.

Most Canadians would also be shocked to learn that the Liberals even intend to provide cooking spoons. These are not my words. It is what the union of correctional officers is telling me. Prisoners will be able to cook and produce their own drugs so that they can self-inject. This policy is seriously ill-informed, because as I have been told, lighters have been banned from prisons, because they have been used to start fires in the past. How are they even supposed to cook the drugs with these cooking spoons if they are not even allowed to have lighters?

The Liberals are rolling back best practices that have been learned from experience by our front-line personnel and implemented. The government is rolling back these best practices and putting people at risk. This does not make sense.

Many look to Europe for an example for Canada to follow, but the government is selectively choosing which European policies to adopt while ignoring how the overall system works. Yes, needles are used in some European prisons, but there is no European country where needles are provided in all prisons. The eventual agenda of the Liberal government seems to be that all prisons, regardless of security classification, should have access to needles.

In Europe, administrative segregation is used in the case of an assault on a police officer. It changes from country to country. This is not seen as a viable option for the future for the government. Why is it not being maintained here?

I just wonder what policy objective the Liberals intend to achieve through prisoners receiving needles. Do the Liberals want to protect prisoners from infectious diseases? Correctional staff have informed me, and I have seen the statistics on this, that over the past 10 years, the rate of infectious diseases, such as HIV, have been reduced drastically. I think 50% was the model. I do not see how introducing new needles would decrease the likelihood that dirty needles will be used. This permissive approach to this abuse is likely to cause more of the same problem the Liberals are looking to get rid of.

When actions are brought before the courts, it seems that the policy of the Liberal government is always to cave in and run. Some courts have ruled that the widespread use of administrative segregation is a violation of prisoners' charter rights. It is clear that in the cases cited earlier, oversight was the issue and the indefinite period of time was the issue. That does not mean that administrative segregation in and of itself is a flawed concept.

We have charter rights, but when people go to jail, they give up some of those rights. They are not absolute. The right to liberty is an example. We have to draw a line. What about the safety of our correctional staff? Where is their right to safety in the workplace?

Correctional staff have every right to expect that the government will ensure that they have a safe working environment. This legislation, combined with allowing needles in prisons, would endanger the safety of correctional staff.

It is time for the Liberals to take a stand, uphold the will of the people and the will of those who serve on the front lines and stop taking away the tools they need to do their jobs.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually written right into the bill. This is not something that is a regulation that can be changed if another government comes to power. Under the Conservatives, in 2015, the government actually cut the budget by $295 million.

In fact, clause 30 of Bill C-83, under proposed section 89.1, states:

The Service shall provide, in respect of inmates in penitentiaries designated by the Commissioner, access to patient advocacy services

(a) to support inmates in relation to their health care matters; and

(b) to enable inmates and their families to understand the rights and responsibilities of inmates related to health care.

We are actually supposed to be providing that. It would actually be written right in the law. This is an extremely important change, because as I have mentioned, it is not normal to be in prison. We have to ensure that people have the appropriate mental health supports so that they can not only get on with the healing for themselves but they do not reoffend in the future.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker,

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

The Government of Canada's number one priority is the safety of Canadians and our communities. It is important to ensure that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment for staff and inmates, which assists with the rehabilitation of offenders. We must reduce the risk of reoffending and we must keep our communities safe, whether it is in Winnipeg or elsewhere across the country.

The Government of Canada introduced legislation that proposes to strengthen the federal correctional system, changing its direction from one which was under the Conservatives' more of retribution to looking at latest evidence and best practices by implementing a new correctional interventions model and strengthening the health care governance, better supporting victims and addressing the specific situation of indigenous offenders.

Following a recent court decision on administrative segregation, Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate segregation and establish a structured intervention unit, SIU, that will allow offenders to be separated from the main stream inmate populations as required, while maintaining their access to rehabilitative programming, interventions and mental health care. We need to ensure they actually have rehabilitative programming and can receive appropriate interventions and health and mental health care. These are extremely important.

These proposed reforms support the government's continued commitment to implement recommendations from the coroners inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, regarding the use of segregation in the treatment of offenders with mental illness. It also builds on past efforts to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples throughout the criminal justice system.

I would like to quote my good friend, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the member from Saskatchewan. He said:

We are committed to a correctional system that keeps Canadians safe and holds guilty parties accountable for breaking the law, while fostering practical rehabilitation so we can have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims, and ultimately safer communities. This approach to federal corrections will protect the safety of our staff and those in their custody by separating offenders when required, and ensuring they get more effective interventions, rehabilitative programming and serious attention to mental issues.

The bill is extremely important because it introduces a number of new elements into our corrections system.

I had the opportunity of hearing the Commissioner of Corrections Canada, Anne Kelly, who testified last week. This will be an important means forward. She is very committed to having a corrections system that responds to the department's mandate, not just simply having a justice system that responds to mob justice, a corrections system that improves safety not only within society, but also within the corrections institutions for staff and inmates, and also ensures that we rehabilitate people so they can integrate and not reoffend when they leave the corrections system.

Some of the things being put into place are the structured intervention units. These would be established to provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety and security risks of inmates who cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. It does occur that there are certain people who will never be safe within our prisons. No matter what we do in this place, unfortunately some people commit crimes that are so heinous, those against children, those done by pedophiles, that it is very difficult to integrate them into the mainstream population. For their own safety and for the safety within the entire system, sometimes a different approach must be taken.

A structured intervention unit would have structured interventions and programming tailored to the specific situation of that inmate. Inmates would have an opportunity for a minimum of four hours a day outside their cells. They would have an opportunity for two hours a day of meaningful human contacts. They would receive continued programs to help them progress toward their correctional plan objectives.

Also being put in place are factors unique to indigenous offenders. The needs and interests of indigenous peoples would be better supported by the legal requirement for Correctional Service of Canada to ensure that systematic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders are considered in all correctional decision-making. For an awful long time indigenous peoples have not received the same amount of supports.

For instance, in Manitoba, in 2016 our government put forward $26 million for legal aid to help all peoples. Generally, a lot of indigenous peoples are very poor and need recourse to legal aid. Unfortunately, the provincial Conservative government decided to cut back the exact amount that was given to this. Instead of helping the people who were most vulnerable in the system, they were not helped. They were thrown to the side again.

This is often why we have systematic structural violence in the system, which ensures that indigenous peoples continue to be overly represented because they cannot obtain good legal advice. This is a good way of ensuring that even indigenous offenders within the prison system will obtain the services they require.

For instance, I have met many indigenous peoples who have been in the corrections system, but they did not know how to apply for early release or parole on time because they did not have access to those services. This is part of that.

Supporting victims is another aspect of the bill, which is very important. It would better support victims in the criminal justice system by allowing those who attend Parole Board of Canada hearings to access audio recordings of the hearings.

We are also going to be strengthening the health care governance. The proposed reforms will affirm Correctional Service Canada's obligation to support health care professionals in maintaining their professional autonomy and clinical independence. They do not need the Minister of Public Safety telling them how to do their jobs or what they should be doing. It has been said in the House in the past number of weeks that the opposition would like the Minister of Public Safety to intervene directly in cases. However, we must ensure that health care processionals have the opportunity of doing the assessments independent of the political obligations or politics that happen in this place.

The Correctional Service of Canada would also have the obligation to provide patient advocacy services to inmates to help them better understand their health care rights and responsibilities, as recommended by the coroner's inquest on the death of Ashley Smith. Included in that is further improving mental health supports for inmates to ensure offenders with mental health needs receive proper care.

Budget 2017 invested $57.8 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, and $13.6 million per year thereafter to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities. Budget 2018 builds on these investments, proposing $20.4 million over five years, beginning in 2018-19, and $5.6 million per year going forward for Correctional Service of Canada to further support the mental health needs of federal inmates, particularly women.

We all know, and I am sure all believe, that those who end up in corrections facilities obviously are not within the norm of our society. They have committed crimes for whatever reason and some do require mental health supports.

Winnipeg, right now, is facing a deep and profound meth crisis, which has been ignored by the provincial government. Thankfully, the mayor is a bit more progressive and is attempting to tackle this problem head on. However, the provincial government for a long time has refused to even meet with city counterparts or even with the federal government on this issue. This has caused issues. People should not walk around any Canadian city fearing they might be attacked. Often, many of these issues are related to mental health and people self-medicating themselves with drugs, alcohol, gasoline and other types of drugs, which numb them to the pain of the life in which they exist in great poverty.

Our corrections system really needs to hold guilty parties to account for breaking the law. However, we also need to create an environment that fosters rehabilitation so there are fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities. That is why it is important for this bill to pass. We need to strengthen the federal correctional system and align it with the evidence and best practices so inmates are rehabilitated and better prepared to eventually re-enter our communities safely.

One day, almost all prisoners will leave the prison system and live among Canadians. We need to ensure that they do not reoffend, that we are all safe and that they have received the appropriate care so when they are released, they do not reoffend and do not hurt others.

Therefore, the bill would eliminate segregation following recent court decisions and introduce more effective structured intervention units; increase better support for victims during parole hearings; increase staff and inmate safety with new body scanner technology; and update our approach to critical matters, like mental health supports and indigenous offenders' needs.

Correctional Service of Canada needs the authority to separate offenders from the general population for the sake of institutional safety. By replacing administrative segregation with structured intervention units, the proposed legislation ensures that offenders who are separated from the general population will retain access to rehabilitative programming, mental health care and other interventions. Ultimately, effective rehabilitation and safe integration is the best way to protect Canadian communities.

The practice of administrative segregation and its history is an interesting one and has been criticized for many years. The case of Ashley Smith, who died in 2007, a case that has been mentioned in most of the speeches today, comes to mind. It highlighted issues related to segregation and mental health care in a Canadian correctional system.

In 2013, a coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith resulted in recommendations, including instituting a cap on the amount of time an inmate could spend in segregation.

In 2016, the government introduced Bill C-56, which would have created a presumptive cap of 15 days in administrative segregation and a system of independent external oversight, which I believe is very important. Since that bill was introduced, legal challenges in Ontario and British Columbia found administrative segregation to be contrary to the charter. We cannot keep inmates locked up by themselves, with only two hours of contact with other people, for the rest of their lives. Both these rulings have been appealed, one by the government and one by the other party. However, as things stand, they take effect in December 2018 and January 2019. This means that Corrections Service of Canada may no longer be allowed to use the current system of administrative segregation.

There are also pending class action lawsuits related to administrative segregation and the failure to provide adequate mental health care, as well as complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

In May 7, Ontario passed Bill 6, the Correctional Services Transformation Act, which implemented a hard cap on days spent in segregation and prohibited certain classes of inmates, like pregnant women or those with mental illnesses, from being segregated at all.

The number of inmates in segregation on any given day was over 700 in 2011. It is now 340.

While the correctional investigator has acknowledged that the reduction in the use of administrative segregation is an improvement, he has also raised concerns that this decline may be related to increased violence among inmates. However, SIUs are designed to ensure that inmates can be kept in a secure environment, while not being segregated from vital programming and meaningful human contact.

Bill C-83 would eliminate administrative segregation. Instead, people who have to be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for safety reasons, will be assigned to a secure intervention unit. In an SIU, people will get a minimum of four hours daily out of the cell, including at least two hours of meaningful human contact with staff, volunteers, visitors and other compatible inmates. There will also be a daily visit by a medical professional. By contrast, people currently in administrative segregation are only entitled to two hours daily out of the cell, with minimal human contact and access to programming.

Within five working days of movement to an SIU, the warden will review the case and decide if the inmate should remain there. Subsequent reviews will be conducted by the warden after another 30 days and by the Commissioner of Corrections Service Canada every 30 days thereafter for as long as the inmate is in the SIU. Therefore, it will be the top corrections officer in Canada, our commissioner, who will be reviewing all of these cases. Reviews can also be triggered on the recommendation of a medical professional, who, as I have mentioned, will be independent and have full independence to conduct what he or she terms is in the best interest of the patient, or if an inmate refuses to leave his or her cell for a given number of days.

Currently victims are only entitled to audio recordings of parole hearings if they did not attend. However, there have been concerns that, due to the emotional nature of the hearings, it can be hard for victims to retain all the details of the proceedings. Even victims who are present could benefit from access to a recording that they could review afterward, on their own time and in a more comfortable setting.

Therefore, Bill C-83 would give victims access to audio recordings whether they attend or not. It is very important to have to a good record of what actually occurred.

This legislation will add a guiding principle to the law to affirm the need for a CSC to consider systematic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making. This requirement flows from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision in 1999, and has been implemented through CSC's policy directive since 2003. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to follow, as the corrections services have often not followed it. Now it is actually being enshrined in law.

This bill would also implement key recommendations of the Ashley Smith inquest by creating the legal framework to have patient advocates in CSC institutions. Patient advocates will work with offenders and correctional staff to ensure that the offenders receive appropriate medical care. Bill C-83 also enshrines in law the decision-making autonomy of medical professionals operating within the CSC.

The next one is extremely important to ensuring safety within correctional facilities in Canada. Here I refer to body scanners, which will help keep drugs and other contraband out of prisons. The bill authorizes the use of body scanners, comparable to the technology used at airports, to search people entering correctional institutions. These devices are less invasive than strip searches or body cavity searches, and they do not raise the concerns of false positives reported by some people who have been examined using ion scanners.

Body scanners are already in use in many provincial correctional facilities, and now the federal system is catching up. This is going to improve safety. A number of groups are in favour of this, including the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which. While cautiously acknowledging Bill C-83's measures on administrative segregation, it welcomes the introduction of body scanners to prevent contraband. Jack Godin states:

Our union has advocated strongly for the implementation of body scanners. We are satisfied with the results. But we still need more resources to manage high-risk, violent and self-harming offenders, such as what was tabled by the Union in 2005 to manage high-risk women offenders which has fallen on deaf ears.

They have some criticisms, but nonetheless are favourable overall towards the idea of body scanners.

To implement these secure intervention units, new investments will be required, mainly to hire new staff. The government has committed to making the necessary investments, with the exact dollar amounts to be announced very soon.

The government has also signalled its intention to invest heavily in mental health care within the corrections system. This will include mental health care in SIUs, as well as early diagnosis and treatment for inmates from the moment of intake, and upgrades in the CSC's regional treatment centres, which provide intensive mental health care for more serious cases. This funding will be on top of some $80 million for mental health care for the CSC in the last two budgets.

I only have about two minutes left, as my time is slowly winding down. I would like to read a few clauses from the bill so that people who are watching on CPAC, or anywhere else, can hear what is in the bill.

On structured intervention units, the bill states:

Purpose

32 The purpose of a structured intervention unit is to

(a) provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons; and

(b) provide the inmate with an opportunity for meaningful human contact and an opportunity to participate in programs and to have access to services that respond to the inmate's specific needs and the risks posed by the inmate.

In section 33, it states:

An inmate's confinement in a structured intervention unit is to end as soon as possible.

As I have already mentioned, there are other elements are included in that. For instance, we talk about “four hours outside of the cell each day”, but there is also time not included. Section 36 states:

Time not included

(3) If an inmate takes a shower outside their cell, the time spent doing so does not count as time spent outside the inmate's cell under paragraph (1)(a).

Also section 37.2 states:

A registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service may, for health reasons, recommend to the institutional head that the conditions of confinement of the inmate in a structured intervention unit be altered or that the inmate not remain in the unit.

That means it is up to the health care professional to decide when things have gotten out of hand.

In my last minutes, I would like to quickly address the whole idea of indigenous offenders. It is incredible because, first, the bill defines indigenous people in its very first clause:

Indigenous, in respect of a person, includes a First Nation person, an Inuit or a Métis person; (autochtone)

It also includes putting in place a lot more advisory committees, committees to consult, and the idea of spiritual leaders and elders:

Spiritual leaders and elders

83(1) For greater certainty, Indigenous spirituality and Indigenous spiritual leaders and elders have the same status as other religions and other religious leaders.

Let us give thanks to Gitchi Manitou. Let us give thanks to the Great Creator. I think this is the first time I have ever heard this mentioned, and I proud to see that this measure has taken hold within this bill.

With that, I believe my time has come to an end at 20 minutes. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here and look forward to some of the very interesting questions and comments.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, tomorrow is the 11th anniversary of the death of Ashley Smith. This is a tragic story that was broadcast across the entire country. Having been moved from one stage of the criminal justice system and Canada's jail system, Ashley died alone in solitary confinement without the protections that Canada offered her. This happened 11 years ago and here we are still.

As of June 2017, 399 federal inmates were in administrative segregation, including 94 who have been in isolation for more than 90 consecutive days. Between April 2011 and March 2014, 14 inmates died by suicide in solitary confinement.

The 2014-15 report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator reported the overuse of solitary confinement as a tool for managing the inmate population. Twenty-seven per cent of the inmate population experienced at least one stay in solitary confinement.

This overly affects some incarcerated groups more than others, including women with mental health issues, aboriginal inmates and black inmates.

Aboriginal inmates continue to have the longest average stay in segregation compared to any other group and represent approximately 46% of inmates in segregation.

The average segregation period is 24 days according to Correctional Services Canada.

Why does this matter? How does it harm?

In the spring, the status of women committee of which I am vice-chair studied the over-incarceration rates of indigenous women in prison, their experience in the justice system and their experience in jail.

Here are a few quotes and stats from that report.

The 2006 report of Correctional Services Canada, which is called “Ten-Year Status Report on Women’s Corrections” said:

Segregation tends to have a significant impact on women offenders. Generally speaking, women are linked to each other through relationships and the isolation of segregation, combined with the crisis or stress the woman is experiencing, can take its toll.

We heard testimony on February 1 from Ms. Virginia Lomax, legal counsel for the Native Women's Association of Canada, who said:

Segregation is a particularly cruel practice for women with histories of trauma and abuse, another area in which indigenous women are overrepresented. Their specific lived experiences of colonial patriarchy, intergenerational trauma, and state violence makes them particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of isolation.

...Prohibiting the use of segregation for prisoners who are actively self-harming is an acknowledgement that the practice should not be used to manage mental health crises, but does nothing to address the fact that segregation itself is often the cause of escalating self-harm behaviours.

For these reasons and many others, the Native Women's Association of Canada calls for a complete end to the practice of solitary confinement by any name and for any duration.

Dr. Ivan Zinger of the Office of the Correctional Investigator said in testimony at committee on February 2 of this year:

The impact of segregation is also something that we've identified. The great majority of the women incarcerated in secure units have experienced segregation. There's also a gender-based classification system, which requires that some inmates who are seen as higher risk are handcuffed and sometimes shackled to go off the unit, which creates all sorts of problems for those women.

In response to a question I asked him about how Correctional Services Canada treats women prisoners in need of emergency health care in the Pacific region, he said:

The practice of taking a woman with acute mental illness and putting her into an all-male institution, completely isolated, all alone in a unit, is shameful and a violation of human rights. I think there is no room for this in Canada.

It has to be said that these women were tried and are in jail for a reason that the justice system identified. We certainly heard a lot of testimony. They said that they were themselves usually victims of crime before they entered the criminal justice system.

We absolutely do need to protect victims and we need to see justice be done in cases of violent crime.

Many times we heard from witnesses that they want these people to end up on the other side of the criminal justice system better than they started and some of the practices described tell us otherwise.

This is an important debate about solitary confinement.

This is what the NDP recommended. In our final report to the government, tabled here in June, we quoted Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator of Canada. He said:

I sincerely believe that in a women's facility, you could de facto abolish the practice altogether, if you used those secure units with the same sort of rigour in making it a last resort and using those secure units to separate, and not isolate, the few cases that you need to deal with for a short period of time.

The United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women, who monitors Canada to see whether it is upholding its commitments to the United Nations, said:

... I would like to call for an absolute ban on solitary confinement, segregation, intensive psychiatric care, medical observation and all other related forms of isolation of incarcerated young women and women with mental health issues.

The NDP said, in its final report to the government:

It is shocking that instead of moving forward with reform, the Liberal government appealed the BC Supreme Court ruling against solitary confinement, choosing to spend taxpayers' money fighting the BC Civil Liberties Association in court instead of implementing reforms to help indigenous women in prison.

What did we get? The government tabled on Monday, Bill C-83. It tweaks administrative segregation, or solitary confinement, and rebrands it with different wording. It retains much of the same language and the framework that is used for administrative segregation. It ignores the rulings from the B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court that ruled that administrative segregation was unconstitutional. It failed to give an option for independent oversight for decisions to further restrict liberties of inmates by transferring them into the renamed segregation units. Instead of spending 22 to 23 hours a day in segregation in the current system, the new scheme proposes up to 20 hours a day for an indefinite period of time. The Ontario Superior Court had already found that the harmful effects of sensory deprivation can manifest in as little as 48 hours.

Finally, in a critique, the Supreme Court ruled that the indefinite nature of isolation is again unconstitutional, although the federal government, as I said earlier, is currently trying to appeal that decision.

This morning, at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund breakfast in honour of Persons Day, we heard a presentation from Senator Kim Pate, who flagged that, in addition, sections 21, 81 and 84 are all interfered with in Bill C-83. These were all mechanisms, enshrined in law, that allowed prisoners to be moved to different levels of care to carry out parts of their sentence, whether that was in the community or it was a healing lodge. There were three different tools. All of them had been underutilized, hardly used at all. Senator Pate, in her previous role with Elizabeth Fry and now as a senator, had been drawing attention to them. Both the public security committee of this Parliament and also the status of women committee had studied those three provisions and made recommendations on them and, strangely, they are now gutted in this bill. It is a funny coincidence.

The representative of the Elizabeth Fry Society said, “While we have advocated for decades for the abolition of administrative segregation, Bill C-83 leaves much to be desired.”

I say, with sadness, New Democrats wanted to see real reform. We have made specific proposals on what that would look like. The government has rebranded this unconstitutional practice instead of doing what the court ordered.

I will leave with a reminder. More than one in three women in federal prisons is indigenous; 91% have histories of abuse; and many also experience debilitating mental illnesses. We have to end the use of segregation and solitary confinement. We will oppose this bill.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who will speak very eloquently on Bill C-83.

This is not how I meant to begin my speech, but since the parliamentary secretary has opened the door by saying he is open to suggestions, I have a very liberal idea to suggest. It is from a Liberal bill, Bill C-56, introduced by his own government, which would solve a lot more problems than Bill C-83 that is before us today.

This did not come from a small group of far-left extremists, but from his own government. Bill C-56 is full of good ideas, much better ideas than we see in Bill C-83, unfortunately. I suggest that he read his own bill, which is still in limbo somewhere in the House of Commons.

I, too, frequently met with correctional officers' unions back when I was still the NDP's labour critic. I share some of their concerns regarding their workload, as well as their health and safety at work. As I recall, they were particularly critical of the positions taken by the Conservative Party at the time, especially with regard to overcrowded prisons and the security problems associated with shared cells. I want them to know that we continue to support their demands for good working conditions.

I have also had the opportunity to visit a number of penitentiaries over the past two years at the invitation of a prisoners' rights advocacy group. Two years ago, I visited the Federal Training Centre in Laval, a medium-security penitentiary. More recently, I visited the Leclerc penitentiary, which is also in Laval, not far away. I also had the opportunity to meet inmates who moved from the Federal Training Centre in Laval to the Leclerc prison in the space of a year. They had made progress and were nearly eligible for parole.

Since we are talking about the prison system, it is important to demystify a few things and explain how it really works.

First, a medium-security prison is not an easy place to visit. Deprivation of liberty is an extremely serious thing. Ordinary citizens can hardly imagine being imprisoned in a cell. A lot of people think being in prison is easy, but the simple fact of spending months or years inside takes a toll. It truly is a punishment. In a moment, I will talk about the use of solitary confinement as a way to manage certain situations with prisoners. This kind of punishment can, in some cases, be considered cruel and abusive.

I have visited penitentiaries over the past two years and spoken with prisoners. They are extremely interested in politics, and I noticed that the environment is their top concern. They would ask me questions about the St. Lawrence, climate change, the future of beluga whales, and things like that. These people were going through a rehabilitation process and serving their time, and it was fascinating to see that they were keeping in touch with the rest of society. They asked all kinds of very relevant questions.

Recently, I also met with men from halfway houses run by the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec. These former inmates support men who have gone through the parole process and are participating in a program with services and therapies so they can rejoin civil society and our communities. These people do extraordinary work and do not accept just anyone. To be honest, 20% of the people in these halfway houses went back to prison because they were unable to stick to their program. They do not accept just anybody. Participants must be disciplined and follow the rules. They must explain their absences and always report their whereabouts.

Parolees who are in halfway house programs and return to the community have a 1% rate of recidivism. That is fascinating. That means that 99% of them will never end up in court or prison again, because the process worked.

I think that it is important for people to understand that when done properly and thoroughly, the process works. Often the most dangerous thing is when people serve their sentence in full. They have spent 25 years in prison. They have not taken part in any programs, been granted parole or received therapy. When they are released, it is true that they can represent a danger to society.

Those who are not dangerous are not the ones who have served their full sentence. It is the ones who are released early because they made an effort and are ready to resume their place in the workforce, among their family and friends.

I think the bill before us is Orwellian. In essence, two superior court rulings, from Ontario and British Columbia, ruled that the current legislation, which provides for administrative segregation in certain situations, was unconstitutional. There are two problems. First, there is no third-party independent observer to determine whether the use of administrative segregation was justified and whether prolonging it was also justified. That is the first problem.

Second, the average duration of administrative segregation is 24 days. That is a long time, and it takes a toll on inmates and their mental health.

Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today does nothing to address the concerns raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice or the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I think it is worth pointing out that one of those two courts stated clearly that prolonged segregation can be considered cruel punishment if it is used abusively. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that administrative segregation lasting longer than two days can have negative and sometimes permanent effects on mental health.

People can suffer permanent mental health effects if they are in administrative segregation for more than two days. The current average is 24 days. According to the United Nations, administrative segregation lasting longer than 15 days may be considered torture. The average is 24 days. Does the Liberal government's bill cap the number of days? No. There is no limit.

The first clause of the bill is absolutely fascinating. It proudly states that administrative segregation will be eliminated. The government is going to listen to the Ontario court and the B.C. court and put an end to this practice.

In the second clause, we see that it is now called a structured intervention unit. That is exactly the same thing. They changed the term “administrative segregation” to “structured intervention unit”, which is still segregation, which still has the same effect on the inmate, which is still a form of punishment that can be abusive and cruel and can exacerbate mental health problems, and which, beyond 15 days, can be seen by the United Nations as a form of torture. Structured intervention units can be any area designated as such by the Correctional Service of Canada.

The structured intervention unit can be the entire penitentiary, an area in the penitentiary, or certain cells designated as such. I suspect that the administrative segregation cells will now be called structured intervention units. They are exactly the same areas. The Liberal government is absolutely not satisfying the courts' demands. There is also no independent body to verify whether any of this is being done in compliance with the standards and rules. There is no difference in the planned or possible duration of this segregation for these inmates.

The only difference is that we are going from a maximum of 22 or 23 hours a day to a maximum of 20 hours. That is all. That does not change the inmate's reality very much. Again, it should be noted that a consequence of this is that the release time could be 3 a.m., and the inmate might be asked to go outside when it is -25 degrees Celsius out. In fact, this often does not even exist.

I hope that the Liberal government will listen to reason this time.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, it was a remarkable speech of my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, and certainly I hope that I can live up to the expectations he had.

I am honoured to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, because located in the centre of my riding is the Bowden Institution, which is presently a medium security prison built on an open campus model. It was opened in 1974, being built on the site of former RCAF Station Bowden, a World War II British Commonwealth air training plan facility. Although it is a medium-security prison, recently a considerable contingent of violent gang members have been transferred there.

During my 34 year career as a teacher in Innisfail, just a few miles north of the pen and during my wife's 10 year teaching career in Bowden, we both had many interactions with families who had relatives incarcerated at the penitentiary, as well as interactions with community members who worked as guards, psychologists, or teachers in the institution.

In my role as the member of Parliament, first for Red Deer from 2008 to 2015 and then for Red Deer—Mountain View, concerns about the activities that take place not just at Bowden but at correctional facilities across Canada often end up on my desk.

The morale of prison staff is so important because for them to function in a way that can be helpful to both the inmates and themselves, they need safe conditions and positive direction. I will start with one of the issues that has weighed so heavily on their minds, and that is the disastrous Phoenix pay system. No worker should be forced to sell their vehicle, move out of their homes, deal with marriage breakdowns from financial stress and declare personal bankruptcy simply because the government cannot get a properly calculated cheque to them. However, those are things that have happened and are continuing to happen.

No worker should have to deal with drug addicts inside a prison, especially when those drugs are fentanyl, which can be lethal if one just breathes it in. In July 2017, a corrections officer was hospitalized after finding fentanyl in a car in the parking lot. Drugs are hidden in flower beds, come over the walls in tennis balls, and are brought in by visitors, many under threat of violence to their loved ones if they do not comply.

In November 2017, half a million dollars of drugs, mainly methamphetamines and THC, was seized by staff. Imagine how people feel when the concept of needle exchanges and heating spoons also finds its way in and how that discussion occurs. It simply illustrates to the public just how dangerous and unmanageable the situation is.

Corrections staff are not only expected to deal with these dangerous issues, but they also have their hands tied even to the extent of being subject to monetary penalties if they take actions against an inmate, even if they are protecting themselves.

As far as Bill C-83 is concerned, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers intends to spend a lot of time reviewing this legislation. Jason Godin, the national president, said:

Bill C-83 will require serious consultation and resources to make it work.... As correctional officers, we want to make sure that we have the proper tools to ensure staff and inmates safety. In that sense, Bill C-83 must include structured intervention units, which would operate as a population management tool that they can ensure staff and inmate safety.

With regard to consultation, resources, and proper tools to make it work, I don't think many people believe that adequate resources management is, or ever has been, a Liberal priority after the way the government rolled out its marijuana program.

The union emphasized say that the new bill must not sacrifice disciplinary segregation as a tool to deter violent behaviour. It said:

We need alternative sanctions to disciplinary segregation, ensuring that inmates displaying dangerous and violent behaviour have some consequences for their actions. Since CSC has limited its use of segregation with new policies, there has been an increased report of assaults on inmates and staff.

For example, Mr. Godin said:

At RPC (Regional Psychiatric Centre) we have had over 100 assaults on staff in 12 months and that they need to get this under control.

It is my assessment that the introduction of SIUs may pose a risk to prison guards, inmates, particularly those for whom solitary confinement is used for their own safety. Additionally, the stripping of the ability to use segregation for discipline makes prisons more dangerous for the guards, since they will now face having to deal with the worst of the worst, the most volatile, being out and about from their cells for four hours per day.

Bill C-83 also goes further than what was raised in either of the Supreme Court decisions by banning administrative segregation and changing it to this SIU model. This is just another example of how misplaced Liberal thinking is when it comes to criminals, give them all the breaks and putting the screws to those charged with keeping control.

Conservatives will always stand strong by supporting workers' safety and victims' concerns over increasing the rights and privileges of criminals.

Another aspect of this bill, one that I am in agreement with, is the introduction of body scanners. For those who travel as much as we do as members of Parliament, it is just second nature. What are those scanners designed to do? It is to keep everyone safe, to restrict dangerous items, to prevent the possibility of mayhem. Where could that be more important than in a prison? The union also welcomes the introduction of body scanners to prevent contraband, saying that “Our union has advocated strongly for the implementation of body scanners. We are satisfied with the results.”

I agree that body scanners are a good idea, but we will be proposing amendments to extend scanning to anyone who enters the institution, other than employees. Personally, I would go so far as to say that if everyone had to go through the scanners, and inmates knew this was the way it was going to be, then the resulting recognition that nothing could come in would go a long ways to ensuring safety for all.

One of the things that I have been acutely aware of as a resident of central Alberta is the issue of criminality. We have a penitentiary, but we also have criminals from all over this country. I have heard from other members that there are issues regarding the special circumstances of indigenous inmates and concerns about inmates from ethnic or religious minorities. These are all issues that need to be carefully addressed.

There are also issues with people who have drug addictions, who feed their habit through criminal behaviour, and those special cases where inmates with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder are engaging in criminal activity because they are manipulated by con artists, some within the institutions as well. These are circumstances where effective mental health protocols and interventions need to be used.

The formalization of exceptions for offenders with mental health conditions of special circumstances, when done properly, would truly be fair. As a matter of fact, our previous Conservative government championed the improvement of mental health treatment for patients, by ensuring faster mental health screening through the creation of mental health strategies, by extending mental psychological counselling and improving staff training.

This was not hard on criminals; it was compassionate and effective. Granted, much more work still needs to be done. However, just throwing up our hands like the Liberals are doing, hoping they can move criminals out of prisons faster by simply reclassifying them, does not make sense, and it surely does not protect the public.

Policies such as classifying a single prison cell in a minimum-security facility to become a maximum-security cell sounds more like an administrative solution than a strong security decision.

In conclusion, we want to see the risk to prison guards, the institutions' staff, and the general public completely eliminated. Isolating offenders who attack other inmates or are harmful to themselves and others should not always be second guessed. Making prisons drug free with the use of technology and strict enforcement should not be considered an impossible task. Ensuring that the right mental health treatment gets to the right inmates as quickly as possible should be the goal of everyone involved.

Hopefully those witnesses who are clamouring to make the Liberals see the light will get a fair hearing when this goes to committee, and amendments will be accepted to make this legislation effective.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to mention that I look forward to hearing the speech of my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View, with whom I will be sharing my time. In the meantime, he is the one who will be listening to what I have to say about Bill C-83. Hon. members will notice that our opinions are quite similar. That goes without saying.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

It will make a few rather major changes since it will, among other things: eliminate the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation; authorize the Commissioner to designate a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary as a structured intervention unit for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons; provide less invasive alternatives to physical body cavity searches; affirm that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to support the autonomy and clinical independence of registered health care professionals.

It will make other amendments that I unfortunately do not have time to talk about. It is impossible to address every aspect of the bill in just 10 minutes. However, I will focus on a few aspects, including the government's desire to eliminate the use of administrative and disciplinary segregation. The government made that decision as a result of two cases that are currently before the courts. Although the government is appealing the rulings in those cases, it decided to legislate an extreme solution. It is recommending eliminating the use of administrative and disciplinary segregation to address an issue I believe could have been addressed differently. Unfortunately, like most of this government's initiatives, even if this bill passes, it is destined to fail. Doing away with administrative and disciplinary segregation will create a lot more problems in Canada's correctional facilities than it will solve.

To back up my prediction about how the government's plan to eliminate administrative segregation will end in failure, I would like to talk about some of the other ways this government has failed since it took office in 2015.

The government tried to resolve a number of issues, and every time it made those situations worse.

On the economic front, it raised taxes. It scared off billions of dollars' worth of investments by making Canada less attractive to foreign investors. Those billions have been invested elsewhere. On the border security front, everyone here knows that Quebec in particular is still grappling with an unacceptable situation. Thousands of asylum seekers have entered and continue to enter Canada illegally, yet the government has failed to find a solution, do something, or take action.

On international trade, there have been no new trade agreements with other trading partners anywhere in the world. The government has also jeopardized existing agreements. Who can forget the Prime Minister's failure to show up for a trans-Pacific partnership signing ceremony, thereby making Canada the laughingstock of the countries who were there at the appointed time?

What about the recent free trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada? Canada ended up with more tariffs than it had before. That is a first, and it is a dismal failure on the government's part.

On justice, the government refused to put Tori Stafford's murderer back behind bars. The government also allowed a cop killer who never served in the armed forces to keep receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. Every time we ask the government to do something about this, we get a vague, evasive response and nothing gets done.

No account of the Liberal government's failures would be complete without an account of its failure on the ethics front. This Prime Minister is the first Canadian leader ever found guilty of violating ethics laws. Four of his ministers have also been the subject of federal investigations over the last three years.

These failures have real consequences for Canadians. They have increased the cost of living, made Canadians less safe, and, by essentially slamming the door on foreign investment, as I said earlier, made it impossible for Canadians to do business and prosper. In addition, Canadians now have less confidence in the government, sadly.

I may have discovered why the Liberal government is having this problem. Digging through the archives and looking through books for some explanation of why a government would choose to fail on so many fronts, I found a book written a few years ago by Paul Watzlawick entitled Ultra-Solutions, or, How to Fail Most Successfully. I truly believe this book is on every Liberal's nightstand.

I will read a few comments from the postscript:

How to fail most successfully? It's simple. For each problem, just find the ultra-solution. What's the ultra-solution? “Such a solution not only does away with the problem, but also with just about everything else, somewhat in the vein of the old medical joke—Operation successful, patient dead”.

The problem with the Liberals is that they always find the ultra-solution. There was a cannabis problem, so they found the ultra-solution: they legalized it with total disregard for all the problems, all the dissenting opinions they heard from police forces, psychiatrists, and municipal and provincial officials. The ultra-solution was chosen to solve a very real problem in Canada. They decided that the ultra-solution was to legalize it across the board. We could apply this logic to every decision this government has made from the beginning.

Getting back to Bill C-83, yes, there are problems with segregation, as we have seen. There are problems with respect to the various groups or different communities, such as indigenous peoples, who are placed in segregation, for preventive purposes or for security. Rather than trying to come up with solutions to specific problems, the government chose the ultra-solution and decided to simply eliminate administrative segregation.

I have an article here dated September 28, 2017. It talks about Ivan Zinger, who was the correctional investigator of Canada and who conducted an investigation into segregation. To his great surprise, “[the] new strategy to limit prolonged segregation has had the unintended consequences of more violent attacks behind bars”. That is what he himself acknowledged. This is what is happening because, indeed, since 2014, the penitentiaries have tried to send fewer people to segregation.

According to the data compiled by Mr. Zinger, the number of inmates kept in segregation at any given point in the year has gone from 800 to fewer than 300 since 2014. However, over the same period, the number of assaults committed by inmates against other inmates spiked by 32%: there were 719 incidents last year versus 543 incidents in 2013-14. The number of incidents involving prison guards remained stable.

That is exactly what I am trying to explain and get across to the government By wanting to pass a bill seeking to eliminate the problem and everything that goes with it, the government is creating other problems that are sometimes worse than the ones they are trying to fix. That is why I cannot support Bill C-83.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-83, on administrative segregation. This debate will continue tomorrow.

Next Monday, October 22, shall be an allotted day. Also, priority will be given to report stage and third reading debate of Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, as soon as it is reported back to the House.

Finally, I would like to remind everybody that next Thursday, pursuant to the order made earlier this week, the House will have Wednesday sitting hours to allow for the address in the House at 10:30 a.m. by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. The bill represents a landmark shift in how we approach corrections in Canada. It would end the practice of segregation in all federal institutions. It would implement a new correctional intervention model that would ensure that offenders are held to account while creating an environment conducive to rehabilitation in the interests of everyone's safety.

This is the right thing to do and the safe thing to do. It would keep correctional staff and volunteers safe. It would keep inmates safe, and ultimately it will keep communities safe. An effective corrections system with appropriate and targeted interventions to deal with difficult, challenging or dangerous situations within a secure environment is in everyone's best interests.

The reality is that almost all offenders will return to the community. If we lock them up and throw away the key, we are not providing them with the tools they require to safely reintegrate back into society. That is why Bill C-83 would eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units. These units would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in these challenging situations. They will be used to manage inmates who cannot be managed safely in the general population.

However, unlike segregation, inmates in SIUs will receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs to address behaviours that led to their SIU placement. They will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell every day, double the current number of hours in the segregation system. They will have a minimum of two hours of meaningful human interaction every day, including through programs, interventions and services.

Currently in the segregation system, a full day can go by for an inmate with virtually no meaningful human interaction. Inmates in an SIU would also have daily visits from health care professionals, and because of the strong focus on intervention, inmates in an SIU would be able to continue their rehabilitative progress and work toward their correctional plan objectives. All of this would help to facilitate their safe return into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.

The result would be better correctional outcomes, a reduced rate of violent incidents and more safety and security for inmates, staff, volunteers, institutions and ultimately, the public. The bill is a significant step forward for the Canadian correctional system and builds on the good work already under way. The government has provided almost $80 million over five years through budget 2017 and 2018 to better address the mental health needs of inmates. That includes $20.4 million in the last budget specifically for incarcerated women. There was also about $120 million in budget 2017 to support restorative justice approaches through the indigenous justice program and to help indigenous offenders safely reintegrate and find jobs after they have served their sentences.

All of this is about making Canadian communities safer through effective rehabilitation in a secure correctional environment. This is the right policy direction, in line with recent calls for this kind of transformation.

Two constitutional challenges in Ontario and British Columbia found the legislation governing administrative segregation contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are also pending class actions and human rights complaints related to both the use of segregation and the inadequacy of mental health care. Of particular importance in this regard, the bill would also strengthen health care governance. The bill would provide that corrections has the obligation to support health care professionals in their autonomy and clinical independence. It would also create the legal framework for patient advocacy services to ensure that inmates receive appropriate medical care.

Importantly, the bill would enshrine in law the requirement for Correctional Service Canada to consider systemic and background factors in all decision-making related to indigenous offenders. Addressing gaps in service for indigenous people and people with mental illness in the criminal justice system is a mandate commitment for both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, and the government is following through.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which finished a report last spring on indigenous people in the correctional system. During testimony for this report we heard from an individual by the name of Mr. Neal Freeland, who stated:

If you're native...If you're native in this country you know someone in your family is in prison. If you're native, That's a fact. If you're native, That's the reality of growing up in this country.

His testimony was very powerful.

Our committee recommended that the Correctional Service of Canada develop risk assessment tools that are more sensitive to indigenous reality and review its security classification assessment process.

In the government's response to this report, it confirmed that this recommendation was supported by a June 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ewert v. Canada that Correctional Service Canada must ensure that its use of tools with respect to indigenous offenders do not perpetuate discrimination or contribute to a disparity in correctional outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada will continue its work, informed by this decision, to ensure that it applies the assessment tool in a culturally responsible way for indigenous offenders.

The budget contribution, along with the work by the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for the Correctional Service of Canada, and the Minister of Justice, is complemented by additional measures in the bill, including enshrining in law the requirement for CSC to consider systemic and background factors in all decision-making related to indigenous offenders.

On another note, at committee, I also worked on a report called the “Use of Ion Mobility Spectrometers by Correctional Service Canada”. The committee agreed to undertake a study of “the alarming rate of false positive results from ion mobility spectrometers with a view to finding more effective ways of preventing drugs from entering prisons, while encouraging the effective rehabilitation of prisoners.” In this regard, Anne Cattral from Mothers Offering Mutual Support told the committee:

There is now a clear disconnect between CSC policy, which recognizes the importance of building and maintaining family ties and community support for prisoners, and the continued reliance on an unreliable tool that fails to keep drugs out of prisons but does a very good job of deterring families from visiting... The effects on children of being denied a visit to a parent are also deeply distressing; this happened to my own grandson.

The bill would authorize the use of body scanners on people entering correctional institutions. A body scanner is similar to what is used by security personnel at airports. Body scanners provide a less invasive alternative to strip or body cavity searches and eliminate the issues with false positives that I heard about.

The bill would also better support the role of victims in the criminal justice system by allowing them enhanced access to audio recordings of parole hearings. That would be a vast improvement over the old system.

As I stated, this is about safety. It is about focused intervention to better serve the needs of vulnerable inmates. We need to improve the safety of our inmates, our corrections staff, our institutions and our communities. This bill would transform Canada's correctional system to meet those goals.

I am proud to stand behind this bill, and I encourage all members to join me in supporting this historic proposed legislation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this very important legislation.

I come from a part of the country that has six penitentiary facilities in the immediate areas. It used to be seven before the former Conservative government closed one of them.

People in my riding take great pride in the work that our correctional officers do. We regard the work they do in their role of rehabilitating and reintegrating inmates into society to be an extremely serious one. From the guards to the parole officers, from program staff to medical professionals, correctional employees work hard around the clock, in challenging environments, to keep our institutions safe and to support effective rehabilitation, which ultimately protects Canadian communities.

Correctional officers and workers represent a professional workforce of nearly 18,000 employees, all engaged in the success of the corrections system and the fulfillment of the mandate of Correctional Service of Canada. That is complemented by the nearly 6,000 volunteers in the institutions and in the community, not to mention the elders, chaplains and many other unsung heroes. When people who have broken the law return safely to society and to our communities, that is a testament to their work and it is essential to the safety of our communities. Our number one priority is the safety of Canadians.

This summer, I had the opportunity to go on a tour of the closed facility in the Kingston area, the former Kingston Penitentiary. We had an opportunity to hear from various former and retired correctional officers. Through that tour, I learned a great deal about their dedication to our justice system, but also the many dangers they faced in the safety aspects of their jobs. That is why I applaud the efforts of the government and I am supportive of correctional employees and the work they do in ensuring the federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment for staff and inmates.

Within the secure environment, effective rehabilitative interventions reduce the risk of reoffending and help keep our communities safe. The goal is to have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and ultimately safer communities. That is why the mandate letters to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness include addressing gaps in service, particularly to vulnerable populations, including indigenous peoples and those with mental illness, throughout our criminal justice system.

The government has also demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation through the reopening of prison farms, which I can attest is happening in my riding. Prison farms provide prisoners meaningful work at farms at the end of their sentences. Farms teach inmates skills in various agricultural fields, such as heavy machinery operation, food handling and dairy operation. Even if inmates do not go on to a career in agriculture, practical skills and certifications earned through farms will apply for future jobs. In fact, data demonstrated that prison farms increased the likelihood of employability once inmates were released.

The government has shown a commitment to improving our correctional system by making rehabilitation possible again and by enhancing the safety of prison workers. This is a new, bold approach to federal corrections. It will protect the safety of staff and those in their custody by allowing offenders to be separated as required, while ensuring those offenders receive more effective rehabilitative programming as well as interventions and mental health support.

Under this bill, the practice of administrative segregation will become a thing of the past. The corrections system will have a new tool to manage inmates who pose a safety risk in the form of structured intervention units, or SIUs. Inmates in SIUs will have at least four hours a day outside their cells, instead of the two hours under the current segregation system. They will have a minimum of two hours of meaningful interaction with other people, including staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains and other compatible inmates. They will have access to structured interventions to address the underlying behaviour that led to their placement in the SIU. These will include programs in mental health care tailored to their needs.

Offenders may be placed in an SIU when there are reasonable grounds to believe they pose a risk to the safety of any persons, including themselves, or the security of the institution. An inmate's assignment to the SIU would be subject to a robust internal review process. By the fifth working day after movement to an SIU, the warden would determine if the inmate should remain there, taking into account factors such as the inmate's correctional plan and medical condition.

I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth.

If an inmate remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews would happen after 30 days by the warden and every 30 days thereafter by the commissioner of corrections. Reviews could also be triggered by a medical professional at any time. In fact, strengthening health care is a big part of the legislation. In an SIU, inmates would be visited by a registered health professional at least once a day.

Bill C-83 also affirms that the Correctional Service has the obligation to support health care professionals and their autonomy and clinical independence. The bill provides for patient advocacy services to help ensure offenders receive the health care they need. Clearly, an offender in good physical and mental health is more likely to achieve successful rehabilitation.

The bill represents a giant leap forward for our corrections system. The proposals are proactive and sensible, with public and institutional safety at their core. We should all want to ensure that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment, one that is conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety and the protection of the public.

Eliminating administrative segregation and creating SIUs represents a landmark shift in our approach to corrections. I look forward to continuing to work with the government, with colleagues in the chamber, and the many people who work within the corrections system to continue advancing the objective of enhancing safety and security through effective interventions and treatment.

As I have said, nearly 18,000 corrections workers and 6,000 volunteers across the country do a remarkable job in what are often very difficult circumstances and harsh environments. They deserve to carry out their work in a safe and more secure environment and they deserve to be better supported in their goal of better correctional outcomes.

On all fronts, Bill C-83 would answer those calls. I call on all members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Conservatives are surprising anyone when they say they are against the legislation. They have this Stephen Harper mentality, that Conservative spin, as if they are tough on crime and they are the only defenders of victims. Progressive legislation of this nature would prevent future victims.

Some countries around the world recognize that certain things can be done To allow for a better system, and we see that, whether it is indigenous concerns through some of the changes being proposed, or body cavity checks through technology or screening or different courses that will be provided, even for those in segregation.

Most people would acknowledge that Bill C-83 is progressive legislation. We need to move forward on this. The Conservatives want to stay in the past. They believe that by standing on the hilltop yelling “We're for victims”, they will get the votes. They should look at this legislation, as well as how the world is evolving, and recognize this.

When will the Conservatives look at what other jurisdictions are doing to move progressively on this file?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off this intervention by setting the situation we are faced with today.

Imagine a time when we call murder a “bad practice.” Imagine being at a point in time where we cannot use the word “illegal” for those who cross our borders illegally. It is now “irregular”. Imagine our government of day actually paying convicted terrorists $10.5 million for pain and suffering. Imagine a time when our government reaches out to a terrorist who, at one point, bragged about playing soccer with the heads of those he fought against, an ISIS terrorist, who bragged at one time about playing soccer with the heads of those they captured and decapitated.

I offer this because this is where are at, at this point. We see, time and time again, the government, our colleagues across the way, continuing to go on, “merrily, merrily, life is but a dream”. It goes down the way, all rainbows and sunshine. It is hug-a-thug.

Imagine a time when we are moving a convicted murderer, one who had been sentenced for society's most heinous crime of kidnapping and killing an eight-year-old, to a healing lodge part way through their sentence, not behind bars, but having a key to their own condo, if you will, free to come and go as they please within that area. Imagine a time when we always err on the side of the criminal rather than that of the victim.

Imagine a time when a convicted murderer can claim PTSD from the murder that he committed and receive treatment for PTSD before veterans and first responders.

That is where we are with Bill C-83. Before our colleagues across the way say, “The Conservatives are so against these body scans and different elements of this piece of legislation”, we are for providing the tools for our front-line workers every step of the way so that they can be safe. We are for providing victims and their families the rights and the tools so that they can remain whole, so that they are not revictimized at every step of the way.

Bill C-83 is about abolishing segregation. Oftentimes in the movies and in prison slang, segregation is referred to as “the hole”. Maybe that is how we got here. Maybe that is how this came to be. The Liberals, in the ways they dream things up, actually thought it was a hole we were putting people in. That is not true. It is a cell, no different than others.

As a matter of fact, somebody who spent a long period of time in segregation, one of our country's most notorious serial killers, Clifford Robert Olson still managed to take advantage of the situation. A reporter who visited him at one point remarked that he was healthy, that he even had a tan. Here is a guy who raped and murdered children in my province of British Columbia, and maybe even in other areas.

Segregation is not just for the safety of our front-line officers. It is also for the safety of those who are incarcerated. One of our colleagues mentioned that in interviewing somebody who has been incarcerated and spent a majority of their time in segregation that they preferred that, that they knew if they were out in general population that they probably would not last very long.

I actually would like to name some of the folks in our prison system who are housed in segregation and who the government is proposing to allow out of segregation, such as Paul Bernardo who has just been denied parole again. He is known to have lured young women, torturing, raping and murdering them with his then girlfriend, Karla Homolka. He actually murdered her own sister. Other inmates in segregation are Robert Pickton, who is a serial killer in my province of British Columbia, Renee Acoby, John Greene, Andrew Gulliver and Christopher Newhook.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, there is probably one of our most notorious serial killers, Clifford Robert Olson. I had an opportunity to speak with some of the arresting officers in his case and those persons who were charged with guarding him in his cell. He bragged incessantly and wanted to talk about those crimes. He was diabolical. He was sick.

Segregation provides a disciplinary administrative tool that both keeps those who are incarcerated protected, but also protects front-line workers. Is that not what we are here to do, protect society and those who have been charged with protecting society, keeping them safe both physically and mentally?

Through the course of my work in building Bill C-211 and then getting it passed in June of this year, I worked closely with correctional services. Very often, correctional guards and correctional officers are not seen as first responders, yet they perform those duties every day. They are seeing the worst of society at their very worst, while providing medical and life-saving treatment almost on a daily basis. They also have to guard those individuals and their safety is always at risk. Imagine being a guard in charge of a unit and there are 40 of society's worst criminals, yet that guard is alone.

The president of the union of Correctional Services of Canada recently said that in his centre in the course of the last 12 months there had been 100 violent incidents against his officers.

I have also learned that the government is approving a needle exchange program where the guards are to give the inmates needles and spoons to cook drugs and then go back to their cells, unbelievably. There is no onus on the prisoners; when they come up for parole, they are not required to report that they had been using in prison. Therefore, yes, we do agree that we should have full body scanners, not only for prisoners or their guests, but also for guards. I believe that would make everyone safe.

How unbelievable is it that we are now going to give needles and cooking spoons? I do not mean ladles for cooking soup, but cooking spoons for drugs, to use drugs, then allow them to go back to their cells and expect a guard to go into the cell to do some form of administrative management or security search, not knowing whether there is a needle there with some form of bodily fluid.

When the union heard about Bill C-83, it sent letters to the minister outlining its concerns. Union representatives were worried about segregation and emphasized to the minister the importance of this tool for correctional officers. They brought up their concern over the prison needle exchange and suggested rather than doing that, the minister focus on the resources to treat inmates with infectious diseases instead. They came at this in a reasonable way and offered solutions, yet they were not listened to. They were pooh-poohed. As a matter of fact, the minister thanked them for their time and then went forward in crafting this bill.

We are against the bill as a whole. We are not against certain elements of it. I would urge the government and the minister to reconsider Bill C-83.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my remarkable colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. I use the word “remarkable” because the word “incredible” has been overused for him recently.

I am proud to speak today to Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This is also known as another case of Liberals putting interests of criminals ahead of everyone else, with little thought put into it. It should not be confused with Liberal Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, or Bill C-28, or any other myriad number of bills in which they have put criminal rights ahead of those of regular citizens.

We all know the horrific story of the case of Ashley Smith and her unfortunate death. That never should have happened within our prison system, and the government should make moves to prevent situations like that from recurring. However, it should not impose a poorly thought-out, outright ban on segregation.

There are some good parts to the bill and I congratulate the government on it. I support the idea of body scans to prevent contraband and drugs coming into prisons, but it should be extended to everyone entering the prison, not just certain people. I also like that it gives more consideration to indigenous offenders.

But, and it is a big but, there are a few key points in the bill that would directly impact the safety and security of our corrections officers and those who need segregation for their own safety. This is another example of the government's obsession with making criminals' lives easier while making our front-line officers' jobs more dangerous.

I want to talk about the reality of the most common use of segregation. Inmates who commit crimes in prison do not always get the segregation. Very often, it is the victims who are segregated to protect them from those inmates. It is often used as a means of ensuring the safety of the targeted inmate from further assault, often because the target does not want to name the inmate who assaulted them. This means the assaults continue and the inmate who went into a segregation unit has to eventually reintegrate somewhere else in another unit or institution, or even in another region in the country.

It is relatively uncommon that segregation is ordered as a disciplinary sanction. In fact, most inmates view segregation time as a holiday rather than a consequence, especially since they must receive all their possessions, such as a television and their other belongings on their property card, within 24 hours of admission.

A report from CBC that came out last April quoted the Ontario Public Service Employees Union as saying that segregation isn't the deterrent it once was, because the maximum time inmates can spend in segregation has been halved and increased privileges for those in segregation mean that inmates are no longer as skittish about being sent there. It also confirmed that in fact there are not enough segregation units, at least in Ontario, because most are being used by inmates who have mental health issues.

That is the provincial system, but it correlates to the federal system as well. It leaves violent inmates out in the general population, where they can continue to commit assaults against other inmates and corrections officers themselves.

Another CBC report quotes an officer as saying, “Where [the more violent inmates] used to be in separate containers, now they're all in one bag, and we're just waiting for one to go off. And that sets the rest of them off and you end up with murders, stabbings, slashing, and officer injuries higher than ever.”

Another officer is quoted as saying, “The inmates, they can get away with a lot more than they used to in the past, and that contributes to the growing violence and the crisis in corrections.”

As I mentioned, with previous changes to segregation policies the maximum time in segregation has already been cut in half. Also, the increase in privileges available to those in segregation means it is not as strong a deterrent as it used to be. All removing segregation does, especially disciplinary segregation, is soften reprisals for bad behaviour. Inmates know there is one less tool for correctional officers to use to maintain order and ensure their own safety and that of other inmates.

A CBC report from September 2017 indicated that the stricter limits on segregation have led to a massive upswing in inmate assaults. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of violent repeat offences after leaving segregation increased 50%.

Statistics released recently for corrections in Ontario show close to 800 reported incidents in 2016. By halfway through 2017, the last time we had the numbers available, there were almost as many violent incidents in our prisons. The report quotes Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who pointed out that segregation is a tool for a reason and that restrictive policies only transfer the problem of violence.

The creation and integration of structured intervention units makes violent and non-violent inmates equal, regardless of the quality of their conduct while they serve their time. They get access to four hours per day outside their cells from the structured units, and they also get two hours of “significant human contact”. This is going to require significant increases in resources for the officers, but there is no money set aside for this.

Now, every time someone is moved into segregation, or out of segregation for their two hours out in the open, it requires two officers to accompany them. That is for the safety of the officers, to ensure they always have enough manpower to protect themselves. Where is this money going to come from?

If we look at the government's departmental plan signed by the Minister of Public Safety, allowing for inflation it is actually cutting 8.8% of the funding to Correctional Service Canada over the next four years. Where is this money coming from?

I am sure the minister did not even look at the plan before he signed off on it, and I am sure my colleagues across the way have not read the plan either. It actually calls for a reduction in officers in Correctional Service Canada over the next years, but it is going to increase the workload and the costs of these units with what money? We do not know.

The officers themselves are left with one less tool that allows them to deter assaults and violence from taking place in the cellblocks. Corrections officers already face a host of challenges. Even though it is their choice to work in these jobs, keep in mind that these men and women are still in a prison themselves. They are subjected to the same environment that the inmates are.

Statistics from a 2018 report prepared for the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers show that between 60% and 65% of correctional officers report their work has a negative impact on their life away from work. A substantial proportion of correctional officers, about 75%, report that the psychological demands of their job have increased in the last five years. Nearly 55% of long-serving officers report that their physical ability to properly do their work is worse or much worse in the last few years. The report summarizes:

[T]here is a particularly poor fit between interest in work and the psychological and mental disposition of [the] officers...on the one hand, and the environment and working conditions set out and maintained by CSC, on the other. Such a poor fit cannot go on forever, nor be ignored, other than to the detriment of both the correctional officers...as well as public interest as embodied in CSC's mandate and social mission.

I want to look at an another area where the government has failed our corrections officers. They are one of the main victims of the Liberal Phoenix fiasco. Roughly 85% of corrections officers across the country have been affected by Phoenix. This is because many of them are shift workers with irregular schedules that require manual entry into the system, something the government could have prevented had it not botched the entire rollout.

In fact, the Treasury Board was specifically told this was a failure in the Phoenix system when it was doing the pre-testing, yet the government chose to ignore it, just like the President of the Treasury Board ignored the Gartner report when it advised not to proceed with Phoenix.

I find it very amusing that the President of the Treasury Board justifies his meddling in the Davie supply ship contract on behalf of Irving as part of his job, but apparently it was not part of his job to act on the Gartner report on Phoenix, which, by the way, he commissioned himself.

The UCCO president has already called for help for its members because, like many public servants, they are renegotiating their mortgages and taking out loans to ensure they can keep a roof over their heads because of the pay problems. Unfortunately, we do not see an end in sight for those suffering from the Phoenix pay problems.

I want to talk about the government's priorities. I mentioned before that its priorities seems to be on criminals, not on average Canadians. Page 210 of last year's budget proposes $21.4 million for the mental health needs of RCMP officers and the same amount for the mental health needs of federal inmates. There are a lot more RCMP officers than there are inmates. For the average RCMP officer, the people putting their lives on the line every day and fighting for us, we have from the government $1,100 per officer for mental health. For prisoners, it is $1,400. Where is the justice?

Of 1,400 words in the CSC's much-ballyhooed mandate letter, the first time a corrections services lead has had a mandate letter, there were 24 words on victims and 52 on the workers. Those 52 words on the workers included such gems as, “I encourage you to instill within CSC a culture of ongoing self-reflection.”

There are the government's priorities in a nutshell: more money for criminals, less for the RCMP and for our valued officers in the prisons. Perhaps it is time for self-reflection on the issue.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a pilot project was recently announced that indicated there would be a needle exchange program available in certain prisons across Canada. One of those prisons is in my area, in the Waterloo region. It is the Grand Valley Institution for Women.

We know the correctional officers at these facilities are very much opposed to the idea of a needle exchange program, and that they were basically not consulted on having the program implemented. Now that we have the body scan and a zero drug policy in prisons, will the Liberals finally discontinue their misguided needle exchange program?

Also, I would like the member to tell me if the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers was consulted on Bill C-83 as it relates to the safety of our correctional officers, who serve Canada so well in the work they do.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest concerns about Bill C-83 has been identified by many. The correctional investigator, the John Howard Society and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies have all identified one core piece that goes back to a recommendation made by Justice Arbour a number of years ago relating specifically to her recommendation that dealt with judicial oversight. Really, at this point, we are talking about any kind of oversight at all.

In the bill as it stands currently, notwithstanding any ability of the commissioner or the warden to continue to examine a person's presence in what essentially is still solitary confinement under a different name, even with the recommendation of health care professionals, the ultimate decision would still lie with them. There would still be a lack of third-party investigation. There would still be a lack of independent oversight and recourse in the event that the abuses we have seen take place in the past occurred again under this new system.

As I asked the minister, would the government reconsider and go forth in a direction that complies more strongly, or at all, with the B.C. Supreme Court decision and with recommendations that have been made by many experts throughout civil society?

[Karen McCrimmon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to add my voice in this debate around Bill C-83.

We are committed to ensuring that we not only have the tools to hold the guilty parties accountable for breaking the law but also to create an environment that fosters rehabilitation, so that we will have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities. This bill proposes to transform the way our federal correctional system works in this country to meet those critical goals.

A central element of this transformation is eliminating the use of segregation. Segregation would be replaced by the safety and intervention-focused structured intervention units, or SIUs for short. SIUs would operate in a much different way from what is currently the case with segregation. I will get to those crucial differences in just a few moments.

First, let me just say that in any large population there will be people who pose risk to those around them and to themselves. That reality holds true and perhaps is compounded in a population of offenders housed together under one roof. Correctional institutions are home to inmates whose behaviour can be dangerous to others or to themselves, and disruptive or highly difficult for those around them to endure.

It is a very challenging environment, both for inmates and for the professional, brave and hard-working correctional employees. Corrections officials and staff must have a tool they can use in cases where an inmate cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. For many years, segregation has been that tool.

However, the practice has come under fire in recent years. Watchdogs like the correctional investigator and the Auditor General of Canada have urged the government to restrict its use or eliminate it altogether. Two recent constitutional challenges in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia have found the legislation governing administrative segregation to be unconstitutional.

As of December and January, administrative segregation will no longer be a tool available in those two provinces. That means that if an incident happens in a yard and inmates need to be separated while witness statements are taken, as correctional workers find out what happened, correctional officials will not be able to use administrative segregation. This means that if several members of a gang are threatening another inmate, there will be no administrative segregation unit to use. All of those involved will simply stay in the general population. This is a recipe for disaster.

Let us be very clear that when the Conservatives say we should just keep using “administrative segregation”, which what they called it in government, or “solitary confinement”, as they call it in opposition, they are telling correctional officials to do something they will not have the legal authority to do anymore. Those sections of the act will not exist in those two provinces.

What the Conservatives are really saying, then, is to just keep all of the inmates in the general population, regardless of the risk they pose to guards and health care workers and regardless of the risk from other inmates. It is not a real plan. It is reckless, and it is reckless thinking that we would expect to hear from people who have no real policies and no ability to make tough choices that governing this country requires.

Of course, those two court rulings came subsequent to the tragic case of Ashley Smith, who died in custody in 2007 at the age of 19. The coroner's inquest into Ashley's death focused on administrative segregation and the treatment of inmates with mental illness.

The Government of Canada has committed to implementing recommendations from that inquest. The mandate letters of three ministers also commit them to addressing gaps in service for indigenous peoples and for those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. Both of those groups are not only overrepresented in the overall federal corrections system, but also in the inmate population in segregation.

Some progress has been made by Correctional Service Canada over the past few years. Canada's correctional investigator said in March of last year that CSC “for the last few years has dedicated a lot of time and effort to address the gross overuse of administrative segregation.” For example, CSC implemented policy changes that led to a sharp decline in the use of administrative segregation placements between 2015 and 2017. Those changes have ensured that inmates with serious mental illness who actively engage in self-injury and are at elevated or imminent risk of suicide are not admissible for segregation.

According to the correctional investigator's 2016-17 report, the average stay in segregation has also seen a significant drop, from 34 days in 2015 to 23 days in 2017. The correctional investigator calls these reductions “encouraging”, but he cautions that there is more work to be done.

The time has come to better focus on interventions and on safety, and that is what this important piece of legislation would do.

Under Bill C-83, segregation would be eliminated outright from Canada's federal corrections system. In its place, the government is proposing to create structured intervention units. SIUs would be established in numerous institutions. They would offer a secure and structured environment to address the safety risks of inmates who cannot be managed or integrated into the mainstream inmate population.

The initial decision to move an inmate from the mainstream inmate population to an SIU would be made by a CSC staff member under the institutional head. This decision would be based on an evaluation of the inmate's needs, including health needs, and the safety risks for themselves, others and the institution. The staff member would have to be satisfied that there were no reasonable alternatives to placement in an SIU.

The inmate would receive a notice explaining the reasons for his or her movement, the right to retain and instruct counsel, and the right to make representations regarding movement back to the mainstream inmate population, or other alternatives.

Unlike segregation, SIUs would provide inmates with uninterrupted interventions and programs tailored to address their specific and unique needs and risks. Inmates would also have the opportunity to be outside of their cells for a longer period of time, at least four hours a day rather than the two hours a day currently practised. At least two of those four hours would allow inmates to interact with others.

In addition, inmates would receive daily visits from health care professionals. The plan would include additional staff to ensure that inmates could be moved safely throughout the new SIUs as they continued to receive programming and time with other compatible inmates within the SIU.

This is truly a revolutionary approach that would lead to better rehabilitation, which would mean less recidivism once inmates were released. Fewer inmates reoffending would mean less crime, and it would mean fewer victims in our communities.

Bill C-83 also addresses key recommendations from the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith. In addition to ending the practice of placing female inmates in conditions of long-term segregation, the bill would introduce patient advocates at designated penitentiaries to help inmates navigate their health care rights and responsibilities.

All of this would facilitate the reintegration of offenders into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. It would also support their treatment and rehabilitation in preparation for their eventual release into the community. That, in turn, would support safety in our communities, because the vast majority of inmates will eventually complete their sentences and will be freed from custody.

We must do everything we can to ensure that offenders are as well equipped as possible to be productive, law-abiding citizens by addressing the underlying behaviours that got them into trouble to begin with. This is what we need to focus on.

Public safety is not well served by seeing offenders released more hardened, more bitter or more resentful than when they came in. Nor is it ever a good thing for inmates with health or mental health issues to be undiagnosed or to go untreated while in federal custody. That is why the establishment of the SIUs under this legislation would be such a big and positive step forward on the safety front. I am confident that it would mean better correctional outcomes for inmates, more security for the staff, safer institutions and greater public safety in the long run.

Bill C-83 would also correct a long-standing problem that has developed over time for Correctional Service Canada. When the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was written in 1992, CSC had facilities that were entirely dedicated to a single security classification. However, over time, CSC's infrastructure became mixed, with institutions often having, for instance, a maximum- and a medium-security wing. Today virtually all the facilities are mixed facilities. In fact, all the women's institutions are, indeed, mixed. The act, however, was never changed to reflect that fact.

Bill C-83 would ensure that CSC had the clear and proper legal authorities to operate and move inmates from one wing of an institution to another wing in the same facility.

This legislation would also grant CSC the legal authority to use body scanners. As we all know, drugs and other prohibited contraband find their way into prisons, despite efforts to keep them out. Body scanners would provide an important tool for corrections guards that is less invasive than physical searches and more effective in detecting contraband.

The bill would also ensure that audio recordings of parole hearings would be made available to victims who attended a hearing. The existing Corrections and Conditional Release Act permits a registered victim who was not in attendance to receive an audio copy of the hearing, but it does not allow someone who was there in person to have one. During the government's consultations, we heard loud and clear that for many victims, a parole hearing is such an emotional moment that the time seems to fly by. Later, they have difficulty clearly remembering what transpired. Section 34 of Bill C-83 would ensure that victims who attended in person could receive an audio recording of the hearing afterward.

Another important aspect of the bill stems from the Gladue Supreme Court decision of 1999. This was the case that required the Correctional Service to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making. Over the past 20 years, CSC has developed internal policies to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling, but Bill C-83 would go further by ensuring that the Gladue principles were fully enshrined in the CCRA.

I am proud to stand with a government that continues to take action to reform the criminal justice system, and I am proud to stand here today in support of this important bill.

As I mentioned at the top of my speech, this bill would ensure that CSC would have the tools to hold guilty parties accountable for what they have done while creating an environment that fosters rehabilitation. Effective rehabilitation means that we would have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for that enlightening speech. He may enable the government to improve the bill it introduced today, Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

The bill would enact a number of measures, as listed in the summary: eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional institutions; replace those facilities with structured intervention units; use body scanners on inmates; establish guidelines for access to health care; and formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders, and offenders with diagnosed mental illness.

In a few days, this Parliament will be three years old. The Liberals have done all kinds of damage in those three years, and we can add this bill to the list. They have not thought this through. The Liberals do not know what they are talking about.

Let us look at each point individually. The first amendment eliminates the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation. On October 19, 2015, I had the privilege of being elected to represent the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, and I am so proud to do so. There is a correctional facility in my riding called Donnacona Institution. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and I recently had the privilege of visiting that institution, as luck would have it. We do our due diligence, and we know what we are talking about, because we went there for ourselves to meet with the management and the various unions. We even met some inmates. We did not see a hole during our visit. The Liberals seem to want to eliminate something that does not exist and replace it with something else that will do the same thing, but with fewer restrictions.

I am a father. Parents are responsible for disciplining their children. We teach our children that actions have consequences. Of course, they are not the same as those imposed on inmates in maximum security. Rules are put in place. There are rules, and correctional officers have tools. Unfortunately, the Liberal government wants to take away one of those tools. It wants to limit the number of days of intervention and take away this tool in order to make inmates more comfortable, inmates who have done wrong or are looking for security. It is rather appalling.

What is the government's motivation for eliminating solitary confinement and creating structured intervention units or SIUs? I will try to get used to the acronym, but I hope this legislation will not have to be enforced. It is quite an invention. The Liberals improvised. They decided that what the Conservatives did was wrong, that they are too mean, that they segregate people who have done wrong, and that they are too harsh with inmates.

One person's rights end where another person's begin. On this side of the House, we support protecting victims. We want these inmates, who have acted inappropriately in a society like ours, to face consequences. They should not be encouraged. These people must face consequences. These consequences are tools for corrections officers.

The government wants to eliminate administrative segregation, create SIUs and limit the number of days. It wants to take away consequences for inmates by limiting the number of hours a day.

Are they going to give every inmate a cake on their birthday? Are they going to roll out the red carpet when inmates arrive at Donnacona? Let us be serious here.

I must acknowledge that the government did include something worthwhile in the bill. Life is a mystery. After meeting with corrections officers and management from institutions like Donnacona, the government introduced the idea of scanners. These scanners are found in airports and even here in Parliament. People go through various checks. In penitentiaries, inmates can be strip-searched. Officers have a little metal mirror they can use to do an external check.

Yesterday, October 17, was a sad day for Canada because the government legalized marijuana. As its very name states, organized crime is organized. These people unfortunately discovered that they could use body orifices to hide things. Corrections management and officers said one of their priorities was to stop inmates and visitors from bringing drugs, cell phones and tools into penitentiaries. Criminals have a lot more time than we do to think up ingenious solutions, because we have jobs. They may work, but they do not have the same objectives as we do. They look for ways to build tools and get access to the outside world.

One thing that was addressed during our meeting last week at Donnacona was the importance of providing scanners. It seems that the government across the way is going to allow them, but we are a long way from unpacking scanners at Donnacona and other maximum-security institutions in Canada. This should be a priority. It should be considered an essential tool.

Of course, they are going to ask why the Conservatives did not take care of it. At the time, there were other technologies. Today, there are scanners. Institutions should get the tools they need to impose restrictions. There are the infamous drones, there are scanners, and there are other important tools.

The bill I am reading today seems to include some things that are more permissive and inclusive that will make life more comfortable for our inmates, but we need to be protecting the victims. We need to be strict. We need to command respect and ensure that there are consequences for these people so that they get the message. We are not against reintegration programs, but we think they should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Now the programs are being used in a general, inclusive and permissive way. Life in Canada's penitentiaries is a party. We have to be responsible and ensure that the tools are put in place quickly. This government should make it a priority to have scanners installed.

I think this will vastly and quickly improve the situation in the penitentiaries. It is a priority tool. It is important. We cannot accept this bill, even though we see the beginnings of positive solutions in it.

Clearly we cannot support this bill because of this government's improvisation.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to remind the House that laws do not take precedence over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why Bill C-83 exists.

Members opposite seem to be saying that there will not be any solitary confinement at all and that there will be no way to deal with dangerous inmates. I would like to remind the House that there will be structured intervention units where inmates will have access to mental health care.

What do we do in cases like that of Ms. Smith, the young woman who died as a result of her time in solitary confinement? That is why we introduced this bill. What solution is my colleague proposing?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

As always, I will begin by saying hello to my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are watching today, as I am told every time I go door to door.

I also want to tell them that the issue we are discussing today is a very delicate subject. We are talking about the prison environment and about people's lives, namely, the lives of victims of crime and the lives of criminals in prison. This subject can be unsettling, and people often have very strong views on one side or the other. Some people want a really tough-on-crime approach, while others want a softer approach, for reasons that are equally legitimate on both sides.

I would like to ease into the debate and explain the Conservative caucus's take on Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our public safety critic, was the commanding officer of the Régiment de la Chaudière. I have a lot of faith in him. Today he moved a motion calling on the House to simply end the debate on Bill C-83. My colleague believes that the bill is so botched that we need to shut down debate. In other words, we want to stop this bill and keep it from moving forward or being voted on in this place.

What I find interesting is that the NDP members have said that the bill does not go far enough in terms of protecting people who are incarcerated, while we are saying that it goes too far because it compromises the safety of prison guards and Canadians in general. Given that the motion moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will not be voted on right away, I will address some of the main aspects of this bill.

I want to address my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. The bill would eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on administrative segregation. These opinions are often based on Hollywood movies. Administrative segregation is used when an inmate is imprisoned for life, or for 10 or 2 years. Inmates serving a life sentence already know that they are not getting out of prison and that they will probably die there, even though there is a provision allowing them to request a discharge after 25 years and leave prison, even in very serious cases of premeditated murder.

Nevertheless, life in prison is a very long period of time for someone who is incarcerated. How can the correctional facility and the guards compel or force this prisoner to comply with disciplinary guidelines? The prison guards are ordinary men and women, with normal lives, who go home at night, who have children, and all that. How are they meant to impose order every day in prison when there are inmates who will be there for the rest of their lives? These lifers could go so far as to kill another inmate since they will be in prison either way.

What I am saying is that correctional facilities need access to measures that are psychologically difficult for prisoners, like segregation, otherwise known as the hole. I do not think that is a good word, since they are no longer holes. They are real and proper cells, just used as a means of segregation.

The inmates eat well enough, and they have access to sanitation facilities. Prisons are not like Alcatraz in the 19th century. We are talking about orderly, coordinated disciplinary segregation that gives correctional officers some measure of control over hardened criminals who do not follow the rules unless they are afraid of ending up in segregation.

This bill would eliminate that. Considering the argument I just laid out, we think that is totally ridiculous. The bill would also replace those facilities with structured intervention units, but it does not tell us exactly what those units are or how they will work.

The bill also talks about using a body scanner, and that is one part of the bill we support, as do corrections professionals and unions. Visitors often find ways that I will not describe in detail to bring drugs and other objects, such as cell phones, to prisoners. That is not allowed. Using a body scanner could make life easier for corrections officers, visitors and prisoners because there would be no need to conduct uncomfortable searches.

The bill specifies that exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders diagnosed with mental health issues need to be formalized. It is about time.

Speaking for myself, there is something I find intriguing. The bill comes in response to recent superior court decisions that found that indefinite segregation was unacceptable under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to respond to something my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood said in answer to a question I asked 15 or 20 minutes ago. He told me that we make law, but the courts and judges interpret the law.

Nowhere in the Canadian Constitution does it say that lawmakers do not have the right to interpret the law. It is ironic to hear a lawmaker say something so absurd, because we interpret laws every day in the House of Commons. We interpret them in debate and in committee. We review laws, we rewrite laws, we pass laws and we repeal laws. The role of interpreting law belongs as much to the legislative branch as to the executive branch. The executive branch is even required to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to evaluate every bill through the lens of the charter.

Distinguished Professor Christopher Manfredi of McGill University, who is recognized by his peers around the world, said that the interpretation of each of the three branches is important because they each have their own interpretation of Canadian law and that we achieve better results for Canadians when there is vigorous competition between the powers.

In conclusion, I will say that we could have a philosophical debate about the existence of prisons. No one thinks that prisons are wonderful. At a human level, I believe prisons are probably the most horrible thing there is. However, the historical evolution of humanity shows that this is the only known way to ensure that the most dangerous members of our society will not have any further criminal impact on others. The objective is public safety. The Canadian government's main objective is Canadians' safety. That is why I told the member from Scarborough—Guildwood that he should have instead introduced another bill that emphasizes the government's role in protecting Canadians and that tells the court that it is absolutely wrong about administrative segregation in prison. It is unfortunate, but we must have prisons.

As I reiterated in my arguments, administrative segregation is the only real tool that ensures that prisoners serving a life sentence, for example, have a psychological constraint preventing them from harming other inmates in jail. How can we control a lifer without administrative segregation? It is good for the effectiveness of prisons and for the safety of guards.

We hope that the government will reverse course on this bill. I do not understand why the NDP does not want to support the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which believes that ending the practice of administrative segregation will jeopardize the safety of correctional officers.

I thank the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou for listening.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, since 2015, the government has been very clear about its commitments to Canadians. Broad criminal justice system reform is central to those commitments.

The government followed through, first by introducing major legislation that would protect the vulnerable, meet the needs of victims and keep our communities safe. It also promised to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.

Further, the government vowed to implement recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, regarding the restriction of the use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with mental illness. Today, the government is following through with it once again.

Bill C-83 represents a groundbreaking shift in Canada's approach to federal corrections. At its core is a focus on ensuring that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment, one that is conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety and protection of the public.

With this bill, the government proposes to eliminate segregation. We will eliminate it in a manner that continues to ensure institutions are secure. It will help reduce the rate of violence in federal institutions and provide inmates in need with support. This is an effective, practical and proactive approach to managing inmate safety.

For the first time in history, there will be a requirement in law for consideration of broad systemic and background factors unique to indigenous inmates in corrections decision-making.

All of that said, at the heart of this legislation is the elimination of segregation and the introduction of structured intervention units to manage inmates at higher risk. It would create structured intervention units, or SIUs, as a practical new tool for institutions. They would be established at numerous institutions. These SIUs would provide a safer environment for inmates. Inmates in SIUs would have the opportunity to be out of cell for at least four hours per day, offering more opportunity for human interaction.

If we are all being honest here, we know that there are times in prison that some inmates cannot be in the general population. These new SIU proposals would address the safety risks of those inmates who could not be managed in the mainstream inmate population.

Those members on the right are going to say that we should throw them in the hole. In fact, the Conservatives put out a release that pretty much said that. Those members on the left are going to say that we should not separate them at all, that we should leave them in the general population. However, when problems such as gang hostilities are brewing, this is not an option either.

We need a solution that would ensure that offenders can be separated from the general population when needed but also to ensure that those who cannot be in the general population for their safety or the safety of others can still have meaningful contact and programming.

Under this legislation, all interventions would be tailored to the specific needs of offenders to address the behaviours that led to their movement to the SIU.

They would have daily visits from health care professionals.

After five days in the SIU, a decision would be made about whether or not to keep the inmate there. That decision would take into account the inmate's mental health care needs and if appropriate unique indigenous factors, including systematic and background factors.

Inmates assigned to an SIU would have their correctional plan updated to ensure they receive the most effective programs at the appropriate time during their assignment in the unit and to prepare them for reintegration into the mainstream inmate population.

They would have meaningful human contact with other compatible inmates and in some circumstances even visitors.

This is a major step forward but not the only one we have taken.

The new bill builds on important investments the government has made to date.

Budget 2018 invested $20.33 million over five years and $5.54 million per year after that to further support the mental health needs of federal inmates. Funds will be largely targeted towards providing enhanced mental health supports for women in federal correctional facilities across Canada. That is on top of budget 2017 funding of $57.8 million over five years, and $13.6 million per year after that to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities.

All of that said, our work is not done. We can all agree that we need to do better in our correctional system.

We are transforming the way we manage inmates whose behaviour poses a security and safety risk that cannot be managed within the mainstream inmate population. More broadly, we need to acknowledge and address the cycles that contribute to crime and the unique needs and risks of vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples.

We need to make sure we are not only holding guilty parties to account for what they have done, but that we are creating an environment that fosters rehabilitation for the safety of all.

This is the right choice at the right time. I call on all members to join me in supporting Bill C-83, so that our correctional institutions can better fulfill their important goals of safety and rehabilitation.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-83 would eliminate administrative segregation. Instead, people who have to be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for safety reasons, would be assigned to a secure intervention unit, SIU. What would be the difference between a new secure intervention unit and administrative segregation?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton Centre.

This initiative goes back quite a long way for me. I want to recognize the former member for Kitchener Centre, the hon. Karen Redman, who raised the issue of Ashley Smith's death and how it affected so many of us, in caucus and outside of caucus, particularly for people like me who are not from Kitchener.

I want to begin by reading the dry coroner's report, which states:

Coroner's Inquest Touching the Death of Ashley Smith.

Aged: 19

Name of Deceased: Ashley Smith

Date and Time of Death: October 19, 2007, 8:10 a.m.

Place of Death: St. Mary's General Hospital in Kitchener

Cause of Death: Ligature strangulation and positional asphyxia

By What Means: homicide

That is the coroner's way of introducing what is in fact a substantive report that forms, in part, the basis for the initiative in Bill C-83.

The newspaper report is a little more graphic. It states:

Smith, 19, originally from Moncton, N.B., was imprisoned at the Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener, Ont., when she died in 2007.

She had tied a piece of cloth around her neck while guards stood outside her cell door and watched. They had been ordered by senior staff not to enter her cell as long as she was breathing.

...

In the last year of Smith's life, [she] was shuffled 17 times between nine institutions in five provinces.

She was clearly a troubled young lady, but there was still a massive failure on the part of the institutions that were responsible for housing her, and ultimately for her death.

The minister of the day, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, said after receipt of the coroner's report: “My thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Smith's family. I've asked my officials to review carefully the jury's recommendations”. That was on December 19, 2013. At that time, he was the federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness.

Here we are, more than 10 years after Ms. Smith's death, looking at a bill that incorporates of many of the recommendations contained in the coroner's report. Clearly, nothing was done from 2007 to 2015, when the previous government ceased to be the government. Three years later, we are now preparing this, in some respects driven by the forces of civil society, but also by the reality of two lawsuits, which at its core means the current system is not sustainable.

Among the recommendations of the coroner's report is that CSC ensure that nursing services are available on site for all inmates; that CSC expand the scope and terms of psychiatric contracts to enable them to perform duties in a meaningful way; that decisions about clinical management of inmates be made by doctors, not CSC staff; that inmates must have access to an independent patient advocate system; that indefinite solitary confinement for prisoners be abolished; and that meetings between prisoners and support staff should not happen through food slots. That was something that happened frequently with Ms. Smith.

We have a long way to go, and I do not pretend to assume that Bill C-83 responds to each and every recommendation. My colleague, the NDP critic for public safety, highlighted some of the real questions that would be properly posed to the minister before a committee. Hopefully, the responses of both the minister and the head of Correctional Service Canada will be helpful in assuaging him about the concerns that are legitimately raised, both in the coroner's report and in the lawsuits that have come up.

The Prime Minister was so concerned about the inadequacies of, for want of a better term, solitary confinement that he actually incorporated it into the mandates of the justice minister and the public safety minister.

The justice minister's mandate says, “recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith regarding the restriction of the use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with mental illness.”

The mandate letter of the public safety minister, states, “address gaps in services to Indigenous Peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system”.

In 2013, we had a coroner's inquiry and recommendations coming out of the death of Ashley Smith in 2007. In 2013, the Conservative Party said that its thoughts and prayers went out to the family. The Liberal Party became the Liberal government in 2015. Incorporated into the mandate letters of two senior ministers were the requirement that they deal with these issues. Now we have Bill C-83 on those issues.

In addition, the corrections commissioner has further been mandated to help create a “safe, secure and humane” corrections environment and to address the physical and mental health of inmates, among other priorities. In fact, two weeks ago, the new head of CSC, Anne Kelly, spoke to her mandate. Indeed, members had every opportunity to question her about her mandate and also to see how this part of her mandate might well be fulfilled.

Most significant is that Bill C-83 would put an end to segregation. In Ontario and British Columbia, two constitutional challenges have found that the legislation governing the administrative segregation is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My friends in the Conservative Party might wish that to go away. They probably wish the charter would go away. Nevertheless, two of the most significant provinces in the country have said that the way things are being done is not sustainable and is contrary to the Constitution.

It is quite clear that what is motivating in part, beyond the mandates etc., is the reality of the NGO community and these class action lawsuits. The time to act clearly is now.

It is clear that large parts of the administrative segregation provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will no longer be in existence in two of Canada's most populous provinces. The Conservative Party's position seems to be to just let people sit in the current system anyway. That is neither a very morally nor legally sustainable position.

In my opinion, taking prisoners out of administrative segregation and putting them into a situation is a greater benefit to public safety.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, when two courts have ruled that the current use of solitary confinement is unconstitutional, including the Supreme Court of B.C. in its scathing decision that clearly lays out what the government needs to do, and that has been shamefully appealed afterward, one can ask what exactly the government is trying to do with Bill C-83. Unfortunately, by all appearances, it seems that it wants to bypass these court decisions and what experts, civil society and the UN have said with regard to the use of solitary confinement. That is reason enough to oppose Bill C-83.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-83, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in response to several court rulings and a debate over administrative segregation that has raged in Canada for years.

I want to thank organizations like the John Howard Society, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which are leading the charge against the overuse of administrative segregation. They won out in two slightly different court rulings.

Before I start, I want to give some background on those court rulings because they impact today's debate. The minister himself said that Bill C-83 is partly intended as a response to the concerns expressed by the court.

Let us start with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In its recent decision, the court explicitly said that there are not enough tools for ensuring, for example, that a lawyer is present during administrative segregation hearings. It also mentioned the inhumane conditions imposed by overuse of administrative segregation and the fact that a predetermined time limit on the use of administrative segregation had been ignored.

That ties in with part of the ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which states that more than 48 hours in administrative segregation caused serious, irreversible mental health problems. This also ties in with the UN's finding that more than two weeks in administrative segregation can be defined as a form of torture. These findings are so important.

The use of administrative segregation has been found to be abusive by the correctional investigator countless times and in countless reports that he has published over the past decade. We also see that an overrepresentation of certain vulnerable populations in administrative segregation shows that there is not only an abusive use, but an extremely problematic use that can exacerbate problems in some cases and hinder rehabilitation efforts of certain inmates in our correctional system.

For example, there is an overrepresentation of women with mental health problems. There is also an overrepresentation of indigenous peoples, since 42% of inmates in administrative segregation are indigenous peoples. It is mind-boggling to see just how overrepresented indigenous peoples are in administrative segregation. Let us not forget that they are already overrepresented the general prison population.

The decision brought forward by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, following efforts by, among others, the BC Civil Liberties Association, made it clear that the Correctional Service of Canada was acting in a way that was deemed to be unconstitutional under section 7.

What did the government do following a very clear prescription from that court about what could be done in order to remedy the situation? It appealed that decision, and that was shameful. It was interesting that in June 2017, certainly before that decision was made, the government had legislation before the House, which is still on the Order Paper, Bill C-56.

Bill C-56 sought to remedy, in part, the issue before us today, the issue of solitary confinement, by imposing a 21-day limit that would then be followed by a review. Despite any decision that might be made, any findings of abuse or overuse of solitary confinement, there was no independent mechanism to act on any findings of abuse. All that was required to prolong the 21-day period was for the warden, the head of the institution, to provide reasons in writing. To be honest, that is a pretty low threshold for continuing with a practice that has already been deemed, as I have said on several instances, to be problematic.

We are not the only ones saying this. This is something that has been going on for a long time. As I said in my question to the minister, Justice Arbour long ago called for judicial oversight of the use of administrative segregation, or solitary confinement, if members prefer less Orwellian language for what this practice actually is. That followed a commission on certain events in the women's prison in Kingston. That recommendation has so far gone unanswered, not to mention the many recommendations that followed from the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the horrible situation with Ashley Smith.

This leads me to another troubling statistic. Between 2011 and 2014, 14 inmates who found themselves in solitary confinement committed suicide. This is a public safety issue. Let us be clear. Using a tool that exacerbates mental health situations in corrections and diminishes the ability of corrections to rehabilitate those offenders will inevitably cause a public safety concern with respect to recidivism and other things.

That is why, when we look at the tools being used, understanding that corrections officers need tools to ensure safety within the institutions they manage, we also have to understand the danger that can be created by exacerbating existing issues and the importance of prioritizing rehabilitation.

I would like to read the testimony of some experts in order to demonstrate to what extent the bill before us is problematic.

I will read the press release issued yesterday by Senator Kim Pate, who was the then CEO of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

Senator Pate said:

With respect to segregation, Bill C-83, is not only merely a rebranding of the same damaging practice as “Structured Intervention Units”, the new bill...also virtually eliminates existing, already inadequate limitations on its use.

Moreover, she adds:

Bill C-83 also maintains the status quo regarding a lack of effective external oversight of correctional decision making. Under the new legislation, all decision making regarding when and how long prisoners are to be segregated will be made by a CSC administrator without the review of any third party.

The last sentence in that paragraph goes to an earlier point I made:

This change represents another step away from Justice Louise Arbour's recommendation for judicial oversight of corrections following the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston.

I agree with Senator Pate.

It is quite disturbing that, in media articles and in his comments, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is trying to give the impression that the government is working to eliminate administrative segregation. That is just a sham.

Let us be clear. What the government is really trying to do is to make a few changes to the administrative segregation process in correctional institutions. In fact, all they are doing is calling it something else. It is disturbing, since the government is appealing a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court that clearly identifies the problems with administrative segregation.

In a media scrum after the bill was introduced earlier this week, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness implied that what they are calling it now is no longer administrative segregation. They appear to believe that by changing what they call it, they can avoid their obligations with respect to administrative segregation imposed by the Supreme Court and listed by the United Nations.

The senator is not the only one to say so, and I would also like to share with the House the opinion of a correctional investigator.

The correctional investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger, shares the same assessment as Senator Pate, and that I have made, of the proposed legislation. Dr. Zinger told iPolitics:

We may end up with a regime that touches more people and that is very restrictive.... This is a widening of the net of those restrictive environments. There’s no procedural safeguard.

Two things in this passage are extremely important. Not only will administrative segregation continue under another name, but they are going to be casting a wider net. This will drag in more inmates, who may also belong to vulnerable groups that are already overrepresented in administrative segregation.

There is no procedure in place for reviewing or appealing decisions to place inmates in administrative segregation. The lack of third-party review and an appeal mechanism is extremely disturbing.

When I asked the minister the question, he said that it was not important and that there were already mechanisms in place, including multiple reviews by the commissioner and a review by the institution’s warden.

That is simply not enough. It has been clearly found and established in correctional investigators’ reports, court decisions and United Nations resolutions that there has been abusive use of administrative segregation. According to the experts and in my own opinion, it is not enough to simply rely on wardens’ and the commissioner’s decisions. Of course, these individuals have a certain expertise. They are responsible for managing their institutions, and we respect that.

However, once it has been determined that there has been abuse, there must be a recourse mechanism for putting a stop to that abuse.

That is the problem with some of the measures concerning the new powers that would be given to recognized health care professionals. On the surface, and in a somewhat substantive way, this is a positive thing. However, there are two key issues with what health care professionals could do under Bill C-83.

The first is how we define the health issues on which those health care professionals could act. Experts are already saying that there is a concern that some health care issues that may be identified as not essential by a warden or an administrator in a corrections institute would go without the proper treatment and that the arbitrary way in which such a determination could be made is obviously cause for concern.

The other piece is that even if a determination was made by a registered health care professional, or someone that person had delegated, offenders, inmates, who found themselves in solitary confinement, or this new SIU in Bill C-83, and then for a variety of physical and mental health reasons should no longer be in such a situation, would have no recourse. Those findings would be presented to the administrator, and consequently, under certain articles of the bill, would go to the commissioner. However, the reality is that as long as there was no proper oversight, third party or judicial, as has been recommended by folks like Senator Kim Pate, Justice Louise Arbour and Dr. Ivan Zinger, our corrections investigator, the proper protections would not be in place.

I am very concerned.

I would like to return to my Conservative colleague’s speech. Some Canadians listening today are probably asking a very simple question: why should we want to make life easier for certain inmates? How does that help ensure public safety?

Certain points are extremely important, and I mentioned some of them in my speech. To ensure public safety, we need disciplinary measures guaranteeing that correctional officers can properly manage their institutions.

We also need to make sure that the people with problems and, in some cases, serious mental health issues, will not get worse and that, on the contrary, they will receive adequate and appropriate treatment.

We want to prevent recidivism in the case of certain inmates who will be granted parole. We also want to ensure the protection of correctional officers inside the institutions. Providing proper treatment for individuals with serious mental health problems is extremely important.

The concerns in this area expressed by the union representing correctional officers are extremely important. The hon. member who spoke just before me alluded to this in her speech.

I would like to take the time to address some of their concerns. Resources are the main issue. In its statement on Bill C-83 today or yesterday, the union clearly identified this problem, which remains one of its top concerns.

That is a recurring theme with regard to what is required for corrections officers to be able to do their jobs. When we look at the approach taken by the previous government, in 2011-12 alone the legislation adopted by the Conservative government represented an increase in cost of around $250 million for Correctional Service Canada, which was followed by the need to cut nearly $300 million in operating costs from 2012 to 2015, followed by the closure of two penitentiaries, Leclerc Institution and the Kingston Penitentiary. That is a circle that cannot possibly be squared when it comes to ensuring public safety and ensuring that corrections officers have the ability to adequately do their jobs: ensuring safety and security within those institutions and ensuring that the correctional program that has been assigned to a specific offender can be followed through on.

Of course, the problem is extremely worrying to the entire population, but let us be clear. What we want above all from the correctional system is, on the one hand, the assurance of public safety; on the other hand, by applying the disciplinary and punitive measures that exist in the justice system and are essential to rehabilitation, we want to achieve the objectives of treating mental health issues, as well as ensuring public safety, when it comes to inmates who could reintegrate into society and their respective communities.

I would like to get back to Bill C-83. It is all a sham, as I said before, to oversell what is actually a minor change.

Right now, we are told that 22 hours is the threshold for placing someone in administrative segregation. The government is talking about a major change in the number of hours prisoners can spend outside their cells. In fact, relative to current legislation, this change amounts to two hours.

As the executive director of the John Howard Society said in an interview this week, most of the time, these hours are granted at 5:00 a.m. when it is 40 degrees below zero outside. Understandably, the inmate will refuse to come out. Under this bill, such refusal will have consequences.

To conclude, the smokescreen the government has put up to say that it is addressing the concerns of the court, of the United Nations and of the correctional investigator just is not enough. The reality is that we are proceeding with the current regime under a different name. That is not enough to ensure public safety and that corrections officers are attaining the objectives imposed on them by the law but also by constitutional obligations.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, during my work on my private member's bill, Bill C-211, which includes correctional officers, I spoke at length with correctional officers regarding the fact that they were the front line. They see, hear and experience oftentimes the worst of our society.

In a recent statement by the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, he mentioned that over 100 assaults on officers over the last 12 months had taken place at the Regional Psychiatric Centre. Does our hon. colleague feel that the removal of disciplinary tools, such as what Bill C-83 proposes, enhances the security of correctional officers or does it make them more vulnerable to assault?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. If I am not mistaken, when our government was in power, measures were put in place to help inmates with mental health problems. We recognize that mental health is an issue and we do not want to hide that, on the contrary. We have already taken measures and now we are prepared to help people so that they do not fall any deeper into depression than they already are.

The fact is that we believe Bill C-83 goes way too far in how its perspective of the reality on the ground, the reality of prisoner management. It goes to an extreme that does not work. The government could have proposed a more balanced approach, a different perspective, but this bill is way too extreme. It will not work.

I agree with my colleague that it may be problematic to keep people in solitary confinement for long periods of time without cause, but this bill does not resolve that issue.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. In our opinion, the Liberals' bill reeks of improvisation. Allow me to explain.

This bill seeks to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities and replace it with structured intervention units; to use prescribed body scanners for inmates, which is a good idea; to establish parameters for access to health care; and to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health conditions.

Obviously, the bill in question contains some reasonable measures that are worth examining. We should all consider how we can change and improve the overall prison program.

In a recent ruling, the Ontario Superior Court called into question the legality of indefinite solitary confinement, but the Liberals are appealing that decision. This is what I mean about improvisation. On one hand, the Liberals are appealing the court's decision, but on the other they are introducing a bill that introduces major changes. It is difficult to follow the Liberals' logic.

As far as administrative segregation is concerned, let me share a concrete example. Last week, I was invited to Donnacona Institution, a maximum-security federal penitentiary in the Quebec City region. Representatives for correctional authorities made presentations and the union shared its concerns. Then, during the tour of the penitentiary, I was brought to the administrative segregation area so that I could see what it is. They even brought out an inmate who was in administrative segregation, a murderer who has been incarcerated for 41 years and has spent only three months out of segregation. He committed other major crimes as well.

He came to see me and said that he wanted to stay in what is referred to as the “hole”, in other words, administrative segregation. That person does not want to be with the other inmates. He has been incarcerated for 41 years and says that administrative segregation suits him best. The correctional officers asked me what they are supposed to do with him since he wants to stay there. If he is forced to return to the general population that will cause problems. It is hard to know what to do or to assess the usefulness of administrative segregation.

Getting back to the bill, this legislation also applies to transfers and allows the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary and all areas within penitentiaries. I do not understand that. In a maximum-security penitentiary, such as Donnacona, nothing gets in or out without the strictest controls. I know from experience because I had to go through several steps when I went to visit. Maximum security means maximum security, period.

As I understand it, under this bill, a maximum-security classification could be assigned to any area of a medium- or minimum-security penitentiary. If that is not the case, someone will correct me. If we are talking about basic safety, that simply does not make sense. A maximum-security classification cannot just be assigned to an individual cell at a minimum-security facility. That would be absolutely ridiculous, since the facility's entire perimeter and security system would not be designed to guarantee maximum security. Someone needs to explain that, because I do not understand.

I firmly believe that Canada has one of the best correctional systems in the world, both for prisoners and for guards. Everyone can agree that criminals need to serve their sentences, as required by law. However, a prison must not become a five-star Holiday Inn, because that will give prisoners no motivation to renounce the criminal lifestyle. When someone goes to jail, they should feel like they are in jail. They should want to leave and never come back once their sentence is up.

If prisoners decide they do not like life on the outside and do bad things so they can go back to jail—which is something that is already happening, because they get free room and board, are cared for and have all their needs met—then there is a problem. This is not the way to help people get back on the straight and narrow.

I was eager to see the bill. After a preliminary reading, I see some good points. It is not all bad. Just because we are in opposition, that does not mean we can only see the negative side. By no means. For example, using body scanners is a great idea. In fact, it is one of the things I wanted to recommend to the minister.

The problem is the spirit of the law. These are the worst criminals in Canada. They are murderers, rapists, you name it, and they are in maximum security prisons. They are the worst people in Canada. The intent of the law is to take these people and create a structured intervention unit for them. They will spend less time in cells, and they will be put together to give each other hugs and to talk. There is a very liberal attitude underlying all of this, which I understand is about believing that everyone is good, everyone is kind.

However, as I was saying, when I was at Donnacona I saw some videos about what happens in the corridors and with inmates. Those people are hardened criminals. They will attack one another on the slightest pretext. I was even shown a video of an inmate who was knifed in the head by another inmate. There is incredible violence. The most dangerous inmates, the ones who do not want to co-operate, are put into isolation cells so they can be controlled.

Then there are the victims. The inmate who was attacked in the video I saw knew that something was going on. He knew that his life was in danger. These people ask to be put in segregation. They do not ask to be put in segregation so they can get touchy-feely with the most dangerous inmates. This is not how it works. This person wants to be isolated, in a quiet cell, which, I should add, is nothing like what you see in the movies. People imagine the hole like a dungeon at Alcatraz, where the guards slam the door and the room is completely black. These cells are the same size as the ones in normal sections. They are exactly the same, just more private. Inmates are segregated either to be put under control or to give them the peace they need to be safe. That is what segregation is about.

I am not suggesting that nobody ever abuses the system. I am not suggesting that, over the years, people such as prison wardens have not abused the system. That may have happened, but again, why lay down a general rule to deal with exceptions? There have been exceptions. If certain individuals have taken inappropriately draconian measures, then they need to be told they did not do their job properly, and they need to be fired. Why change the whole prison system? Why change a way of doing things that works in that setting? The existing laws are fine if they are applied properly. They meet the needs of correctional officers and inmates.

Prisoners have diverse needs, and many of them ask to go to the hole. The man I was talking about, who has been in prison for 41 years, wants something unusual. He wants his own blankets and he wants to stay there. The warden is trying to figure out what to do about him. It is complicated. However, we have serious concerns about the idea of taking people who are in segregation and making them hang out together for four hours. That is not really the right place for it.

This is part of the Liberals' current approach to security. Canadians are very skeptical of our Prime Minister's security plan. Take, for example, our border crossings; or the government's handling of Canadians who decided it was more fun to go play with terrorists, kill people, come back and pick up their lives as though nothing had happened; or even our soldiers. For the past three years, the Liberal government's record has shown us that it has something akin to contempt for the people who work to keep Canada safe and secure. The government's management of our Canadian forces is appalling. I served for 22 years and I have friends who are still in the system. I can say that they are very disheartened by the current government.

Police officers are doing what they can. They are being put in impossible situations, just as they are with the legalization of marijuana. Police officers are saying they will make it work, because they are professionals and they have no choice. In the real world, if you speak to them privately, they will tell you that it is not working and they do not have what they need. We saw how great it was yesterday with everyone lining up to buy their pot. I have to wonder who all these people are who have time to wait in the rain for three hours on a Wednesday to buy drugs. Police officers are saying they will be the ones left to deal with that. The government says the police will sort it out, they are up to the task. That is disrespectful to our security agencies.

The same goes for prisons. The prison environment is a unique environment. It is a closed environment. The officers who work there are at risk every day because they have to deal with the worst thugs and the worst criminals in Canada. The Liberals like to think that everyone is nice and everything is peachy, but that is the worst way to think when dealing with these prisoners.

They are the greatest manipulators. They do anything they can to manipulate others to get what they want. They want to control their environment. This is difficult for our officers, who work 24/7 to keep these prisoners under control and keep the guards and the rest of the prisoners safe.

Next, I want to talk about syringes. We have a problem because the government just decided that it would use taxpayer money to give syringes to all inmates who ask for them, so that they can inject drugs. How is it that people are able to inject drugs in prison? Is the correctional setting not supposed to keep them away from all that? Drugs are smuggled in by visitors. They hide drugs in all kinds of places, but I will leave that up to your imagination. All kinds of things are brought into prison, usually through visitors and corrupt officers. It is no secret that this happens.

I am pleased because, under the bill, all prisoners will be required to undergo body scan searches. However, mandatory scans will also be required for all visitors. This measure was included in the bill in response to a request from the Donnacona Institution, and I am pleased to see that it is going to happen. Ontario and British Columbia are already conducting such searches. Body scan searches will make it possible to control at least 95% of the substances that individuals bring into prisons because they will show whether there is anything hidden in an individual's body. That will allow us to prevent drugs from entering prisons. If body scan searches keep drugs out of prisons, then we can immediately suspend the needle distribution program.

Prisoners will keep the needles. The most serious criminals with best ideas for doing the greatest harm will have needles in their possession. That does not make any sense. We are giving prisoners weapons. These people have a lot of imagination; we have no idea just how much. I saw a chart at the Donnacona Institution of everything that the guards had confiscated. Some inmates spend two months rubbing a nail clippers on part of their bed to create a knife. They are patient. They are there for a long time. They will take the needles from the syringes to make weapons. They will be able to make blades with the spoons provided to cook drugs.

I believe that the government knows all of this. If the government understands, why is it doing this? Why is it not thinking things through and using common sense to say that it will do things the right way by installing scanning equipment and preventing drugs from entering so needles are no longer needed? We should forget about this absolutely ridiculous program which endangers the safety of our correctional officers.

We cannot support Bill C-83 in its present form. Basically, there are some things that work, such as installing scanning equipment. However, we believe that creating structured intervention units is just smoke and mirrors. This shows that the government does not understand the prison system.

Last week, my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and I toured a prison. The unions gave presentations to all elected members of the House. Even our Liberal and NDP colleagues heard from the unions about their concerns and were asked to stop thinking that a federal penitentiary is a fantasy world. I am referring to the prison near Quebec City, but the same applies to every federal penitentiary in Canada.

Take the McClintic case, for example. This murderer's transfer from a maximum-security prison to an indigenous healing lodge got a lot of people talking two weeks ago. This is someone who ought to be serving her sentence in a maximum-security prison. In maximum-security prisons, each offender has their own cell. They eat, they sleep, they take classes if they so choose, and then they go back to their cells. They are protected because they are living in a maximum-security environment. However, for some incomprehensible reason, it was decided to send this person to a place with virtually no security.

From what I gather from Bill C-83, room 83 at the healing lodge, to use a random number, will be considered a maximum-security room. If I read between the lines, that is basically what the Liberals want to do. The end result will be a place surrounded by beautiful pine trees where room 83 is a maximum-security room.

Ms. McClintic will be in room 83, the maximum-security room.

Do they think we are idiots? Either they must be idiots or they think we are, to believe that would work. I hope that I am wrong and that what I am saying is false.

If what I am saying turns out to be the truth, then this government is really dangerous to Canadians' safety. It does not care what a maximum-security prison sentence means or what keeping Canadians safe means.

Then there are the victims. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of victims who are seeing the murderer who killed their father, mother, brother or sister end up in such conditions.

What must they be thinking? They must be wondering what country we live in. What kind of country lets its worst citizens spend their sentence in such conditions by claiming room 83 is a maximum-security room? This is a serious problem.

I could go on about this for two hours, but I think that Canadians know that this government is not serious and that it puts Canadians' safety at risk. If this keeps up, things are bound to get worse. Otherwise, then the government should prove it by taking rational measures that are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Prisoners have rights, of course, but it is all in the way things are done. This approach is not in line with what we as Conservatives consider to be effective management of a penitentiary.

On that note, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, since the Bill prioritizes the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals over safety and victims' rights by eliminating the use of solitary confinement, a common measure many Western countries take to protect guards from dangerous and volatile prisoners, and since the principle of the Bill fails to end the practice of allowing child killers, like Terri-Lynn McClintic, to be transferred to healing lodges instead of being kept behind bars.”

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the legislation we are about to discuss today pertaining to the correctional system, I want to take this moment to recognize that the family, friends and colleagues of a correctional officer, the late Lesa Zoerb, will be gathering tomorrow for her funeral service in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan. Lesa lost her life in a vehicle crash while on duty last week. She was born in Regina. She had two children. She had worked as a federal correctional officer for 20 years.

I know everyone in this House will want to join with me in extending our deepest condolences to all those who are mourning the loss of Lesa, especially her loving family.

May she rest in peace.

I will now move on to the legislation at hand. What we are doing today is opening the second reading debate on Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The act is all about greater safety, security and effectiveness within Canada's correctional system. It follows two superior court decisions that have imposed certain deadlines on Parliament, which will be coming up toward the end of this year.

Our government's top priority is protecting Canadians from natural disasters, threats to national security, and, of course, crime. We are doing a number of things to protect Canadian communities from criminal activity.

To protect Canadian communities from criminal activity, we are supporting law enforcement and ensuring that the brave women and men who serve our communities have the resources they need to do their jobs. We are funding programs that help keep young Canadians out of gangs and provide them with more positive opportunities and choices. We are addressing some of the social determinants of crime, like poverty, housing and education. We are combatting gun smuggling at the border and the flow of illegal cash into organized crime. We are also advancing new legislation to tackle some of the most serious threats to the safety of our communities, like gun violence and impaired driving.

Another significant thing we can do to enhance public safety is to make our correctional system as effective as possible at dealing with people who have committed crimes, so that when their sentences are over they are prepared to go straight and not commit new crimes.

Certainly, there are some offenders who have received life sentences from the courts and who may never be granted any form of conditional release by the Parole Board. However, the vast majority will eventually return to our communities, which is why the main responsibility of our correctional system is to do as much as possible to ensure that when offenders are released, they are ready to leave their criminal past behind them and to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives.

We all want fewer offenders, fewer victims and safer communities. Achieving that is obviously no easy task. It involves an expert, accurate assessment of each offender's issues, needs and criminogenic risk, both at intake and on an ongoing basis. It involves meeting those needs and reducing those risks through appropriate interventions, programming, education, skills training and gradual supervised release, as opposed to simply sending an offender cold turkey straight from maximum security back into society.

It also involves any required treatment for addiction or mental health. The Correctional Service of Canada estimates that about 70% of all inmates exhibit symptoms of some form of mental illness. In administrative segregation, more than one-third of men and virtually all women have moderate to high mental health issues.

The legislation before us today would significantly strengthen the ability of our correctional system to achieve the objectives of the system and to keep Canadians safe. Safety is job number one.

To begin with, the bill introduces an innovative new way of dealing with offenders who for one reason or another cannot be housed within the general population of a correctional institution. At the moment, those offenders are placed in administrative segregation. Segregated inmates are allowed two hours out of their cell per day and interactions with other people are tightly limited. While the correctional service tries to avoid interruptions and interventions in programming, practical considerations make that very difficult to do.

Intense debate about administrative segregation has been ongoing for many years. Despite the fact that the practice harkens back to the treatment of Nelson Mandela on Robben Island and has been branded by some as a form of torture, particularly by comments at the United Nations, there are those who have defended administrative segregation as a valuable security management tool.

On the other side of the debate, the use of segregation has been vigorously criticized by the correctional investigator, by the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith a number of years ago, by many NGOs and most recently by a number of Canadian courts.

Within the last year, courts in both Ontario and British Columbia have ruled in different ways and for different reasons that administrative segregation as currently practised is not constitutional. Those rulings have been appealed, one by the government and one by the other party, but at the moment they are scheduled to take effect in just a few months, toward the end of this year and the beginning of next year, and we as a Parliament need to be prepared for that eventuality. That is part of the reason for the timing of Bill C-83 today.

There can be no doubt that within a correctional institution it is essential to have an effective way of separating certain people from others be it for their own safety or for the safety of staff and volunteers or for the safety of other inmates.

The question that we have been examining is how to do that effectively while maintaining as much as possible the offender's access to the programming, the mental health care and the other interventions that are available to the general population, especially given that the people who end up in segregation often have needs and risks that are particularly acute.

The solution that we are proposing in Bill C-83 is to completely eliminate the existing practice of administrative segregation and replace it with a new approach, and that is the creation of structured intervention units, or SIUs.

These units will be separate from the general population so that the safety imperative will be met. But they will be designed and they will be staffed and resourced to ensure that the people who are placed there will receive the interventions, the programming and the treatment that is required.

Inmates in SIUs will be out of their cells for at least four hours daily, with a minimum of two hours of meaningful interaction with staff, volunteers, elders, visitors or other compatible inmates.

Additional mental health professionals will be hired and assigned specifically to the SIUs. The legislation will make it clear that inmates are not to be separated from the general population any longer than necessary.

This new approach will help to ensure the safety of correctional institutions and the public by strengthening the capacity of the Correctional Service of Canada to promote rehabilitation in a secure environment.

Bill C-83 also includes several other related measures to further that same objective. For example, it would implement a key recommendation from the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith to establish a system of patient advocates for inmates with mental needs. Patient advocates would work with offenders and correctional staff to help ensure that people in federal custody receive appropriate medical care.

The legislation would also enshrine in law the principle that medical professionals working in the corrections system must be free to exercise their professional judgment autonomously on the basis of their own medical expertise. These measures would, ultimately, enhance public safety because offenders whose medical and mental health issues are under control are more likely to achieve safe and successful rehabilitation and less likely to reoffend after they have served their sentences.

The bill would also formalize the obligation on the part of the Correctional Service of Canada to take into account systemic and background factors affecting indigenous people when making offender management decisions. The consideration of these factors is, in fact, an obligation that was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1999 Gladue decision. For 15 years, Correctional Service Canada has had policy directives in place implementing that obligation, but now it would be enshrined in law.

As we all know, indigenous people are dramatically overrepresented in our corrections system, and that is a harsh reality that we all have to work hard to change. While the socio-economic factors that cause this overrepresentation must generally be addressed by other departments and agencies before incarceration occurs, it is the responsibility of the corrections system to provide indigenous offenders with both appropriate consequences for criminal activity, as well as effective and culturally appropriate rehabilitative interventions. The changes made by this bill would help ensure that is the case.

This legislation would also expand the access of victims to information related to parole hearings. Currently, a victim who does not attend a parole hearing is entitled to receive an audio recording of the hearing, but for some reason, if victims do attend, they lose their right to receive a recording, and that just does not make much sense. Attending parole hearings can be a very difficult experience for victims of crime and their families, and we have seen that demonstrated in recent days. They cannot possibly be expected to retain every word of what is said, nor should they have to. If, after the hearing is over, it is all a bit of a blur and they would like to listen to the proceedings again in a more comfortable setting, they should be able to do that, and this bill would give them that right.

This bill would also allow for the use of body scanner technology to help keep contraband substances out of federal correctional institutions. These kinds of devices are already in use in many provincial correctional facilities. They make it easier for officers to detect when someone is trying to smuggle in drugs or other illicit materials and they are less invasive than other methods of security, like strip searches, for example. Keeping contraband out of correctional facilities would help make institutions as safe and secure as possible. The safety of employees, volunteers, visitors and inmates is an absolute prerequisite for all the other work that Correctional Service Canada does.

In other words, the legislation that is before us today in Bill C-83 recognizes two things. The first is that institutional security is an absolute imperative that the Correctional Service of Canada must always meet.

Second, the safety of Canadian communities depends on the rehabilitative work that happens within secure correctional institutions. The new structured intervention units being created by Bill C-83 will help keep institutions safe by ensuring that inmates can be separated from the general population when that is necessary and they will help keep Canadian communities safe by ensuring the continuity of rehabilitative programming and the accessibility of mental health care for the inmates in these units.

Let us be clear. Providing quality, rehabilitative programming and mental health care is not about being nice to criminals. Rather, by having a correctional system that is as effective as possible at preventing people who have broken the law from breaking it again, we are increasing the safety of our communities. That is our priority and that is why we are introducing this legislation, taking full account of the most recent decisions of Canadian courts. I look forward very much to the constructive input of all colleagues in the House, both during today's debate and throughout the legislative process on Bill C-83.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)