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.

Opposition Motion—Opioid Crisis

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George. Today, I stand before members to express my deep concerns about Canada's mental health and addiction crisis.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything feels broken. Life costs more. Work does not pay. Housing costs have doubled. The Prime Minister divides to control the people. Worst of all, crime and chaos, drugs and disorder rage in our streets. Nowhere is this worse than the opioid overdose crisis that has expanded so dramatically in the last several years.

Many Canadians continue to be repeatedly traumatized by the Liberal government and its failed policies. As a result, we are dealing with a mental health and addiction crisis. Canadians struggling with addiction deserve compassion with access to appropriate treatments and a plan for recovery.

Addiction is a public health issue and Canada’s drug laws must target individuals who prey on Canadians struggling with addictions, more specifically those who engage in trafficking and the sale of illegal drugs. My Conservative colleagues and I oppose removing deterrence measures for those who exploit Canadians struggling with addiction.

Expanding access to treatments and recovery programs should be a health care priority to get help to people struggling with addiction. While the Liberals continue to push their own narrative, there is not even one real definition of “safe supply”. How are dangerous, toxic drugs safe?

The safe supply is continuing to destroy lives. It has led to more addiction, more deaths and more despair. We believe that we must stop taxpayer-funded hard drugs, and instead fund treatment and recovery, and bring home our people drug-free.

Liberal safe-supply policies do nothing to bridge people toward recovery. Instead, people are being trapped in a cycle of addiction. In March of 2020, an article titled “Is All 'Safe Supply' Safe?” was published by the Canadian Society of Addiction Medicine. The Liberal-NDP coalition has given up on Canadians struggling with addiction and has essentially put them straight into palliative care.

The greater societal cost is playing out with this experiment in British Columbia. The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions referred, in this place, to following proper indicators without saying what they are. I am not sure what those indicators are because according to the Public Health Agency of Canada, since tax-funded drug supply was ramped up in 2020, opioid deaths have only gone up.

In 2021, more than 8,000 people died of opioid overdoses, while fewer than 3,000 people died of overdoses in 2016. In British Columbia alone, yearly drug overdose deaths have increased by 330% between 2015 and 2023.

In addition, just ahead of the seventh anniversary of B.C. declaring a public health emergency, B.C. Emergency Health Services released grim statistics last month. B.C. set records in March, two months ago, for the most overdose calls in one day, the highest 30-day average of overdose calls and the most consecutive days where paramedics attended 100 or more poisonings. Our first responders are overburdened and exhausted.

This is with drug decriminalization and so-called safe supply in place. B.C. is apparently also on pace to set a new record for poisoning calls in a year and match its annual record for the most naloxone doses administered to reverse the effects of opioids. Those are the facts.

Recently, a Global News reporter in east Vancouver was able to buy 26 hits for $30, in just 30 minutes, of a dangerous and highly addictive opioid that is distributed in tax-funded drug supply programs. It is flooding our streets with cheap opioids.

A new black market has been created and this is perpetuating the cycle of addiction. It has been reported that physicians are saying this is even leading to a rise in new addictions, particularly among youth and those recovering from addictions. Those are the facts.

These are the results of the Liberal drug policies. These are more lives lost. Our streets are less safe and people are dying. The other day, here in the House of Commons, I was appalled by the shouting and applause that the Liberal and NDP MPs showed as I mentioned the terrible effects of open drug use in parks and playgrounds, which they support. I had to start my question three times because of the disruption. These are policies that harm children’s safety, as people are getting high and leaving syringes and other drug paraphernalia in playgrounds.

Open drug use in parks and playgrounds where children play is unacceptable, and it is evident that the federal Liberal government is not taking public safety seriously.

On this side of the House, we do take this issue very seriously. We recognize the need to approach these issues with compassion. That is why we will continue to advocate for stopping the flood of dangerous drugs on our streets and also advocate for recovery, treatment and rehabilitation.

This is some of what my private member's bill, Bill C-283, the end the revolving door act, sought to do. It sought to create a common-sense framework for the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada to be able to designate all or a part of a federal correctional facility as an addiction treatment facility. If individuals met certain parameters at the time of sentencing, a judge could offer the choice to be sentenced to participate in a mental health assessment and addictions treatment inside a federal penitentiary while they served out their sentence.

Bill C-283 was in line with the House of Common’s support for Bill C-228 in the previous Parliament to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, where healing is the best path toward reducing recidivism in Canada.

I received much positive feedback and support on this bill from across the country, from business groups, from those working in criminal justice and from those working in recovery, like the founder of Freedom's Door. I also received unanimous support through a resolution of the City of Kelowna.

This common-sense legislation was voted down by the Liberal and NDP members. They are not focusing on recovery and treatment and are quite fine with the status quo.

After eight years of Liberal incompetence, Canadians are suffering. I hear from parents in my riding all the time who want their child to access support and rehabilitation. It is heartbreaking the government has given up on some of the most vulnerable in our society and has put them straight into what one could consider perpetual addiction and palliative care.

In B.C., it is unbelievable, due to how open drug use is now rampant and playing out in our communities, that we even need to have a conversation that open drug use should be banned from playgrounds and parks. These drug decriminalization policies have affected neighbourhoods in B.C., as this three-year drug decriminalization experiment is playing out.

Municipal governments across B.C. have been forced to look at how to make their communities more safe for their citizens, and in particular in parks and playgrounds. Municipalities that have either already implemented bylaws, were looking at bylaws and/or have advocated to the provincial government include Kamloops, Kelowna, Sicamous, Campbell River, Nanaimo, Maple Ridge and Prince George, and there may be others.

However, it is not just at the human level that the Liberals refuse to show compassion. The Prime Minister refuses to stand up to the greedy pharmaceutical companies that cynically marketed addictive drugs as pain medication. That is why we in the official opposition are committed to bringing home justice for the victims of addiction.

Our Conservative leader announced months ago a commitment to launching a massive federal lawsuit against big pharma and their consultants, and to joining the active B.C. lawsuit to cover the costs of the epidemic to our border security, courts, the criminal justice system, indigenous programs, lost federal tax revenue and massively expanded treatment programs. The intention with this is the money recovered from this massive lawsuit will fund treatment and recovery programs for people struggling with addiction. It is from big pharma that originally safe supply came from.

The Conservatives are focused on turning hurt into hope by presenting common-sense solutions to address the addictions crisis facing our communities and the revolving door in our justice system. While the Liberal-NDP group has turned its back on society's most vulnerable, the Conservatives will continue to advocate for support, compassion and rehabilitation so we can bring home our family members and fight back against this horrible addiction crisis, which the Liberals have fuelled by their failed policies.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You also took credit, I understand, Minister, for the federal framework to reduce recidivism. You mentioned that during either the opening statement or a response to a question.

You will acknowledge on the record, sir, that the private member's bill of my Conservative colleague, Richard Bragdon, Bill C-228, which was passed into law in 2021, did exactly that.

Would you give him credit, sir?

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak in the House about Bill S-4. We have been spending some time reviewing the attributes of the bill and the importance of making sure we address the backlog issue in the criminal justice system and the ways we can better expedite that. This is obviously in relation to the aftermath and effects of COVID-19 and the ever-increasing backlogs. One way of addressing them is to make sure that the technology available and disposable to us is utilized effectively to help address issues where possible.

That is why overall in principle we support the bill. There may be some friendly amendments we want to see passed through the process of the bill working its way through the House, but the need to address the challenges and the backlogs in the criminal justice system should be paramount.

There is a rising frustration with the backlog issue and people who are facing delays in justice. There is an expression for this: Justice delayed is ultimately justice denied. We need to do whatever we can as parliamentarians to effectively address that backlog and make sure that justice is delivered fairly, equitably and expeditiously.

In preparation for my remarks today, I could not help but think of an old country song. I think it is a folk song. I will not sing it today, as all members would leave here very quickly, but it is an old song they may recognize:

There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.

Then she says:

So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it.

Then he goes through all of the excuses about straw and needing an axe, which will not work because it is dull. Then she says to use a rock and sharpen the axe. Well, he cannot find a rock. Then she says they will get water and fix that.

They go back and forth, and the bottom line is that the excuses kept coming for not addressing the hole in the bucket. He kept offering up reasons as to why it could not be fixed. The hole never got addressed, but the excuses kept being offered. Well, I stand in the House today to say that there is a hole in the justice bucket, dear Speaker, dear Speaker, and we need to address the hole.

It is not just the backlogs, so today I want to address the bigger issue, which is stopping the revolving door into and out of our prison system.

We cannot address the backlog issue without discussing the bigger picture. How do we make sure that those who have committed crimes, served their time, paid their debt to society and returned back to their communities do not re-enter the judicial system, clog it up again and create more backlogs? The best way to do that is to address the hole in the bucket, as it were, and make sure we are addressing the rates of recidivism and how we can collectively get those rates down.

The best way we can do that is through effective partnerships. Yes, government has a role. Yes, the judicial system has a role. However, so do some tremendous organizations and groups in our country, across the nation, that help make sure we address the root causes of the hole in the individual's bucket.

How do we do that? It is not just by reaching across the aisle here to get good legislation passed, which is important and one step, and making sure that bills are improved upon and made the best they can be to address backlogs. It is also by looking at the best practices around the world, not just here at home within our country, where there are some great practices having great results that need to be looked at. Let us look across the world for systems and programs that are having a tremendous effect in reducing the overall rates of recidivism.

This is a passion for me. In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of seeing my private member's bill, Bill C-228, pass and become a law thanks to the overwhelming support of members on both sides of the aisle. I am very thankful for that and had good input on that bill from various parties. We saw it come out of the Senate unanimously and it became a law in June 2021. That bill was for addressing recidivism and making sure we do what we can to bring those rates down and stop the revolving door into and out of our prison system.

At the time, just a year and a half ago, when I proposed the bill and the bill went through, the rates of recidivism in this country were close to 25%. That means that up to 25% of people who served their time and got out of federal prison were ending up back in the criminal justice system within two years.

That is a tragic statistic, but what is even more tragic is that those stats have gotten worse in the last 18 months. I can tell members that right now it is nearly a third, or close to 33%. According to the latest StatsCan statistics on the Department of Justice website, over 30% of adult offenders are finding themselves reconvicted. Talk about a hole in the bucket. We have a massive hole in the bucket in the criminal justice system in Canada that needs to be addressed.

Some would say we have to do “this”, and it is going to be the ultimate answer, or we could do “that”, and it is going to be the ultimate answer. I think it is going to take different types of approaches to get the balance right to correct this problem.

There is a punitive role in criminal justice. There absolutely has to be adequate punishment for severity of crimes, absolutely. If someone does a crime, time has to be served, and we must make sure they pay their debt to society, especially for heinous and violent crimes. That is absolutely critical, and we advocate for that on this side of the House.

However, we also need to recognize that there is a role for restorative justice. It is a role for those who come alongside and are complementary on the back end to make sure that those who have committed a crime, once they have done their time, are not only getting help while they are serving their time. Perhaps this is done with new and innovative programs, like what is being proposed by my hon. colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country with her recent private member's bill to address addictions while people are incarcerated. It would be a great step in the right direction to start some of that good programming while they are on the inside.

Let us also make sure that when they get on the outside, we are partnering with effective organizations that are doing tremendous work. Then, once people are released from the prison system, they can find a place to go where they can get their education completed, get 12-step programming, get life skills development and get job opportunities and placements. Often when people come out of the criminal justice system, it is hard for them to find meaningful employment because they have a criminal record.

How can we effectively work together with other organizations to find solutions, not only at the front end while they are incarcerated but also once they have been released?

What would go a long way in addressing the backlogs in the criminal justice system is reducing crime overall. We need to deter crime with a punitive approach to make sure that if someone does criminal activity, there is a consequence. However, there also needs to be a restorative approach that makes sure that if someone has messed up and made a mistake, we have supports that can bring them the help they need to make sure they do not go back to a life of crime. I think this two-pronged approach is going to help address the proverbial hole in the bucket that needs to be addressed.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to address this today and to be in the House. I cannot help but think of all those who are serving in the field, volunteering and helping to make a difference in keeping people from going back to a criminal lifestyle. I pay tribute to them today. I thank the volunteer organizations, non-profit organizations, chaplains and others who are doing the hard work, the necessary work, the work of coming alongside the wounded in our society to make sure they are getting the help they need. Let us help our communities as a whole, help victims and make sure that those who perpetrate crimes do not reoffend and that they help others in need.

With that, I conclude my remarks today, and I thank the House for the opportunity to address this. Let us do all we can to fix the hole in the justice bucket.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague across the way, I know for a fact that in June of last year, in the last Parliament, I saw my private member's bill, Bill C-228, go through and become law. The purpose of that bill was to work effectively between non-profit, faith-based and government organizations, both provincial governments and the federal government, to establish a federal framework for the reduction of recidivism through effective partnerships.

I was thankful to largely have all-party support in the House, and I know it unanimously passed through the Senate. It is now law. We still have not got a report back from the Minister of Public Safety, which is due back this month. This is a proactive step that we could take to make sure that we stop the revolving door in our prison system.

I would love to hear what the member's thoughts are on that.

Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In the six years that I have been a member of Parliament, I have never seen a greater disconnect between how a bill has been advertised and what is in the substance of the bill. The Liberals today have been doing a good job of patting themselves on the back, touting Bill C-5 as landmark progressive legislation. The bill has been advertised as legislation that addresses systemic racism. The Liberals claim that it would help address Black, indigenous and marginalized groups that are caught up in Canada's criminal justice system. They claim that the bill would help persons who are suffering from drug addictions to stay out of jail and get the help they need. If, in fact, the substance of the bill did what the the Liberals have advertised the bill to be, it would be a supportable bill and it would be a laudable bill. The problem is that the bill would do none of those things. Simply put, Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

Let us unpack that for a moment and in that regard, let us look at the issue and the claim that the bill supposedly would help persons suffering from addictions.

I could not agree more that it is important to help persons suffering from addictions to get treatment, to rehabilitate so they can become happy and contributing members of society again. I certainly agree that when it comes to minor possession, it is not appropriate in most circumstances to prosecute. Indeed, it historically has been rare for persons found with minor possession of drugs to be prosecuted solely on that minor possession.

Today, those prosecutions do not happen because of a directive issued by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which provides that in cases of minor possession, prosecutions shall not proceed except where there are public safety concerns. This bill would not change that. It is true that the bill would codify that in law, and that is fine. It is probably the only reasonable aspect of the bill. However, it would not change the status quo, namely that today in Canada persons are not charged and are not prosecuted for minor possession. The question then becomes this. What exactly would the bill do for persons who are suffering from issues of addictions?

When one actually reads the text of the bill, one would be surprised that the Liberal solution to helping persons suffering with addictions is to help criminals who prey on persons suffering from addictions. The bill would roll back sentences for some very serious drug offences. It would roll back mandatory sentencing for drug trafficking and it would roll back sentencing for the serious crime of importing and exporting drugs.

Any reasonable person can distinguish, very clearly, between drug trafficking and importing and exporting drugs compared to that of a vulnerable person who might be suffering from mental health issues or other issues who happens to be caught with a small amount of drugs. There is a world of difference, and yet for such marginalized people, the bill would do nothing to help them, but it would help drug dealers and drug pushers. Remarkably, one of the offences that is rolled back in the bill is with respect to producers, manufacturers of schedule 1 drugs, including hard drugs, such as cocaine and heroin as well as fentanyl and crystal meth.

We have an opioid crisis in Canada today. Every day, approximately 20 Canadians lose their lives to an opioid overdose. It has increased by 88% since the onset of COVID, 7,000 Canadians a year. The Liberal government's solution is to roll back mandatory sentencing for the very people who are putting this poison on our streets, endangering lives and killing 20 Canadians a day.

If I were someone who was suffering with a drug addiction issue and that was a solution the Liberal government had to help me, I would tell it that I did not need its help, that I did not want its help because it would be completely counterproductive. It is completely the opposite of what the government claims the bill is about. When it comes to supporting persons who are suffering from drug addictions, simply put, Bill C-5 is not as advertised.

What about the claim that the bill would tackle systemic racism, that it would really help Black, indigenous and marginalized groups of Canadians? I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spent some time on that topic this morning. There is absolutely nothing concrete in the bill to tackle systemic racism. There is absolutely nothing in the bill for Black, indigenous and other marginalized groups of Canadians.

What there is in this bill is the rolling back of some very serious firearms offences. What kinds of offences? We are talking about robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, using a firearm in the commission of a crime and many other serious offences that the bill would roll back. How does that help address systemic racism? How does that help Black, indigenous and other marginalized Canadians? The answer is that it would do nothing.

It is outrageous, beyond shameful, that the government has used vulnerable Canadians, marginalized Canadians, as cover for the real objective of the bill, which is to pursue a Liberal ideological agenda of going soft on criminals. It is also ironic because we heard, during the very recent federal election campaign, a lot of rhetoric from the Liberals about how firearms posed a significant threat to public safety and the security of our communities. Then, within three and a half weeks of the House reconvening following the election, what does the government do? It introduces legislation not to get tough on firearms offences, but to help people who use firearms and put the lives of people at risk to stay out of jail and in the community.

It is hardly a surprise given the record of the government. In the last Parliament, my former Conservative colleague, Bob Saroya, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-238. That bill would have increased penalties for persons who were convicted of knowingly being in possession of a smuggled firearm. Why was that an important bill? If the government were serious about tackling firearms crime, it would recognize that 80% of firearms offences in Canada are committed with a smuggled firearm. It would logically follow that a bill like Bill C-238 would be welcome, but instead, one by one, the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, voted to defeat that bill.

It shows that when it comes to actually coming up with solutions to tackle firearms crime, the government is just simply AWOL. However, when it comes to firearms, I have to give it some credit, perhaps backhanded credit, for being consistent. The Liberals have been consistently tough on firearms, tough on law-abiding firearms owners. That is when they really get tough. However, when it comes to people who commit crimes with firearms, it is a whole different story. The Liberals in that case are more interested in giving criminals a free pass. It really highlights what a misplaced set of priorities the government has.

We hear a lot of rhetoric over there about evidence-based decision-making. Going after law-abiding firearms owners while at the same time rolling back sentences for people who commit crimes with firearms is ideological decision-making, not evidence-based decision-making.

Again, when it comes to helping marginalized and disadvantaged Canadians, Bill C-5 is simply not as advertised.

The Minister of Justice, in the press release he issued announcing the introduction of Bill C-5, was noted as saying that serious criminals should face serious punishment and be separated from our communities. I could not agree more with the Minister of Justice with respect to his comment. However, consistent with a bill that is not as advertised, when one opens up Bill C-5, one learns that it does exactly the opposite of what the minister claims to be concerned about. He says that we should keep serious criminals out of our communities, but the bill drastically opens up conditional sentencing orders for serious crimes, including kidnapping, kidnapping a minor, human trafficking, arson for a fraudulent purpose and aggravated assault with a weapon. What this bill means is that those convicted of these serious offences may not have to spend a single day in jail. Instead, they will have an opportunity to serve their sentence in the community and maybe even next door to their victim.

The minister talks about the fact that serious criminals should face serious punishment, but does he not consider arsonists, kidnappers and persons convicted of sexual assault to be serious criminals? I challenge him to say that, because I think any reasonable person would say that such criminals are serious criminals. They pose a threat to public safety and they should be doing time behind bars, not out on the streets.

Despite all the ways the government has tried to sell this bill, what is completely lacking is any support for marginalized Canadians. This bill does nothing to provide training, counselling or other supports. We on this side of the House strongly believe in reducing recidivism. It was, in fact, a Conservative member of Parliament, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, who introduced Bill C-228 in the last Parliament, a framework to reduce recidivism. Bill C-5 offers nothing in that regard.

In closing, Bill C-5 puts the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last. It endangers public safety while doing nothing to help marginalized and vulnerable Canadians. If the Liberals were honest and advertised this bill truthfully, they would advertise it as the soft-on-crime, do-no-time bill. This bill needs to be defeated.

Correctional Services

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present is from people across Canada.

In Canada, almost one-quarter of the people who leave our correctional system reoffend within two years of being released. The petitioners are calling for a new system to ensure that victims are at the heart of our justice system and that we have a system to prevent recidivism and reoffending.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support and quickly pass Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, to help to ensure that our society is safer, more peaceful, prosperous and just; and to support local communities and organizations that help people leaving correctional facilities become reintegrated into society.

Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:13 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-228 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, presented by the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

Let me first commend the member for bringing forth this bill. He is a first-time member, and it is to his credit that he has gotten his private member's bill to this stage so early in his political career. He has spoken with great passion and empathy about this issue in the House from his experience in his community and the extraordinary work done by a friend of his, Monty Lewis in assisting ex-offenders.

It is also notable that the bill is coming from a Conservative member of the House. That is because we often hear from Conservatives, who see themselves as so-called “tough on crime”, seeking stiffer punishment, mandatory minimums and lengthier sentences for crimes in hopes of protecting the public, but which have not proven to do so.

It is not very often we hear from them of the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community for an offender when released from prison. This does serve to protect the public and is an important element in the improvement of society. The rehabilitation of an offender is a significant principle of sentencing and must be considered by a judge, along with other elements.

What we want to avoid is an offender reoffending. That is probably the simplest definition of recidivism, which is not a commonly used word outside the field of corrections. The bill calls for the development of a national framework to reduce recidivism to be developed within a year by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and reported to the House of Commons.

This is to be done in consultation with the provinces, with indigenous governing bodies and organizations, and other stakeholders, including NGOs, such as the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies, and other organizations and groups that work with ex-offenders.

It recognizes the need for the framework to include measures to ensure that those who are released from prison have adequate and ongoing resources, as well as employment opportunities to aid their transition and reintegration back into the community, all with the goal of reducing the likelihood of reoffending but also helping the person become a productive and contributing member of society along the way.

Employment is extremely important and basic to rehabilitation. Having a job and the opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency and the independence that comes with that is crucial and gives people some control over their life and future. A representative of the John Howard Society in my riding of St. John's East has recently stressed the need for employment skills development programs pre-release as a means to help ex-offenders get more quickly on their feet as they seek to reintegrate and build a better life.

It is hoped that consultations coming from this bill will result in productive recommendations for measures to assist in aiding rehabilitation and thereby avoiding recidivism and in helping individuals overcome the obstacles that may have contributed to their being incarcerated in the first place.

This could include helping those with a lack of access or with barriers to education and training, or those dealing with drugs and other addictions, which can be a huge factor in the lives of some of those who have been incarcerated. The bill provides an important opportunity to focus on the needs of ex-offenders and enhance the programs and resources that could be made available.

The preamble of the bill also recognizes that the purpose of the correctional system is, in part, to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders, both in the penitentiaries and in the community. One factor that is now well known is that there is a shocking over-representation of indigenous men and women, Black Canadians and persons of colour in our prisons. In 2020, according to the correctional investigator, indigenous people accounted for 30% of the prison population but only 5% of the Canadian population. Black inmates were 10% of the prison population but only 4% of the Canadian population.

What has been revealed recently is that there is also a racial bias in the tools used to assess inmates on their rehabilitation potential and their security standing when they serve in the prison itself, whether they had to serve in minimum, medium or maximum security. Black and indigenous inmates are more likely to get maximum security ratings and be assigned the worst scores on a potential for rehabilitation assessment.

The result is that they have restricted access to programs for rehabilitation within the prison, less access to parole, thereby serving a longer portion of their sentence in prison. Having fewer opportunities for programs is obviously detrimental to those incarcerated.

An amendment to address this now included in the bill was proposed by me and accepted, most graciously, at the committee stage by the member for Tobique—Mactaquac and supported by the committee. It is a provision that the framework must, “evaluate and improve risk assessment instruments and procedures to address racial and cultural biases and ensure that all people who are incarcerated have access to appropriate programs that will help reduce recidivism.”

I believe this will enhance the framework on recidivism and hopefully eliminate at least one element of systemic racism in our society, which has such negative consequences. I want to once again commend the member for this legislative initiative and offer my support for its adoption at third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-228 today, an act—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were originally supposed to debate this bill the day after the emergency debate on violence against women. I had therefore planned to focus on that topic in my speech, since femicide is a scourge that must be eradicated at all costs, and this bill could be part of the solution. I still want to take a moment to outline the sad events of the last few months, and my colleagues will understand why.

On February 5, 2021, Elisapee Angma was killed in Kuujjuaq by her ex-husband. On February 21, 2021, 32-year-old Marly Edouard was shot in the head near her home in Laval. She had been a victim of domestic violence a few weeks earlier. On February 23, 2021, 44-year-old Nancy Roy was stabbed to death in her Saint-Hyacinthe home. Her ex-husband Jean-Yves Lajoie was charged with the murder. On March 1, 2021, 28-year-old Myriam Dallaire and her 60-year-old mother Sylvie Bisson were killed with an axe in Sainte-Sophie by Ms. Dallaire's ex-husband. On March 19, 2021, 40-year-old Nadège Jolicoeur was stabbed to death in her husband's taxi. On March 23, 2021, 29-year-old Rebekah Harry succumbed to her injuries after being hospitalized for several days in Montreal. Her husband was arrested at the scene of the crime.

These seven women were killed in the span of seven weeks in Quebec. Fourteen children lost their mothers and often their fathers, who took their own lives after the murders. Since then, the list has grown to 10. Ten women have been killed at the hands of people close to them.

The killers are violent partners or ex-partners. It is even worse knowing that several of these femicides were committed by men who had already gone through the court system and had a long history of domestic violence. It is quite clear that domestic abusers must be taken into custody, monitored and subjected to a rigorous risk assessment.

Therein lies the rub. According to the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee and criminologist Jane Monckton, the domestic homicide that is playing out before our eyes is due to public authorities' ongoing neglect when it comes to prevention, screening and tracking of high-risk cases. The risk factors are known, but they are ignored or downplayed.

In the case of the double femicide in Sainte-Sophie, an ex-girlfriend of the suspect said she was not taken seriously when she filed a complaint against him five years earlier. She had to stay confined at a shelter while he enjoyed total freedom. He already had a long criminal record by then.

It makes no sense that a woman who is a victim of violence must go to a shelter to be safe, while her violent partner or ex-partner is free.

The Alliance des maisons d'hébergement de 2e étape takes women who are most at risk of being killed. It says that, most of the time, the men are released within 24 to 48 hours of being arrested. Where do these men go once released, if left unsupervised? The answer is obvious.

Elisapee Angma's body showed signs of serious injuries when she was found on February 5 in Kuujjuaq. Two weeks earlier, her ex-husband had been released on bail, even though he had violated court orders prohibiting him from approaching Ms. Angma. Many victims of violence who trusted the court system now believe, unfortunately, that the freedom of an accused man is more important than the safety of a woman. When citizens lose trust in their justice system, they stop filing reports and stop going to the police.

The figures confirm this. There have been a lot of media reports on femicide in recent weeks. We have all had our eyes opened to a serious problem in our society that urgently needs to be addressed. However, the statistics on attempted murder, aggravated assault, threats and assault against women are even more worrisome than people think. In 2019-20, 300 women sought refuge in women's shelters in Quebec. These 300 women were victims of attempted murder by violent men, the majority of which do not factor into police statistics.

The Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes du Québec says that these women report being strangled, drowned or thrown down a staircase. In the face of such horrific acts, we have a duty as legislators to ask what we can do to put an end to this senseless violence. What can we do to ensure that women and children feel safe in their own homes? What can we do to ensure that men filled with rage have the tools they need to channel their anger and avoid causing further femicides?

One of the solutions is definitely that we must immediately improve the way we deal with violent men. We need to implement innovative measures to help them, because arresting them is a way to affirm that domestic violence is not acceptable, yes, but prison does not help violent men resolve their deep-rooted issues. In 50% of cases, they reoffend. Domestic violence is a social problem, and we need to take action on several fronts. We cannot eradicate violence against women without doing something about the violent men. That would be a mistake.

Bill C-228 is a way to better support inmates in federal prisons to minimize recidivism. This is a subject that is very important to me and that I am studying very carefully as part of my work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The problems with the handling of federal inmates are well documented.

Bill C-228 seeks to do away with mandatory minimum sentences for certain Criminal Code offences. It corrects an error made by Stephen Harper's government. The mandatory nature of the sentences takes away judges' discretion to determine appropriate sentences based on their knowledge of the case and their expertise in order to maximize the chances of rehabilitation.

The rationale for mandatory minimum sentences is the belief that length of time in prison acts as a deterrent to future recidivism. However, a major study carried out over a 30-year period with more than 336,000 inmates proved otherwise.

Researchers found 325 correlations between recidivism and length of time in prison. The goal was to determine whether imprisonment was effective in suppressing criminal behaviour and recidivism. The researchers found that imposing prison sentences was not an effective way to reduce criminal behaviour. They concluded that the primary justification for imprisonment was to punish offenders for their crime and to neutralize certain offenders for reasonable periods of time.

The report of Canada's correctional investigator, Ivan Zinger, which was released on October 27 of last year, was consistent with the study results. It was a damning report for the Canadian government, because it showed that the feds are doing a very poor job of reintegrating inmates.

I had a chance to talk to Mr. Zinger during a Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security meeting. We talked about the significant number of incidents of sexual violence in federal prisons that go unreported or that, worse yet, are reported but go unpunished. When we have proof that the Correctional Service of Canada is turning a blind eye to rape, we must take urgent action.

The key takeaway from the correctional investigator's report is that Canada is falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world with respect to digital learning and vocational skills training behind bars. The government has taken little action to implement the dozens of recommendations made by Mr. Zinger's office to improve training for inmates, which would have a direct impact on their reintegration into the community.

Based on these observations, is it any surprise that prisoners in federal penitentiaries are struggling to be rehabilitated? How can they re-enter the labour market without training that reflects the needs of today's workplace? How can we expect them to successfully reintegrate into the community if we neglect opportunities for them to obtain employment once their sentences are over? Without a legitimate way to earn a living, the door to delinquency and recidivism remains wide open.

Bill C-228 provides for the development and implementation of a federal framework to reduce recidivism. This is a good thing, and we had the opportunity to discuss it at committee with the sponsor of the bill. However, it provides for standardized programs, in other words, programs that are the same across Canada. Unfortunately, this approach directly interferes in Quebec and provincial jurisdictions.

Quebec already manages the reintegration of young offenders into the community, but this bill would override that with a federal framework. The problem is that Bill C-228 does not provide any details on the form that the federal framework would take. It gives the federal government free rein to create the framework itself and bypass Quebec and the provinces.

A Liberal amendment even changed the wording to ensure the framework is established in consultation with the provinces instead of in collaboration with them. To us, that suggests that the framework will be imposed on the provinces. We had hoped to amend the bill at report stage, but the law clerks deemed our changes to prevent federal interference to be out of order.

However, that was the whole reason we supported the bill at second reading. Offender reintegration is important to me and the Bloc Québécois. This bill undermines the efforts of Quebec, which is doing rather well when it comes to reintegration into the community.

In order for us to support the bill, it would have had to limit the federal role in offender reintegration. The recent case of Michel Cox, a dangerous sexual predator who tried to kidnap a teenager immediately after being released from prison, and the murder of Marylène Levesque by Eustachio Gallese show that recidivism among violent men is a problem.

We cannot stick our heads in the stand. The existing measures have often failed to protect the public.

Although the Bloc Québécois supported the bill at second reading, we are opposed to subjecting provincial jails to a federal model, especially since a number of studies have found that Quebec is doing a much better job with reintegration than other places in the world.

I do want to commend the member for Tobique—Mactaquac and thank him for his work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts with the member, who has done an admirable job in bringing this to the floor of the House of Commons, and now we are at third reading. Even though I was not at the committee stage discussions, by the sound of the presentations, I am sure it would have been of great interest. No doubt the standing committee did fine work with respect to the legislation.

When I think of Bill C-228, I think of the Speech from the Throne. In that speech, we made a commitment to introduce legislation and make investments to address certain things such as systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing and rehabilitation to records. There is a great deal of merit in what we are debating today.

The member and so many of us talk about the issue of the revolving door of our justice system. Think of the costs to society, and I am not just talking about the dollar value costs because it far exceeds the dollar. It also impacts communities. We all want to do what we can, as legislators, so our constituents can feel safe in their communities no matter what time of the day or wherever they may be located. We want to see that safety.

For residents of Winnipeg North, the element of safety is of utmost importance. How can we deal with that issue without at least addressing and taking action where we can with respect to the revolving door?

I am pleased this debate is taking place and I have a lot of thoughts on this issue. I was the justice critic for a short time when I served in the Manitoba legislature. I have had the opportunity to take tours of places like the Headingley provincial prison, the Stony Mountain federal prison and different types of incarceration facilities in communities. I also saw other alternatives in administering justice.

It is why I was very interested when the member spoke of his interest in restorative justice. Generally speaking, I was pleased with his answer. I do believe in restorative justice. Restorative justice could not only be for the perpetrator but also for the victim, where we bring both sides together and the victim can see there is a face to his or her offender. It is not universal and it cannot necessarily be applied in every situation, but in certain situations it can be done. I used to be on a youth justice committee and saw first-hand the true value of something of that nature, not to mention the more macro approach in dealing with it.

When I think of our prison systems, having done the walkthroughs and talked to many people who were in prison, I have come to a few conclusions. The incorporation of education is absolutely critical when we talk about prison life. I am talking about basic skills and things like learning to speak English or another language. It is so very important to write, to communicate or to prepare a résumé. Some of the things we take for granted are often a significant challenge for many who are in the prison system. By ensuring they have some of those very basic skill sets, we are enhancing their chances of becoming more productive citizens within our communities.

There are ways in which we can deal with the issue of substance abuse and drugs, as an example. We need to do a lot more in terms of looking at ways we can have more effective policies on that front. I do believe that as a government we have been very progressive in our approach on a number of those files.

Regarding the legislation that the member has brought forward, it is important to emphasize a couple of points, as I should have done closer to the beginning. If I may, I suggest that the government interprets this bill as applying to federal offenders only. That is an important aspect as they are they only ones for whom the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible. I want to highlight that because it is an important part of the debate, even though in his comments the member accurately made reference to the importance of working with other stakeholders, in particular our provinces.

For private citizens participating, such as at justice committees, I can say that in my experience it has been very positive. One becomes an honorary probation officer of sorts and it is a quasi-judicial body, whether it is an individual or a non-profit organization. There are many non-profit organizations out there that do outstanding work, assisting people who are incarcerated. I would add that they do outstanding work in assisting victims of crimes. However, for the purpose of this bill it is recognizing the phenomenal effort of those organizations in all regions of our country, as non-profits, that are there to support real people who are trying in many ways and situations to get out of their current circumstances and to contribute more positively.

Along with the private citizens and the non-profit organizations, one could easily factor in private companies. I do not know to what degree today because I have been out of it for a little while, but often we see the private sector assisting. Whether it is participating in dispositions to reintegrate individuals who have left the system or as part of a disposition that a justice or quasi-judicial group would have given to someone who has perpetrated an offence, the private sector also has a role to play in this.

Obviously there are the provinces. That is where I should spend just a bit more time because we need to recognize that when we talk about incarcerations, I do not know the hard numbers but the member also made reference to that revolving door and I do believe that percentage is higher in provincial facilities than it is in national facilities. We always have to be careful what we talk about statistics. There are rationales that could justify why that is the case, but I know that there are systemic barriers that are real and that the government needs to focus attention on.

With respect to services, it is also important to point out that they already are doing good work to continuously review and improve their risk assessment instruments and procedures to ensure they remain unbiased, valid and reliable. When we talk about changes that will impact safety, these types of things actually move us forward.

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

moved that Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak at third reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. This bill is near and dear to my heart, and I cannot thank all those involved enough for their efforts in seeing it through to this point.

I will begin with my staff, who have been incredible in working tirelessly on the bill throughout the process. All of us have learned. As I am part of the class of 2019, serving my first term in the House, it has been a steep learning curve, but I have had incredible staff support. There is one young gentleman on our staff who has put in a lot of extra effort, and I want to acknowledge all of his time. He is Jesus Bondo. He has done a tremendous amount of work on this bill and has been tremendous to work with. I express my gratitude to him and to all my other staff members. They have all been a part of this and helped make it possible.

I would also like to express my appreciation for members of all parties who have contributed to this process, who have spoken to this bill and who have been encouraging in the process. It has been a deeply rewarding experience for me. It points to how Parliament can work to solve societal challenges and accomplish great things when members work together. I express my appreciation to each of the parties represented here in the House of Commons.

I want to thank the witnesses who took the time to appear before committee to speak on behalf of this bill.

I think of the Hon. Graydon Nicholas, the former lieutenant governor of New Brunswick and former provincial court judge. He is of indigenous descent, from the Wolastoqiyik people. He gave tremendous testimony at committee and has been encouraging and inspiring in this journey.

I want to thank Tina Naidoo, from the Texas Offenders Reentry Initiative. Tina has been incredible to work with. She spoke at committee about her organization and the work it has done. It has worked with over 30,000 people, who have been returning to their communities through its programs. They are finding their way back into the workplace and, obviously, finding a pathway to a successful re-entry into the community. It has been truly inspiring. I am forever grateful for the influence of Tina Naidoo, Bishop Jakes and the good folks from Dallas, who have done such great work on this.

I think of Cathy Latimer from The John Howard Society, who gave great testimony at committee, and the inspiring work that The John Howard Society does in helping those who are transitioning from the shadows, as it were, back into the communities. I express my gratitude to them.

I think of Stacey Campbell, who helped in the preparation of the bill. She is with Prison Fellowship Canada, which does great work. She was willing to appear when we first introduced the bill.

I think of Andrew Vähi of the Village of Hope, a great local organization that works with young men who are struggling with addictions and transitioning from incarceration back into the community through addictions programming and life skills development. They do great work there.

I think of Dr. Tom Beckner, who served as a chaplaincy expert and does great work. He is now retired, but he did great work with Bridges of Canada and Bridges of America, and helped train many chaplains all over North America. I thank him for his contributions.

I think of Dr. John Rook and the great work that he does in Alberta. I really appreciated his insights and his support for this initiative.

I think of Mitch MacMillan, who is a retired RCMP office and a local community police chief in the town of Woodstock, in my riding. He is in a local police detachment. He is also a former member of the National Parole Board. He spoke in favour of the bill and helped us in our preparations.

I think of a local farmer from my region, David Coburn. He has employed young men who have been in transition and given them an opportunity to find their way afterward.

All of these voices spoke together, along with those of members from the other parties. They gave good suggestions and helped build this bill to where it is. I am deeply thankful and consider it a great privilege to see it to this point.

I know that we all recognize the recidivism rate of those who will be back in prison within two years of being released from federal prison. It is a troubling rate. In some estimates, it is over 25% of those released from federal prisons, but it is much higher for those in provincial institutions. Rates are even higher for those from minority communities, such as the indigenous community, where the rate is nearly 40%. We definitely need to do all that we can to address these things.

The sad reality is that children whose parents have been incarcerated are seven times more likely to enter prison themselves at some point. If we could help break that cycle and reduce recidivism, we would not only help the individuals who have been affected, but we would also see a difference in generations to come. This type of initiative where we all work together through effective partnerships to make a pathway for successful re-entry after someone has served their time will be so much better for everyone.

I am so thankful for the embrace that the House has given to this point, and I trust and hope that members will continue to support the bill through to becoming a law. We all share the aim of stopping the revolving prison door, so once people serve their time and complete their sentence, they have a successful re-entry back into the community.

We must work with the provinces and respect their areas of jurisdiction and expertise. We must work with the private sector, as it could be the key to unlock an opportunity for a second chance. We must continue to work with the non-profit and charitable sectors that are so good at stepping in when others step out, of not giving up when others simply walk away and throw their hands in the air.

Many people who are doing incredible work often get overlooked, but by doing what they do, going into places that others perhaps would not go, allows many people, families and communities to move beyond a regrettable decision a person made at some point in his or her life. Our communities, families, provinces and nation all gain when we get past a wrong that was once done and move on to a brighter and healthier future.

This is truly an opportunity for us to work together to make lasting societal change. I believe that this bill will bring together the best that the public sector, all levels of government, faith-based organizations and non-profits have to offer to collectively find a long-term solution. It is an all-hands-on-deck approach to help some of the most wounded and vulnerable among us.

I have shared many times in the previous opportunities I had to speak on this bill about my good friend Monty Lewis. He was the founder of an organization that reached back into the prisons. He knew what it was like to be incarcerated.

Monty did not have an easy upbringing. He knew what it was like to live with addictions in his life. He knew what it was like to have faced violence and to have been a perpetrator of violence. He ended up serving time in provincial jails and then in the federal penitentiary.

Monty was in the hole of a prison cell at the Kingston Penitentiary. He had pretty much given up on life and was angry at the world. However, a Salvation Army chaplain began to faithfully visited him there, and he kept going to see him. I remember Monty telling the story of when this chaplain came to see him. He started hollering and swearing and told the chaplain to get lost, but the chaplain kept coming back. The chaplain showed Monty grace and hope. He showed him that would not give up on him.

To make a long story short, Monty had a dramatic change in his life. From the hole of a prison cell, his life started to move in a different direction. He served his time, got out and found the love of his life, Linda. They got married and he went back to work in the mines. He then felt this pull in his life that he could not escape. He said that he had to do whatever he could to help others who had taken a similar path to his. He did not want them to feel like their lives were over because of the things they had done and regretted. He started with $7.36 and began visiting prisons, sharing good news with people and being there when they got released from prison. His life and organization have been the true inspiration behind this bill.

I cannot help but think that somewhere in heaven Monty has a great grin on his face tonight, thinking a bill he had inspired is on the verge of perhaps passing through the House of Commons and could have an impact on the lives of so many others. I dedicate this bill, this evening, to him, his wife and their family for the tremendous sacrifices they have made and the hope they have provided many others.

I thank each one. I appreciate this opportunity and the support I've had to get this done, for the hope of all those who have felt hopeless at one point.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division of the motion to concur in Bill C-228 at report stage, under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, be concurred in.

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.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to be able to speak today in support of Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for bringing this important piece of legislation forward, and for his leadership on making real and compassionate reforms to Canada's criminal justice system.

Far too many criminals reoffend after serving their prison sentences. In fact, an alarming one in four people who has been incarcerated will reoffend within two years of their release from prison. That reality has a profoundly negative impact on society. It creates even more victims of crime as a result. Conservatives have always been on the side of victims of crime and we always will be. We will put the rights of law-abiding citizens, the priorities of victims of crime and their families, and public safety and security ahead of criminals every single time.

As a society, though, the goal must be to reduce repeat offences so that families and communities do not continuously have to go through losses, emotional trauma, distress, financial and personal costs, anxiety about their security, diminishing peace of mind and an erosion of faith in the ability of governments, law enforcement and institutions to keep them safe. The only way to reduce the number of victims of crime is to reduce the number of crimes being committed.

This bill would take crucial and holistic steps toward reducing recidivism by mandating the public safety minister to develop a federal framework with important partners from a variety of sectors, bringing together indigenous groups, NGOs, non-profit groups, faith-based and private-sector organizations, in order to develop standardized and evidence-based programs to reduce the risk of criminals reoffending when their sentences are complete.

The framework would support reintegration and ensure access to adequate and ongoing resources, including employment opportunities. This bill's inclusion of non-profit, faith-based and community organizations, as well as local stakeholders, encourages the role that so many are already doing and aims to identify areas where additional help or resources might be required. Unfortunately, many of these organizations have been working in silos for many years, which is why the initiative of a federal framework is so important.

Bringing everyone to the same table can help foster long-lasting partnerships, especially among people and groups that have already demonstrated dedication, commitment and a concern for an invested interest in their local communities. Utilizing the expertise of each group and sharing resources can enable real solutions to the often complex problems of why people reoffend.

Patterns of criminal behaviour have often been associated with prior history or negative relationships, with poor examples of reintegration. Many factors cause people to commit a crime in the first place, and those same factors often lead people to reoffend, such as addictions and substance abuse, negative peer influence, personality disorders, socio-economic status, family breakdown, abuse and many others. These are reasons why some people are caught in the vicious cycle of committing an offence, serving time and then reoffending.

To be clear, none of those factors is a good excuse for committing a crime. There is never a good reason. Conservatives believe that action must be taken to fix a system that is often rightfully characterized as a revolving door, starting with real consequences for criminal activity, mandatory minimums, stronger and consecutive sentences for so many serious crimes, and more emphasis on law enforcement and prosecution resources. However, it is also important to deal with reality, to acknowledge that criminals will be released and to recognize these aggravating factors in order to design effective programs that successfully prevent more offences.

Whether someone's ideal view of the objective of the correction system is retribution or rehabilitation, a combination or something else, it seems obvious to me that there should be a focus on individuals who will be getting out eventually and ensuring that part of their incarceration emphasizes education, learning new skills and additional training to prepare them to transition to being productive members of society, and emphasizes a framework to support that goal when they are out. However, there are gaps in the system right now that need to be addressed.

Just last week the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Dr. Ivan Zinger, reported that training in the prison system is inadequate, as a colleague mentioned before me. Canada is falling behind the rest of the industrialized world. In fact, the Correctional Investigator made previous recommendations to promote learning and skills development behind bars, but the government has unfortunately ignored them all. He found that schools relied primarily on pen and paper, textbooks were outdated and libraries were inadequately sourced. Prison shops run on technological platforms that are no longer used.

A national framework could help by involving the private and not-for-profit sectors in partnering to ensure that those prisoners who were suitable to re-enter the workforce would receive useful training and education, and it should not have to cost Canadian taxpayers a cent.

I want to be clear on another point. This bill is designed for those who would leave the prison system imminently and who had proved that they were good candidates for rehabilitation, therefore lowering the risk of them reoffending. Under no circumstances does this bill aim to create a system where criminals would see a benefit from going into prison and get a free education. That is not what this is about. It is about recognizing the reality that many of those who are incarcerated will be reintegrated, and ensuring the necessary steps to maximize the chance that they will become productive citizens. It is about being proactive to reduce the rate of recidivism—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in Parliament on Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, and I commend the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for bringing forward this legislation.

A lot of things in the bill and a lot of what the member had to say are quite commendable. He said it with great passion and concern. I would be remiss if I did not remind him that many of the things here are things we have fought to have for many years. I was in Parliament between 2008 and 2015, fighting for these along with the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

There was a great deal of consternation among our caucus at that time as to how the Harper government treated inmates and people who were incarcerated. Many of our current caucus members were there at that time as well.

Under the Harper government, we saw serious cuts in prison farms. We saw the government closing addiction research centres, reducing access to libraries, eliminating funding for lifelines and circles of support within prisons, and cutting incentive pay for working in prison industries. Prison work programs were essentially designed to allow prisoners to save some money, so when they did get out, they had a bit of money for the work they did while incarcerated.

Currently, only 6% of prisoners at any time have access to a prison work program. The many things that were done under that regime in the interests of saving money leave us, in part, where we are today. If anything, I would say the member's bill does not go far enough.

We could talk about pilot programs to find out whether offering people employment after being imprisoned is going to help recidivism or return them to prison, but we do not need a pilot project to do that. That is common sense. That is based on the work done by organizations like the John Howard Society and community organizations. They are struggling day in and day out, with volunteers in many cases, to help people reintegrate into society and make a life for themselves, with very little help.

What we should be doing is providing them that help, not by way of a pilot project, but by way of a program for reintegration into the community. I would suspect that kind of a program would not necessarily be supported at all by his colleagues in this House.

The correctional investigator shows us time and again the failure within our prison system to provide proper rehabilitation services. The mental health supports that ought to be there for the people who suffer seriously inside prison are inadequate, not to mention how they are treated with respect to solitary confinement. We have recently seen the failure to properly and adequately assess people's rehabilitative potential within the system.

All of these things have to work together to make it possible for those who find themselves behind bars to leave prison having learned something while they were there, and to have found skills and developed attitudes that might help them reintegrate into society. That is the goal, not only to rehabilitate the offender, but also to make our communities safer by having someone who is able to be a contributing member of society.

As a lawyer, whether practising or watching other situations, I sometimes find people before the court asking to be sent to a federal penitentiary for two years or more when they are being found guilty or pleading guilty to an offence. They are saying that they need help. They want to go to a federal penitentiary because there will be programs there that might help them do something with their life.

Often, the courts believe that is the place for them to go and gives them federal time. They give them two and a half or three years instead of the lesser sentence he or she might otherwise have qualified for. They then find themselves in prison without the supports, which is a compounding factor for someone who is desperate for help and who wants to improve their lives. They want to get themselves moving forward, but they do not have the means to do so, and they are relying on a prison system that does not provide that support.

Yes, we do need what is in the bill. I will quote the preamble, which has all very well-intentioned words:

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;

The preamble continues:

Whereas people who have been incarcerated should have the necessary resources and employment opportunities to be able to transition back into the community

It then concludes that our system ought to be one that:

ensures the needs of people who have been incarcerated are met and supports their rehabilitation.

Of course, that is exactly what needs to be done. We agree with that totally, and we will support this legislation. Hopefully, in committee, we can make it more powerful to be able to do the job better. The situation we are in right now is very desperate. That is, in large measure, due to the failure of both the Conservative government of Steven Harper and the subsequent government in not following the recommendations of the correctional investigator to make improvements and to leave the prisons in the state that they are in.

Mandatory minimum sentences have filled our prisons with people who do not need to be there as long as they are. They would have been given a different sentence by a judge who could consider the individual circumstances of a person or the nature of the offence itself and the circumstances of the offence.

We see more and more indigenous people in prisons. In fact, the percentage of the prison population who are indigenous is going up not down. It is approaching nearly 33% for indigenous prisoners as a whole and 40% for indigenous women. This is a terrible situation, and the programs that are available for indigenous prisoners are grossly inadequate. In fact, they are diminished, as has been recently revealed by a Globe and Mail report, because they are over-assessed. Risk assessments discriminate against indigenous prisoners and put them in penitentiary situations where they do not have access to programs.

There are many reforms to be undertaken, and I hope that the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, who I know is a new member of the House and obviously has a passion for this issue, learns more about what is actually going on in the prisons of today and gets involved in helping to insist that reforms be undertaken that go much further than the suggestions he has made in his bill.

As was just pointed out by the previous speaker from the Bloc Québécois, my colleague on the public safety committee, the correctional investigator was very critical of the Corrections Service of Canada in failing to provide proper educational opportunities behind bars.

The correctional investigator found that Canada is falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world with respect to digital learning and vocational skills behind bars. He also said that the evidence of the decline is increasing and that there had been little movement in implementing dozens of previous recommendations from his office in this area.

He then outlined some of the issues in detail, including that prison schools have outdated textbooks and they rely on pen and paper. They and their libraries are inadequately resourced. There is virtually no opportunity to pursue post-secondary studies behind bars and prisoners do not have access to computers.

The number of offenders on wait lists to participate in educational work programs is large and the periods can be lengthy. The correctional investigator said that this is a disaster in opportunities for people to better themselves in prison and be rehabilitated on the way out.

I do respect the passion and the commitment the hon. member has for this cause. I hope he is able to be a spokesperson within his caucus to change some of the negative attitudes that exist there and that existed in the government of Stephen Harper.

I look forward to seeing the bill at committee. Hopefully I will have further discussion with the hon. member on it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑228, which proposes a way to better support inmates in federal prisons in order to minimize recidivism.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac took the initiative to introduce this bill, which I believe to be fundamental. It is a subject that is very important to me and that I have studied very carefully in my capacity as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Earlier this week, Ivan Zinger, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, appeared before the committee to brief us on the findings of his annual report. Once again, he revealed just how many serious flaws there are in Canada's correctional system. He also highlighted the lack of action by the Liberal government and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in this area.

His recommendations are clear and deserve special attention, particularly with respect to sexual coercion and violence in correctional centres and educational programming in penitentiaries. These are subjects I will return to in the interest of this bill, particularly educational programming in penitentiaries.

There are too many cases of recidivism. All of Quebec saw this last winter when it was shaken by the murder of Marylène Levesque, a woman who was only 22 years old when she was killed by Eustachio Gallese, a man on parole after serving a 15-year sentence following his conviction for murdering his wife. This is a case of violence against a woman by a man who had a history of violence against women. I have spoken before about this unfortunate case in the House. There is also the case of Michel Cox, a dangerous sexual predator who attempted to kidnap a teenage girl immediately after he was released from prison.

These are just two out of so many examples proving that there are clearly serious problems related to repeat offenders in Canada’s correctional system and that, unfortunately, the mechanisms in place sometimes fail to protect the public, as the cases of Eustachio Gallese and Michel Cox show.

This is one of the reasons I sincerely believe in the importance of passing legislation to rectify the way we deal with prisoners in Canada's correctional system. Reintegration refers to a suite of interventions designed to help offenders live in a socially acceptable manner as a law-abiding citizen. This can be done through activities and programming aimed at supporting the person's development and learning more about them, building a relationship of trust, making use of their family and social network, and delivering services tailored to their needs.

However, reintegration also means that, in the case of incarcerated individuals, the interventions must begin upon admission to custody and must include activities to prepare them for release. This approach can be frustrating for victims and their loved ones, but it does reduce the risk that the offender will victimize others once released.

I am particularly pleased that it is the Conservatives who introduced Bill C‑228, because it could correct an error made by Stephen Harper's government. We can blame the Liberals all we want for their inaction over the past five years, but the reality is that the Conservatives are unfortunately also responsible for the failures of the system, particularly with mandatory minimum sentencing.

It should be remembered that this policy, which was put in place by the Conservatives, takes away judges' discretion to determine appropriate sentences for certain Criminal Code offences based on their knowledge of the case and their expertise in order to maximize the chances of rehabilitation.

The rationale for mandatory minimum sentences is the belief that length of time in prison acts as a deterrent to future recidivism. However, a major 1999 study on the effects of prison sentences on recidivism suggests otherwise. Researchers analyzed 50 studies over a 30-year period involving more than 336,000 offenders to establish 325 correlations between recidivism and length of time in prison or serving a prison sentence versus a community-based sanction. The objective was to determine whether prisons were effective in suppressing criminal behaviour or recidivism.

The researchers came to the following conclusion. Prisons should not be used with the expectation of reducing criminal behaviour, and the primary justification of prison should be to incapacitate offenders, particularly those of a chronic, higher-risk nature, for reasonable periods and to exact retribution.

That is why I believe that it is entirely appropriate to debate this bill, which seems like an ideal opportunity to begin a discussion on mandatory minimum sentences. If we really want to create a federal framework to reduce recidivism, mandatory minimum sentences definitely must be reviewed in order to maximize the chances of rehabilitation.

I will now come back to the Office of the Correctional Investigator's 2019-20 annual report, published on October 27, which I spoke about earlier.

The report is devastating for the Government of Canada, because it shows that the federal government is doing a terrible job of managing inmates' reintegration into the community.

The correctional investigator reports that very few steps have been taken to implement the dozens of recommendations his office has previously made with regard to inmate training, which has a direct impact on their reintegration into the community. Moreover, he focused on what must be taken away from his report, namely that Canada is falling further behind the rest of the industrialized world with respect to digital learning and vocational skills training behind bars.

In his 125-page report, we learn that federal inmates do not have access to monitored email, tablets or supervised use of the Internet. Prison schools rely mainly on pen and paper, textbooks are out of date and the libraries lack resources. It is virtually impossible to pursue post-secondary studies behind bars. Apprenticeships are rare. Prison shops run on obsolete platforms, and the number of offenders on the waiting list for education programs is, in many cases, too high.

Based on these observations, is it any surprise that prisoners in federal penitentiaries are struggling to be rehabilitated? How can they re-enter the labour market without training that reflects the needs of today's workplace and without adequate information technology training? How can inmates successfully reintegrate into the community if their abilities and employment opportunities are neglected? Without a legitimate livelihood, the path to recidivism beckons.

This is why it seems clear to me that the issue of education programs in penitentiaries must be addressed first, as the Correctional Investigator of Canada strongly recommended to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to ensure that inmates have access to adequate resources and employment opportunities.

There is another aspect of the bill that is bothering those of us in the Bloc Québécois. The bill states that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must develop the framework in collaboration with the provinces, first nations and other relevant stakeholder groups. We want to warn the government against the temptation of imposing a federal model on prisons under provincial jurisdiction. A federal framework should not dictate to the provinces what they can do, because everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois does not like that. Furthermore, Quebec is doing much better than other places in the world when it comes to reintegration into the community.

Bill C‑228 must focus on reintegration in federal penitentiaries and stay away from telling the provinces what to do. We obviously insist that Quebec retain full authority over its correctional system. This is not coming from me or the Bloc Québécois; this is coming from CIRANO, the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations.

In a study published in 2019, CIRANO noted that not only do programs at prisons run by the Government of Quebec to reintegrate inmates into the community reduce recidivism, but they also are far more successful than in other places. CIRANO researchers observed a 10% recidivism rate among inmates in Montreal who participated in reintegration programs, compared to 50% for non-participants, over a period of five years.

The more an inmate participates in programs during their sentence, the less likely they are to reoffend. With these kinds of results, we obviously want to jealously guard the autonomy and jurisdiction of the Quebec correctional system.

Under a 1977 amendment to the federal legislation, Quebec manages parole for sentences of less than two years. As a result, the Quebec parole board is the one that makes decisions regarding the various types of temporary absences for inmates in the Quebec system. More specifically, the board makes decisions based on all of the information about the offender that is needed and available.

As members can see, Quebec focuses on reintegration into the community and has been successful in that regard. The federal system would do well to do the same and follow Quebec's example to limit recidivism and prevent human tragedies, such as the murder of Marylène Levesque that I mentioned earlier, as much as possible.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore support the bill at second reading because it is absolutely essential that we find more ways to reduce the rate of recidivism among federal inmates. We therefore support the intent of Bill C-228.

However, we will want to examine the bill carefully in committee to improve and amend it in order to avoid any hint of interference in the management of the Quebec prison system, which is recognized as one of the best in the world because, again, it has a low rate of recidivism among its inmates. More importantly, we want to help ensure the safety of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for bringing this private member's bill forward and congratulate him on a great intervention. Typically when an intervention comes from the heart and is based on lived or shared experience, it really impacts this House. It is really meaningful when we have this as part of our interventions in the House.

It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to add my voice to today’s debate on Bill C-228, which proposes to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism. Again, I thank the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac for putting forward this bill.

Specifically, the bill calls for the development and implementation of a federal framework that, in the interests of reducing recidivism, would ensure the needs of people who have been incarcerated are met and would support their rehabilitation.

Back in the 42nd Parliament, I had the opportunity to table Bill C-375, which was also focused on the reduction of recidivism, with a focus on mental health. Unfortunately, it died on the floor of the other House and I hope this bill does not see the same fate. I will be supporting this bill.

This bill is important because almost all offenders in Canadian federal correctional institutions will sooner or later be released safely back into the community. We need to ensure when people who have been incarcerated make that transition they are well prepared and well equipped to succeed and lead productive and law-abiding lives. That is why we have a continuity of care in our federal correctional system.

It starts with rehabilitation programming and treatment inside our institutions. These help prepare an offender for eventual release by promoting law-abiding lifestyles and good behaviour. However, if positive change is to last, it must continue in the community as well. That is why most people who have been incarcerated are also provided with support for a gradual, structured reintegration into the community under supervision and with conditions.

This approach helps improve public safety by providing appropriate rehabilitative and reintegration support to reduce the risk of reoffending. Indeed, it has been proven to lead to fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and ultimately safer communities and a safer society.

A wide variety of programs, services and support are offered by Correctional Service Canada, Public Safety Canada and by partners in the community. While these initiatives are all different, they share the same goal to improve reintegration outcomes so people do not reoffend and return to our institutions after they are released.

It is important to note the transition from incarceration to freedom can often be difficult. The chance of success of people making this transition depends partly on their own efforts and partly on the supervision, opportunities, training and support they receive within the community. Community-based residential facilities are an important part of this process for gradual, supervised release.

The hon. member talked about the theme of three minutes, three hours, three days, three weeks, three months and three years, and this aligns with what our government is doing. These facilities provide a bridge between the institution and the community. Many offer programming for residents focused on important topics like life skills, substance abuse and employment. Some community-based residential facilities are owned and operated by non-governmental agencies.

Earlier this year, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, our government announced that we would provide up to $500,000 to five national voluntary organizations to develop pilot projects during this unprecedented time to address the reintegration of those under supervision at halfway houses.

The lessons learned from the pilot projects will help continue to deliver effective programs and services to people in correctional institutions who are eligible for supervised release in the community. They will also keep halfway house residents and surrounding communities safe during emergencies such as COVID-19. People and organizations in the community also deliver programs and act as counsellors, role models and support networks. Community-based maintenance programs are one example.

The main goal of these programs is to reduce the risk of people committing new crimes and reoffending. The programs help people who have been incarcerated to enhance their self-management during their transition to the community. Through these programs, people review core self-management skills and apply them to real-life situations, obstacles and high-risk situations. This allows them to gain, rehearse and maintain recidivism-reducing skills. In addition to these efforts, our government is strengthening culturally responsive services and rehabilitation strategies.

We are also putting in place reintegration initiatives and building partnerships with indigenous communities and organizations to provide addiction treatment, trauma counselling and life-skill support. All these help to promote timely, safe and successful reintegration and to address the problem of overrepresentation of indigenous people in correctional facilities.

One example is the relatively new indigenous community correction initiative, which is a major development on this front. It was created to support the healing and rehabilitation of indigenous offenders and was backed by $10 million of funding over five years in budget 2017. The initiative provides funding for community-driven projects and offers alternatives to incarceration and reintegration support for indigenous offenders. The project works with indigenous offenders before they are released from a correctional facility and provides continuing support once the offender is back in the community.

The projects are also meant to be culturally relevant. They incorporate local customs and traditions and are responsive to the unique circumstances of indigenous people in Canada.

For Black Canadians, who are also overrepresented in our penitentiaries when comparing their percentage with the general population, CSC is studying the in-custody experience of racialized inmates, including Black Canadians. It will focus on participation in correctional programs, education and employment, while studying how ethnocultural offenders are reintegrating into the community in terms of employment opportunities and successful completion of sentences.

CSC continues to also invest in partnerships with universities and we are committed to doing more to ensure that Black offenders are offered a comprehensive level of service aimed at supporting their reintegration. This includes addressing employment and mentorship needs, culturally relevant presentations, community outreach with service providers, community engagement and ethnocultural services and the purchase of culturally relevant materials.

We know that there is more work to be done and we are committed to doing it. Both the Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada have highlighted the importance of supporting offenders in their reintegration into the community and have called for improved measures. The government has made significant investments and launched important new initiatives to that end in recent years. We continue to take steps to support the safe reintegration of federal offenders into the community, as productive and law-abiding citizens.

That does not mean that we cannot or should not do more. The overrepresentation of Black and indigenous inmates is unacceptable and we must continue to make progress to address the issue. That was reaffirmed in the most recent Speech from the Throne. Among other things, it notes that our government will introduce legislation and make investments that take action to address the systemic inequalities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing, from rehabilitation to records.

The proposed federal framework in Bill C-228 is a reasonable and welcome suggestion that would complement existing efforts to reduce recidivism. I look forward to further debates on the bill. I, personally, will be supporting the bill.

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

moved that Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great joy to rise this evening to speak on behalf of my private member's bill, Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism.

For those who may not be aware, recidivism is defined as “The tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend”. We know that nearly one in four, 25%, of those who have been released from federal prison end up back in federal prison within two years, and the rates among indigenous communities is nearly 40%. It is also a sad reality that the children of those incarcerated are seven times more likely to become incarcerated themselves. We must stop this cycle

The bill is not about reducing sentences or the amount of time served. The bill aims to address the ever-revolving door within our prison system and break this perilous cycle that sees individuals consistently reoffend. Lasting societal change can only be accomplished when we work across different sectors to come to meaningful solutions. We must find partners of like mind that will look at this and say it is a problem we can all address, whether they be at the governmental level, in the private sector, with non-profits and NGOs, in faith-based communities or indigenous communities, those who have a desire to see this revolving door stopped and the cycle broken.

I believe this bill would provide a framework for not only that discussion and dialogue to begin in earnest, but also enable some potential pilot programs to be launched across this country based on best practices and models that have been rolled out in other jurisdictions.

I will never forget my first time visiting a federal prison. I would like to think I am still somewhat of a young man, but in my younger years I was travelling with gentleman by the name of Monty Lewis. Monty ran a local non-profit organization in my area that worked with those who were incarcerated and their families.

He said something to me that day on the way to the prison that has always stuck with me. He said I would never be in a place where there was a higher concentration of the worst kinds of dysfunction, symptoms of societal and family breakdown, violence, victims and perpetrators of abuse, addiction, emotional and mental heath-related struggles, and so much more, than could be found within the walls of the place we were visiting that day. He then went on to point out that I would also never visit a place where I would find a greater opportunity to witness the powerful effect of what hope, compassion, forgiveness, encouragement and the opportunity for another chance can do.

I have seen, personally witnessed, some tremendous working models, at various stages of development, that are seeing good results. There have been pilot projects, some of which I have witnessed and visited, and policies that have been tried around the world, some of which I would like to see more of and have all of us hear more about. We can look them and perhaps pattern after or adopt some of those best practices to help establish a national framework that combines the best practices from all around the world.

I think of one, for example, in the U.K. that has been referred to as the “Peterborough model”. It incorporated 14 different service providers. It made several initial contacts with social workers, employers, private sector developers and skills developers. They worked with them while they were still in prison and upon release, after their time had been served. They also piloted some unique social finance programming and initiatives, things like social impact bonds. They successfully implemented that program and incorporated private investment, and obviously local authorities and law enforcement, and had all these different sectors working together to have a good outcome. They saw a 9% reduction in the rates of reoffending. It is a really good news story and I think there are some things that perhaps we could look at in that model.

I will refer to another one, which is a model in the “get tough on crime” state of Texas, of all places. There were some who were part of a smart justice type of initiative, where a non-profit organization worked at helping those who had been released from prison or were getting out of prison. It mentored them, sometimes while they were still in prison, for periods of up to 18 months and continued this program post-release for another 12 months.

What happened was it helped to integrate back into community, developed necessary skills, helped people find job placements, get back into community and find support groups. It involved regular checkups. At the two-year point, it did a review and when it looked at the rate, they were 60% less likely to be reincarcerated. That is a true good news story.

In fact, the lady who championed this is Tina Naidoo. I happen to know her personally now. I met her through my previous work in the non-profit sector. In 2016, then President Obama, awarded her a champion of change award from the White House for the great work she and her organization were doing. It was effective partnerships through private sector, government and local non-profits. It had some great results.

Those are a couple of examples of models we perhaps could look into and maybe implement them as pilots or similar-type initiatives with some great Canadian input, non-profit service providers and local private sector employers, working in conjunction with provincial governments to help roll out some of these across the country to see if we could see our rates of recidivism start to drop quickly.

I base all of this on that principle of three. It has been known and it has been out there for some time. If members have not heard it, it kind of helps make this stick.

The first three minutes after people are released from prison, it is so important they have someone trustworthy to meet them at the gate to start that reintegration back into community process. Within three hours, it is trying to enure they have living arrangements in place and good support networks available to them to help them make that transition. Within three days, life skills development, employment and other addiction-type programs, whatever may be needed, could be getting under way.

Within three weeks, hopefully there is some form of education completion or maybe they are starting a job somewhere with a great job placement. As we know, many people who are released from prison have a criminal record and it is hard for them to find meaningful employment. Then within three months, there should be remarkable and notable progress, with transitions starting to take place. Over three years, we hope to see a tremendous change and a life well on its way to wholeness and now helping others to make a successful transition.

I have received widespread support for the bill from representatives from all relevant stakeholders. One is former lieutenant governor of New Brunswick, former provincial court judge and former chair of native studies at St. Thomas University, the Hon. Graydon Nicholas. He said, “this bill is a step toward helping the walking wounded in our society.”

Former minister of public safety for New Brunswick and retired police officer, the Hon. Carl Urquhart, said, “through collaboration and consultation, as outlined by [the member's] bill, relevant stakeholders will provide key insights in the development, and ultimately, implementation of a federal framework that is effective in reducing recidivism in a measurable way.”

Executive Director of the John Howard Society Catherine Latimer said, “This bill would allow many Canadians concerned about the waste of lives and resources resulting from inadequate supports for those returning to community and help develop a framework to reduce recidivism.”

Mitch MacMillan, a retired police chief from our region and RCMP officer of 35 years as well as a former member of the national Parole Board of Canada, gave this bill his full endorsement and said, “I would like to encourage you to continue on this path as I feel it is certainly needed to ensure that focus is maintained.”

I would also like to refer to a local businessman, farmer and egg producer in my community, David Coburn. He is an apple grower and an egg producer. He has on several occasions, in conjunction with a local non-profit, the Village of Hope, provided meaningful employment opportunities for men who were in transition in that program. He helped in their finding meaningful employment and developing valuable skills. He is very much in favour of initiatives like this.

There is a desire among many of the relevant stakeholder groups to work together to find a solution and establish a federal framework based on best practices around the world. The key will be to study the results of any pilot project that is developed. This is so we can evaluate what works and what does not work and how we can work together with the various stakeholder groups to come to a national framework in conjunction with provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

I would like to say, as I move to close, that the gentleman I was referring to earlier, Monty Lewis, has now passed. His story is remarkable and has had a big impact on my life. He grew up in Cape Breton in very challenging circumstances. His dad was a coal miner. As he grew up, he got around some not-so-pleasant influences in his life and started down a pathway of substance abuse and addiction. It started to lead to criminal activity and he ended up doing time in prison. In fact, through various times spent inside, he eventually ended up in the Kingston Penitentiary. His story is encapsulated in the book he wrote several years ago, called The Caper.

Monty found himself in a very dark place. In fact, he was suicidal and, at one point in the hold of a prison cell, he tells this story. There came a chaplain down into the hold of the prison cell where he was, to make his rounds and visit. Of course, Monty, in a dark place, started swearing at him and cursing, and was not very nice to him. He wanted him to be gone, but the chaplain kept on visiting. He kept coming back. Monty would describe him as a messenger of hope at just the right time.

After a time, Monty's life began to change and he started looking at his life differently. He got released and he went to work. He ended up meeting the love of his life, Lynda. He had this ember in his heart. He said that he wanted to start an organization or a group that would provide support for others, like him, who have been inside and are coming out, and that he wanted to help them be able to have the supports that they need. He founded an organization along with his wife to help those who were transitioning from incarceration back into the community. They started on a shoestring budget and just did the best that they could to help.

I must say I cannot think of a better way to pay tribute to the legacy of my friend Monty than by implementing this national framework for an overall reduction in recidivism. By doing this, I believe we, as parliamentarians, are helping to foster an atmosphere through which many other Montys and Lyndas can be afforded another opportunity to realize their potential and achieve their dreams. The impact of Monty's and Lynda's lives has gone far beyond their humble beginnings and regrettable decisions.

I cannot help but wonder how many others are out there, needing the power of a second chance, needing simply someone else to believe in them and believe that their story is far greater than the regrettable decisions that they had made at some point in the past, that their life will no longer be forever defined by what was or what once happened or the wrongs that they have committed, but instead, their lives will be transformed through the power of what new opportunities and a fresh start can afford.

We have an opportunity, with this bill, to provide a bridge of hope to those who need it most, an outstretched hand to those who feel left behind and a pathway forward for some of the most marginalized and vulnerable among us. We, together, can end the spiralling cycle of recidivism by providing the most powerful agent of change in our world, and that is hope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ginette Petitpas Taylor]

No. Thank you so much for that. That's great.

Perhaps now we can proceed through each item. To be efficient with our time, we could maybe just go through them item by item, and if there are no questions or comments, we can dispose of them fairly quickly. We'll be able to address the ones for which there is debate.

Does that sound appropriate to everyone?

We'll start off, then, with Bill C-210. Does anyone have any issues or comments about that one? No.

Next is Bill C-238.

I see there are no comments, so we'll move right along to Bill C-224. Good.

Next is Bill C-215. No comments.

Next is Bill C-204, and now Bill C-229.

I'm not going to jinx it, but we're on a roll.

Now we have Bill C-218 and a motion, M-34.

Next we have Bill C-214, Bill C-220, Bill C-221, Bill C-222 and Bill C-213.

I love working with women.

Next is Bill C-223, followed by M-35.

Now we have Bill C-206, Bill C-216, Bill C-208, Bill C-205, Bill C-237, Bill C-225, Bill C-228, Bill C-236, Bill C-230 and Bill C-232.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of the people and organizations I have deliberated with to introduce a bill that would improve the lives of thousands of Canadians. The bill would aim to shut the revolving door that plagues our prison system.

Thousands of lives and hundreds of communities across Canada are negatively impacted by the revolving door within the prison system. Nearly one in four people leaving the prison system will reoffend and find themselves back in prison within two years. That number is higher for indigenous and black Canadians.

An act to establish a federal framework is about calling on the Minister of Public Safety to establish effective partnerships across multiple sectors to develop a through-the-gate support structure. I believe that the establishment of effective partnerships with provinces, indigenous groups and NGOs as well as non-profit, faith-based and community organizations, is the crucible and centre for lasting societal change. This approach has been successful in reducing recidivism in other countries such as the U.K., the United States and other jurisdictions.

As the former lieutenant governor, the first of indigenous Maliseet descent, and as a retired provincial court judge, the hon. Graydon Nicholas has said that this bill is a step toward helping the walking wounded in our society. It is time for a creative initiative to tackle the devastating and persistent harms that are both the cause and the effect of recidivism.

I hope the members from all parties recognize the importance of this bill and that we will begin working together to ensure people leaving the prison system become contributing members of our society.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)