Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Tobique—Mactaquac and his team for this critical work to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism through this bill, as well as for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon.
All of us should be deeply concerned about the well-being and status of those who have committed crimes for two reasons. Those who have committed crimes are still human beings, and unless they are reformed, criminals have the capacity to hurt us, and others, again.
On the first point, I know that the member who proposed this bill previously served as a pastor. I also know that a great deal of important work affirming the human dignity of prisoners and seeking to reduce recidivism is done by faith communities. My colleague will, therefore, be quite familiar with the text from Matthew 25, which discusses those who will and will not receive salvation. In particular it says:
...the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”
I do not doubt that for many, the last line of this famous text is the most challenging. To feed the hungry, clothe the naked and welcome the stranger are comparatively easier things to do when the hungry, naked and stranger seem to be in challenging circumstances through no fault of their own. However, to be concerned with the well-being of the guilty, of those who have harmed others, and to recognize their guilt without denying their humanity is necessarily more challenging. I acknowledge that.
In affirming the immutable human dignity of the guilty, we should not seek to dismiss their guilt or blame it abstractly on social factors beyond their control. That also seems to me to be a way of denying their human dignity. To say that someone has human dignity is to say that they have inherent value and that they have free will and must bear responsibility for their actions.
Those who have committed crimes, especially violent crimes, have likely participated in acts of dehumanization by denying the dignity of others or by using them as merely a means to their own ends. It clearly does no good then for the state or others to also participate in this process of dehumanization by seeking to deny the humanity of the perpetrator, either by pretending that they did not have agency in their situation or by seeking to treat them in a way commensurate with an animal.
Following a dehumanizing act of crime, the response from the system and from society, as a whole, should be to seek rehumanization. This should include both holding an individual accountable and calling them up to behave in accordance with their humanity. Our response to dehumanization should not be further dehumanization, but rather rehumanization. Otherwise, we will have not actually established a distinction in the underlying mentality between ourselves and the criminal.
Sir Thomas More made the following observation about how dehumanization contributes to crime. He observes in his book Utopia:
If you do not find a remedy to these evils it is a vain thing to boast of your severity in punishing theft, which, though it may have the appearance of justice, yet in itself is neither just nor convenient; for if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this but that you first make thieves and then punish them?
Aside from any normative or moral arguments about dehumanization and rehumanization of criminals, there is an obvious practical advantage to seeking rehumanization. It is a fact that most criminals do end up being released. Therefore, the extent to which they have parted company with their previous modes of behaviour has consequential implications for the security of everyone else.
Theoretically, a society could seek to solve this problem by not releasing criminals ever, but aside from being unjust, this would be enormously expensive. Saving the government money is certainly the least important or compelling reason to seek to reduce recidivism, but it is a reason nonetheless.
Even criminals who are incarcerated for life can do great harm to others, such as guards, fellow prisoners or the general public. Those who think permanent incarceration is a solution should remember that Allen Legere, one of Canada's most notorious serial killers, killed most of his victims after escaping from prison. Even if someone is sentenced to spend the rest of their life behind bars, it still makes all of us safer to see their rehabilitation. As I said earlier, in practice, most of those who go into prison will come out at some point or other.
In calling for the creation of a national framework to reduce recidivism, this bill particularly highlights the importance of strong communities and not-for-profit organizations. I know this is not an accident. Meaningful human community associated with responsibilities and obligations, furnished through natural institutions like family, workplace and neighbourhood, is what helps us to learn and practice virtues that allow us to live meaningful and happy lives together.
Community is important for the development of character and for rehabilitation. Community can also in some sense be part of the problem, when people are plugged into communities that reward or reinforce anti-social behaviour. In such cases, people need to have new communities made available to them. However, we do not make criminals into good citizens by alienating them from their humanity. Nor do we make criminals into good citizens by alienating them from all kinds of community.
Government is many things, but its biggest weakness is that it is not a community. While governments create legal frameworks and provide programs, they do not embody the unique characteristics or competencies of communities. Although governments can play a supportive role, a recognition of the unique competencies of voluntary communities that must receive former criminals and nurture them in the development of virtue is why this bill emphasizes the role that partnerships must play as part of a national framework on reducing recidivism.
Having quoted scripture on Sir Thomas More, I will now rely on the film The Shawshank Redemption to help elucidate my final point. Following the suicide of a recently released prisoner, one of the others observed, “These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them.”
The adjustment to release is very challenging. The state takes responsibility for incarcerating people and then releasing them, but what is really important for combatting recidivism is the process by which released prisoners are able to integrate themselves into a new community, which will help them further develop new patterns of behaviour. The transition out, and in particular the support of communities welcoming released prisoners, is necessary for reducing recidivism. The government cannot do this work on its own, but it can help.
During the tenure of the last Parliament, I had an opportunity to visit with Cal Maskery and the team at Harvest House Atlantic in Moncton. Harvest House is a community hub for people who have recently been released from prison. It includes an emergency shelter, step-up housing, addictions recovery and skills training, and it is supported through donations and government programs.
Cal himself served time in prison, but then he turned his life around. Cal met his wife while he was in prison. She was a volunteer helping those who were incarcerated. They got married on the day of Cal's release. I was deeply inspired by Cal's story and by the work Harvest House does. This is the kind of work that needs more support through this bill.
I have also had the opportunity to visit the prison in my own riding on a couple of occasions. I encourage all members to take the opportunity to visit prisons, talk to prisoners and staff, and hear about the challenges and hopes of those who are there. I have been inspired in this context by the work of my uncle, a professional musician who runs a charity called Concerts for Hope. He brings other professional musicians with him to perform classical music concerts in prisons across the United States. Presenting convicted criminals with beautiful music promotes the rehumanization of hardened criminals and seeks to inspire in them a renewed sense of hope.
For rehumanization and reducing recidivism, it seems to me that hope is the key thing. To hope is essential for any human being. To turn their lives around, those who have committed crimes need hope: hope that something different is possible, hope that one day they can find purpose in serving others and hope, like the good thief on the cross, that even in the face of the worst imaginable punishment, there is an opportunity for grace as long as breath remains.
