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.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for his speech.

Mr. Minister, your government is talking about changing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles to address the Chair, not the minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize; it is early.

The government is changing the rules governing solitary confinement in prisons. Before those criminals go to prison, they are in the streets. In Canada, street gangs and organized crime are a huge problem. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness promised to make funds available to crack down on those people.

On June 4, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction wrote in a letter that the money had not yet been made available.

I would like the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to tell me why the money he promised would be used to go after criminals and send them to jail has not yet been made available.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure if I got the essence of the honourable gentleman's question. I think he was making the point that in order to achieve effective public safety one needs to have not only changes and improvements in the laws, rules and regulations, one also needs to have the financial resources and the dollar commitments to implement the principles that are enshrined in the legislation. Certainly, I agree with him. One has to make sure the laws are as good as they can be and then they must be backed up with financial resources and that is what we are doing in the context of Bill C-83.

We are making the commitment that not only will the rules be changed to eliminate the practice of administrative segregation and to replace it with a new approach of structured intervention units, but that will be coupled with significant investments in staff, financial resources and other resources that are required, including mental health professionals, to make sure that Correctional Services of Canada can deliver on the principles that are embodied in this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the unfortunate thing here is that it is almost Orwellian to say that the government is getting rid of administrative segregation because essentially it is the same practice under a different name. Of course, there are some bells and whistles that have been added to how it is taking place.

The reality is this. In the decisions of the Ontario Superior Court and the B.C. Supreme Court, despite being somewhat different decisions, there were a few common themes. One of those themes was the lack of oversight, the lack of independent reporting and oversight and any kind of mechanism in the event of abuse taking place and the use of this practice in corrections.

If we go back to Justice Arbour's recommendations in the commission of inquiry on certain events at the women's prison in Kingston where she talked about even having judicial oversight, we have the corrections investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger who said that there is no mechanism in place for recourse and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Society saying the same thing and Senator Kim Pate, who was once at that same association.

I want to ask the minister this. What is this legislation actually going to do to ensure that there is proper oversight and proper recourse in the event of abuse? Right now it is in the hands of the warden or the commissioner, and that is just not good enough.

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

Madam Speaker, I would make two or three observations in response to that. Point number one is that what we are proposing to put in place is fundamentally different from administrative segregation. It is not the same approach. The courts have said that if there is going to be administration segregation, it is unconstitutional unless there is better oversight provided, unless the conditions of confinement are improved and unless a number of other structural changes are made. We have taken those messages to heart. Rather than trying to repair administrative segregation, we have said that we would eliminate it entirely and replace it with a new approach. The same safeguards that were necessary in relation to administrative segregation would become quite different in nature, because our new system would be fundamentally different.

Second, as the hon. gentleman has observed, oversight and a number of reviews are provided for in the legislation. There would be a review by the warden after five days. There would be another review after 30 days and then a review by the commissioner herself on an ongoing basis. There are review mechanisms built into the legislation.

My third point is that as we go along with this debate in the House or in committee, if there are stronger ideas to be put forward for improving the review process, I would be most happy to hear what those ideas are.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister has given us a very good perspective that there are challenges with safety and security in our prison system. That is obviously highly disconcerting and is why he has brought this legislation forward.

Could the minister give us the performance metrics? How is he measuring safety and security in the prison system today, and how in this legislation would he measure it going forward to ensure that the legislation would actually deliver the outcomes and results he is intending?

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the commissioner of corrections will be anxious to have that discussion with members of Parliament when this legislation comes before the parliamentary committee to get into the precise details. Ultimately, there are two fundamental parameters we would look for.

In terms of safety within the institutions, we would be looking for a steady reduction over time in the number of reported incidents of violence or disruption within those institutions. We would be looking very closely to see those statistics coming down over time, with the number of physical and dangerous situations reduced.

The second thing would be the recidivism rate, because the whole point here would be to have an effective system that would not only keep everyone safe and secure but would also accomplish more effective rehabilitation so that at the end of day, we would have fewer people reoffending, we would have fewer victims and we would have safer communities. A reduction in the recidivism rate is also something we would be looking forward to.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister knows very well that indigenous people are overrepresented in solitary confinement. These individuals currently make up 46% of the population in solitary confinement. We know that many women with mental health issues have been placed in solitary confinement. In about 90 cases—I do not recall the exact figure—inmates were kept in solitary confinement for over 90 days. According to the United Nations, more than 15 days in solitary confinement would be considered a form of torture.

The legislation before us, which comes in response to the B.C. Supreme Court decision—which the government appealed, I might add—does not include any provisions to address this problem. Giving the commissioner or a warden the authority to do a review after five or 30 days is not good enough.

Getting back to the question I asked earlier, would the minister be open to an amendment to ensure that we have an independent or even judicial review, if needed, to prevent abuse?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's criticism with respect to administrative segregation is obviously part of the very reason we are eliminating administrative segregation and moving to a different approach, with a different system.

The issues he has raised, those raised by the correctional investigator, those raised by the coroner's inquest with respect to Ashley Smith, and those raised by the courts are clearly valid criticisms. We are addressing those criticisms by changing the system altogether. As I said in response to an earlier question, if there are stronger suggestions to be made in the course of this debate on review and oversight mechanisms, I would be anxious to hear what those are and would take them into consideration.

[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.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion is in order.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for questions and comments.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, under the Conservative regime, they started mixing prisoners who should not have been mixed together. That created a very dangerous situation. My brother is a corrections officer, and the Conservatives in that situation made it extremely unsafe in the prison system, and now our government has to spend a lot of time trying to clean up the mess the Conservatives left us after a decade of darkness. It was absolutely horrific. The Conservatives talk about the rights of victims and drape themselves with the victims, but at the end of the day, they created extremely dangerous situations.

I would contend that the situation in the prison at Prince Albert, for instance, was created directly by the regressive policies the Conservatives put in place. In fact, these were so destructive of our corrections system that they created extremely dangerous situations, which led to riots and violence in the system.

We need to look for ways to make the system safer and to make it work for the people working in the correctional facilities and for the prisoners who find themselves there so they can be rehabilitated, because most of them will eventually end up back in society. We need to find ways of making the system work for Canadians, and not follow regressive policies that do not work.

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

Madam Speaker, there is so much going on in that question.

I saw this last week. Within prison walls, there are problems with race, problems with language. I was surprised, because the problems were not necessarily connected to mixing white and black inmates. For example, in the Quebec City prison, the problem is between anglophones and francophones. The officers manage these situations by having separated wings in the prisons. Different street gangs cannot be mixed, of course.

I do not understand what the Liberal member was trying to suggest. There may have been some policies that changed things at the time, but the fact remains that there are problems now, and they already have the solution of separating groups. Will these groups all be mixed together if there are new structured intervention units?

From my understanding of the bill, it seems that that will be the case.

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

Madam Speaker, I take issue with the use of the word “volatile”. Taking mental health problems seriously and not using this type of language is what ensures public safety. We are not talking about a one-size-fits-all solution, to paraphrase what my colleague is trying to do.

The reality is that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that more than 48 hours in administrative segregation caused serious, irreversible mental health problems. The United Nations found that more than two weeks in solitary confinement is considered a form of torture. Between 2011 and 2014, 19 suicides were committed in administrative segregation.

The question I have for my colleague is this: how is public safety ensured by exacerbating existing mental health problems in certain inmates? How is public safety ensured by having a system that has a clearly disproportionate representation of vulnerable individuals who will simply be released and reoffend, when we could truly help these people who have mental health problems and ensure public safety?

[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.

[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, my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George raises an excellent question.

That is exactly what I was told last week in Donnacona. A number of correctional officers are on leave right now because of post-traumatic stress caused by assaults committed within the prison. Unbelievable things happen in our prisons. I was shown several videos of different types of assault. Correctional officers have to intervene in those situations. They are in real danger. They intervene to keep an inmate from killing someone, but then another inmate may come up behind them.

It is a very difficult place to work. The government wants to treat the worst of the worst like delicate little flowers, while our correctional officers are putting their lives at risk every day. These officers are having a hard time understanding what the government is doing, and with good reason.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my opposition colleague's speech. Like his fellow Conservatives, he is once again using the politics of fear. He is also being overly dramatic by sharing examples solely for the purpose of scaring people. The opposition's examples and analogies are essentially misinformation with their talk of luxury condos and treating prisoners like delicate flowers and so on.

Does my colleague agree that it is much better to support people with professional rehabilitation services than to put them in long-term solitary confinement, which makes them even more vulnerable?

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

Madam Speaker, I love it when the Liberals tell us we are scaring people or doing whatever, but I think we are the ones who see things as they really are.

As I just said, I have visited Donnacona. Union presidents come to see my colleagues and me to tell us what goes on in the real world. They do not talk about what goes on in some imaginary world; they talk about what goes on in real life. That is not scaring people, for crying out loud. We are talking about the worst criminals in the world here, and we cannot start saying we should handle the poor things the way we would handle a 15-year-old kid. It is not the same thing.

We do not want to scare people. We want to tell Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, that we understand them and we are listening to them. Yes, we believe in rehabilitation. Yes, we know mental health issues are real. We know some people are in prison because of mental health issues, and of course we want to help them deal with those issues.

Take the Paul Bernardo case. I am glad he did not get out of prison yesterday. He is one example. What are we to do with him? He has spent 25 years in prison. Some will say that he has done his time. He is mentally ill, he is crazy. I hope he will stay there until the end of his days. Is my colleague now going to accuse me of stoking Canadians' fears? This is life, this is the real world.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the issue of correctional officer's safety. In 2011, costs at Correctional Service Canada rose by $250 million. Between 2012 and 2015, the Conservative government cut its budget by $300 million, not to mention the two shuttered penitentiaries.

Can my colleague tell me how that helps correctional officers do their job?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I was not there. The fact is that certain decisions are made at certain times. I can say that, despite what people think, Donnacona is about half full, I believe. One wing is completely empty and the other half is empty. There is plenty of room in there for more sickos. We need to deal with the Jordan decision so that people can be judged and put behind bars. If the CSC needs more money, we can make that happen. Nothing would make me happier.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that public safety is the number one objective and that by improving rehabilitative programming within some of our correctional institutions, we will support public safety by having fewer people reoffend and therefore fewer victims. I believe that mental health care services are a key part of that rehabilitative program. What are the member's ideas on how we can make that program for mental health advocacy even stronger?

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly share my colleague's thoughts and concerns on this issue insofar as addressing mental health concerns is paramount to public safety in particular. However, just before I get to the substance of her question, when we look at this bill and the solutions we propose, the issue here is that the current abusive use of solitary confinement has been proven to exacerbate some of the mental health situations we currently find. I will quote the press release by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies following the tabling of this bill, which said the following about mental health: “CSC's approach translates behaviours symptomatic of mental health into risks and security concerns.”

Therefore, the solution is simple. It is to adhere to the prescriptions that were offered by the Supreme Court of B.C. and the United Nations, and to put in place strict parameters so that house solitary confinement can be used in our correctional services with a ceiling of 15 days, among other things, including keeping those with serious mental health issues out of solitary confinement and trying to address the disproportionate representation of vulnerable offenders in the correctional system.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying when he talks about a sham and the protection of prisoners as a basic right. All that is entirely legitimate. However, we Conservatives have concerns, which we share with unionized prison guards. Historically, I think that the NDP has always promoted unionism and, more often than not, supported labour demands in our country.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the concerns and objections expressed publicly by prison guards, who say that the segregation of certain inmates helps them maintain discipline inside prisons, which is important. It is an exceptional measure, but a measure that is needed in order to remind inmates that there are serious consequences to some of their actions inside the prison walls when they are arrested and incarcerated.

What does my colleague think about the concerns expressed by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. We are extremely proud in the New Democratic caucus to be the workers’ party, founded in large part by unions. Their grievances and concerns will always be our first consideration. That is precisely why, in my speech, I cited the press release issued by the union representing correctional officers. Here is what it says in the first paragraph: “resources needed.”

That is why the NDP protested when the Conservative government closed two prisons in 2012. That is why we protested the nearly $300-million budget cut the Conservative government imposed on Correctional Services between 2012 and 2015. That is why we also protested the fact that, by introducing this bill supposedly intended to enhance public safety, the government has now made it more expensive and more difficult for correctional officers to both ensure safety in institutions, and to properly manage the institutional life and progress of inmates so as to ensure the safety of the public.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, for his work on this bill and for reminding us that, when it comes to this kind of reform, public safety must be our main concern. We also need to talk about mental health. Sometimes there are priorities other than public safety, like the effective administration of prisons, but public safety concerns must be at the top of our list.

What concerns me is this government’s track record with public safety. We have seen it with the cannabis and pardon issues. They changed the language but maintained a system that does not do what it is supposed to. As my colleague said, they are doing the same thing here. They are playing with words, but they are not really changing the system.

How can they make real changes when all they do is play word games?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, public safety is always the top priority.

In its decision, the Ontario Superior Court had this to say about administrative segregation:

“no serious question the practice is harmful”.

Moreover, the harmful effects of the practice can manifest in as little as 48 hours. As I said in my speech, they are using a practice that is supposed to ensure public safety but that, in reality, hinders the rehabilitation of certain inmates by making their mental health problems worse. That is what concerns me.

Whether we like it or not, some inmates are released on parole, which is appropriate in a lawful society. However, we expect the problems that led to their incarceration to be treated inside the system before they return to society.

I called it a sham because, despite two court decisions and all the work of civil society, the minister is telling us not to worry and that he is taking care of the problem, while in fact all he is doing is calling the practice something else.

In our opinion, there are not enough substantial changes to believe that this is an appropriate response to the serious concerns about the practice in our correctional system.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the courts have been very clear about the risks of this practice and have prescribed ways of regulating it to diminish those effects, why is that work not represented in this legislation?

[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.

[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.

[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, there is clearly an effort to make the secure intervention unit an environment that allows very troubled prisoners to have more human interaction. There is a mandated time that they will be allowed to interact with other human beings. There is a mandated time that they have to interact with health care professionals. There is a mandated time in which there is a review of their past progress.

At the end of the day, almost everybody gets back on the street. We can wish that they come back onto the street whole, but that is just wishful fantasies. The prison system needs to be mandated to make people as able as possible to reintegrate into our society to maximize public safety.

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

Madam Speaker, how will the desired outcomes of the bill be measured and can the Liberals tell Canadians today how much the implementation of the bill will cost?

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

Madam Speaker, the measurement of the success of the bill will be over time, and that is absolutely necessary. We currently have a system that is not working, that is constitutionally deficient, that offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that has a little too many Ashley Smiths in the system. The improvement will hopefully be measurable over time. I am sure the head of CCS will have some metrics to share with the committee.

With respect to funding, we are certainly in recovery mode from the previous government. The hundreds of millions of dollars that were cut out of the system are clearly having an impact, and that is extremely regrettable for public safety and for the rehabilitation and well-being of the prisoners.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the last two years, we have seen time and again that the Liberal government has a propensity to always walk along the line of a court judgment. The role of the House of Commons is to reiterate, sometimes through the preamble of a new bill, to the courts and the judge the intent of a bill of a rule that was put forward, accepted and voted on in the House. Jean Chrétien did that many times. He did it for advertising in the tobacco sector. Companies wanted the Supreme Court decision and Jean Chrétien tabled a bill with a preamble saying that the judges were wrong.

In this instance, why are the Liberals again and again following the judgment when they could have just reiterated the intent of our purpose in the House of Commons, to protect the citizens of Canada and to ensure that guards had the necessary tools to apply discipline?

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

Madam Speaker, I really feel bad that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government adheres to the rule of law. What a concept. We do have those of us in here who make law and we have those down the street, learned judges in the law, who interpret the law. When the interpretation comes back that this offends the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, which it does according to the two cases that are currently before the justices, then this body needs to adjust.

We are all subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We might not like that, but we are.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that a structured intervention unit would be a good thing, since it would give individuals in segregation the possibility of human contact.

I am going to talk about two cases, two individuals. The first is a dangerous killer who keeps threatening people. He has to be placed in segregation because he is dangerous to others and might kill another inmate. The second is an inmate who fears for his life because he is being threatened. He wants to be placed in segregation because someone wants to kill him. He is therefore placed in the new structured intervention unit.

The violently angry killer and the inmate who fears for his life are sent to the structured intervention unit, where they are asked to engage in human contact.

Does my colleague think this will work?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have the example of two people, one is a hardened criminal we want to throw in the hole, another was tried and is serving for a lesser infraction. We want them to be together, and SIUs are created to study these situations. They will monitor things very closely and see what the needs of both these persons are, how we can bring them into the mainstream when their terms are finished and they are coming out, and how we can help to get them ready to integrate into society.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

As I have said before, my father was a warden in a minimum-security prison, and my mother was a prison guard.

I would like to know whether the hon. member across the aisle knows the difference between a maximum-security prison and a minimum-security prison. Inmates are incarcerated in one or the other for different crimes. Those in minimum-security institutions are serving less than two years, while those in maximum-security prisons are serving more than two years. The inmates in maximum-security prisons have committed serious offences, unlike those in minimum-security institutions.

Can my colleague tell me whether he knows the difference between a maximum-security prison and a minimum-security prison?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during my presentation, I did mention clearly those who deserve to be treated in a nice way. We cannot say everyone will be treated in the same manner, for example, those who are there under extreme circumstances. They would be monitored differently, which is what we want. We want people to serve their jail terms and come out ready to go into the community.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have time for a very brief question.

The hon. government House leader has 30 seconds, and then we will have 30 seconds for an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith died in custody in 2007. My colleagues opposite talk about different levels of prisons, and it is interesting how people go through that system. Nonetheless, this was a girl who died in her cell. There have been court challenges, and the courts have ruled. We tend to respect the rule of law.

Could our colleague please share with this House what SIUs are designed to do, and how people would continue to serve their sentences but could also be provided the programs and services necessary to ensure mental health?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a case law around this situation. Ashley Smith's case has created a new guideline for us to act on, otherwise we would be left behind. Liberals do not want that, we want to move forward. We want to make corrections to the law and bring changes that would make it suitable for the inmates.

[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.

[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, inmates who are disciplined by being sent to these units that the bill seeks to create—and that we hope will never see the light of day—will have access to a television and anything else they usually have in their cells.

What we are saying is that administrative segregation, as it now exists, is a psychological deterrent for inmates serving life sentences, for example, who would otherwise not hesitate to harm other inmates or guards. They do not care because they are already in prison for life. The only way to dissuade them from engaging in that type of behaviour is to threaten to send them to solitary confinement with no television or anything else. That psychological element is needed to maintain discipline in prisons.

It is unfortunate, and perhaps prisons should not exist, but that is the only way to protect Canadians, and the only way to maintain discipline is administrative segregation.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. His remarks are always music to my ears. I would like to ask him a question along the same lines as the one my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell just asked him about Ms. Smith.

Do the Liberals always introduce bills on behalf of a victim? Bad things happen, and we agree that it is unfortunate. However, are there perhaps sometimes other victims in our prisons who are not protected, victims such as correctional officers? My parents worked in the prison system, and they were often taken hostage when riots broke out.

On one hand, the Liberals are hastily introducing a bill as a result of an individual case, and on the other, they are ignoring other victims, the people who work in maximum-security prisons and protect our lives.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. The Liberals like to base bills on individual cases. That is understandable in some ways because the fundamental objective of a liberal democracy is to protect the minority from the majority. However, the Canadian majority is beginning to get fed up with never having a voice in this government and never having its wishes and desires represented.

That is very dangerous for social harmony, because the majority also needs to have a say. One of the complaints that we as MPs hear most often in our ridings is that the government is always kowtowing to the Canadian judiciary.

To show my good faith, I will say that I will always be proud of Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin—perhaps a little less so of Mr. Martin. Mr. Chrétien carried on the tradition of other prime ministers. When he and his caucus did not agree with a Supreme Court ruling, they reintroduced the same bill in the House of Commons with a preamble.

That is called an “in your face” reply. I suggest that my colleagues go see all the eminent law professors at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. They know all about that kind of thing, and they detest it. An “in your face” reply is when legislators tell the Supreme Court justices that they are wrong, that they do not understand the government's objective, and that they misinterpreted Canadian law.

[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 excellent speech, even though I do not agree with everything he said.

First, life in prison is not going to be a party. Far from it. The member knows this because he said he visited several prisons. When we enact legislation, we have to provide the resources required. The Conservatives claimed they were the champions of law and order and were tough on organized crime, but they never backed that up with the necessary resources. That is why police chiefs asked for more money to fight organized crime. Even the Minister of Public Safety, a former police chief, says that he did not have access to those resources.

Let us come back to the safety measures that we want to put in place, such as body scanners. Why is the member opposed to equipping our prisons with more technology to ensure the safety of prison guards and inmates by preventing them from using guns?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my esteemed colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his question about my speech. Unfortunately, he was not actually listening. What I said was that installing scanners should be a priority. However, with respect to the former police chief who is now the minister in charge of regulating marijuana and fighting organized crime, I have no faith in him.

When the Conservatives were in office, we cut corrections budgets and closed some prisons because we were responsible. There is room in every prison in Canada, but the Liberals will probably build three more over the next year at great expense. They do not care how much things cost, they just love spending money.

We, the Conservatives, treat Canadians' hard-earned money with respect. We are also diligent, because while it is important to respect inmates, it is also important to have disciplinary measures in place and ensure there are consequences.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his fine speech explaining the Conservative stance on this bill.

In our opinion, the bill has some major flaws in terms of ensuring a safe environment for both prisoners and guards. This job and this environment are very tough and create a special kind of stress. In the case of maximum-security prison guards, we are asking them to guard individuals who are considered to be the most dangerous people in our society.

This government bill proposes what are referred to as structured intervention units, but in my opinion, and I am sure my colleague would agree, they will not provide real administrative segregation. Quite the opposite, since the guards will have to let the inmates out for at least four hours a day.

I would like to hear more from the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier about how this environment will no longer be safe for our prison guards.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard, who always asks relevant questions.

Security is a very important factor in Canada's penitentiaries. Correctional officers need tools. The Liberal government disbanded the fire brigades to save a few pennies, even though that is a security issue. It was a tool used by correctional officers. The government does not have its priorities straight.

Segregation is also a tool. There are even some inmates who want to be sent to solitary confinement to protect themselves. However, under the bill, they must be there for as little time as possible and they need to be given an explanation as to why things are being done the way they are. It is like day care. Let us be clear. We are talking about criminals who committed acts that are unacceptable in our society. Correctional officers therefore need to be given effective tools.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very inconsistent. I listened carefully to what the parliamentary secretary had to say.

The government is introducing the concept of structured intervention units by saying that they are a great invention and will work perfectly. However, there is one thing that I do not understand. Right now, administrative segregation cells, which are separate from the general cell block, are identical to ordinary cells. Inmates who are currently in administrative segregation spend 22 hours a day in their cell and are released for two hours. There is even a designated section for them in the yard outside.

What is the major physical difference between those cells and these much-talked-about structured intervention units besides the fact that inmates will be given four hours of freedom a day rather than two? Will the cells be bigger? We already have the equivalent of these units. I do not understand what is really going to change besides the fact that the inmates will have an extra two hours of freedom a day.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Speaker, nothing is ever perfect, but having double the time out of the cells is an important step forward. As well, when prisoners have been in segregation, they have not had access to health care, to mental health care, to visitors, and to other programs that might have supported their rehabilitation. This SIU, even though it only doubles the amount of time prisoners could spend out of their cells, would actually mean that they could have intervention activities while they were in the SIU. That is why we think that is going to make a difference.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, there is a slight difference of opinion. When some of those rulings were put forward, they were addressing administrative segregation. Administrative segregation does not allow for rehabilitative activities to happen. It does not allow visitors. It does not allow a visit from a health care professional or a mental health care professional or access to other rehabilitative programs. This would really be a transformational change, because when these offenders were in a structured intervention unit, they would have access to this kind of programming that under administrative segregation they do not.

In the past, there was a suggestion to have a cap on the number of days, or whatever was appropriate. We are saying that the decision would be reviewed at least three times by three different people about an extended stay in a structured intervention unit. We feel that the review is there and that the changes from administrative segregation to a structured intervention unit actually would provide significant benefits toward an offender's rehabilitation.

[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.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. The work correctional officers do is something that is probably underappreciated by a great number of Canadians. They work very hard, and their days are very demanding.

When we talk about issues like needle exchange we are trying to look at things based on harm reduction, on safety and on the evidence we have seen. This is an issue that will require more discussion in order for people to feel comfortable with the decisions being made.

However, when we are basing the decisions on science, on evidence and on the overall safety of institutions, we think it is the right way forward.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if offenders walk into our prison system with a bachelor of offences and walk out with a Ph.D. of offences, then our prison system has failed them.

We know that administrative segregation has caused deaths in our prison system. Of course, we are talking about the case of Ms. Ashley Smith. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain the key differences between administrative segregation and the SIU system we are proposing.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has identified the crux of the matter. This is transformational change away from administrative segregation, where offenders were in their cells for 22 hours a day, with no access to programming, to visitors or to mental health treatment.

We know that 70% of the inmates in our institutions today suffer from some kind of mental illness. We feel that if we do not address these mental health concerns before inmates are released back into society, their chances of successfully rehabilitating back into society will be much diminished.

That is why we made this transformational change toward a structured intervention unit, where people still have access to the rehabilitative training that will give them the best chance for a better future.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short and the answer could be even shorter. Has the government consulted our correctional officers on the implementation of the bill as it relates to their safety?

[Karen McCrimmon]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to answer that is I have not been part of that process, but I can get back to the member with an answer to his question.

[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.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he would have negotiated a better deal, but that same member could not even negotiate with his own caucus member, which resulted in the People's Party of Canada, so welcome to that.

Getting back to the facts, is the member opposed to body scanners in prison? Is that what I am hearing? He is opposed to body scanners in prison and is going to vote against this bill to make more equipment available for our prison officers. Is that what I am hearing on the other side?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I serve with this member on committee. We generally get along. However, that is a silly question. Twice now he has sat in this House and listened to members on this side of the House say that they agree with the idea of body scanners. In fact, I sat here and congratulated the idea of body scanners, yet this gentlemen stands and asks why I am against body scanners. It is very clear he is not paying attention, just like the current government is not paying attention to the needs of our officers in the correctional services industry.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House I am glad there is someone who is standing up on the side of victims, because clearly the other side is more concerned about the criminals than they are about the victims.

Previously today, on two occasions, I asked members of the governing party whether or not they had consulted with the corrections officers with respect to the implementation of this bill. The first time I received no answer. The second time I received an answer from the parliamentary secretary, no less, who said she was not sure. That concerns me. If the parliamentary secretary is not aware as to whether or not negotiations, or consultations at least, went on with the corrections officers' union, that is a huge concern.

I have a quote from the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who said, “At...[the Regional Psychiatric Centre] we...had...100 assaults on staff in 12 months.” It is very troubling to me that our corrections officers are put in that kind of a situation where 100 assaults per year occur.

Does my colleague really believe that this idea of not allowing segregation will make our correctional officers more or less safe?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have spoken to several correctional officers. Unfortunately, they do not want to come forward because they are afraid. That is one more reason why the current government should update the whistleblower act, as we have asked. The correctional officers made it clear that the statistics show that segregation is a tool that can be used. It is very clear that it had been used incorrectly in a couple of cases, and those cases should be addressed. However, our focus has to be on the protection of our CSC officers. They are under siege. They are having mental health issues. Nothing in this bill addresses them, but addresses the health and well-being of the prisoners. The mandate from the government continues to tell the head of the CSC to focus on the health and welfare of the prisoners, but not the officers themselves who are there protecting average Canadians. This bill has a couple of good things, but goes nowhere close to addressing the real issues we are facing today.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from Edmonton West for his speech. I can truthfully say that I listen to every word of all of his speeches as they are so well done and well researched. He cites facts and figures. He is a very credible member of Parliament.

I am going to take a bit of a different approach here. I would like to ask my friend from Edmonton West what it is about the Liberal DNA that always blames the victims and never assigns personal responsibilities to the criminals themselves. To the Liberals, people are criminals because it is society's fault, it is how they were brought up or it is who they are. They never assign personal responsibility. We Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Can my friend from Edmonton West explain this Liberal mindset?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could explain the Liberal mindset. Experts have tried and they cannot figure it out. However, I will comment on the Liberals' focus, the wrong focus.

I have the Correctional Service Canada department plan. It lists about 40 or 50 priorities. Not one single priority of the current government lists any safety issues for our corrections services officers. There is not one to protect them. However, there are 50 or so to improve the lives of inmates. That is wrong.

[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.

[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, let us talk about the past. Something came up over the course of this summer. Let us talk about turning our eyes toward the victim. When the Prime Minister was accused of a groping incident 18 years ago, he had a chance to apologize. I will take no lessons from the member across the way.

I asked time and again of that member and all of his colleagues whether they shared the same sentiment as the Prime Minister; that female victims of violence might sometimes experience that violence, that situation, differently than their male counterparts. I have asked that of them and not one of them have answered that. Not one of them stood up for those victims of violence.

The Prime Minister failed to apologize and our colleague across the way continues to stand up for him. That is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In the speech I delivered earlier today, I was able to illustrate our concerns over the changes that are being made and the fact that administrative segregation is an abusive practice that has been overused.

I would like to focus on one aspect of my colleague's speech because he raised a very important point. Far too often, correctional officers are forgotten, for example when we look at the repercussions of PTSD on public safety officers. The committee tabled a unanimous report, and I know that the hon. member also made an effort to change this through his bill. I thank him and commend him.

Those are the positive things, and here comes the negative. I asked a number of my Conservative colleagues how we are supposed to ensure safety at the institutions when the Conservatives closed two penitentiaries when they were in power. What is more, their bill increased costs by $250 million in one year, and they made cuts of nearly $300 million between 2012 and 2015.

How do they reconcile the reality of the guards' safety with the reality of the cuts?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for our hon. colleague across the way. In fact, I worked closely with him during the work on my Bill C-211. He knows I am passionate about ensuring that our part-time workers, our first responders get the help they need whenever they need it and for however long they need it, whether it be correctional officers, police officers, firefighters, dispatch officers, our veterans or our military personnel, those front-line workers who experience human tragedy every day.

I was not part of the previous government, but I will offer this. My hon. colleague should be focusing his attention across the way rather than on what was done in the past. Let us see how we can move forward and get the bill amended to include front-line officers.

[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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard our colleague reference the importance of our correctional officers and the work they do, and I could not agree more.

Earlier today, on two occasions, I asked government members whether meaningful consultations had occurred with corrections officers. To this point, after a number of hours, we have no answer to that. I wonder if my colleague could answer this. Was meaningful consultation entered into with correctional officers? We need to ensure that they are on side and that their safety is not put in jeopardy because of the bill's implementation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is always a certain degree of consultation that goes on in the preparation of a bill, but the bulk of the consultation comes through a bill going to a committee and a committee doing its work, talking to the stakeholders, reporting back to the House and then going through the same process in the Senate.

After hearing what has been coming from the other side of the House, it is quite clear that the Conservatives believe in a justice system that involves locking them up and throwing away the key. On this side of the House, we believe in rehabilitation and reintegration into society. We know that the majority of people who go into a prison will come out on the other end one day and return to society. We want to ensure they are ready to come back into our society and be productive members of our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague the same question I asked the minister. The answers remain incomplete, non-existent in fact. It is the notion of oversight and recourse.

If we look at the corrections investigator, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the John Howard Society, Senator Kim Pate, who has worked in this field for a very long time and knows far more than any of us about some of these important issues, all those intervenors agree on one thing. They agree that the bill and the current system lack any kind of ability to have any kind of recourse in the event that abuse takes place in solitary confinement. We know that is the case when we see the disproportionate representation of vulnerable Canadians or when we see the number of suicides committed while in solitary confinement.

My question for my friend is this. Does he truly believe that the warden and the commissioner having the final say on whether solitary confinement should continue is really any kind of proper oversight to ensure that mental health issues are being properly protected and that inmates are being properly rehabilitated? He spoke of those principles, and I agree with him, but I do not feel the bill would do anything to address that. Before we hear that component, we are not actually getting rid of solitary confinement. This SIU thing is just a smokescreen.

Understanding that it is still the same reality, should we not have a more robust review and recourse process in place?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am very familiar with the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society. I visited them when I was mayor of Kingston, in addition to visiting many other facilities. I saw the tremendous work they do helping inmates to reintegrate into our communities.

We are seeing a stark difference, which we quite often see in the House. The Conservatives are telling us that we are doing way too much, and the NDP are telling us that we are just not doing enough. At the end of the day, it is important that we put the right measures in place to give inmates the support they need to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, but at the same time, we need to make sure we are protecting, and have the right safeguards in place for, the people who are taking care of them.

It is a balancing act. I am looking forward to seeing how this comes back from committee, where some of the suggestions the member made can come forward and possible amendments be made. The deliberative process that we go through in the House is to fish out exactly the kind of questions he is talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague expand on why it is important that we bring forward legislation of this nature? There is indeed a high recidivism rate and, as much as possible, we want to allow for successful reintegration into society.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important because Liberals believe in reintegration and successful rehabilitation of inmates.

We believe that the vast majority of people who go into a facility can be properly rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. However, the most important thing is to give the necessary tools to those who are rehabilitating our inmates so they can be successful at the rehabilitative process.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. I just want to point out that the hon. member will have time to give her discourse, but the questions will come when we resume after question period.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth will have have five minutes of questions coming to her when we resume.

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.

[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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his comments.

Every federal department is supposed to submit a plan that includes cost estimates. The Correctional Service of Canada plan proposes to cut staff over the next four years. There is also a proposed 8.8% reduction, over the next four years, in the financial resources that help the Correctional Service do its work. However, the government's bill proposes to increase services received under the new inmate detention system.

Can my colleague talk about what will happen to our correctional system given these budget plans?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

As I mentioned in my speech, the bill, as cobbled together and proposed by the Liberal government, does not take these cuts into account. What is going to happen? They will fail once again.

They are likely endangering prison guards and the people who work in these institutions. Those people are there for the good of the inmates and the public. They keep dangerous criminals behind bars. Sometimes, we must protect criminals from themselves, to prevent them from attacking others. Unfortunately, these cuts and the Liberals' improvisation are likely to cause more and more serious incidents in our prisons.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We are going to oppose this bill, but our reasons for doing so are not the same as those of my colleague, as he can well imagine. We find it rather strange that the Liberals, compelled by the courts, have started referring to administrative segregation as structured intervention units, and that they are reducing the maximum number of hours spent in segregation from 22 to 20, but they are still allowing inmates to be kept there for an indefinite period of time, as was the case before. In our opinion this bill is a waste of time. No real changes are being made. The government is not abiding by the court's decision.

What does my colleague think about the fact that 42% of inmates in administrative segregation are indigenous? Is that not a form of systemic discrimination?

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

Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I said in my speech. This bill is an “ultra-solution”. The government thinks that it is going to solve all the problems through a small clause in a bill when there are very different solutions that could have been implemented in a very different way. Unfortunately, the Liberals completely ignored them. They chose a single solution to very different problems.

Yes, there are problems. Yes there are different populations that warrant different solutions. Unfortunately, in this bill, the government treats everyone the same and does not take into account the differences, the causes, and mental health conditions. We are just being told that the same formula now applies to everyone. In that regard, I agree with my NDP colleague, even though he does not seem to like it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservative and New Democrat members' comments complement one another. They do not necessarily oppose the same things, but they do complement each other.

I want to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his great speech. I learned a lot, and I think Canadians did as well, about why it is important to plan well and have a vision when introducing a bill. It seems clear that this is not the case here, based on the points my colleague made in his speech.

Correctional Service Canada has told us that there is absolutely no budget for this bill. The government did not do any budget forecasts.

Since my colleague was once a mayor, I would like to ask him a question. Would he have ever introduced a by-law, law or new approach at city hall without knowing how much it would cost?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable has time for a brief answer.

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

Madam Speaker, I never would have done that.

[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.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my former fellow member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on his wonderful speech.

The hon. member mentioned fetal alcohol syndrome. I have read and heard that upwards of 70% to 80% of people who are incarcerated have two common indicators: one that their mother drank while pregnant, and the other that they have not finished high school.

Has the member looked into those statistics to see how people with those two characteristics might be rehabilitated?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would first say in response to both of those items that, as a former teacher, they are important. I know, for example, that in Bowden we have great staff working with individuals. It is a much more difficult situation to work with those who have FASD, but it does work. If they do not have a lot of extra distractions around them, it is a lot easier for them to manage under those circumstances.

However, one of the critical and key parts is that often other criminals will want things done inside the prison. Therefore, it is not just a case of what they did on the outside, because we find that many of them end up getting charged for other activities they have committed on the inside because someone told them they were good guys and asked them to do something for them, that everything would be great. However, the former are the ones who get caught and end up having to serve extra time. That activity is still going on. Therefore, if someone wants to move drugs from one person to another and he or she sends someone else to do that, obviously that person would be the one who would suffer the most.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, this bill offers nothing more than a change in terminology. What used to be called administrative segregation will now be called structured intervention units. This is not much better. The government also wants to reduce the number of hours in segregation from 22 or 23 hours to 20 hours. This is a difference of two or three hours.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Superior Court of Ontario have ruled that the existing segregation regime is unconstitutional, and, as I just mentioned, not much is changing about this regime, other than the terminology and the number of hours.

Does my colleague agree with the courts?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the definition with respect to an inmate's rights in the bill states that an inmate in a structured intervention unit has the same rights as other inmates, except if they cannot be exercised due to limitations specified for the SIU or security requirements.

First of all, the opportunities for inmates to spend a minimum of four hours a day outside their cells or to interact for a minimum of two hours a day with others through activities, including but not limited to some programs, and going through interventions and services that encourage them to make progress, all of these things sound like a great opportunities. Although the inmates are given a certain amount of leisure time, it seems as though the Liberals are trying to dictate how those four hours would be dealt with. There are even points in the bill where inmates have to make sure they have spoken with a certain person during the time of day that is listed. Whatever the situation is and the relationship this has to the Supreme Court's decision, I believe that the Liberals have gone too far. I know that the unions are extremely frustrated by this. In my speech I mentioned a lot of different situations where the unions are saying that they need this tool. Therefore, notwithstanding what the Supreme Court says, and I do not think we are going there but that is the situation many people are indicating, this is causing a lot of nervousness in the corrections system.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this important piece of legislation. I think it is one of the pieces of legislation that really illustrates the differences between political entities inside this chamber. I want to provide some thoughts on the legislation and why I believe we are quite different in terms of political philosophy and the way we want to approach crime and ensure that we have safe streets in our communities.

I am going to approach this from the perspective of some personal experience. I was the chair of the youth justice committee in the north end of Winnipeg for many years. I was also the justice critic for the Province of Manitoba for a number of years, and I have had an opportunity to gain a certain amount of insight by talking to victims, offenders and the many stakeholders around our justice system. I suspect one could anticipate that I am somewhat opinionated on this issue.

Crime is one of the issues that our constituents are very much concerned about. It is an issue that I often talk about with constituents at the door. We can talk about health care to some and there is a high level of interest in education. However, the one issue that seems to be universal in terms of having a discussion, is the issue of safety in our communities. I take it very seriously.

We often hear from the Conservative benches about being “soft on crime”. Let me be very clear. For me, it is about the victims and preventing victims from being victims in the first place. That is something that is very important to recognize.

Holding individuals accountable for breaking the law is of the utmost importance. There needs to be a consequence when someone violates the law. However, we should be looking at it from the perspective of how we ensure that there are fewer repeat offenders. If one were to follow the tough talk of the Conservatives, one would think it would be by incarcerating them in a facility and allowing them to remain in that facility and maybe, to a certain degree, being better educated in different types of crime.

The whole concept of rehabilitation seems to be lost on Conservative Party members, especially when they are in opposition or when they write press releases. We know that at times, a Conservative government can do some good things related to rehabilitation, such as when they set up healing lodges in the past, for example. That was something they established when it came to having someone move from a high-security prison to a medium-security prison. I am glad that the Conservatives applaud and recognize that.

At times they will do good things, but they will never really talk about them. What they want is to have the Conservative hard-nosed attitude that if someone breaks the law, throw them in jail and throw away the key.

Having the opportunity to tour facilities, whether it is the Headingley facility just outside Winnipeg, or Stony Mountain just outside Winnipeg near Stonewall, one gains a fairly good perspective in terms of what incarceration is all about and why it is important that there be a strong rehabilitation component in prisons.

We need to realize that the majority of people who are going to prison today will leave prison at some point. Contrary to the impression the Conservatives might like to give Canadians, it is not just murderers and rapists and pedophiles who go to prison. There are many other individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, for numerous reasons, and ultimately end up in prison.

My colleague and friend made reference to fetal alcohol syndrome. It is a very serious disorder in different regions of the country, in some regions of the country more than others. There is a correlation factor that should be taken into consideration.

One of the surprises I had was the number of individuals who have addiction issues. One of the addiction issues I would make reference to is a gambling addiction. As a result of a gambling addiction, individuals often find themselves on the wrong side of the law, and if it is severe enough, they end up being in custody or in jail. We need to recognize that if we have sound programs provided, then after they leave incarceration, there is a better chance of their being productive and law-abiding citizens. If we take away those programs the Conservatives would like to see disappear, or at least have the imagery of them disappearing, I would suggest, and I believe that studies will show, that we would have more victims as a direct result. Therefore, rehabilitation is an important component of our justice system and our corrections facilities.

That is not to take away from consequences. As I indicated, I sat on a justice committee. Justice committees are quasi-judicial, such as youth justice committees, where members of a community come before the community and say that they would be prepared to be honorary probation officers and deal with young offenders. For years I chaired one and I always found it interesting, when we would get new members coming in, to see the type of thinking they had about some of the young offenders we would get. A typical case might be someone who was shoplifting, for example. We would see shoplifters coming in with their guardians and they would sit before two or three honorary probation officers for an interview. They would talk to the young person to get a sense of whether there was remorse and what sort of disposition would be in the best interests of the community for the crime that had been committed and in the best interests of the individual so that the individual young person would not recommit.

In the 1990s, we had a fairly proactive group of youth justice committees in the north end of Winnipeg. I suspect that for many of those young people who went before those youth justice committees, where members of the community were engaged, there was a stronger likelihood of success and those youth were not committing offences.

If we leave it to the professionals, the individuals in the facilities who have studied human behaviour, and even to victims organizations, and listen to what they are telling us, we will find that there is a great deal of room for us to look at ways we can improve our correctional facilities. That is really what this bill is about.

It is an interesting fact that around 2011, the average number of inmates in segregation was in excess of 700 on any given day. Contrast that to today. Today it is roughly 340 or just under 350 a day. That is a substantial decrease in a relatively small number of years. From 700 to around 340 or 350 is a significant decrease. I would suggest that this is in good part from the sense of professionalism our correctional officers have. They do a phenomenal job. I want to recognize the efforts of our correctional facility officers and applaud them for the day-in and day-out services they provide making our communities safe and our correctional facilities safe. They do a phenomenal job, second to no other, I would argue.

Those numbers are very encouraging. We are seeing fewer people put into segregation units.

What the bill would do is eliminate administrative segregation units and put in structured intervention units. There is a difference. The Conservatives say that we are doing too much and are being too nice. The New Democrats say that we are not doing anything and that we need to do more.

I am glad to say that the government and the minister have done a fantastic job working with stakeholders to bring forward structured intervention units, which would actually be effective. In fact, they would make a difference and meet the needs of some pending court decisions on challenges brought forward in regard to segregation. The bill has also taken into consideration what other jurisdictions around the world are doing.

The minister has done a fantastic job in ensuring that we have solid, sound legislation, but both the NDP and the Conservatives are both voting against it, for totally different reasons, rather than recognizing that we are, in fact, on the right path. They do not need to criticize only because they happen to be in opposition. If the government brings in good legislation, there is nothing wrong with recognizing it for what it is, good legislation, and supporting it. That is what we have been debating and why I have been somewhat discouraged by the remarks coming from both opposition parties.

What we would be doing with the elimination of segregation is allowing those individuals who are in segregation today the opportunity to be provided with programs. We would be recognizing the importance of mental health. It is ludicrous to believe that mental health is not one of the primary reasons we have individuals entering our correctional institutions in the first place. If we want to make our communities safer into the future, we need to deal with mental health issues.

For the first time, we have taken a very bold approach by saying that if individuals are in segregation, let us get rid of the concept of segregation in favour of structured intervention units and ensure that there are programs and services that include the issue of mental health.

If we are able to deal with issues of mental health and provide essential programming services when these individuals go back into the general population, that then means that when it comes time for their release, they will be in a better position to conform to our laws. They will be better citizens in the community. They will be more positive and they will contribute as such.

Is that not what we are supposed to be doing in this House? The Liberal members of this House recognize that. We recognize it, we believe it and that is why we are supporting this legislation. Not only do we talk about it, but we want our communities to be safer. We want fewer victims.

There are other amendments in the legislation that are very positive that I have not heard members talk about. For example, when offenders go before the Parole Board, the victims can attend to hear what is said. If they do not attend the Parole Board, then they can apply for an audio recording of it, so they can hear what took place.

With this legislation, they will be able to request audio recordings whether they attend or not. Let us imagine being the victim of a crime and having to listen to the offender. For some, that might be okay; for others, it might not. Those who attend have all sorts of things going through their minds. Should they not be allowed to ask for the audio recordings that exist, so they can take them home and listen in their own homes, or in an atmosphere that is more comfortable for them?

There are some things in this legislation that I believe everyone in this House would easily support. We hear about body scanners. That is no surprise. Members of Parliament tend to fly a lot and are very familiar with the body scanners at airports. With this legislation, correctional facilities will be afforded the opportunity to acquire body scanners so that cavity searches will not be required to the degree they currently are. I see that as a positive thing. It is less intrusive. We are not only talking about prisoners; these scanners are also used for individuals who visit prisoners.

I represent a north end Winnipeg riding and understand the importance of victims' rights. Legislation has been introduced by this government to protect victims' rights. We should not buy the Conservative spin that gives an impression that the Conservatives are the only ones concerned about victims, because that is just not true. Legislation is before us that all members should support because it will prevent victims in the future. I genuinely believe that. That is one of the reasons I would ask members to consider—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Give us some proof.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a member asked if we have data to back it up. We know that programming in our correctional facilities makes a positive difference. It prevents and minimizes repeat offences. If we can do that and prevent crimes from happening in the first place by having better and more sound laws, we will have fewer victims.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when someone has the floor and other members have the urge to ask questions or make comments during a speech, they should wait until it is time for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Durham.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague expressed at great length and volume that he never hears the Conservatives willing to talk about our justice system. That is ironic, because we actually asked about the rights of the accused several times today in question period, and our Attorney General would not talk about ensuring that the rights of the accused are respected.

The Criminal Code, section 718, has the principles of sentencing for our justice system. They are six: denunciation; deterrence; separation of offenders, that is protection of the public; rehabilitation; reparation; and promotion of responsibility. We agree that all of those are important: rehabilitation, particularly for non-violent offenders, and deterrence, denunciation, promotion of responsibility and protection of the public.

There should be separation of the offenders in grave cases of murder, rape and those sorts of cases. That is the distinction between us.

The member talked a lot about victims in his speech. When we look at those principles of sentencing, how can the member in good conscience say that an offender like Terri-Lynne McClintic, who should be denounced by the public, from whom the public should be protected, and who should be deterred, could be transferred to a healing lodge? How can the member defend that in accordance with the Criminal Code section 718?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member would make that his example. We need to recognize that it was the Progressive Conservative Party that created healing lodges. I applaud it for that. It was not the current Conservative reform party; it was the Progressive Conservative Party of the Brian Mulroney days that created the healing lodge. They then told the correctional facilities that if inmates were in a medium-security facility, they could use the healing lodges.

What happened was under Stephen Harper, the very individual the member is talking about was transferred to a medium-security facility, which then allowed that individual to go to a healing lodge. When the Conservatives were in government, the policy was to hush up, say nothing and allow the transfer. If that transfer had been prevented, the individual in question would never have been able to go to a healing lodge.

However, true to form, the Government of Canada, under the Liberal Party, supports Canada's professional civil service and those individuals we have entrusted to administer justice. That is unlike the Conservative Party, which demonstrated yesterday and again today that it does not respect the independence of our court system. We do, and that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a good number of concerns with the bill. The first is, whatever happened to Bill C-56? It was tabled. Now the Liberals have introduced another bill. Their original bill, tabled more than a year ago, would actually limit administrative segregation to 21 days, and then within 18 months would further limit it to 15 days. This bill imposes nothing definitive. It says an inmate's confinement in an SIU is to end “as soon as possible”.

Eighteen hundred Canadian inmates are being segregated, and almost 50% of them are suffering from mental health issues. I refer the hon. member to the case of Eddie Snowshoe, an indigenous man from Northwest Territories who committed suicide after being in segregation for 162 days in a 2.5-metre by 3.6-metre cell. Eddie Snowshoe was in a desperate situation. People had even forgotten he was in there.

What is this bill going to do to stop more tragic Eddie Snowshoe cases?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the way the legislation is worded, we can see that Eddie Snowshoe would have received mental health services, along with other programming. This is the reality of the NDP's position. There is absolutely no doubt, philosophically, that this advances us forward. It might not go as far forward as the NDP would like to see it, but it brings us forward.

One would think the NDP would support that. I do not understand the positioning of the NDP on this. It makes no sense whatsoever. If we look at the example the member just gave, Eddie would actually have benefited by this.

In addition, the legislation would add the guiding principle to the law to affirm the need for CSC to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making.

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

Madam Speaker, is the member aware of any evidence or data that shows that the safety of the public is improved by administrative segregation in prisons?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we take a look at segregation as a whole, we have seen from other jurisdictions that we can improve the whole concept of rehabilitation in many different ways. Segregation would now be converted into something new, where there would be an allowance for rehabilitation programs and mental health services.

As I pointed out, most individuals who are incarcerated today are going to be living in our communities, hopefully as productive members of the public. The better programming we can provide, the greater the likelihood of the public being safer once they are released into communities, whether it is of a physical or a property nature.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us is the result of two decisions rendered by the B.C. Supreme Court and an Ontario court, which ruled that the existing measures are unconstitutional for two reasons.

First, there is no independent oversight agency to determine whether administrative segregation is justified. Second, there is no fixed maximum duration for administrative segregation. However, the bill that the government has presented us with today does not provide for independent oversight, nor for a fixed maximum duration for administrative segregation, so this bill does not change anything.

The only difference seems to semantic. Under the Conservatives, an inmate's confinement in administrative segregation was supposed to come to an end “at the earliest appropriate time”, whereas under the Liberals, it should end “as soon as possible”. Perhaps my colleague can clarify the difference for me.

What is the difference between “at the earliest appropriate time” and “as soon as possible”?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the member across the way does not understand the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals on this issue, I would advise that he read my comments. I have been speaking on it for the last 20 minutes.

When we take a look at what this legislation would actually be doing, I do not understand how the NDP could possibly not support the legislation. I can understand why the Conservatives do not support it, but I do not understand why the NDP does not. Between now and the time it comes to vote, NDP members might want to caucus the issue. Hopefully they will realize it would be a mistake to be on the wrong side of it. They can bring forward their ideas and suggestions at the committee stage, and let us see if we can have some positive dialogue.

This government has consistently proven in the past that it is open to good ideas and ways to improve legislation. We have accepted amendments by opposition members in the past. We are always open to good ideas that have really been thought through and brought forward. I would encourage my colleague to reflect on his positioning on this legislation and ultimately get behind it.

[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.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear that my colleague was asked questions about the environment when he visited the prisons. The inmates are interested in what is happening in society, and that is good news.

My colleague pointed out parts of the bill that he feels are inadequate. For example, he said that the bill should establish the number of days of administrative segregation. The bill is now at second reading. My colleague knows very well that if we vote for the bill, it will be referred to a committee, and he will have the opportunity to propose these changes.

Will my colleague vote in favour of the bill as it stands, knowing that he will have the opportunity to propose changes in committee? If not, why?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have informed my colleague about the concerns of certain inmates, in particular about environmental causes.

At this stage, it is extremely difficult for the NDP to vote for this bill because it does not remotely respond to the demands of the Ontario or B.C. courts, nor does it reflect what the Liberals had proposed in Bill C-56.

I hope my colleague will be open to significant amendments that will fix the bill when it is studied in committee, because a majority government could refer it to a committee. In our opinion, the bill does not fix any problems at all. It is the same old, same old.

Today, 50% of those placed in administrative segregation have mental health issues. That is very worrisome. In Canada, between 2011 and 2014, 14 inmates committed suicide after being placed in administrative segregation. I believe it is time that we changed our practices with respect to this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I understand that he does not completely agree with the bill. The Conservatives feel the same way but for different reasons.

My colleague keeps repeating that the structured intervention units proposed by the Liberals are just administrative segregation cells by another name. However, in their testimony, prison guards said that the Liberals' proposal could endanger the lives of guards and other inmates. My colleague keeps saying that neither solution is sufficient and that something else needs to be done.

What does he propose?

One one hand, we have the government, which is improvising solutions. On the other, we have a party that is saying that the government's solutions are no good but that is not proposing anything else.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that our current prison system is generally safe. Yes, correctional officers have legitimate demands, but it is also important to remember that a great deal of their dissatisfaction is due to the previous Conservative government's actions.

The repeated, abusive and prolonged use of administrative segregation is not a solution for dealing with recalcitrant inmates. If 50% of them have mental health problems, it is more of a health issue than a judicial issue. I think that there are other ways to address this issue. Prolonged administrative segregation can 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. Putting these inmates into such a situation increases the safety risks for correctional officers.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues asked the member's colleague a question about voting for the bill. He responded by saying something to the effect that the Liberals have a majority government and thereby, having a majority government, we will be able to get the bill going to committee.

If I try to better understand that comment, it is almost saying that as the New Democratic Party, the members are opposing the bill but they hope it goes to committee so they can change it. I would like to get clarification from the NDP on whether the New Democrats support those initiatives that are within the legislation, that stand today. Yes, I understand the New Democrats want amendments, but would they be prepared to support the current initiatives without the amendments, or would they see themselves voting against it even in third reading?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, both myself and other members of my caucus have gone into these committee meetings in good faith and have proposed in some cases hundreds of amendments only to have the Liberals vote them down one after the next without even debating them. I must say that it is a little hard to take my colleague's encouragement to vote in favour of a bill that does not even meet the orders of two supreme courts in this country. The government is probably going to invoke closure on this bill, like it does with everything else, and will probably jam it through just for it to be challenged in court again.

I will restate the recommendation that we gave the current government back in June. It should immediately stop the appeal that it launched against the 2018 ruling to end indefinite solitary confinement in prisons across Canada and recognize the practice is unconstitutional and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment that can lead to the suffering and death of some prisoners, including indigenous women in the federal prison system. This bill does not do that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her contribution to the debate I have been listening to throughout the day. I think she and I will agree that we disagree with the content of the bill for very different reasons. I will mention that in 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.

I think the contents of this legislation completely take apart the system that we have today. That is why many Conservatives will be voting against it.

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.

Does the member have any concern, or does she share my concern, that Correctional Services Canada simply will not have either the financial resources or the manpower to actually implement the contents of this bill?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point. As this bill was only tabled on Monday, that is not an analysis I have done.

It is certainly a good point to say that it is indefinite solitary confinement. There are times that segregation is necessary for the safety of other prisoners. However, we did have very clear direction from both courts, and very good advice from multiple witnesses, the investigation done by the correctional investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger and advocates across our country. The current government was given good advice, which it has failed to take.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Infrastructure.

[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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manitoba for his interventions, as he knows better than most of us the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in our prison system, as well as their overrepresentation in solitary confinement. He also well knows the long-standing evidence of the damage and the harmful effects that can happen to someone in solitary confinement.

Just for the record, the Orwellian language being thrown around in this debate is a bit worrisome. Most Canadians who are at all familiar with the topic know what solitary confinement is. It is solitary. That is what it is. Calling it “structured integration units” pretends it is something else than what it is. I think that is abusive of the debate. I think it disabuses Canadians of the truth of what is happening here.

My question is very specific. The whole reason this bill has been tabled is that the previous practice of solitary confinement in our prisons was shown not by one but two of our higher courts to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of British Columbia said that it allowed for prolonged indefinite confinement, but did not allow for independent oversight of decisions to segregate and to prevent inmates from having a lawyer represent them at segregation hearings.

As well, an Ontario court found the same thing, namely, the lack of independent oversight when a decision was made to put a prisoner into solitary confinement, which we know from extensive research can have long-term and damaging effects on them. There are, of course, instances when there have to be separations.

With just an “Orwellian” change of terminology, the Liberals are setting this up to head right back to the courts, because they have not included the independent oversight that both of those superior courts insisted upon in striking down the previous regime, giving the government time to fix it. This bill does not fix it. Why not?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. I have been working quite hard with the John Howard Society, which has an office just in front of my office on Ellice Avenue. I am very proud of the work. I often have the chance to go over and speak with them. They have had a halfway house in the past few years where I could go to speak with people who had just been recently released from prison and hear their own stories directly from them.

Solitary confinement is a terrible thing. In the military it was used quite often against prisoners in POW camps. It is a form of torturing people because, over time, it erodes your sense of humanity. It erodes your sense of connection. As human beings are social animals, we do need contact with others.

I think the difference with this bill is that we are trying to define, to a greater extent, what intervention will actually look like, and if we must have rehabilitative programs, what those would entail. In this case, we must have meaningful contact. The bill refers to “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.” I think that is extremely important, because there are other clauses here that refer to a health care professional. Their ruling is important and if the inmate is suffering from mental health duress, then that must have a review, and it goes immediately, I believe, to the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will just let hon. members know that we are letting questions and comments go a little longer right now. We have roughly 10 minutes. I am not taking any part of that right now. We will tack that onto the end. However, usually when there are not a lot of people standing up, we let members take a little bit more liberty with their time. I just wanted to let members know that, so that if members are interested in weighing-in on this 10-minute period, they can stand up and we will be sure to recognize them.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way has raised many concerns about the treatment of indigenous Canadians in our country. He has often supported reforms in that direction, and yet I am puzzled that the member has not mentioned another tragedy.

There was a lot of talk about the way Ms. Smith was treated and then committed suicide, but three years after Ms. Smith's death in prison, there was a suicide by an indigenous man, Eddie Snowshoe, from Northwest Territories. Mr. Snowshoe had been incarcerated in solitary confinement for 162 days. Mr. Snowshoe had attempted suicide many times in prison. What was the response? They gave him drugs that made him feel even worse and put him in solitary confinement. The same situation happened with him as it did with Ms. Smith. When he was transferred from Stony Mountain to Edmonton, no one bothered to tell them that he had already been in solitary confinement for 134 straight days, so they started the clock again. Just before Mr. Snowshoe committed suicide, he asked to speak to a psychiatrist. That request was never passed on. Also, he asked to be transferred into the main cells.

Could the member speak to why the bill, unlike the previous bill his government tabled a year ago, which specified 21 days maximum for solitary confinement and 15 days after a year and a half, gives no time limit and has completely discretionary language? How are we to be satisfied that there will be no more Eddie Snowshoes when so many indigenous people are incarcerated in our country?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. Mr. Snowshoe's case is absolutely disgusting. Spirituality is extremely important to me as a sun dancer and someone who believes in and practices spirituality. I had a pipe ceremony in my office yesterday, and the hon. Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the member for Etobicoke came to my office. We spent a beautiful 20 minutes praying and thinking.

Excuse me, I am not a lawyer, but the bill does have has a paragraph specifying that indigenous spirituality must be allowed for all indigenous inmates. Under it, Mr. Snowshoe could request those services and have contact. Subclause 83(2), under spiritual leaders and elders, states:

The Service shall take all reasonable steps to make available to Indigenous inmates the services of an Indigenous spiritual leader or elder after consultation with (a) the national Indigenous advisory committee established under section 82; and (b) the appropriate regional and local Indigenous advisory committees.

It is extremely important to allow contact with another human being, to allow a person who is in segregation, or in this case an intervention unit, to have contact with others. From what I read in the bill, the idea is to make sure that if they have to regroup people together who have similar issues, a certain amount of services can be provided. All that programming needs to be provided to that person. They cannot be isolated by themselves, but the programming for all of those things needs to occur day after day to get them on the right path.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will take one last question.

The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry. I was perhaps a bit misleading there. We are still in questions and comments. We will get back to the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

I think, under questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions was on her feet.

[Bernadette Jordan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I sat for quite some time on the status of women committee, and we did a study on indigenous women and their access to the justice and criminal justice system. One of the things we heard over and over again was the intergenerational trauma and how women in corrections, particularly indigenous women, are strongly affected by what has happened to them and their families over a number of years.

Could my hon. colleague talk a little more about how important it is to have that mental health component in this piece of legislation?

[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.

[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.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very well known and recorded that I am very much a strong advocate for mental health. I know the member spoke quite a bit about the mental health issues of inmates and the safety of those who are in charge of them.

While I recognize the need for safeguards, I do take some offence with using the mental health case as a reason to misinform Canadians by saying that inmates will be rewarded, as my colleague mentioned. Inmates will be separated through a secure intervention unit. Inmates will be separated when necessary while providing not only mental health services, but rehabilitative service and other intervention services that are necessary. This is not just about mental health. This is about securely having someone away from the general population and providing them with the services that they need because there is the capacity to rehabilitate and reduce recidivism rates.

The warden has the opportunity to review at five days and then at 30 days, while the person is in the secure intervention unit. I am hoping that my colleague could speak to why he focused on the mental health aspect when he clearly understands that this is not the complete intention of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not solely been focusing on the mental health aspect because I have been focusing on the right of our correctional officers to have as safe a working environment as they can possibly have. These are the people who put their lives on the line every day when they work in these dangerous environments with people who have committed violent crimes and are likely to commit violent crimes.

I stand by the use of the term “reward”. We are talking about a previous system where someone would be sent to administrative segregation and completely stripped of their right to extra privileges and now under this new SIU policy the government proposing, the individual will gain those privileges back. I do not see any other way to look at it other than it is adding privileges, it is rewarding prisoners under this new policy. That is the way that I see it and that is the way that people in the corrections system are seeing it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard this in my friend's speech because there is the way he sees it, the way my colleague from Whitby sees it, and there is the way the courts have seen the use and practice of solitary confinement in our prisons and the response from not one, but two superior court decisions, one in British Columbia and one in Ontario, against this practice is what the bill is responding to, allegedly.

We craft laws in this place. They then get put out into the public and if they are challenged, as this previous practice was challenged in court, after the most brutal experiences where people in solitary confinement ended up killing themselves, because the practice was abused.

There are two things that both of the courts identified. One was oversight and the second was a limitation on the number of days that solitary confinement could have. A previous Liberal bill actually had some elements of oversight and had some limits to solitary confinement. The bill does neither. How does my friend not expect this to end up right back in the courts after more damage is done to more people who are incarcerated and Parliament in some future day to be taken up with the very same example after so much more human tragedy?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I worry about is not necessarily that this will end up back in court, but that we are going to see some deadly consequences from this legislation if correctional services officers are being put at increased risk because they have this essential tool taken away from them. I can agree with my colleague that there have been abuses in the past and that things need to be done about that, such as talking about appropriate limitations and appropriate oversight. These are things that I can certainly support in legislation. What I will not support is completely taking away an essential tool that is necessary not only to protect prison staff, but to protect vulnerable inmates from being preyed upon by the more powerful.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I must inform the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix that she has about six minutes remaining for her speech. She can finish her speech the next time the House resumes debate on this motion.

The hon. member now has the floor.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix will have four and a half minutes to finish her speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from 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.

[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.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the government has actually costed out these changes. When I look at the departmental plan for Correctional Service Canada, I do not believe government members have read their own plan that the Public Safety Minister signed off on. It shows over five years an 8.8% cut in funding, including inflation, for correctional services. Further, the departmental plan produced by the government, and signed off by the public safety minister, calls for a reduction in the number of correctional services officers.

I am curious to know if the government has done its homework on what the cost is going to be. How does it justify that and balance it with the fact that it is calling for significant cuts to correctional services at the same time?

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, investments we have made as a government over the last two years in correctional services are making a change within our system. We are a government that has really been focusing hard on rehabilitation. We have been focusing hard on providing alternate correctional services for those who require them, whether that be mental health services or other services, while incarcerated.

The goal of the Government of Canada is to ensure that we reduce the number of victims and also reduce the number of repeat offenders in the Canadian judicial system. By offering the programs we are proposing and making the amendments in the bill today, we will be keeping all Canadians safer.

[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]

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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of concerns.

The member mentioned in her speech that extensive consultations were done, but my understanding is that the government did not consult with the union of correctional officers, who certainly will be impacted.

In addition to that, I am concerned about the Liberal direction of making life easier for criminals, beginning with Bill C-51 and then Bill C-75, where penalties for very serious crimes, such as forcible confinement of a minor and terrorism, were dropped. The government has brought ISIS terrorists back and now is trying to make life easier for criminals.

Why are the Liberals doing that as a priority?

[Yvonne Jones]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note that the goal of this bill and the other actions that the Government of Canada has taken is to ensure that we can reduce crime in Canada and reduce repeat crime in this country. We can continue to place people for minor offences in the correctional centres without proper programs or treatment and we have seen what happens from that process. They become repeat offenders.

I remember visiting, about a year or so ago, a correctional centre in my own riding, where I talked to a number of individuals who were there for perhaps theft. It might have started out that way, but through breaches of probation and a lack of services for addiction and mental health care, they became repeat offenders who were incarcerated for longer periods of time.

It is our goal as Canadians to get people out of the system, to get them rehabilitated and to help them with mental health and addictions issues that often lead to petty crime.

[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.

[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, 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.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are claims by the Liberal government that we are going to have a lot more provisions to deal with indigenous offenders. Of course, we know that a huge percentage of offenders are indigenous, particularly the women.

I wish to again raise the case of Edward Christopher Snowshoe from the Northwest Territories, who was confined to a cell the size apparently of a Volkswagen Beetle. He was in solitary for 162 days. At one point, he asked for additional medical assistance and revealed he was suicidal. He, in fact, had attempted suicide several times. He was sent to an aboriginal healing centre, but he asked to leave because the healing centre had nothing to do with his indigenous beliefs. He was from the Northwest Territories. We need to recognize that there are over 300 first nations.

What kinds of provision is the government going to take to put in additional resources so that there are provisions for support to all of the indigenous people who are imprisoned?

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I would like to inform the House that we have had five hours of debate on this motion in the first round. Consequently, the maximum time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be 10 minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[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.

[Bernadette Jordan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, I sat on the status of women committee. We did a study on indigenous women in corrections. It is particularly challenging to hear the stories of intergenerational trauma and of incarcerated women who are struggling with generations of problems from growing up in difficult situations.

My colleague said that the only part of the bill he agreed with was the body scanners. I am having a bit of a challenge with that. A big part of the bill is the mental health supports that will be provided to inmates to ensure they are treated in a way that they can be rehabilitated and not be put back in the corrections system.

Would my hon. colleague like comment on why he does not agree with mental health supports?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I never said I disagreed with providing mental health supports. I said that we need to spend more time and more resources training our personnel at the jails. I clearly stated this a number of times in my comments. Jail guards are concerned that they are not receiving the proper training to deal with people with different mental situations, different stress situations and different violent tendencies. We need to ensure that our guards have the best training so that they understand the situations they are being put into so they can keep themselves and the prisoners safe.

[Bernadette Jordan]

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I heard my hon. colleague say he agreed with one part of the bill. I know he said that corrections officers must have training. That is what the bill is doing; it is providing mental health supports. He says the one part of the bill he agrees with is the part dealing with scanning, but he is not saying he agrees that we need to provide for better health. That is what we need to do. That is what the bill is doing and that is what the member is overlooking when he made his comments.

[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.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to many prison guards, especially in the London area where we have the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and where rampant issues are occurring. Many drugs are coming into the area.

The bill talks about scanning the inmates, but does the member think that goes far enough? We have to recognize that drugs are getting into the correctional facilities and find our how they do. Does the member believe that we should expand scanning so it goes beyond the inmates and perhaps to all visitors, and maybe even going one step further than that?

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct that we need to go further. We need to scan all people coming into and out of our jail institutions to protect the guards and the inmates. We know that contraband is increasingly entering our prisons. We know it is being brought in by people and we have indications that it is being brought in by some guards. It is not going to hurt to scan all individuals coming into our institutions, as many high security institutions already do.

[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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

The member for London North Centre said that this bill would affect just 340 people. However, the bill affects many others, including Terri-Lynne McClintic and the terrorists who are returning to Canada.

Why are the Liberals prioritizing help for criminals?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague use the word “terrorist”.

The Conservatives talked a good game about this and were very hard on terrorists, but they did not manage to put a single terrorist behind bars in 10 years.

We have sent many terrorists to prison, so I am pleased that my colleague talked about that. In 2011, 700 inmates were placed in administrative segregation. My NDP colleague said that there were just 300. The new approach is to make sure that they have access to mental health care. That is the difference.

My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton named some prisoners, but she seems to have forgotten the case of Ms. Smith when she asked her question.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his articulate speech.

I just want to focus on one aspect. The Ontario and British Columbia courts ruled that the current law is unconstitutional on the grounds of two elements.

First, there was no independent body to review the justification for and the extension of administrative segregation. Second, the law did not set a limit for the undue or abusive extension of the administrative segregation.

Unfortunately, unlike former Bill C-56, the current bill does not meet these two criteria.

How can my colleague believe that the courts will deem this Liberal bill to be constitutional?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will repeat that when an inmate is placed in this special unit, the warden will examine the case and decide whether the inmate must remain there. Subsequent reviews will be done by the warden after 30 days and by the commissioner of the Correctional Service every 30 days thereafter.

I believe that we have put in place a system that will comply with the rulings of the Ontario and the British Columbia courts.

I am sure that our bill will comply with the rulings.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I have an institution in my riding where nearly half a million dollars of drugs were seized by corrections officials in 2017.

When I think about that situation, I also think about the suggestion that, well, maybe we should be advancing needle exchange programs, spoons, and so on. I think that gives the wrong impression to people about what life and conditions should be in prison.

As Conservatives, we look at advancing and expanding the screening process, and maybe making sure that no one comes in. That would perhaps be a better way to create some safety for those who are in the prisons, primarily those who do not use drugs.

Thinking about the situation, if everyone else is going to have a needle, maybe each person should have one as well just to protect themself. That is how obscene this approach to corrections is.

[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?

[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, administrative segregation could force an inmate to go a whole day without human contact. The new bill will ensure that inmates get human contact, especially with mental health professionals. That is the difference.

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.

[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.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I head the parliamentary secretary misstate the law. On more than one occasion, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. In fact, there is no Supreme Court of Canada decision. There are two lower court decisions, one a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision and another an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, neither of which, by the way, ordered a blanket prohibition on segregation.

Could the hon. parliamentary secretary clarify the record.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I misidentified the Supreme Court in this case, I apologize and stand by the correct record as the member opposite pointed out.

However, the issue is this. Segregation has an extraordinarily damaging impact on prisoners who are subjected to it, especially when it is used as punishment and extends beyond 15 days. We have had case after case of people where the damage done to them has been contained while they remain in the corrections system, but when they are released into the larger population, the crimes they commit are even more horrendous than the ones that put them in jail to begin with.

We cannot allow a prison system or a justice system to make criminals more dangerous, and when it does, we have a responsibility to act. We also have to take into account the good evidence showing that if we do not address the underlying issues, extended segregation and segregation as punishment without support for the mental health or addictions issues that have put people into that situation, we will not get the results we need to make communities safe.

Being tough on crime for the sake of being political about it is one thing, but if we are going to be smart on crime, we need to end crime and the risk to populations and communities. The evidence is very clear that we have to do better with the use of segregation. It has damaged people and put communities and people at risk.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a resident of a community that includes the Elgin—Middlesex Detention Centre, where, if anyone checks the news, they would find lots of information about what is happening there. I have talked to some of the people who work there, and I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on what they had to say. My friend Jason 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.”

Throughout these consultations, we heard that the government has not spoken with corrections officers. My daughter, who is also in corrections, says this bill is hugely flawed and that she feels unsafe when these things are going on. What does the parliamentary secretary have to say about that, and how is he going to answer to people like my friend Jason, who are concerned about their own safety and segregation being taken away?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether or not they are working in corrections or any federal institutions, workers have a right and an expectation to be treated fairly and to have their safety protected by a government that passes laws. Clearly, the status quo is not safe. Clearly, the current situation in the corrections system is one that is both dangerous to the workers there and harmful to the persons being incarcerated. Change is needed, which is what this bill presents.

This bill presents a path forward that would not allow confinement to be used in a way that has been abusive to some and has intensified the violence and risks to corrections workers. It presents a new regime that would provide a middle path forward. It would allow prisoners to be isolated if they present a risk to staff, other prisoners or themselves, but also allow services to be provided to those people so they can stop being a risk to other people. In particular, the absence of mental health services for indigenous populations in prison systems has been shown to be one of the most significant causes of violence in the prison system. That situation is the status quo at present. We cannot allow that to continue. It is inhumane. It is also really bad justice, creating even more risk, not just for the workers in the corrections system but also for society as as a whole when these people get out as damaged goods. When they go into prison and come out worse than they went in, they go back into society and create a greater risk to others. We have to turn that around, and that is what this bill addresses.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that I only have a minute or so to pose a question when I could probably use 10 or 20 minutes to counter the misinformation the member has put on the record. We have heard a couple of times from the Conservatives, for example, that body scans only apply to prisoners, which is not the case. They constantly say in their speeches that correctional officers were not consulted, which is just not the case.

Does the member not believe that when members stand to speak, facts do matter? When a member makes a statement that correctional officers were not consulted, when they were consulted, should the member be saying that? Should members say that body scans only apply to prisoners, and a number of Conservatives said that, when it is not the case, when visitors will be subjected on occasion to body scans? Do facts matter when opposition members stand to speak on legislation?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals care so much about the environment the guards will be working in and care truthfully for their opinion, one would think that in the 22 priorities listed in Correctional Service Canada's plan they would actually mention the safety and work environment for prison guards.

I will let the member know, maybe he has not read the plan, which is quite possible as they get attached to the estimates and many members forget about them, but out of the 22 priorities, not one mentions the safety of the guards working in corrections services.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this whole debate.

We have issues with criminal justice in this country where we have murderers and rapists going free because the justice minister has not appointed enough judges. We have 160 ISIS terrorists who have returned and are wandering free, but only had 10 charges laid.

When I see the myriad of things that the government could have brought, the bill before us would address 340 people who are currently in segregation. It just seems like it should not be such a big priority. Would the member agree?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree with the member for Sarnia—Lambton. She is absolutely right. What we should be doing is looking after the public safety issue that we have raised multiple times now in the House with returning ISIS terrorists.

Let me frank here. ISIS, as a combat unit, as a combat effective force, has been defeated on the ground. Those people today who are choosing to return, who are asking to return, are not returning because they have a change of heart. They are not returning because they have seen the horrible atrocities being committed in eastern Syria and Iraq. They are returning because the people who kept them safe in their territories have been militarily defeated by western powers, by the Russian Federation, by Assad's forces and by Kurdish forces on the ground.

Many of these people we know very little about. We do not know what type of combat training they received. That is a true public safety concern and should be a top priority for the department instead of something that will look after 300 prisoners in administrative segregation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's very well-researched and thoughtful remarks on this.

What I found most astounding is that earlier we had a parliamentary secretary misquote the law of Canada, suggesting a lower court decision was actually that of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am glad he corrected the record.

What I would like my colleague to comment on is the very fact that the government, on many things, is of two faces. It has a bill before the House that it did not even consult front-line correctional workers on, the justice department is actually appealing the decisions in the lower courts with respect to these issues, yet it has a bill before Parliament.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric today in the House with respecting the courts. My friend, Peter Van Loan, was quoted at length by the Minister of Public Safety in an almost embarrassing fashion.

Does my colleague think that there should be a bill in the House when there has not been comprehensive consultation with the people impacted, and while the government is appealing lower court decisions on the very issue of the bill? Should this not wait until the courts have determined the full rights and rules with respect to solitary confinement?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, this matter is before the courts and so I cannot give further commentary.

[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.

[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 appreciate the question. With respect, specifically, to Canada Border Services, there have been significant increases under this government, so I am not sure I can trust the hon. member's numbers. On the other side of things, what is the cost—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Library of Parliament.

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

I hear the member calling out from the other side. I am sure he is excited to ask another question.

That being said, what is the cost of doing nothing? The Conservative plan is for us to have more hardened criminals. Knowing that almost all of these people are going to be released, we want a safer population with a lower recidivism rate, and this is a bill that would achieve that. It would lead to lower costs for the taxpayers at the end of the line, and that is the important thing and it would better public safety.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Catharines alluded to two lower court decisions and, typical of the Liberals in trying to justify their legislation, they argue that the courts made them do it. In that vein, I was wondering if the member for St. Catharines could explain why the government is appealing those decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the law has not changed, the government has an obligation to proceed with the justice system and proceed to appealing those decisions, as the law that exists on the books is not something that the government necessarily wants to see. We do want to see changes, and we appreciate and respect the court's decision, but as a matter of course and a matter of principle, the appeal has to go forward. We hope that Parliament moves quickly, and I hope the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton will support this bill and we can get it to the Senate as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, juxtaposing the member for St. Catharines' remarks with question period is really what I want to talk about. Here, we have a case where this bill deals with subjects currently under appeal by the federal government, by the justice department, for lower court decisions in two provinces, namely the B.C. Supreme Court. The very subject matter of solitary confinement is under appeal. Therefore, is it appropriate in this House for us to be discussing something that is currently before the courts?

We heard repeatedly today from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness what we should not be discussing in this House. He quoted my friend, Peter Van Loan, at length about it, yet several Liberal members are referring to court decisions that are leading to this bill and the substantive elements in this bill. Could the member square how the Liberals are more than happy to talk about ongoing court proceedings in this subject, but not when it comes to the due process rights of one of our top-ranking military officers?

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the subject of due process, it is ironic that the Conservatives will stand up and ask questions about that because they have shown time and again their unwillingness to consider that for other individuals. That being said, this is a decision that has been made, it is a decision that is public and it is a decision that we can talk about frequently. Cases that are before the courts, cases that are under criminal investigation and cases that the Public Prosecution Service is dealing with are an entirely different ball game. It is shameful that the hon. member would attempt to confuse these things.

At the end of the day, this is a policy decision by the government. It is a bill that would increase public safety, and something we should all be moving forward on for the safety of Canadians.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting part of this debate to watch the opposition parties. Both the Conservatives and the New Democrats oppose this legislation, but for very different reasons.

I can somewhat understand the Conservative side. I disagree with it, but I somewhat understand it. On the other hand, the NDP makes absolutely no sense at all. There is something really wrong with this picture and why the NDP—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering if you could inform the House of the amount of time this debate has taken place.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

We will calculate that amount, and get back to the House.

We will continue with the parliamentary secretary .

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting interjection, I must say.

What I was getting at is that if we look at the legislation, it is very progressive. I would have thought the New Democrats would have favoured the change from segregated units to having services and programming, such as health services. There are other aspects, such as the body scanners. There is the access to audio for victims who are not attending parole hearings. There is a lot of good stuff in this legislation.

Could my colleague across the way identify precisely what in this legislation makes the NDP oppose it?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier on I identified everything wrong with this bill. First, the government should not be tabling a bill that does not address the court rulings. This bill will be deemed unconstitutional too. That is the first problem.

The other problem with this bill is that the significant, express demands for external oversight and monitoring of inmate segregation placements were not accepted. That is an extremely serious problem. In recent years, some people have still ended up spending more than 90 days in segregation without external oversight. Just imagine the psychological and mental health consequences of spending more than 90 days in segregation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very cogent, thoughtful and clear speech about the things he would like to see changed in this bill.

One of the things that troubles me is that the government is promising that via this legislation, all of a sudden there are going to be additional resources for inmates that would resolve the kinds of problems that we have run into where in many cases someone who is completely mentally stable becomes unstable as a result of a long period of incarceration and solitary confinement.

In the case of Eddie Snowshoe, he was sent to a healing centre with the presumption that all 300-plus first nations in Canada practice exactly the same cultural practices. He wanted to leave because he said he could not relate to what was going on.

Could my colleague speak to the issue of there being no promised exponential increase in dollars to ensure that we have more healing centres? Maybe the government will bring back the prison farms. Perhaps it will give greater consideration to communications between prisons, so inmates do not start again at zero in solitary confinement.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I want to start by expressing my deepest gratitude to everyone working at Drummond Institution, including the correctional officers and all other staff, especially the mental health professionals.

What is important, and not just for this bill, which fails to address the court ruling, is that we also need to do something about prison overcrowding and the shortage of health care professionals and other professionals.

My colleague also mentioned that we need these resources to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in our prisons and in segregation. We also need to reduce the overrepresentation of people with mental illness. Most of the women who end up in segregation are women with mental illness. We need to provide services. Segregation is not a service that improves overrepresentation of women with mental illness or overrepresentation of indigenous peoples.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, the previous chair occupant, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, received a point of order from the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George relating to the time that had elapsed in the debate on the bill currently before the House. In response to that point of order, it was seven hours and 52 minutes at that point.

We will now resume debate with the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, all sides in politics can sometimes resort to easy catch phrases to summarize the views of their contemporaries. When I hear “locking up people in cages” and things like that, I do not think it describes some of the valid concerns about this bill mainly because part of our criminal process, as covered in section 718 of the Criminal Code under “Purpose and Principles of Sentencing”, means that protection of the public, separation of a dangerous offender from the public, has to be part of the discussion. Once we have incarcerated someone for a serious crime, particularly ones with violent tendencies, we also have to consider the safety and wellness of our correctional service officers, uniformed service people who go through tremendous stress in that job.

When it comes to a bill that has not properly consulted correctional service officers, they not putting people in cages, they are detaining people, protecting the public as part of our criminal justice system. As important as rehabilitation is, one of the principles of sentencing, equally as important is separation of the offender. That is a principle in the Criminal Code as well to protect the public from dangerous offenders.

Will the member commit, as part of this bill, to speak more with correctional service members to hear their concerns about a top-down approach when it comes to solitary confinement or procedures within the penal system?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Durham for his questions and comments. I appreciate him asking his question in a reasonable tone of voice.

However, I do not want him to misrepresent my comments by saying that we are going to lock people up in their cells. Yes, there must be consequences, and we have to protect not only society, but also our correctional officers. We agree on that. Actions must have consequences. However, with the exception of those deemed impossible to rehabilitate, most inmates eventually get out of prison. That means we are responsible for ensuring that they are prepared to return to society and the mainstream population.

That is why I am so proud of our bill. It will give them access to services, specifically mental health services. Whether their mental health issues are lifelong or developed while they were incarcerated, we have to meet those needs because they will go back into society one day.

I am sure that, like me, my colleague from Durham and all of our other colleagues want these people to be prepared to reintegrate and become citizens once again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I will let the hon. member know that there are only about seven minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon, but he will have the remaining time when the House next debates the question.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton will have four minutes remaining in the time for his remarks when the House next resumes debate on the question that is before the House.

I see the hon. Government House Leader rising on a point of order.

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to Amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of 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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so that the Chair will have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is indicative of what the Liberals have been doing overall on this bill, which is very disturbing to see. This is a bill that would have a direct effect on the men and women who put their lives on the line every day dealing with the most dangerous, horrific criminals in Canada.

Corrections officers do not like this bill. The government has not talked with them about this bill. It has not talked or consulted with them on the very dangerous and very real implications for the men and women who serve as corrections officers.

This bill would be taking away the ability of corrections officers to put individuals in solitary confinement for the protection of other inmates, the protection of themselves or the protection of guards.

We are again seeing the Liberals focusing on protecting criminals, focusing on worrying about the comfort of criminals who are serving their time in federal penitentiaries, and shutting down any discussion or debate. It is shameful to see.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise or shock anyone that I disagree with most, if not all, of those comments. First, what we are seeking to do is to send this legislation to committee. This legislation will have been before the House for three days.

My hon. colleague referred to the importance of hearing from correctional officers. I personally have a large federal correctional institution in my riding. In fact, there are three institutions. I have had a chance to meet with the union representatives for correctional officers on a number of occasions. I think it is always important to listen to those men and women who work in the system. Having the legislation at committee would allow us to do exactly that.

As my hon. colleague noted, this legislation has been before the House for some time. If we fail to enact legislation by December of this year or January of next year, because of court decisions in two jurisdictions, we could very well find ourselves in a situation where the institutions would have no recourse to the proper tools to ensure safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, this is the 48th time this government has moved time allocation. With the election only a year away, I imagine the Liberals are trying to step up the pace in order to match the record set by the previous government. In terms of the bill's substance, it basically changes a term; it makes a minor change to administrative segregation. Ultimately, it solves nothing. Ontario and British Columbia courts have ruled that administrative segregation is unconstitutional.

The minister just mentioned the two decisions in question and the fact that measures need to be taken quickly. However, I wonder if the minister can explain to me why his party is rushing a bill that completely fails to address those court decisions. On top of that, we had a bill on the Order Paper, and the government is appealing the B.C. Supreme Court ruling. I do not quite understand where the government is going with that.

Why did it not simply respect the courts' decisions and introduce a bill that really reflects those decisions?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for his comments. Let me reassure him. I know he must be very worried about the use of time allocation. I can assure him that we are nowhere near the historical record set by the former Conservative government. I think he will agree that it is likely to remain a record for a long time.

However, we agree that this bill needs to be studied by a parliamentary committee, which is precisely where this kind of issue could be examined. I do not agree with my colleague, because not passing a bill in the next few months could in fact take away the appropriate tools available to the management of correctional institutions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is extremely important to our government. We believe that this bill is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the court decisions. That is why we are asking members to send it to committee quickly.

[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.

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his intervention.

I agree with him in part. It is indeed important to listen and consider the experience, judgment and suggestions of correctional services professionals. As I told him, as the member for Beauséjour, I have had many opportunities to meet extraordinary women and men who work for the Correctional Service of Canada. We know that their working conditions are often extremely difficult and we have a lot of respect for them. That is partly why we believe that CSC needs to have the right tools for ensuring safety in the institutions, including the safety of the inmates and the staff who work there.

That is why, in the wake of the court rulings, that apply not just in one jurisdiction, but in many jurisdictions in Canada, including rulings based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we think that it is the right time to renew the tools available to the Correctional Service of Canada to uphold the rights of prisoners and, most importantly, to ensure safety and security in the institutions, including the safety of employees and visitors.

[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?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her comments.

We are trying to do exactly what my colleague talked about. We are in the process of responding purposefully and appropriately to the courts' decisions. What we are proposing in the bill is very different from the current system. There will be structured intervention units. We are doubling the number of hours inmates spend outside their cells and guaranteeing them a minimum of two hours a day of human interaction, whether it is with staff, volunteers, health care providers, chaplains or visitors with whom the inmates interact well. We are therefore responding specifically to the courts' concerns and have been for some time.

I am from New Brunswick, and I clearly remember the tragic case of Ashley Smith, a young woman from Moncton, near where I live. We are very aware of the need to have appropriate tools that comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that enable those responsible to keep everyone in these institutions safe, particularly staff and visitors. That is clearly our government's priority.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs makes reference time and time again to responding to the courts and yet whether we look at the Ontario Superior Court decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court decision, the Mandela rules or the 1996 Arbour commission, none of those commissions, neither of the two decisions at hand call upon the government to take away, in all circumstances, administrative and disciplinary segregation. It is the Liberal government moving ahead with that unilaterally to take away a vital tool for correctional officers to use to protect the security of other inmates, the security of correctional officers, the integrity of criminal investigations and the security of inmates themselves. Why would the government do that?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton asks why the government would do that. Actually, the government would not do that and that is not what we are doing. My hon. colleague knows very well that this government takes the safety and security of correctional institutions extremely seriously. We agree that correctional institutions must always have a way of separating inmates who pose a risk to the safety of other inmates, staff and visitors in these facilities and in some cases their own safety as well.

The new secure intervention units will allow for those offenders to be removed from the general population. That way, we are ensuring that even while they are separated, unlike the previous system, they retain access to rehabilitative programs, health programs and mental health treatment as well. Our main priority is to ensure, as I said, the safety of these correctional institutions.

With all the respect I have for my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, he arrives at a conclusion that is not entirely accurate. The government would never proceed in the way that he described in his comments.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister highlight what he sees as the key benefits of getting this to committee, where people involved in the correctional system can testify at committee, tell their stories and let the committee make any amendments deemed necessary from those witnesses giving information?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of my colleague from Avalon having only been elected to Parliament three years ago, he is a very insightful parliamentarian who understands, deliberately and profoundly, our parliamentary system and the procedures of the House of Commons. It is certainly my hope that he will continue to serve in this place for many decades to come. I cannot imagine the people of Avalon could find a better representative for their constituency than the member who is serving here now.

He highlights exactly the importance of allowing a committee of parliamentarians representing all parties in the House to scrutinize this legislation, to hear from experts and witnesses. Some in the House may choose to only be interested in listening to one particular perspective. I would urge members on that committee to listen to all perspectives and help us craft the best legislation possible to ensure the safety of correctional institutions, the remarkable women and men who work in those institutions, but also comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I cannot imagine any member of Parliament would want otherwise.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that what we are debating today is time allocation.

I want to go back to 2015 when the Liberals made a number of commitments. They promised electoral reform, and what happened? They ditched it. They promised to get back to a balanced budget and the budget would balance itself, and what happened? They blew through $20 billion, so there is no plan to get back to a balanced budget. On ethics, they promised an open and transparent government, and what happened? There has been a rotating door to the Ethics Commissioner, with the Prime Minister, for the first time ever, being found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. They also promised to respect Parliament.

How is not coming to an agreement with the opposition on the time that is required to debate, which is a simple thing to do if it is broached in good faith, respecting Parliament?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure all members will agree with me, but perhaps some might. It is somewhat ironic for a member of the Conservative Party to be feigning indignation with respect to a parliamentary process that was not allowed to run its course over and over again. My colleague from the NDP I think highlighted the historic record of time allocation and closure used by the Conservative member's party when it was in power some short three years ago. Therefore, I think we can discount that comment.

What we can retain from my hon. colleague's intervention is our government's concern for public safety. When people are incarcerated in federal correctional institutions, it is incumbent on any government to ensure that they receive the mental health and rehabilitative services and what is needed for them, because the vast majority of people who are incarcerated in federal institutions also return to society. All of us want those people to return to society healthier and in a position where they will not reoffend. That is what makes communities safer. We believe that with the significant financial investments that our government is prepared to make and these new measures, we are going to strike exactly that balance and keep those in the institutions safe and also focus on the safety of communities and Canadians. That is our priority.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because the minister used the justification of the court decisions that have come out as a reason for rushing through this legislation, cutting short debate and using time allocation. The question I have for him is this. The B.C. Supreme Court found that the abusive use of solitary confinement in federal penitentiaries is unconstitutional. Now he is saying that this legislation will respond to the court's decision and make this practice constitutional. The reality is the federal government is appealing that decision. Can the minister tell me why on the one hand it is rushing through legislation that it said addresses the court's concerns and on the other hand it is appealing the court decision, saying it is wrong and that everything is fine and dandy? It does not make sense. Moreover, it looks even sillier when we consider there is a piece of legislation that actually made Correctional Services more accountable and probably came closer, while not being good enough, that was already on the Order Paper from June of 2017, which has not even been debated. This is a new piece of legislation. The government is all over the map on this. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me a bit.

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to enlighten my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly. He asked a number of important questions. He is correct that the practice of administrative segregation both in provincial institutions and, what obviously is of concern to us, in federal institutions has been the subject of a number of court cases. He referred to the court case in British Columbia. It has been before superior and appeal courts in other jurisdictions. My hon. colleague will also know that this matter is also subject to a number of potential class action lawsuits. While the court rulings in British Columbia and Ontario, as my colleague properly noted, are under appeal, one is under appeal by our government and one is under appeal by another party, as we sit here today, those rulings declaring segregation as currently practised to be unconstitutional will take effect at the end of this year and we have to be ready for that. Our position is that it would be irresponsible to leave the correctional authorities without the appropriate tools that respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our position would also allow them to ensure the safety of the institutions in which they serve and of course ensure the public safety of all Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we are debating time allocation, we have heard the argument, which seems to come up virtually every time, this tired piece of “would it not be better to just get this bill to committee”, as if that is an excuse or a substitution for a fulsome debate in this House. Therefore, I would ask the member this. Why is it so important that we rush this to committee amid this seemingly contradictory agenda of the government that was brought up in the previous intervention and not allow all members of Parliament to represent their constituents and speak on this bill if they have something they want to contribute to the debate on it in the House?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I would not purport to take the member's comments as disingenuous. The hon. member wants to represent his constituents and serve in this House, but I would urge him to think carefully about the parliamentary process. By allowing this proposed legislation to go to committee, we can hear from colleagues on the public safety committee, and we can hear from Canadians who have real and significant experience in these matters.

The Conservative Party moved a reasoned amendment on the first day of debate. People at home may not understand what this is, and one could argue that it was not very reasoned anyway, but there is a parliamentary tool called a “reasoned amendment”, which is designed to ensure that the legislation never passes.

Therefore, on the first day of debate in this House, the Conservative Party moved an amendment designed to jam the legislation. Those members should not now be standing and saying, “Oh my God, we need to hear from every member in the House on this important bill.” That is a fundamental contradiction.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister will know that there are no contradictions in this corner. I opposed the anti-democratic use of time allocation time and time again in the 41st Parliament, and I am deeply distressed to see that it is the go-to place for the current government.

It restricts the ability to fully debate an important piece of proposed legislation before the committee stage. Members of Parliament in the same situation I am in have no access to those committees. Therefore, full debate at second reading before going to committee is really an important aspect of parliamentary democracy.

It grieves me that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is carrying the can for the Minister of Public Safety, who is not at this point arguing this offensive use of time allocation yet again before we get to fully debate the bill. I would urge my hon. friend, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is indeed a friend, to reconsider and let this bill have full debate.

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the comment. If we are looking to find contradictory statements and behaviour, I would not start in that corner. The member is right. She has the virtue of being able to be consistent in all these matters, and for that she has my respect and affection.

The member is correct in that members who serve in this House representing their constituents from non-recognized parties, in some cases, are not able to access the committee proceedings as other members might. Therefore, I want to assure the hon. member that we would be happy to welcome her at the public safety committee. My colleagues from the Liberal side on that committee will obviously ensure that she is able to participate and ask questions, because we think it is important to hear her voice on a committee like that.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone recognizes that this is a sensitive topic that warrants due consideration and that every parliamentarian who wants to speak should have the opportunity to do so.

My hon. colleague is an influential minister in the current government, an 18-year veteran parliamentarian who was first elected in 2000. Not to mention that through his father, he was quite aware of what was going on here. His father was a credit to our country, having served as governor general and in other roles.

I remind my distinguished colleague that he was elected three years and two days ago on a specific platform. The following is a header from the Liberal Party platform on page 30: “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.” In fact, the Liberals have done this 44 times in the past three years.

Is this member proud of this record?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his comments. Even though he does not have much experience as a parliamentarian here in the House, we are all familiar with his career in the Quebec National Assembly. He was a top-notch parliamentarian when he served there.

I am very pleased that my colleague took the time to read the Liberal election platform. I suggest he read it again. Some of the ideas will soothe his soul and he will understand why Canadians chose a progressive government that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is why we think it is important to get this bill to committee to ensure that our institutions have the tools they need to be safe and to keep Canadians safe.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects of the legislation that I find particularly interesting. I have some questions about it and would like to see the committee expand further on them. The first is with respect to body scanners. The second is with respect to secure intervention units.

Can the minister explain how these additional costs are expected to be funded? Of course, without the appropriate funding, as we have learned from previous governments, the change is not going to be effective.

How has the government ensured that in this bill there will be appropriate funding for the changes for body scanners and for the secure intervention units?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for St. John's East focused on two very important aspects of this legislation.

One aspect is the increased use of body scanners to help keep drugs and other contraband out of the institutions. This legislation specifically authorizes the use of these body scanners, which are comparable to the technology currently used at airports. Our government has indicated that all of these important technological investments will be available for institutions, so that the men and women who are responsible for those institutions may access that technology.

Also, the secure intervention units are a model that we think offers the best chance of ensuring the safety of the institution while continuing to ensure the rehabilitation of these offenders and giving them access to increased mental health services. It is something again that our government has announced considerable investments in, because we think that it is part of ensuring public safety and the safety of the men and women who work in these institutions.

My colleague has identified two very important pieces of this legislation. I know all members of this House thank him for that important insight.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government wants to implement the use of body scanners in penitentiaries, which is a good idea that I hope will be applied to all visitors, inmates and even staff. Can the minister tell us today if his government will immediately stop the implementation of the needle exchange program in penitentiaries?

That program is really a very bad idea. Since body scanners will identify 95% or more of the objects and drugs that enter penitentiaries, the use of needles will no longer be necessary.

Will the government end the program?

[Dominic LeBlanc]

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank our colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I am pleased that he agrees with us that the appropriate use of body scanners will play a major role in preventing the entry of drugs and other substances that could jeopardize institutional security.

In our view, it is important to listen to the professional men and women working inside correctional institutions. They are extraordinary people who are dedicated to the safety of the public and the institutions and to the treatment of those incarcerated.

As a government, every decision we make concerning the Correctional Service of Canada will be based on science, evidence and the importance of ensuring the safety of all Canadians and of correctional institutions, which are an integral part of our security across the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #898

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has four minutes remaining in his speech.

[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.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that this bill is being rushed through. Time allocation was put on it this morning without it being fully debated and without all members having an opportunity to speak for or against the bill, as the case may be, on behalf of their constituents, as the Liberals are in a rush to get it to committee.

Would the member like to comment on the government's confusion, the conflict between this bill and an earlier justice bill that is already before the House? Would he care to comment on the government's confused agenda on this topic?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this morning the government once again used time allocation, a government that said it would never ever use it or would use it, at best, sparingly. This is the 50th-plus time that the government has moved ahead with time allocation. Its justification is to get it to committee, which can hear from witnesses. If it is all just a matter of getting things to committee, why have this place? Why allow for debate? There is a reason, and it is so that every member in the House can speak on legislation that impacts public safety in a very significant way. However, the government has decided it wants to shut debate down after very little debate on a very problematic bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's answer to the previous question. The Conservative Party, as the official opposition, is determined to see this bill defeated. It is very clear on it. It opposes it and does not want it to pass. It even brought forward a reasoned amendment to attempt to prevent if from passing. If it were up to the Conservative Party, we would debate this for 100 days, but the House will not be sitting. We might be able to deal with two or three bills if we followed the Conservative agenda. Maybe that is what the Conservative agenda is. The member said this government has used time allocation on 50 times; I do not necessarily buy the 50 times. The Harper Conservative government used time allocation over 100 times in four years.

Was Stephen Harper wrong in using time allocation 100-plus times and what was the rationale that he used when he was prime minister?

[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.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has insisted that it has to rush this bill because of court imperatives and in response to a court decision. My colleague has clearly articulated how that is not accurate. Could he share with us what the courts actually said Liberals had to do and how this bill does not align with what is supposed to happen as we move forward?

[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.

[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, one of the issues with the bill is that it is going to require a lot more resources in order to make it work. Yet, under the plan for Correctional Service Canada, there is actually an 8.8% planned reduction. Not only that, nowhere in the 22 priorities of Correctional Service Canada is there any mention about protecting the safety of correctional officers.

How is this going to work in the face of an 8.8% planned reduction and no mention of putting the safety of correctional officers first?

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when the member's party was in government for 10 years, the Conservatives were not very worried about providing more support for our departments and our public service who do tremendous work, and all of a sudden they are.

This is clearly a priority of this government. I have full confidence in the finance minister, the Prime Minister and the public safety minister that the resources necessary to properly implement this proposed legislation will be there when the time comes.

However, first things first. We have to get this to committee. We have to hear from the unions and other people who are interested in this legislation. We need to get it to committee, we need to have those discussions, and we need to get it back here to actually make it the law of the land.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill certainly looks after inmates, those who have committed a crime. However, I have a concern with respect to correctional officers. When individuals who have committed some of the most heinous crimes possible are allowed out of their cell for four hours a day and to wander freely, what resources have been put in place on behalf of the correctional officers to ensure they return to their homes at the end of the day, safe, sound and secure, and can return to their jobs the next day, feeling that their needs are being met and that they are being looked after as correctional officers? They serve our country in an incredible way.

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, at the very heart of this bill is public safety. Something the other side fails to recognize over and over again is that the vast majority of inmates end up in our cities, villages and rural municipalities. When they are at the checkout stand at the Safeway next to our aunts, uncles, mothers or fathers, I would like to know we have done the absolute best job we can at rehabilitation so our communities, cities and rural municipalities are safer. Rather than focusing on punishment alone, we need to put a focus on rehabilitation so when they leave the penitentiaries, the communities are safer because of the time they have spent there.

With respect to the officers, part of the legislation involves body scanners, which will make the union members safer as well.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about ensuring that people would come out better on the other end. Would he please comment on the importance of getting this to committee so we can hear from the correctional officers, the unions, the people involved in these institutions and make the necessary amendments to ensure they are safe going forward? I do not think anyone on either side of the House wants our corrections officers to be left in an unsafe position.

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. This has been debated at length already. It is important to get it to committee to hear from correctional officers, other unions, other people and other interest groups that are interested in this policy. I stress that public safety is at the core of this legislation. We need to move it forward to committee to hear from the public.

[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.

[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, it is my understanding that the views of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, which represents parole officers and program staff, have been consulted on the legislation, and the union is very supportive. As mentioned by my hon. colleague, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers would have preferred to use administrative segregation, notwithstanding the fact that it has been struck. The union viewed it as an important safety tool, but is nevertheless supportive of the introduction of body scanners. The unions' views are taken into account, at least in part.

The legislation is important. There are different stakeholder groups that agree with some aspects and do not agree with other aspects, but all have been consulted on the legislation. As with all things, it is an iterative process to make sure the legislation is right. The committee is the best place to take the next step in this iterative process.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador is, himself, a lawyer. I know over the past five to 10 years, a lot of jurisdictions in the United States have been gung-ho on a lot of tough-on-crime penalties. They were harsh penalties in many jurisdictions, and in many cases deserving. Public servants and politicians on either side of the ideological scale in the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, would say that the rehabilitative services provided were insufficient in many jurisdictions. Even Republicans would say that.

I was wondering if the member would comment on the fact that, in places where they are tried and true, rehabilitative services work for society as a whole.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame raised an important point. That is the fact that, throughout North America, jurisdictions are moving away from being only tough on crime to being smart on crime.

It is important to realize, in the confines of a penitentiary system, that there are lots of mental stresses, including acute and chronic, long term and short term, that impact not only the inmates themselves in terms of stress that they bring or acquire while incarcerated, but also the staff.

In the context of segregation and enforcing punishment, it is important that everyone has access to all the tools they need to make sure that in the case of inmates, rehabilitation is possible; in the case of inmates who are not segregated, they are kept safe; and in the case of people who are working in the corrections system, they have the supports that are needed.

That is why our government is committed, over the next two budgets, to adding $80 million toward mental health services within prisons. That is one way we are trying to be smart on crime, and not simply tough on it.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I would like to remind hon. members that when someone is speaking, they should whisper among themselves rather than talking loudly, as it would show more respect for the person who is speaking.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, allowing inmate body scanning and assessment is a decent idea, but it would not be a bad idea to also consider the possibility of putting visitors through the same process. If the visitors have nothing to hide, they should have no problem with it. Sometimes passengers at the airport have to go through a body scanner. They are randomly selected to be taken aside and assessed in order to completely rule out any issues. Everyone knows that it is not the most pleasant experience. It has happened to me several times. However, if the passenger has a clean conscience, it does not bother them. If a visitor is going into a detention centre and has a clean conscience, they should have no problem going through a body scanner.

Speaking of visits, my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles visited the Donnacona Institution with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, since that is the riding in which the institution is located. I am very proud of the work of my colleagues, who get right into the thick of things and go where things are really happening. As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles mentioned in his speech last week, he met a person who was in administrative segregation. My colleague's testimony reminded me that some people want to be placed in administrative segregation to avoid contact with other inmates. We do not know why, but it is easy to imagine the worst-case scenario. That is often the reality. Although administrative segregation may not seem like the best approach, when we stop and think about it, we see that it is sometimes required in order to protect inmates from each other. The Liberal approach does not take that into account.

In closing, I cannot help but notice that the spirit of this bill reflects the mindset guiding the Prime Minister, the Liberal mindset that we believe puts far too much focus on criminals and inmates, rather than putting victims first.

Is this not the government that dragged its feet for 10 months before appointing an ombudsman for victims of crime?

Should it come as any surprise that this same Prime Minister refused to use his authority in the sorry case of Terri-Lynne McClintic, who committed the heinous crime of murdering a child and is now in a healing lodge, when we believe she should be behind bars?

Was it not this Prime Minister, who, back in the good old days when he was leader of an opposition party, in 2013, told the CBC's Peter Mansbridge in response to the attack in Boston that we should look at the root causes? That is the Liberal mentality of the Prime Minister: think about the attackers, the criminals, the guilty parties instead of thinking of the victims first and foremost.

That is why we are not happy with this bill in its current form and we strongly condemn the time allocation that has been put on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of points in the legislation. First, my colleague referenced victims. One aspect of the legislation would allow victims to have audio tapes, whether they attend parole hearings or not. That is a change to support victims.

Second, the member across the way referenced body scans. In this legislation, body scans, which are a good idea, would be applicable to whoever correctional officers warranted had to be scanned. That would include individuals who might be visiting correctional facilities or correctional officers themselves. The Conservatives are providing misinformation on that point.

With regard to segregation, when the vast majority of people going into prisons will someday leave prison, programming is really important. Brian Mulroney even recognized that. Why would the Conservatives oppose any form of programming, whether it is for mental health or whatever it might be, for individuals who might be segregated, as referred to by the member opposite? Why would they oppose that?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I was not very clear when I spoke, or perhaps the member could not hear me because other members were having some fun.

To be clear, in the case of la fouille corporelle, Conservatives agree with the government. That is one of the few elements we support in the bill. What the government wants to do when people enter a jail is correct. It is not fun to have that kind of stuff, but we need that kind of intervention when people go into jails.

As far as rehabilitation is concerned, there are programs already in place. The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned a prime minister from the 1980s, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. The rehabilitation programs have been in place for decades to help inmates get back on the right track. We are not against the idea of getting back on track. However, those who committed crimes, who are in prison and who deserve to be in administrative segregation are meant to be there.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out in his speech, administrative segregation is used for several reasons. Court rulings have found that the current practice violates prisoners' rights.

Does my colleague think the Liberals did a comprehensive analysis of the use of administrative segregation to determine under what circumstances that practice should be replaced?

What I am asking is whether every case and all possibilities were properly studied in order to find a solution tailored to each situation, or whether the Liberals simply modified the term and changed the rules slightly without taking into account the various circumstances in which administrative segregation is used, as this could justify a different approach, depending on the case.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her pertinent question.

As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles pointed out in his speech last week, this bill reeks of improvisation. A court decision found that we need to be a little more moderate with regard to certain measures pertaining to administrative segregation. The government appealed that decision but, at the same time, introduced a bill that we see as ill-conceived and full of serious errors.

On top of that, the Conservatives think this bill is driven by the Prime Minister's Liberal way of thinking, which puts criminals ahead of victims.

[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.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment for his thoughtful speech, but I have to say that I disagree with where he is coming at.

If we listen to his speech and some of the other speeches across the way on the segregation system, we would be led to believe that inmates are left on their own with no access to mental health support and meaningful human contact. However, when I read from directive 709, inmates who are subject to administrative segregation receive a daily visit by a health care professional, a daily visit by the institutional head, a visit by a correctional manager once per shift, visits by legal counsel, access to elected inmate representatives, visits by family, telephone calls to families and friends, and appointments with health care professionals, including mental health care professionals. That hardly sounds like a lack of meaningful human contact.

It seems that the bill is not about that issue but really about taking away a tool that is only used as a last resort, and only when three grounds can be established: first, that an inmate or another person in that facility could be put at risk; second, where it is necessary to protect the integrity of an investigation; or third, when it is necessary to protect the inmate from themself.

Why would the government take away that important tool that can only be used as a last resort?

[Sean Fraser]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important question. I expect that over the long term we would realize that the outcome we are seeking to achieve on this side is probably in accordance with what a lot of members of different parties might come to expect should be the case. The difference in position is not necessarily a difference in principle.

We need to empower Correctional Service Canada to maintain order within institutions, and this should only be used as a last resort. Although a person subject to administrative segregation might be eligible to access the elements of society the member listed, in many cases those individuals in solitary confinement are not receiving some of the access to people or the world at large that the member suggests might be the case. Under the new regime, they would be entitled to at least four hours outside of their cell daily, with two hours of meaningful human contact. This is based on evidence from medical professionals who suggest that real harm could befall a person there and cause them to be worse off upon their release.

If I could use a personal anecdote, I have been the victim of a violent crime. I was attacked in the street by a person wielding a piece of lumber who took my knee out. I could not walk for months as a result. What troubled me most greatly was that the individual was not incarcerated, was not given the mental health support he needed, despite the fact I knew he had a severe addiction problem. Within a matter of a few months later, he was incarcerated for harming someone else.

When somebody commits a wrong in our society, I would like to see them given the care they need to be well so that upon their re-integration, they do not repeat the offence and harm other individuals.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned indigenous people when it comes to correctional facilities. We often hear about the rate of incarceration of indigenous people compared with others. Could the member expand on what the bill would do to recognize that issue of indigenous people being incarcerated and the services available to them?

[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.

[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.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from the member for Malpeque, who did remind us that four prime ministers ago he was the solicitor general, I believe. He would have had some occasion to understand administrative segregation, more intimately perhaps, than some of us.

I have been to the Kent maximum security prison which used to be in my riding. It is now in the neighbouring riding. I can tell my colleagues that, having been through those segregation units, every single offender who is in that segregation unit is not there because a prison guard or the administration is being vindictive, as the member indicated. Rather it is because a person has committed acts inside the prison that make that person unacceptable and too great a risk for the general prison population.

I guess my question is this. We have to legislate for the exceptions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment talked about rehabilitation. Certainly, for those cases where that is possible, we support that. Where we do not support it is for people like Robert Willy Pickton, who is in a maximum-security facility, segregated for his own safety, I would argue. He is there. He is never getting out. He is never going to set foot as a free man in a community in Canada again. What tools would a prison guard have to deal with someone like that? We have to legislate for those exceptional cases where these people are not going to be cascaded down through the system and released.

Why does someone like Willy Pickton, Canada's worst serial killer, deserve four or two hours of meaningful human contact? What benefit does that have for him, other than to put people in the prison system who have to deal with him at significant risk?

I just do not see how this legislation addresses those exceptional situations.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the difference in approach that we take on this side versus the opposite side of the House. We do not make laws based on one or two exceptions. We make laws on the population as a whole. I think that is what we have to do.

There are exceptional cases. There is no question about that. The member made a point on the Pickton case and it is a valid point. However, this particular bill does not give Pickton more rights. He is still in the system and, yes, he may be provided more mental health services.

I do agree with the member opposite that this is for protection. In most cases, it is for protection of the inmate themselves and also for protection of the correctional officers. I did not say that offenders are put in there because of the vindictiveness of correctional officers. Rather, they are put in there because they broke the rules within the system of Correctional Services Canada.

However, we do have to recognize that the old system of solitary confinement, which I think is a better description, is not working. It is challenged in the courts. It does nothing in most cases for better mental heath and better rehabilitation and it has to be changed. What is put forward in this bill does it in a realistic way for all matters intended.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Malpeque, my question is this. Why is there no independent oversight of the commissioner's decision-making on putting people into administrative segregation in this bill, as Justice Leask in the B.C. Supreme Court and others have so strongly suggested?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this is one bill and one step forward. I think it is certainly a step in the right direction that will improve the lot of inmates who are in the prison system.

As I said, in the bill we will also improve victims rights by getting the recordings. It may not go as far as the member opposite wants to go, but I think it is a fairly major step forward.

[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.

[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, 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?

[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, I am not interested in NDP standards. I am interested in constitutional standards.

Two courts have told us that the government needs to go well beyond what it has done in this legislation. I acknowledge that this was not explicit, but none of the key elements that the courts have referred to are dealt with here.

My friend from St. Albert—Edmonton has pointed out that the government has decided not to have any third party review the administrator's discretion, which is a key element of this, the constitutionality or the disproportionate impact on indigenous people, blacks and people with mental disabilities. How is the bill going to address that?

Yes, there would be less time in solitary. Yes, the government has a new name to describe the practice. Yes, there have been some changes, as my friend referred to.

It is not NDP versus Conservative versus Liberal. It is about the Constitution of Canada.

I ask any fair-minded person to read this legislation, read the two judgments at issue, and see whether the government has gone far enough.

Why would the government continue an appeal in the face of this?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the British Columbia Supreme Court decision my colleague alluded to, I get the sense that the judge was, in essence, calling on the government to re-examine the whole concept of administrative segregation. Unfortunately, I do not see the government doing that.

Does the member agree that the government has not re-examined the use of administrative segregation thoroughly and in detail?

[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.

[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.

[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, there will be a fundamental change in the way people who are in an isolated cell are treated. That includes a minimum of four hours out of their cell daily and at least two hours of meaningful human contact with staff, volunteers, visitors or other compatible inmates. There will also be a daily visit by a medical professional.

By contrast, people currently in solitary confinement are only entitled two hours daily out of their cell, with minimal human contact and access to programming. This does not go as far as what the NDP advocates but goes much further than what the Conservatives advocate. The Liberals have made a positive step in the right direction.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleague please comment on the importance of getting the debate finished in this place and get it to committee where experts can present testimony that may see some amendments come forward before the bill returns to the House?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that when we work well together, our committees can be extremely effective. We will hear from those who have worked in the system, who have studied the system and who can provide expert advice.

Also, committees have the ability to bring forward amendments that can better a bill for all of us. I look forward to seeing whether the committee looks at amending it, but committees have an extremely important role.

I urge all members in the House to conclude the first debates on the bill and move it forward to committee, where there are active representatives from the Conservative and NDP sides and where we often allow those who are independent to participate. Therefore, I look forward to the results of the committee. I urge members to move forward.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last question and comment give me an opportunity to talk about something I was going to talk about anyway. We just had the spectacle of two Liberal members of Parliament bragging about the fact that they were cutting off the debate in the House of Commons. They say that there has just been too much debate and that it has gone on too long.

The bill has not even been printed for a week. It has been before the House for less than three days. After the second day, it was enough. The Liberals had heard enough from members of Parliament and the Canadians we represent. It was just too much and members needed to get it out of the House as quickly as possible. This is from a party and a government which cried every time the previous government allocated the time for debate. It said that it would never do it if it was ever in government.

The hypocrisy of the member for Avalon is a spectacle we can all see today. He campaigned on it, and today he is cheerleading for the fact. He is heckling me during my speech while I try to talk about the concerns of my constituents. Two days in the House before the Liberals cut-off debate. The bill has not even been available to be studied for an entire week and we are under time allocation.

Why should we be surprised that the Liberals do not want to consult with members of Parliament on this? They have not consulted with the representatives of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers who will be directly impacted by the bill. They have not consulted with the guards.

[An hon. member]

Not true.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I continue to get heckled from the other side. Apparently, the Liberals do not want to hear any debate, let alone cut it off after just three days debate.

The members of UCCO have been very clear that Liberal politicians in Ottawa are not the ones who have to go in and breakup a fight. Inmates of a what the Liberals now call a “structured intervention unit” inevitably have conflicts. These are people who cannot manage themselves in the general population of a prison. They are typically people who are the worst of the worst. In the debate, I mentioned people like Willie Picton. Clifford Olson also spent his life in segregation, where he should have been. That is where Willie Picton should be. Instead of talking about that, the Liberals are saying we should be talking about reintegrating these people into society.

Some people can be reintegrated, and we support that. Some people need to stay in segregation for the rest of their natural lives. Legislation is being proposed which will not allow for that. The Liberals blame it on the courts that this has to come forward, while they the decision is being appealed. They have not even said that this court ruling will stand. They are trying to have it overturned at higher levels, yet here we are with legislation jammed down our throats, legislation about which the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers is very concerned. It is its members who will be put at risk. Its members are the ones who have to deal with the most prolific offenders, offenders who have committed additional crimes inside the prison and who are often placed in segregation for their own protection.

The member for St. Albert—Edmonton laid out very clearly the substantial supports that were available for people in segregation. They receive mental health visits, visits from the institutional head, from the guards and health visits as well. This idea that they are locked in a dark cell and are cut-off from human contact is simply not true.

The bill now calls for meaningful human contact for two hours a day. I would like to know what that looks like for Robert Picton. What does that look like for Terri-Lynne McClintic? What is meaningful human contact when she is already receiving mental health services? She is already receiving phone calls to her family and is allowed to have visitors. Now it will be legislated meaningful human contact. This is very interesting.

The Liberals have not consulted with UCCO or victims of crime, which is par for the course. They did not consult with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers when they brought forward their ridiculous prison needle exchange program idea. Prisoners in maximum-security facilities, prisoners who often spend much of their day trying to fashion weapons to use against other inmates or against guards when necessary, would be given needles in their cells as a right of an inmate. The Liberals are now forcing that on our prisons and our prisons guards. Also, they would be given spoons so they could heat up their drugs and inject them intravenously, spoons that no doubt are part of a kit that has to stay in the cell but can be used as a weapon.

All of these things are clear to anyone who has been in a prison, who has had a tour of a prison or who has talked to a single prison guard. They know this is a ridiculous proposition, but the Liberals do not care. They do not consult with the actual front-line workers. Instead, they come up with these pie-in-the-sky ideas in their ivory towers in Ottawa and tell the workers on the ground, the people who deal with sharks in the prison, that they will have deal with this now.

Never mind that it is the mandate of a prison guard to ensure there are no illegal drugs in the prison. We will have a situation where there will be illegal drugs in a cell, guards will have to search the cell, but will have to set aside the government-mandated safe injection kit to look for the illegal drugs, which they then will take away. What a ridiculous proposal. That is what the government is defending. The government does not talk to the people who are actually impacted by these decisions.

Again, we have many concerns with the bill.

The member for Malpeque said that we should not legislate based on the exceptional cases. If the legislation does not capture the exceptional cases, what good is it? If we do not allow for prison guards and prison officials to have the ability to have disciplinary segregation when people are endangering guards, other inmates or themselves, what is the point? We simply put people at additional risk.

We support a few parts of the bill. We support giving the audio to victims. We support body scanners and think that should be expanded to ensure there is no contraband in prison. The minister said in his speech on the bill, “Keeping contraband out of correctional facilities would help make institutions as safe and secure as possible.” Therefore, we will have body scanners to keep those bad drugs out of those prisons, but we will give needles and spoons to the prisoners to ensure they can inject those life-altering drugs as soon as possible and as safely as possible. How about we just keep the drugs out of the prison? How about we double down on that effort?

I am glad the heckling continues from the Liberals who love debate in this place.

The government once again thinks it knows best. It is not going to take any guidance from the people who work in these prisons.

One of the highest populations of corrections officials and prison guards live in my riding and work in the many institutions around it. In the Pacific region, there is the Pacific Institution, Kent Institution, Matsqui Institution, Mountain Institution, Mission Institution, the Kwìkwèxwelhp Healing Village and the Fraser Valley Institute for Women. I have these people in my office all the time talking about this failed approach from the government. However, this is a government that thinks it knows best. It is a government that is ignoring their concerns and is not dealing with the actual concerns of Canadians.

When we saw that there was a bill on notice to deal with corrections, we hoped it would deal with the ridiculous situation where Tori Stafford's murderer could be transferred down to a minimum-security facility. We hoped it would give the tools, which we believe it has already, and clarify, with this proposed legislation, that someone like Terri-Lynne McClintic would not be in a minimum-security prison. Instead, the government modified it in the bill to allow the minister to allow corrections officials to designate a single cell in a minimum-security facility as a maximum-security cell. Therefore, there would be no fences, locks, segregation, nothing, but room 102 would be declared as a maximum-security cell in a minimum-security prison.

The government has failed to consult with victims, failed to consult with corrections officers and for that reason we should reject the legislation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that it is unlikely that we will find a compromise on this issue given the fact that Liberals do not believe in the Conservative ideology around prisons and locking offenders up and throwing away the key, as if that somehow were going to resolve the problems we have. The truth of the matter is, whether on this issue or prison farms, the Conservatives have always had that ideology. Where does that lead? It leads toward the system we see in the United States where we end up with super prisons and four times as many people locked up as we did decades ago.

The member specifically asked, how about it if we just kept the drugs out of the hands of inmates? It seems simple enough, but over 10 years the Conservatives were not able to do that. As a matter of fact, if they had been able to do that, we would not be having this conversation right now. Why was the former government not able to keep the drugs out of the hands of the inmates, if it is so simple and he suggests that we should be doing it?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the fearmongering question by the member opposite when he talked about locking them up and throwing away the key. I am surprised he did not say “three strikes, you're out“. As to super prisons, we were used to that kind of rhetoric from the Liberals when they were in opposition, when they would say that because of our criminal justice reforms we would have to build new prisons, that there would be double bunking otherwise, and all the rest of that nonsense.

What we actually found during our time in office is that people were deterred from committing crimes because they did not want to go to prison. Our agenda was to provide deterrence. I do not understand the Liberal mentality of wanting to wish away the types of people who are in prison. Yes, there are some who can be rehabilitated, but the Liberals want to gloss over the fact that there are serial killers, serial rapists, people who will never set foot in public again in the prison system. They want to wish that system away. Yes, our government had no tolerance for drugs in prison policy. We think it is the right policy and the Liberals should stop sending mixed messages by making our guards keep prisons drug-free while handing out drug paraphernalia at the same time.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent speech magnifies this soft on crime approach by the Liberals, but he brought something up that is very concerning to me. I live in a community with a lot of unions and workers and there seems to be a pattern here. The Liberals did it with marijuana, and with this bill they have not consulted the workers to make sure they would have a safe workplace.

Could the member elaborate on the lack of consultation for this bill, because it seems the government wants to throw a blind eye to the fact that people are working in extremely dangerous environments? Could he comment on how important it is to consult with the people on the ground, because it could be somebody's life that is being affected here?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not consult on these things because they think they know best. They think they have all the solutions and they have come up with these things in a boardroom and a bull pit session and think they know how they can make this better for someone who might be in segregation. However, what they have not done is talked to the actual union officials.

Many of us met with UCCO last week about the prison needle exchange program. Correctional officers do not even have protective gloves that can stop needle stick injuries. They are not protected from inmates who would weaponize a contaminated needle to use against them or someone else, but this is being forced on correctional facilities. It is being jammed down their throats because the Ottawa Liberals know best. They have come up with these policies in a vacuum. They should talk to the people who are actually going to be impacted and put at risk before they come up with these cockamamie schemes.

[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.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many times throughout this debate we have asked the governing party why it did not consult with correctional officers, who have some serious concerns about their own safety while providing the kind of services they do for all Canadians.

My question this time is more related to the member's inference that a committee will study this legislation and that amendments will be presented at committee. The member inferred that the committee would be open to considering amendments. However the track record of the Liberal government is not that great when it comes to being open to accepting good amendments put forward by opposition members.

I want assurance from my colleague that when these amendments are brought forward, amendments that are backed by correctional officers who are concerned about their safety, the committee will in fact give them due consideration.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging to hear a straightforward answer, a rare thing in this place, and that the answer is “yes”.

I will be presenting amendments. I certainly want to be listening carefully to the evidence before committee because we have already heard some very strong concerns from people who have given their lives in dedication to this field.

I have mentioned, for instance, Senator Kim Pate, who used to run the Elizabeth Fry Society in Canada before becoming a senator. I will just quote what she said in her statement, “Changing the Name of the Unit Is Not Enough”. She suggests that this new structured intervention unit appears to be “rebranding” of what is currently done, but with fewer limitations on how frequently it can be used.

I would like to hope that that is not the government's intent. Therefore, I will ask my friend again if, in openness to amendments, we can be absolutely certain that this ends the kinds of torturous ordeals that particularly discriminate against racialized, marginalized and indigenous women in prison.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this up, especially with regard to the indigenous dimension of this. I did not bring it up in my speech and I apologize. However, certainly there is a higher proportion of the population who find themselves in that situation.

I hear what she is saying about the amendments she is bringing forward. I know her situation within the context of a committee and her position itself. I am assuming she will be there. I have no doubt it will be debated thoroughly whether I am there or not, not that I have any domain over it but members get the idea.

Nevertheless, the unit that the hon member brought up to me right now, and the flexibility within it, provides that human contact. The certain situations that other people have spoken about, I cannot speak to as I did not see their comments. However, I will say this. The human contact aspect of this to me is very essential. It is a central part of a system that is backed up, of course, by court decisions.

In this particular case where are we looking at an institution that does not provide any human contact whatsoever, which is really incumbent upon solitary confinement, really, we should put ourselves into the 21st century when it comes to dealing with rehabilitation and human contact to benefit society as a whole.

[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, the process is the process, as the hon. member knows. I was the former chair of the committee he was involved with.

Certainly, he can bring forward whatever he wishes to do. That is his domain. That is his priority as a member. The debate and acceptance of it, time will tell as we get through it.

However, I will say this. I implore the member to look at it as a positive step that can benefit society because of what has been talked about throughout this particular debate and others about rehabilitation. We have been talking about crime for the past 12 to 14 years in a credible way. It has constituted weeks upon weeks of debate in this House.

Now is the time that we can have a mature conversation about a positive step to getting back to human contact and rehabilitation for those who are in the system. We know these people will be coming back to society. Separate them for the sake of institutional safety? Yes, and provide them supports by which they can contribute to society.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I must inform her that she will have seven minutes before we move on to question period. She will then have three minutes remaining.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will have five minutes when we resume debate after question period.

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.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech on this bill and her comments, all of which I agree with. She is passionate about this issue, she is well-researched, and I could not agree more that we need to start looking at our prison system in a different way.

It is important to remember that this bill is tied to investments in mental health, which are critical for people who are looking at segregation.

I am very curious to know what kind of amendments the member would be looking at. Does the member have any suggestions at this point? I would also just comment that I would be happy to work with her as this bill goes through committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have worked together to amend other pieces of legislation. I can share with her constituents that they have an MP who keeps her word and is as good as her word. I love working with her.

I would love to see some amendments to this. I am conscious of the fact that the correctional officers who have to deal with potentially dangerous prisoners have unions that are also deeply concerned. I know that the government is trying to achieve some kind of balance here.

I think we need amendments to ensure that we do not weaken the limitations on the use of any form of segregation. Yes, I am very pleased that there will be increases in funding for mental health and assistance. I would like to see more done to ensure that in keeping a prisoner separate from a prison population that may pose a threat to that prisoner, they are not placed in a situation where they lose human contact. Much more could be done to increase family access, as one example.

We will work through this at committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is passionate about this subject, knows it well, and provides a great insight into it.

What this really comes down to is making sure that we can eliminate as much as possible that revolving door of people coming in and out of prison. The way that we can do that is by making sure that the system we have is one that promotes rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

To that end, this bill would ensure sure that those responsible for completing that process would have the tools they need to make sure that as we rehabilitate people, it is done in a meaningful way that can transform inmates into productive members of society.

I am wondering if the member would agree with that and with the fact that in order to make this transition back into society, it is key that we give those who are charged with rehabilitating our inmates the tools they require.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree.

Of course, members will recall that it was in the hon. member's riding that one of the great campaigns by local citizens to keep a prison farm open was defeated. I really hope we will see the prison farm system come back. It is a great tool for rehabilitation. If we help one individual within a prison context find that place the hon. member mentioned, so that when they are released into the general population, they find a way to function as a productive member of society, that should always be the goal. I hope this legislation will help us get there.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I was not in the chamber, I was listening in the other room.

As other colleagues have mentioned, I really appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. I wonder if she could comment specifically on the need to look at some of the historical issues individuals face and to address them, not just through mental health supports but also through other rehabilitative supports to ensure that we take a more comprehensive and holistic view of the individual when we are looking at reducing recidivism rates and removing that individual from the general population.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the briefest answer I could give is to say that I think the best thing we can do is to listen to the real experts out there.

With all due respect to all of us here who study the legislation, I think the real experts are the people at the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and people who have experienced the correctional system. It is going to be a suite of things. For some people, it will be a healing lodge because that will take them back to their indigenous culture. For some people, it will be a pastor who comes in and helps them find Christ. For another person, it will be the experience of working out in the field, or maybe it is studying the Quran.

One way or another, people have to find a way to find self-respect and dignity and a way to function as members of society.

[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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite.

Does she agree with me that the government is going in the wrong direction by doing away with administrative segregation without providing for adequate resources? As the president of the Canadian correctional officers said, they need tools and measures to control the prison population.

Does she not think that the bill takes tools away from our correctional officers, thereby making our prisons less safe?

That is what we have seen in recent months. Violence has increased as a result of the approach taken in this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with what the hon. member said. Certainly the number of violent incidents in our corrections facilities would not have gone up prior to the introduction of the bill. The fact is that the government has committed to investing additional resources and in hiring more staff to deal with the prison population in these SIUs.

The hon. member may be mistaken in his interpretation of what the government has said around the bill. Certainly it is critical that the safety of our corrections officers be paramount. They have to be safe when they go to work. We have made a commitment to making the investments necessary to ensure that happens.

[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 not a lawyer and I am not a constitutional expert, but I know the government has reviewed carefully the court decisions. In fact, that is why we have a new bill in front of us right now. It has incorporated what the courts have said, along with our previous legislation that had been introduced around administrative segregation. I am confident that the government has looked at it, bearing in mind the importance of the constitutionality of the legislation, but also ensuring we will be rehabilitating offenders when they are in our prison system.

As it stands right now, individuals in administrative segregation do not have access to programming and they do not have access to the kinds of mental health services they need. Therefore, by bringing in this legislation and tying it with programming and mental health services, we should see a significant difference in the outcomes of the prison population.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased with the hon. member's comments. I am very happy she will be supporting this to get it to committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member from Burlington mentioned that segregated individuals would go from two hours to four hours of human contact during the day. The opposition would like to paint that as our being soft on crime. However, the reality of the situation is that we are going to help people become better people so they can be properly rehabilitated and integrated into society.

Would the member agree that the goal is to accomplish that, to get people back into society to be productive members?

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

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague who, I know, is quite passionate about ensuring not only public safety, but ensuring the safety of people who work in the corrections system and ensuring that those who are in the prison system are able to live law-abiding lives when they get out of prison.

[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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, while my colleague was minister of public safety he promoted and was very comfortable with the widespread use of double-bunking, which not only led to unsafe conditions for inmates, but was widely opposed by prison guards throughout the correctional system.

I am leery to take his position, particularly when it comes to an issue like this.

Could the member at least acknowledge and accept the fact that we have a revolving door when it comes to people going in and coming out of prison over and over again? We need to properly rehabilitate people so that when they come back into society they can be productive members of society who can contribute to their communities. He would know that from his previous position.

Would the member not agree that we have to give the proper tools to our guards, and this is one of those tools, so they have what they need?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.

However, I have to say that his government is doing the exact opposite by getting rid of a tool. According to Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, it is a mistake to eliminate administrative segregation because it is one of the tools that help keep Correctional Service of Canada institutions safe.

I would like to come back to one thing he said about the so-called revolving doors. The Liberals are turning our prisons into shopping malls with revolving doors where people can come and go. They are eliminating measures and weakening detention conditions by making it easier for inmates to be released before completing their rehabilitation process.

Those are two measures that should be changed. The Liberals should restore administrative segregation and put an end to the revolving door system, which we eliminated but that the Liberals are reinstating. Unfortunately, it makes our communities less safe.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke quite a bit about how removing segregation from the system would create an unsafe work environment. I want Canadians to know that members on all sides of the chamber support the fact that our correctional workers do a tremendous job and should be kept safe.

While this particular piece of legislation proposes removing administrative segregation and the capacity for people to be placed in administrative segregation, people actually would be assigned to secure intervention units. Usually, when they are removed it is for safety reasons.

I am not sure how my colleague would describe this as weakening the system when we would be placing them in a secure unit and giving them the tools necessary to help rehabilitate them while they are in that population. Those interventions could possibly reduce the amount of violence that does happen within the prison system. We would be providing our correctional system with a separate place to house those inmates.

It is not like we are just getting rid of it altogether. We would have secure units. We would also be giving inmates mental health support and rehabilitative support to help them reduce violence and correct themselves, thereby adding to the safety of our correctional officers.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I did not see much in the bill regarding rehabilitation.

I am sure the member wants safe communities and safe correctional facilities.

Joseph Godin, the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said, “The national prison guards' union is predicting increased violence behind bars as the federal government moves to end solitary confinement...”. He predicted that, “When this goes through, the bloodbath will start.”

I hope that when we eventually review the bill in second reading or at committee, we will be able to work together and reinstate those tools that are needed by our correctional officers to ensure that those facilities are safe. This is the way to make sure that inmates eventually will return to society and not pose a risk to their fellow Canadian citizens.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, I am the furthest thing there is from a constitutional lawyer. I appreciate the question, but I cannot address the lawsuit.

I talked with some correctional officers before I decided to speak. They said that in their opinion this would be a vast improvement. One of them said that after 24 hours in confinement, the impact on a person was profound. At one week, it would be even more profound. People can be in solitary confinement for a month, sometimes 100 days, or more than three months, and it changes them. It hurts their mental health.

I cannot answer the question about the constitutional lawsuit, but this bill goes in the right direction.

[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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier in my colleague's speech he quoted the vice-president of the union. I will also provide him with a quote from May 2014, when the Conservatives were in government. Global News quoted the national president for the same union, Kevin Grabowsky, who said, “The violence is on the rise and it's a big concern for, certainly, correctional officers.”

The auditor general at the time was quoted as saying, “Correctional Services Canada has identified themselves that with overcrowding there can be risks to security in their facilities.”

This is a stark underpinning of the difference between the approaches to corrections we see from this side of the House versus the other. All of a sudden, the Conservatives seem to be very concerned with the safety of the correctional officers, yet in 2014, they were encouraging over-bunking and double bunking, which is exactly what the guards were against.

How can that member actually stand in the House now and try to make it seem as though the Conservatives are the champions of correctional officers, when in 2014 they did the exact opposite, creating extremely unsafe conditions for them?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was giving a very reasoned argument as to some of the flaws that exist within the bill. We also understand that the current executive of the correctional safety officers' union is quite concerned about this, so much so that I quoted Mr. Godin, who is the president, as saying that this could lead to a bloodbath.

Going into a point-counterpoint and blaming one group or another seems to be the consistent practice of the Liberal government as they look back over our 10 years instead of looking at their failed records or perhaps a failed piece of legislation. All I am asking is, if Mr. Godin is saying this on behalf of his correctional officers, should it not be the ultimate priority of any government and of the House to make sure that these correctional officers are in a safe environment? Should they not be consulted?

Furthermore, should we not expect that they go home to their families at the end of a long day of doing incredibly hard work within that prison system? That is all I am asking. I am not looking at a point-counterpoint. I provided a very reasoned argument as to some of the concerns with this piece of legislation.

[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, on the issue of body scanners, there are obviously aspects of the bill that we can agree with. First and foremost is the fact that body scanners should be used. They should be used for everyone entering into the prison system. At the end of the day, it goes back to providing a safe working environment, not only for the prisoners but also for those who work there as guards, mental health professionals and other staff, as well as for those who enter into the prison system, perhaps, to visit those who are incarcerated.

There is no question that body scanners are a reliable tool. Certainly they have been used at airports for a long time. They do a great job of addressing what can be on a person's body and whether that instrument is dangerous and could potentially impact the health and safety of those who are within the prison system.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Democratic Reform; and the hon. member for Windsor West, Consumer Protection.

The hon. Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour.

[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.

[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, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I come to this debate with a considerable amount of experience, having worked with very vulnerable populations. I ran the largest homeless shelter in northwestern Ontario for a number of years. In fact, the shelter was where many released inmates landed after their experience in prison. While working in that extremely volatile environment, I learned that one of the best ways to protect the staff who served those people day in and day out, often in very difficult situations and with very little support from the external community, was to ensure that we had the best opportunities for mental health care for those people we supported in that shelter. We made sure that our staff worked with health care professionals to assess their mental health and to encourage better mental health.

Through budget 2017-18, we have dedicated a significant amount of money toward the mental health of inmates. I can tell members that when people feel more positive about their future, they are less violent. They are less aggressive. When they have inclusion and the ability to see another human being and to work on the challenges that led them to incarceration, they have an opportunity to reduce their violent tendencies.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. It is alway interesting to hear different opinions, particularly when they come from a member of cabinet.

I listened carefully to what was said about the respect we all have for those who work in this very difficult field. One of my childhood friends worked in that field for many years. As everyone knows, this type of work puts a lot of pressure on those who do it, as well as on their families and loved ones.

That being said, the minister said that we need to take workers' concerns into account. After all, they are the first to be in close proximity to imprisoned criminals.

Could the minister explain why the government did not take those workers' concerns into account in her bill?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that it is precisely because of the concern for the safety of correctional officers that we are taking this step. Certainly it is about rehabilitation, but it is also about lessening experiences of violence, which are often exacerbated by the experience of segregation. When people do not have access to other human beings, when people do not see that they are even considered human, it increases the risk of violence and violent tendencies. We saw that in the shelter I ran, day in and day out.

When people feel that they do not have any hope of any interaction with human beings, when they have no sense of how long they are going to remain in that state, when they are not getting the mental health supports they need, they, in fact, become increasingly unpredictable. We want to ensure that our corrections system is safe for those who work in the system and that when offenders are released, they have had rehabilitation so that they can go back to the community with the capacity to function in a way that is improved and have the supports they need to be rehabilitated back into society.

[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.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too am a mom. I am hoping to be able to speak to this piece of legislation from possibly a different perspective, but I do want to talk about the needle exchanges within prisons.

The member talked about safety in prison, including for staff. Right now in federal prisons, the incidence of HIV is 10 times higher than among the general population. If a needle is brought in and shared among many in the population, it is very dangerous for the guards and staff.

That said, needle exchanges in communities are based on international evidence that they decrease infectious disease. There is no correlation with increased violence or increased drug use, but needle exchanges do decrease infectious disease and allow people to move toward treatment.

Does she not believe that until we get to a point where we could totally eliminate drugs, the evidence for needle exchanges allows for a safer context?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the safe injection sites that we see in our communities are a lot different from what we see in our jails. There are different ways of looking at this. I recognize that when people go to jail, a lot of times there are issues with substance abuse. We should not sitting there and saying, okay, here is a wraparound approach. We have to recognize that what got them there in the first place may have been the use of drugs and alcohol.

We also know there are a lot of gangs within these institutions and that drug trafficking happen to be one of the things they are taking part in for their own wealth. That is also how they are in charge of many of these issues. They are in charge of other people because of the cartel that they have within the jails.

I recognize the compassion that we have for this, but I want to go back to Nancy Reagan's approach and say, “Just say no”. There has to be a point in time when we just stop this. That is what I believe when it comes to correctional systems, just say no and stop this.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been a while since I studied criminal law and the criminal justice system. I would agree with the member that retribution is an incredibly important principle that underpins our criminal justice system and why we mete out significant penalties for egregious crimes.

The member spoke about rehabilitation as only about fairness and a matter of humanity. I would ask her to think about it a little differently, as a matter of public safety. Most criminals do not stay in the system forever, so as a matter of keeping our communities safe, rehabilitation plays an incredibly important role. I wonder if the member could speak to that aspect of the importance of rehabilitation, which is a matter of public safety.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that rehabilitation is a big issue that we could be addressing here, but we also have to remember that there are those who may not be rehabilitated. When we talk about this, we talk programming, programming, programming. What is actually occurring in these institutions and why have the correctional officers, who are a big part of this, not been part of this bill and not brought in for consultations on this? They are part of the solution and I do not think the government has used any of the information and evidence that correctional officers find in their day-to-day work that would help with this.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister talked a lot about safety and making sure that criminals feel better about themselves. I do not think solitary confinement is about ensuring that the worst of the worst feel better about themselves. I would like the member's opinion on what we should be focusing on when it comes to incarceration of the most vicious criminals in Canada.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, the one thing that comes to mind is the movie The Shawshank Redemption. Any time we talk about people being in segregation, we are talking about Tim Robbins being put in a hole and having to stay there for months.

Rehabilitation is necessary for those who are not horrific offenders. I think about the crimes people have committed. Do people who have raped young children deserve all of this? Or, what do we do?

[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?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The allotted time has expired. The hon. member can add what he has to say during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from the beautiful Chicoutimi and Saguenay region. I find this to be a bit much. We are talking about an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, but that is not really what we heard.

I would like him to talk about victims services. He did not say a word about the audio recordings of parole hearings. They currently do not have access to that. Some fear that because of the emotional nature of the hearings, it is difficult for the victims to recall details. However, the inmates would have access to the recordings during parole hearings. I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on this and on the scanners. When the new technology is installed at the detention centres, it could be used for both visitors and inmates.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Richard Martel]

Madam Speaker, I have talked to correctional officers and what concerns me is that it is going to be extremely difficult for our correctional officers if they no longer have administrative segregation at their disposal.

When something happens, correctional officers are often first on the scene. I would like the government to consider that and understand that correctional officers will have an extremely tough time gaining control if they cannot use administrative segregation. If the prisoner realizes that administrative segregation is not being replaced by anything else, he might end up doing things he otherwise would not have. I think that it is extremely important to keep that in mind for correctional officers' sake.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech. Our opinions differ on many subjects, and while I realize we are miles apart on this one too, a number of his arguments did strike a chord.

I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that two legal rulings have found administrative segregation to be unconstitutional. In my opinion, protecting people who work in those environments must be a consideration, but segregation is no way to treat inmates with mental illness.

Can the member reconcile what he just said with those notions of constitutionality and mental health treatment?

[Richard Martel]

Madam Speaker, on the subject of administrative segregation, I believe the duration was reduced. On the other, I think that there needs to be appropriate mental health screening of inmates.

To my mind, if the government takes the crucially important tool that is administrative segregation away from correctional officers, and prisoners know that means they may be transferred elsewhere for their own protection, I have no doubt they will do things they would not do if administrative segregation were here to stay. That is how I see it.

[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.

[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, 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.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I have listened to the Conservatives say that this will endanger Correctional Service Canada staff. However, this bill will make more resources available for reintegration programs, mental health care and other interventions and services for Correctional Service Canada staff.

Would the member comment on how this measure will enhance safety within Correctional Service Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague. I thank her for her question.

We have to make sure inmates do their time. We also have to help them reintegrate into the mainstream prison population and, later, into society. That happens in stages, and we need to provide them with services.

My colleague is asking whether there will be more staff. As I see it, since the goal is to help inmates reintegrate into society, we have to help them access any mental health services they might need.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, people in administrative segregation suffer from hallucinations. They start seeing things that are not there and they are no longer able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

Do you think that people in administrative segregation could reintegrate into society when they leave prison? These people are deeply affected. Will this benefit our society?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member to address the Chair.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

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

Madam Speaker, I slip up too sometimes. We can always do better.

It is true that when inmates spend too much time in segregation they can be disconnected from reality. There are steps to follow. Inmates are put in segregation for a reason, but they should not be cut off from the rest of the world. They have to have human interaction.

As I said earlier, the bill provides for inmates to be able to meet with health professionals, volunteers, chaplains, among others. Inmates in segregation have to be able to see other people and socialize. However, there are steps to be followed before returning them to the general population and before they can reintegrate into society. Being isolated all day is not normal and can lead to problems.

[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.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to repeat the same things that I have said in my other questions.

When we talk about removing administrative segregation and still having the capacity to separate individuals who pose a safety risk, we would separate them from the general population and put them into secure intervention units. Not only that, but we would also give the resources necessary for them to receive mental health services, rehabilitative programming and other interventions so that we can decrease the likelihood that they will continue to pose a safety risk not only to the staff but to other people within the institution.

I would ask my colleague if he does not believe that there should be any mercy in this system, and to look at how we can help individuals who are in the prison system be reintegrated back into the prison or back into our communities.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, when we talk of mercy, we also need to think of mercy for the victims who have been victimized by these people who are put in prison.

My colleague understands the same as we do that what this means is that we are going to take these people from segregated cells. However, if members had the opportunity to visit Kingston in the old days, there were inmates such as Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Willy Pickton, and some others who were segregated not only for the safety of the guards and other prisoners, but also for their own safety. I am not so sure that we understand exactly what it would have meant to move them all out into the general population. At the same time, they also had all the rights for access to medical personnel, health care, and everything that we talk about here. The bill would not change that. Those provisions are already within the prison system.

[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]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the correctional officers have found this to be full of shortcomings from their perspective. Those might have been alleviated if there had been more discussion and study with them to hear their concerns on a variety of issues. When we look at it, it is exactly as my colleague said: This is going to cost a lot of money that will not improve either the prisoners' safety or the safety of the guards. It is the lack of consultation with the people on the ground, the front-line officers, that is going to create more problems than we anticipate.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The question is the following. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #899

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #900

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)