Bill C-228 (Historical)

Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act

An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism

This enactment provides for the development and implementation of a federal framework to reduce recidivism.

Criminal Code

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Conservatives are the party of law and order that ardently stands with victims of crime and their loved ones, and that applies common sense and outcomes-based principles to protect innocent Canadians from violent criminals who would harm others. Conservatives also take a practical approach and acknowledge that, of course, many offenders will be released back into society. There is a real need to prepare those offenders for release so they do not fall back into a life of crime, as seen in the good work of the member for Tobique—Mactaquac in his Bill C-228, which aims to set a federal framework to reduce recidivism.

However, Canadians also do not want the justice system to be a constantly revolving door. Common sense must prevail for the common good. Canadians, victims of crime and their families deserve to live freely without fear in Canadian society. When violent criminals seek to take that away or revictimize them, the government has a role in ensuring the laws and systems in place are designed to prevent it. The only thing worse than a government that fails in this duty is a government that actually promotes conditions that will ultimately lead to, or frankly guarantee, that violent criminals will strike again.

Bill C-22 gives great consideration to the relief of criminals and offenders, but it is missing any substantive policy or action to care for, protect, or prevent victims of violent crime in Canada. In fact, Bill C-22 would reduce the penalties for many violent crimes, some of which disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in Canada.

The first thing Bill C-22 does is build on the Liberals' “guns for gangs only” bill, Bill C-21, which targets law-abiding licensed firearms owners, retailers and even hobbyists who play airsoft and paintball. What is missing from Bill C-21 is a strategy to deal with the root cause of shooting deaths in Canada cities, criminal gangs with illegally smuggled guns.

In fact, Bill C-21 does nothing to protect public safety or victims from violent gun crime and criminal gangs. It lays a heavy hand on law-abiding Canadians who already follow the rules, but takes a hands-off approach to the very criminals and gangs who should obviously be the targets of public safety policy.

Bill C-22 takes the hands-off approach even further. It reduces jail time for violent firearms offences and will not stop the flow of illegal firearms into criminal gangs in Canada. In Bill C-22, the Liberals are telling Canadians these offences are no big deal by reducing penalties for: weapons trafficking, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, importing or exporting a firearm knowing it is unauthorized, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of a weapon obtained by commission of an offence using firearms in the commission of offences, robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm. We should all think about how each of these offences ties into actual violent crime and deaths in Canada.

That is not all. Bill C-22 would also reduce penalties for discharging firearms where it is unsafe to do so, say, for example, in the streets of Toronto, and for discharging firearms with intent, such as in a drive-by shooting, like the one in Montreal two months ago that tragically and horribly killed 15-year-old Meriem Boundaoui.

In fact, Montreal police inspector David Bertrand says his city had a 10% rise in gun crimes between 2019 and 2020, despite the Liberal firearm ban at the time. He says that this is due to the “trivialization” of gun use by criminals and that criminals are “using more guns when committing infractions”.

Bill C-22 plays right into the wrong hands. If the Liberals listened to experts, they would know not to trivialize crimes for which consequences need to be strengthened in order to keep Canadians safe from criminals with guns.

It seems Conservatives are the only ones listening to experts on gun crimes, but we cannot take all the credit for tough sentences for these crimes. Most of the above examples are long-standing and were introduced under previous Liberal governments, so sentences for using firearms in the commission—

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-22.

When this bill was first introduced, I read the news release on it, heard the minister's comments and, like many Canadians, took the government at its word about what this bill would do. Unfortunately, when we actually saw the text of the bill, we saw that this was not about simple possession of drugs; that this was not about minor crimes, as the minister just remarked in his statement; and that it was not about minor offences.

I want to highlight the text of the bill and what it actually would do. I think most Canadians would be alarmed by the approach the government is taking.

First, I will talk about mandatory minimums and the elimination of mandatory prison time for what the government is saying are minor offences. What are these minor offences? They include robbery with a firearm; extortion with a firearm; weapons trafficking; importing or exporting knowing a firearm is unauthorized; discharging a firearm with intent; using a firearm in the commission of an offence; possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition; possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence; and possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking. What do all those mandatory prison sentences have in common? They predate the previous Conservative government. Most of them are one-year minimums that were brought in by Liberal governments. We did not hear the Liberal minister mention that in his press release, and it would have been good of him to do so.

I think Canadians would be surprised that the bill in fact would do away with minimum sentences on all those offences, and that was certainly not made clear by the government. In fact, the government's messaging was primarily framed as turning a page on Conservative justice policy. There are two things that are worth raising on that.

I am proud to support strong sentences and prison time for individuals who conduct drive-by shootings, robbery with a firearm or crimes like weapons trafficking. This is impacting Canadians from coast to coast. Whether people live in an urban centre or a rural area, they deserve to be safe from crime. In fact, I think most Canadians would agree with that, which is why the Liberals will not talk about what offences they are actually repealing mandatory prison time for. We just heard the Minister of Justice speak. He did not list the firearms offences, like I just did, that would have their punishments lowered under the bill.

Second, the former Conservative government certainly did bring in some mandatory prison sentences for violent offences like the ones I just listed. It is worth noting, though, that if we trace the mandatory prison sentences back, we can trace many of them to 1995 and beyond, under former Liberal governments. In fact, we can even trace the mandatory prison sentence for using a firearm in the commission of an offence back to former Primer Minister Trudeau in the 1970s. Many of the mandatory minimums being maintained by the Liberal government, being kept in the Criminal Code were implemented and strengthened by a former Conservative government.

This is all to highlight the fact that this is largely the Liberals leaning heavily on warped communications to make reforms to the Criminal Code to weaken penalties for crimes that most Canadians would say deserve mandatory prison time.

Now I will touch on the mandatory prison time being eliminated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Liberals would have us believe this is just about simple possession of drugs. In fact, Bill C-22 tells us it is just the opposite.

Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking; importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting; and production of a substance schedule I or II, for example heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth. People would be forgiven if they were confused, because the federal government's news release does not mention that it will be eliminating mandatory prison time for drug traffickers. It does not mention that they will be eliminating mandatory prison time for those importing or exporting drugs. Nor does it mention that Bill C-22 would eliminate mandatory prison time for the production of drugs like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and crystal meth.

I hypothesize that the government's news release does not mention any of this because it recognizes that Canadians would not support eliminating mandatory prison time for drug traffickers. To be clear, these are not people in simple possession of drugs. These are people who are preying each and every day on addicts, on people who need help. These are the individuals taking advantage of them in our communities. These are the people involved in criminal activities and are actively preying on those who struggle every day with addiction.

There is a component in the bill that codifies principles that police officers and prosecutors should follow when determining whether to lay charges, but the fact is that police officers already have the ability to use their discretion when determining to lay charges. Further, the director of public prosecutions previously issued a directive to prosecutors telling them to avoid prosecuting simple possession charges unless there are major public safety concerns. This change, in practice, will therefore have little impact.

The Conservatives believe that those struggling with addiction or mental health issues should get the help they need. Many Canadians struggling with addiction should have access to treatment rather than prison if their crime was non-violent. However, the bill before us would do absolutely nothing to address that.

I will now move on the to the conditional sentencing component of the bill.

Bill C-22 would make a number of offences eligible for conditional sentencing, which means a person would serve their sentence from the comfort of their own home. Again, the government's news release does not outline what those offences are. The minister referred to them as minor offences. Well, here are some examples of offences for which a conditional sentence would be available under Bill C-22: manslaughter, discharge of a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a firearm, robbery, breaking and entering a dwelling-house, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling-house, assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm, sexual assault, abduction of a person under 14 and kidnapping. The government did not mention any of these specific offences in its news release. It completely brushed over this point and referred to them as minor offences. I think almost all parliamentarians and Canadians would agree that those are in fact serious offences and that people should not be serving a sentence from the comfort of their own home if they have just finished burning down one of ours.

The government has said that removing the section of the Criminal Code that prevents conditional sentences from being issued for the offences I just listed would allow for more effective rehabilitation and reintegration by enabling individuals to maintain employment or to continue caring for children or family members. Quite frankly, I do not think someone convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, manslaughter or the many other offences I listed should be eligible for house arrest, and I think most Canadians agree on that point.

The Conservatives support reducing recidivism, but Bill C-22 is not the way to tackle it. In fact, my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, has introduced Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. This bill would set up a framework of measures to help reduce recidivism, reducing the number of people coming into continual contact with the criminal justice system. I hope members on all sides of the House will support it.

We have seen a trend from the government in its failure to respond or stand up for victims of crime. In November of last year, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime called on the government to proceed with the in-depth parliamentary review of the Canadian victims bill of rights, as required under the legislation, so that further means to protect victims of crime could be identified. This has yet to happen.

This is an opportunity to strengthen the act and ensure that supports are made available for victims. The federal ombudsman for victims of crime said that based on the data available to her, it appeared the objectives of the act established in 2015 have not been met. Her office released a series of recommendations in a progress report that should be reviewed more fully in the parliamentary review that the government should proceed with quickly to ensure that victims and their families receive the support they deserve.

A few days after the report from the federal ombudsman was released, a decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down a section of the Criminal Code allowing for consecutive life sentences. This was the case of a man who murdered six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017—

Public Safety and National Security

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The first is the third report of the committee, and it is on security in relation to C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac. It was a very informative and useful committee meeting, and I wish the member well in the legislative journey of this bill.

The second is the fourth report of the committee, adopted Monday, February 22, regarding its condemnation of the statements made by the National Firearms Association. It reads in part, “That...the National Firearms...statements made by Sheldon Clare, President, on February 16, 2021 in a video posted online with regards to the introduction of the Bill C-21 which states...”.

I will not go on to state what the contents are, but it was clearly perceived by the members of the committee to be a threat. If it is a threat to one, it is a threat to all of us, and under no circumstances are these kinds of threats to be perpetrated. We have seen what happened on January 6 in the United States. We do not need that repeated here.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

It's a great pleasure to be before the committee and to share John Howard's views about Bill C-228.

John Howard Society, as many of you know, is a charity that serves more than 60 communities across Canada. It's committed to just, effective and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime, but our roots are really in supporting the reintegration of prisoners and looking at prison reform.

We enthusiastically support Bill C-228. While there may be differing opinions about the appropriate quantum of sentences and the best way to discharge people's debt to society, I believe there is broad agreement that we want those leaving prisons and returning to communities to be law-abiding, contributing members. Not only does this help the individual rejoining the community, but it prevents further victimization, saves state resources and benefits us all.

The road back for former prisoners is a tough one. It's as tough in Canada, in many ways, as it is in Texas. Many face loneliness, stigma, grinding poverty, discrimination in employment and housing, barriers due to race, religion and gender, inadequate identification, gaps in the continuity of mental and physical health care, challenges reuniting with families, inadequate skills, serious marginalization and fear and hostility from community members. For some, drugs and alcohol are a temptation to blunt the discomfort they feel, and post-release drug overdoses are high. Suicide rates in the first year after release are significantly higher than they are for the average person.

Given the hardships they encounter, it is a testament to their enormous resilience and willpower that the majority of those released do not return to prison. However, far too many do return to prison. Much more can be done and should be done to facilitate a successful transition.

The Department of Public Safety gave the John Howard Society of Canada a small grant to do a series of podcasts involving peers and interviewing former prisoners about the challenges they faced reintegrating into the community, with a view to providing advice to others. For those interested, those podcasts are called Voices Inside and Out and can be found on your podcast providers.

While there were many individual differences in the challenges faced, there were many key elements that were similar, including housing, employment and health care. Many felt that correctional authorities had not adequately prepared them for release, not even provided acceptable identification, and with only a two-week supply of prescription medication.

Solutions to the challenges were often creative. Those who had help valued it enormously, and the help came from peers, organizations active in criminal justice, family, good Samaritans and others, who assisted them in navigating a slew of municipal, provincial and federal requirements and resources.

The framework proposed in Bill C-228 would be enormously helpful in ensuring that the key elements for successful transition are identified through a collaborative effort, which I hope would involve those with lived experience as well as those from organizations that provide reintegration services, and representatives from municipal, provincial and federal governments and communities, including indigenous, Black and faith communities.

The provisions of the bill that would require the Minister of Public Safety to report back on progress on the implementation of the framework would be an important impetus to having the framework as something more than words on paper. We could actually see progress being made.

Collaboration here is key. We identified an absence of housing post-custody as a serious impediment to successful reintegration, and received funding from CMHC for solution labs to tackle complex housing as a complex problem: post-custody homelessness. We've been partnering with Public Safety, Correctional Services, Employment and Social Development Canada, the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, former prisoners with lived experience, a number of John Howard societies, Lansdowne Consulting, community organizations and housing experts on this project. What was emphasized to us is that it's not just the housing. We need the whole supportive community pulling together to aid the successful reintegration of these prisoners.

In conclusion, I would urge you to support the passage of Bill C-228. The tragic death of Kimberly Squirrel, who died on the street exposed to freezing temperatures just three days after being released from a provincial prison in Saskatchewan, should be a wake-up call to us all that we must do better. The framework is a tool to make progress towards reducing crime and making our communities safer.

Thank you.

[Graydon Nicholas, Endowed Chair in Native Studies, St. Thomas University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon, members of the House of Commons who are studying this private member's bill, Bill C-228. I am grateful for this opportunity to share some experiences I had during my days as a social work student, as a lawyer representing persons before the courts in New Brunswick, and as a provincial court judge.

I am a member of the Wolastoqiyik Nation from the Tobique First Nation. I worked with indigenous persons who are incarcerated at the Guelph Correctional Centre as a social work student during my studies at Wilfrid Laurier University in a field placement in January to April, 1973. Persons who were sentenced to two years less a day served their imprisonment there. It was an eye-opener for me, because I was already a lawyer before I went to study for my master's degree in social work. I defended indigenous and non-indigenous persons charged with summary and indictable offences under the Criminal Code of Canada.

When a client is found guilty or pleads guilty, information gathered by a probation officer is very crucial in making submissions to the sentencing judge on behalf of their client. As a probation officer, your duty is to make the best submission on their behalf to a judge for an appropriate sentence.

As a provincial court judge, you must listen to what is presented by the Crown prosecutor and the victim, read the victim impact statement, and listen to the submissions of the defence counsel and the accused, who may wish to speak. You must also read what is in the pre-sentence report and letters of support, and you must apply the principles of sentencing found in the Criminal Code. Whatever sentence you decide to give is not easy and is subject to appeal.

I have seen many persons who were repeat offenders. It could be because of their psychological state of mind, addictions or a deliberate refusal to abide by the conditions of a probation order or bail conditions, or because they didn't care. I call them “the walking wounded”.

There are no winners in the criminal justice system. The victims and the communities have legitimate fears that the offender will exact revenge unless fundamental changes are introduced into their lives. Programs must be made available for the rehabilitation of the offender. It depends on the length of the sentences in institutions or in the community, which need the resources to change the behaviour of the offender. Often, counselling may continue beyond the time served, and this can be put into the conditions of a probation order.

Indigenous persons have a high and a sad representation in penal institutions in our country. There are many factors that contribute to these statistics. Many are historical, many are because of poverty, and many are because the current justice system does not reflect the values of their communities. There have been many studies done to recommend fundamental changes in the criminal justice system, but not enough has been done to implement them.

I want to commend the initiative of the member of Parliament, Mr. Richard Bragdon, and your other members who have introduced this important legislative blueprint.

Thank you very much. Woliwon.

I can stay until about 5:45 your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're calling Bill C-228. And there it is.

I apologize, colleagues. I am removed from my normal office and not able to print out things that I would normally like to print out so that I have some coherent presentation here. Others are far more advantaged than I am.

Let's proceed on that basis.

Mr. Bragdon, you have five minutes.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

It's Bill C-228.

Criminal Code—Speaker's Ruling

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due respect, I do not understand my colleagues. This is not a a question of privilege. This is not a debate. It is a simple question for clarification that was asked of you: If Bill C-228 was adopted, could Bill C-13 continue? That is it. There is no debate. It does not affect anyone else. It was just to know whether if one were adopted, could the other continue? It was a direct question, and you answered, and that is it. There is no debate around this. It is an answer to a question.

Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to begin my speech by acknowledging the outstanding work done by all of our colleagues, regardless of their political affiliation. This was a difficult session and one that will not quickly be forgotten.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-228, which seeks to establish a federal framework to reduce offender recidivism. I am pleased to speak to this bill mainly because I did my first undergraduate degree in criminology, an applied science that seeks to analyze criminal behaviour and the rehabilitation of offenders.

This bill responds to the horrible murder of Marylène Levesque by recidivist Eustachio Gallese. Her murder shows that there are gaps in the existing mechanisms that show that the government seems to have truly failed to protect this woman and the population in general. This is one case among many in recent years.

The October 27, 2020 report from the correctional investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger, shows that the federal government is not doing a good job of managing the social reintegration of offenders. In fact, it is doing a very poor job of it. This is a scathing report for the government, and it brings to light a number of problems, one of which is the almost total lack of training for inmates in federal penitentiaries. The report notes that, although there are jobs in federal penitentiaries, they generally do not enable inmates to develop useful labour market skills. Inmates told the correctional investigator that they take those jobs to avoid spending time in their cells.

The report notes that there are very few opportunities for inmates to take post-secondary training in penitentiaries. It also indicates that, while there are libraries, the books available are out of date. In short, the federal government is failing miserably when it comes to the rehabilitation of offenders, because it is not giving them any useful tools to help them reintegrate into society. It is important to point out, however, that social reintegration is not easy, and it is not something that we have been dealing with for 100 years.

The Bloc Québécois supports the bill at second reading. However, we wish to warn the federal government against the temptation to impose a federal model in prisons that are provincially run. On this point, by the way, let's recall that the federal government manages sentences of two years or more, while the provincial government manages sentences of two years less a day. We must not tolerate in the slightest that a federal framework dictate to the provinces what they must do, as this government often does.

In addition, a recent study by the CIRANO research group finds that Quebec is doing much better than the rest of the world in terms of social reintegration. Of course, I am talking about advanced countries. Bill C-228 must therefore focus on reintegration in federal penitentiaries without dictating to the provinces what they should do.

In order to be constructive in the context of this bill, the Bloc Québécois believes that the framework of this legislation should take into account the following elements. First, pilot projects should be put in place and standardized programs should be developed to reduce recidivism. Second, it is necessary to promote social reintegration by ensuring that inmates have access to adequate resources and employment opportunities. In addition, the project should support faith-based and community-based initiatives aimed at reintegrating former inmates into the community.

Finally, it should study international social reintegration practices and, of course, implement only proven practices.

The Department of Justice should also work with the provinces to establish this framework because, even though we have concerns about interference, there are federal penitentiaries in all provinces, including Quebec.

Bill C-228 should also call on the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to table a report in Parliament in the year following the passage of this bill.

Again, according to a study by CIRANO, the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, social reintegration programs significantly reduce recidivism. Not only do programs that facilitate the social reintegration of inmates in facilities run by the Government of Quebec reduce recidivism, but, as I just mentioned, they do so far more effectively than all known countries with such programs.

CIRANO researchers obtained data on the programs at the prisons in Montreal, Quebec City and Saint-Jérôme. They compared these prisons to others under the authority of the Quebec justice department.

They found that over a period of five years, the recidivism rate in Montreal for inmates participating in these programs was 10%, compared to 50% for those not participating. At the two other institutions, the result was slightly lower at 6% and 35%. Implementing these programs results in extraordinary outcomes compared to not implementing them.

Researchers found that the more the inmates participated in programs during their incarceration, the less likely they were to reoffend. Given the results of this study, it is clear that the best way to reduce recidivism among offenders is to provide or expand social reintegration programs.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate virtually in this debate on Bill C-228. This is an important bill. As my colleague from Hull—Aylmer already said, the government will support this bill and will recommend that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for a more in-depth study.

I also want to thank my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac for his work on this issue. He is a perfect gentleman who worked with all parties in the House to draft and introduce this bill.

The idea of a federal framework to reduce recidivism makes complete sense. This bill is in line with our commitment to provide resources that support reintegration, to support community programs and community justice centres, and to address the fact that Black and indigenous people are overrepresented in our justice system. These priorities were recently reiterated by our government in the throne speech, as part of our plan for criminal justice reforms.

A framework like the one proposed in the bill will enable us to effectively address the various factors that play a role in recidivism.

Building on what we discussed the first hour, I think it is fair to say that we can all agree on a number of principles the bill presents. We need to make sure that we are doing all we can to reduce recidivism. Crime inflicts harm on victims and families. It impacts communities and threatens their safety and well-being, and recent history shows that as many as one-quarter of those released from federal custody were reconvicted of a federal or a provincial offence within a few years of their release. As such, we need to make sure that we are addressing the unique risks and needs of those incarcerated to support their rehabilitation and reintegration back into society.

I do not mean this as a criticism of the member opposite, as he was not an elected member at that time, but I would be remiss if I did not reference, as did my NDP colleague, the impacts the massive cuts under the Harper Conservatives' deficit reduction action plan had on the services and programs to inmates. Many programs that specifically worked to achieve successful, supervised and gradual integration into the community had their funding eliminated.

Dr. Zinger, the correctional investigator, said that these cuts were tragic and very unfortunate because they dismantled employment opportunities. I do appreciate the member for Tobique—Mactaquac is very sincere and genuine in his proposition of a practical deal that seeks to offer solutions toward our complex situation and complex problems. This is because we all know that at some point almost everyone incarcerated in Canada will return to the community. That happens either through conditional supervised release or at the completion of their sentence. They often have unique challenges and needs that, if left unaddressed, can impede their successful reintegration and increase the likelihood of their reoffending

The challenge of recidivism is truly how multi-dimensional the issue really is. It is shaped by a variety of factors, both socio-economic and within the criminal justice system itself. That includes factors such as health, education and access to employment and housing. That is why I am pleased to see the bill calls for a broad, multisectoral approach to the issue. Should the bill be passed, it will be important to engage a range of stakeholders. We will need to hear from those who deliver services to those incarcerated or previously incarcerated, for example.

We also need to reach out to our provincial and territorial partners to share information and lessons learned and where possible, identify opportunities for future collaboration. We will need to hear from diverse groups of the incarcerated population, such as indigenous people and Black Canadians who continue to be sadly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. We will need to hear from those with lived experience, the victims and their families.

The bill recognizes the key role that the government plays in the success of reintegration and crime prevention efforts. We will bring in an effective way to achieve this objective, for example by eliminating the stigma associated with having a criminal record through an improved records suspension system, which is commonly known as a pardon.

We know that a criminal record can create barriers for those trying to reintegrate into the community. It can prevent people from securing a job, housing or access to educational programs. Pardons help facilitate that reintegration. That way, a successful reintegration has a positive impact on public safety and enables individuals to participate constructively in society and achieve their full potential.

Over the last decade the Criminal Records Act, which is the backbone of the pardon system, has undergone significant legislative change. Unfortunately, some of those changes had the effect of limiting access to pardons, and of lengthening the waiting period before individuals could apply. There was a significant increase of the application fee from $50 to $150 in the year 2010 and then to $631 in 2012, which meant a further barrier to those seeking pardons.

Our government remains committed to reviewing the program as a whole. Indeed, that commitment is reflected in the Speech from the Throne, which stated that we will introduce legislation and make investments to take action to address the systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing, and from rehabilitation to records.

The Parole Board of Canada began by conducting online consultations on the user fee, and it is no surprise that most respondents found the user fee to be a barrier in applying for a pardon. Public Safety Canada consulted online with stakeholders, partners and the public on the review of the Criminal Records Act. The results of those surveyed found that the process for obtaining a record suspension was overly complex and the waiting periods were too long.

The follow-up to these consultations was in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security's 2018 report on the record suspension program. It recommended to reform the pardon system, including reviewing the process and making pardons automatic in specific circumstances. In its response, the government reaffirmed its commitment to a pardon system that is both fair and proportionate, and that achieves the goal of promoting public safety by allowing people who are living crime-free to be fully contributing members of society.

Making pardons more accessible would help some members of marginalized and racialized communities who face additional barriers when they have a criminal record. As I noted, all these measures are consistent with the Speech from the Throne, as is Bill C-228. The bill is also consistent with our commitment to maintaining public security and safety, particularly by reforming the criminal justice system and by facilitating the reintegration of incarcerated people.

Creating a federal framework to reduce recidivism would contribute to advancing the commitment of our government to remedy the systemic inequities that exist at every step of the criminal justice system.

That is why I encourage every member of the House to join me and the government in supporting Bill C-228 today and to recommend that it be referred to committee.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your attention, and while I have the floor, I wish you, all members and all the staff happy holidays.

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

Madam Speaker, when I was reading through the preamble of the bill, I was really struck by some of the passages. For example:

Whereas the purpose of the correctional system is in part to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community.

Another one is:

Whereas people who have been incarcerated should have the necessary resources and employment opportunities to be able to transition back into the community and avoid falling back into their old ways;

These passages gave me a sliver of hope that despite Stephen Harper's best efforts with the Reform Party, the Progressive Conservative Party was not yet dead and still lived on. The irony, of course, is that this bill is being introduced by a member of the Conservative Party, which previously prided itself on a “lock them up and throw away the key” approach to justice.

When in power, the Conservatives also had a love affair with mandatory minimum sentencing, which is also shown to increase recidivism. Evidence suggests that lengthier sentences increase recidivism rates, especially for lower-risk groups, which are the ones most affected by mandatory minimum sentences.

This is the same Conservative Party that, when in power, attempted to balance its budget in fiscal year 2014-15 with an order to the Correctional Service of Canada to make budget cuts, which were taken from the very programs that actually helped reduce recidivism. This is precisely what Bill C-228 attempts to achieve.

What programs am I referring to? Correctional Service of Canada's contribution to the Conservative deficit reduction action plan was long. It included the closing of prison farms and the elimination of CSC funding for lifeline and circles of support programs. There were additional deductions made from inmate pay for food and accommodation. It collapsed core programs into one-size-fits-all models. It eliminated incentive pay for work in prison industries. There was a reduction of library services. Three institutions were closed. The list goes on.

Again, the irony of bringing this bill before the House just eight years after the member's party slashed funding to many of the rehabilitation programs this framework may end up reinstating is almost too much. I thought it was important to point this out, because, as I have found in my five years as a member of the House, memories here can be very short.

Let me turn to Bill C-228, which, if implemented, directs the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in collaboration with the provinces and in consultation with indigenous groups and other relevant stakeholders, such as non-governmental, non-profit, faith-based and private sector organizations, to develop and implement a federal framework to reduce recidivism.

The bill goes on to state that the framework must include measures to initiate pilot projects, develop standardized and evidence-based programs. It wants to promote the reintegration of people who have been incarcerated back into the community by ensuring that they have access to adequate and ongoing resources as well as employment opportunities.

It also wants the framework to support faith-based and communal initiatives that aim to rehabilitate people who have been incarcerated, but also to review and implement international best practices related to the reduction of recidivism. If we look at countries around world and how they administer their justice systems, there are certainly some very valuable lessons that Canada could learn.

We know that education, training, employment programs and services during and post-incarceration are absolutely key to rehabilitation. However, many of the programs and services available to inmates are severely under-resourced and in definite need of modernization. We also know that improving outcomes for inmates will require political will and funding reallocation.

In addition to programming during and post-incarceration, the government should look at sentencing policies and social and economic risk factors for reoffending, such as poverty, mandatory minimums and over-policing. Again, the reference to mandatory minimums has been mentioned during the government's five years in power on many different occasions.

While we definitely support the bill in principle, our intention is to strengthen and improve it at committee. In particular, we want the committee to hear from indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians as well as organizations working with inmates, to ensure that the bill is more than just good intentions and would actually help improve outcomes for inmates.

Recidivism rates tell us part of the story, but we would like to see the framework consider other metrics as well, such as graduation and employment rates and whether an inmate is living independently post-release. It is important to note that recent research has suggested that correctional services should transition away from a focus on recidivism and instead focus on supporting desistance, which is the process by which a person arrives at a permanent state of non-offending.

While recidivism is binary, either an individual does or does not recidivate, desistance allows for degrees of success even if there are occasional setbacks. I believe this is incredibly important, because many issues in our justice system are not black and white. There are many grey areas, and we have to allow some flexibility if our overall goal is to have successful reintegration into society.

We would like to see an overhaul of the risk assessment system in federal prisons, which are used to give inmates security classification and a reintegration score that follows them throughout their incarceration and determines almost everything about their time in prison. Among other things, the security classification determines which treatment programs an inmate will have access to, and the reintegration score affects whether they will be given parole. These assessment tools have been shown to be significantly biased against Black and indigenous inmates, thus reducing their odds of having access to the very programs and services that would help with their rehabilitation and reintegration back into the community.

I know this is beyond the ability of a private member's bill, given the need for a royal recommendation, but appropriate funding would also be an important part of implementing the effective framework. I would love to see a commitment from the Government of Canada to ensure that funding would follow the development of this framework.

I will close with a quote about Bianca Bersani and Elaine Doherty's 2017 article entitled “Desistance From Offending in the Twenty-First Century”. It reads:

It’s much easier to stop committing crimes if you have an income, a place to live, a sense of belonging and people who care about you. The stigma of having a criminal record can itself make it much harder to go ‘crime-free’. ...recent research implies that contact with the criminal justice system, ironically, may have 'a causal role…in perpetuating criminal careers' rather than in helping to end them.

I would like to congratulate the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for bringing the bill forward for the House to consider. I look forward to supporting its passage to committee for further study.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to address Bill C-228, which was introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac. I had the distinct opportunity before COVID to tour this region and connect with organizations helping transition inmates to a new life after serving their time.

Ensuring a successful return to society is in all of our best interests and can help tackle the many systemic issues facing Canada. The ability for those who have served their time to succeed is an important issue. It is a poverty issue. It is an education and training issue. It is an opportunity issue. It is a program delivery issue and a public safety issue. As I have said many times in this House, the top priority of the government is the safety and security of Canadians.

As a former police officer, as a member of community boards and as a member of Parliament, I know that putting reformed criminals on a better path after serving their time requires many things. There are a number of strong organizations providing these different and successful approaches.

The theme that I have seen which often underlines these programs is trust. Trust is essential to a strong public safety and community safety system. Canadians need to trust that someone who breaks the law will be found, brought to justice, have a fair trial and will face the appropriate punishment. However, that they will be reformed and prepared to have a successful reintegration back into society is more important than punishment.

Today, Canadians have lost faith in our justice system. More and more Canadians see crimes unsolved. Victims see criminals go free. Accused persons are awaiting trial and are out on bail to potentially revictimize others. Dangerous people are being released from prison, despite being a serious threat to others.

Bill C-228 is a plan to find the best programs that restore the trust and support a transition from inmate to productive citizen. Reducing repeat offenders would reduces costs on social systems, and reduce burdens on the justice system and the backlogs that exist there. The criminal justice system, police across the country and the rising level of crime all tell us that action is needed today to tackle a growing crime rate and the heavy costs law-abiding citizens pay for these crimes.

In the face of this rising crime, fear and number of victims, we have seen little action from the Liberal government. Crime rates have climbed every year for the last five years. Violent crime continues to grow quickly across Canada. Rural crime is growing faster than urban crime. Gang-related shootings are at all-time highs. Addiction rates, no doubt affected by the anxiety of the current times, are way up. Also, Canada's opioid overdoses are only getting worse.

Police and communities are seeing a growing trend, a revolving door of justice, and it is returning. Criminals are being caught, and then they are back on the streets, sometimes within hours, by being released on bail to go back and commit more crimes and victimize more innocent people. Police rearrest the same people over and over again to just see them out the next day. I remember back in the days when I was policing, we said that 20% of the people commit 80% of the crime, and it is so true.

The last five years we have seen the approach of the current government fail and it will continue to fail Canadians unless there is a change. Canadians do want to see a response to crime, a response to addiction and an end to the cycle of violence and victim suffering. Part of that response is this exact legislation, which reforms those who have committed crimes from offenders into productive members of our communities.

That reformation of offenders starts in correctional services. If convicted offenders return to the community as a threat to others, the system has failed the victims, the community and everyone the system is supposed to protect. If offenders are not given the opportunity to prepare for life outside the prison walls, the system has failed them just as much as it has the rest of society. Instead of reform and transition, we have dangerous offenders out on early parole.

As we know, as many as 10 terrorists connected to Islamic extremist groups have been released on statutory parole from prison in the last two years, despite everyone knowing they are a high risk to reoffend and that they hold extremist ideologies. These are the exact people we should not be putting out into the community.

Last month, the correctional investigator again called for reforms to training and education in prisons. Training is outdated, and the government has essentially ignored all the warnings and recommendations. The results are clear: nearly half of all of those released from prisons return within a few years. There is a better way, one that meets with support from ex-offenders, police and justice system officials alike. It is not big government programs, but community-driven and donor-supported programs that are leading efforts to train, support and reintegrate.

In New Brunswick, as I said, I met with Harvest House, along with my hon. colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac. Harvest House holds to Christian values and reaches out to those who are working to rejoin society. It operates on the principle of three, which I found intriguing, and has had great success stories. In the first three minutes after getting out, offenders need someone to trust and support them as they re-enter society. In the first three hours, they need a place to call home. In the first three days, they need life skills and someone to help them access essential services, navigate the government and government programs, and adjust to a new life. In the first three weeks, they need to get training, education and a job, something that can be challenging when someone has just been released from prison and has a criminal record. In the first three months, they need support in making those real, permanent transitions, when their new lives have started to take hold and they are settling in to those new lives. In three years, once they have been shown to be successful, they can pay it forward and help others who are leaving prison themselves and are ready to remake their lives into something new.

Harvest House supports those committed to a good life through these challenges. Programs such as these may not be perfect for all offenders seeking better lives, but it is one of a few good examples by many who are developing programs to give inmates opportunities. They offer security, trust, stability and opportunity for those willing to work for it, and they perform much better than the existing federal program.

If Canada could cut those numbers, we would avoid much higher costs, both in terms of lives lost and money spent. The cost of prevention and successful reintegration saves many victims from lives of fear and pain, saves already stretched resources in the justice system, saves the costs associated with returning to prison and saves the costs of parole and offender monitoring. Equally as important, it gives an opportunity to those who want to turn their lives around. They just need a helping hand to do so.

In conclusion, organizations such as Harvest House are doing the work that big governments fail to do. Investments in these programs and prevention programs cost pennies compared with the dollars that they save. As a former police officer, I have had reformed offenders, whom I had a hand in sending to prison, approach me after they were released and thank me. In prison they got clean, were offered education and career training and had their lives put onto a new path, but that was many years ago. That was what the correctional system was designed to do, but that is not happening today as consistently as we would like or as we would hope. However, it is something that can happen again, with appropriate approaches to reducing recidivism.

I strongly support this bill. I commend my colleague for bringing it forward, and I hope to see everyone in the House rise to support this bill when it comes to voting.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate on a private member's bill.

I am especially happy to support my hon. colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac's Bill C-228. He contacted me when he began drafting his bill and asked for my feedback and support. It is my great pleasure to support this bill, and I hope other members of the Black community will support it too.

I think this bill reiterates the government's commitment to ensuring public safety and preventing crime and recidivism. It can help us move forward on work we are doing to fulfill our throne speech pledge to address the overrepresentation of indigenous individuals and Black Canadians in the criminal justice system. This bill will help the government get a broad range of stakeholders involved in defining the framework and examining existing strategies and tools to reduce recidivism and prevent crime. It will help us learn more about this important issue. Lastly, it will help us identify the gaps we need to fill.

Overall, I think reducing recidivism would enhance community and public safety, which could in turn result in savings within the criminal justice system. This is a win-win situation, which is why I am pleased to say that the government supports this legislation.

One point that has come up repeatedly throughout this debate is the fact that indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and other racialized people face systemic racism and unequal outcomes in the criminal justice system. Any efforts to reduce recidivism must draw on the lived experiences of incarcerated people to reduce systemic barriers such as discrimination and racism. That is why my remarks will focus on that aspect.

The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that systemic racism exists in every corner of our great country. This includes our criminal justice system, our correctional system and our law enforcement agencies. That is an indisputable fact. I repeat, it is an indisputable fact.

It is not enough to simply look at the numbers, when we examine the Canadian prison system. Several studies conducted in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom have shown that Black people are no more likely to commit a crime than non-Blacks—or white people, to put it bluntly. The same is true of indigenous people: They are no more likely to commit a crime.

However, the proportion of Black people in Canada's prison system is three times greater than their demographic weight. That is terrible; it is serious. The situation is even worse for indigenous peoples.

Indigenous people represent nearly 30% of the male prison population in Canada at the federal level alone, while they represent not even 5% of the Canadian population. For indigenous women it is even worse. They represent 44% of the female prison population.

As I said in the beginning, indigenous and Black individuals are not more likely to commit a crime. Why, then, is their demographic weight so much more significant in our prisons in Canada? That is a very good indication of the systemic racism and discrimination that exists. When we look for problems we find them and when we decide not to look for them in certain communities we do not find them. That is why I think Bill C-228 gives us the opportunity to reduce the likelihood that people will reoffend after their incarceration.

I congratulate my Conservative colleague on his bill. I know that it is based on his experience. He is a man of faith who is very involved in his congregation and I am very happy that he is using his knowledge to introduce a very reasoned bill.

My only suggestion to improve or amend my hon. colleague's bill would be that, although it is commendable to introduce a bill that addresses what to do with people after they are incarcerated, I would also like us to look at other solutions to address this issue earlier on, to stop people from being incarcerated in the first place.

If we were to create relationships and partnerships with community organizations and non-governmental organizations, if we were to tell these young indigenous people or young Black people that their community is ready to welcome them, they would see that there is another path.

I think there is a lot we can do to counter the fact that these people are overrepresented in our correctional and criminal justice systems. I am not trying to saddle my colleague with all of this, but I hope that members from all parties who support this private member's bill will not stop at what happens after people are incarcerated, but also focus on what happens before incarceration.

I hope that will encourage all members to support bills that address this issue, and that includes government bills. We need to look at how to help people choose a better path, instead of allowing them into the correctional system. We need to find a better way to embrace them and support them, so that they can learn how to make positive contributions to our society. A federal framework to reduce recidivism, as proposed in this bill, could truly change things.

That is why I am proud to say that I support this bill. I hope my colleagues will follow suit.

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, be read the second time and referred to a committee.