Debates of Oct. 18th, 2018

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, since 2015, the government has been very clear about its commitments to Canadians. Broad criminal justice system reform is central to those commitments.

The government followed through, first by introducing major legislation that would protect the vulnerable, meet the needs of victims and keep our communities safe. It also promised to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.

Further, the government vowed to implement recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, regarding the restriction of the use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with mental illness. Today, the government is following through with it once again.

Bill C-83 represents a groundbreaking shift in Canada's approach to federal corrections. At its core is a focus on ensuring that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment, one that is conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety and protection of the public.

With this bill, the government proposes to eliminate segregation. We will eliminate it in a manner that continues to ensure institutions are secure. It will help reduce the rate of violence in federal institutions and provide inmates in need with support. This is an effective, practical and proactive approach to managing inmate safety.

For the first time in history, there will be a requirement in law for consideration of broad systemic and background factors unique to indigenous inmates in corrections decision-making.

All of that said, at the heart of this legislation is the elimination of segregation and the introduction of structured intervention units to manage inmates at higher risk. It would create structured intervention units, or SIUs, as a practical new tool for institutions. They would be established at numerous institutions. These SIUs would provide a safer environment for inmates. Inmates in SIUs would have the opportunity to be out of cell for at least four hours per day, offering more opportunity for human interaction.

If we are all being honest here, we know that there are times in prison that some inmates cannot be in the general population. These new SIU proposals would address the safety risks of those inmates who could not be managed in the mainstream inmate population.

Those members on the right are going to say that we should throw them in the hole. In fact, the Conservatives put out a release that pretty much said that. Those members on the left are going to say that we should not separate them at all, that we should leave them in the general population. However, when problems such as gang hostilities are brewing, this is not an option either.

We need a solution that would ensure that offenders can be separated from the general population when needed but also to ensure that those who cannot be in the general population for their safety or the safety of others can still have meaningful contact and programming.

Under this legislation, all interventions would be tailored to the specific needs of offenders to address the behaviours that led to their movement to the SIU.

They would have daily visits from health care professionals.

After five days in the SIU, a decision would be made about whether or not to keep the inmate there. That decision would take into account the inmate's mental health care needs and if appropriate unique indigenous factors, including systematic and background factors.

Inmates assigned to an SIU would have their correctional plan updated to ensure they receive the most effective programs at the appropriate time during their assignment in the unit and to prepare them for reintegration into the mainstream inmate population.

They would have meaningful human contact with other compatible inmates and in some circumstances even visitors.

This is a major step forward but not the only one we have taken.

The new bill builds on important investments the government has made to date.

Budget 2018 invested $20.33 million over five years and $5.54 million per year after that to further support the mental health needs of federal inmates. Funds will be largely targeted towards providing enhanced mental health supports for women in federal correctional facilities across Canada. That is on top of budget 2017 funding of $57.8 million over five years, and $13.6 million per year after that to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities.

All of that said, our work is not done. We can all agree that we need to do better in our correctional system.

We are transforming the way we manage inmates whose behaviour poses a security and safety risk that cannot be managed within the mainstream inmate population. More broadly, we need to acknowledge and address the cycles that contribute to crime and the unique needs and risks of vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples.

We need to make sure we are not only holding guilty parties to account for what they have done, but that we are creating an environment that fosters rehabilitation for the safety of all.

This is the right choice at the right time. I call on all members to join me in supporting Bill C-83, so that our correctional institutions can better fulfill their important goals of safety and rehabilitation.

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

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

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

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

Does my colleague think this will work?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have time for a very brief question.

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

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

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

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

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

As always, I will begin by saying hello to my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are watching today, as I am told every time I go door to door.

I also want to tell them that the issue we are discussing today is a very delicate subject. We are talking about the prison environment and about people's lives, namely, the lives of victims of crime and the lives of criminals in prison. This subject can be unsettling, and people often have very strong views on one side or the other. Some people want a really tough-on-crime approach, while others want a softer approach, for reasons that are equally legitimate on both sides.

I would like to ease into the debate and explain the Conservative caucus's take on Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our public safety critic, was the commanding officer of the Régiment de la Chaudière. I have a lot of faith in him. Today he moved a motion calling on the House to simply end the debate on Bill C-83. My colleague believes that the bill is so botched that we need to shut down debate. In other words, we want to stop this bill and keep it from moving forward or being voted on in this place.

What I find interesting is that the NDP members have said that the bill does not go far enough in terms of protecting people who are incarcerated, while we are saying that it goes too far because it compromises the safety of prison guards and Canadians in general. Given that the motion moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will not be voted on right away, I will address some of the main aspects of this bill.

I want to address my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. The bill would eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on administrative segregation. These opinions are often based on Hollywood movies. Administrative segregation is used when an inmate is imprisoned for life, or for 10 or 2 years. Inmates serving a life sentence already know that they are not getting out of prison and that they will probably die there, even though there is a provision allowing them to request a discharge after 25 years and leave prison, even in very serious cases of premeditated murder.

Nevertheless, life in prison is a very long period of time for someone who is incarcerated. How can the correctional facility and the guards compel or force this prisoner to comply with disciplinary guidelines? The prison guards are ordinary men and women, with normal lives, who go home at night, who have children, and all that. How are they meant to impose order every day in prison when there are inmates who will be there for the rest of their lives? These lifers could go so far as to kill another inmate since they will be in prison either way.

What I am saying is that correctional facilities need access to measures that are psychologically difficult for prisoners, like segregation, otherwise known as the hole. I do not think that is a good word, since they are no longer holes. They are real and proper cells, just used as a means of segregation.

The inmates eat well enough, and they have access to sanitation facilities. Prisons are not like Alcatraz in the 19th century. We are talking about orderly, coordinated disciplinary segregation that gives correctional officers some measure of control over hardened criminals who do not follow the rules unless they are afraid of ending up in segregation.

This bill would eliminate that. Considering the argument I just laid out, we think that is totally ridiculous. The bill would also replace those facilities with structured intervention units, but it does not tell us exactly what those units are or how they will work.

The bill also talks about using a body scanner, and that is one part of the bill we support, as do corrections professionals and unions. Visitors often find ways that I will not describe in detail to bring drugs and other objects, such as cell phones, to prisoners. That is not allowed. Using a body scanner could make life easier for corrections officers, visitors and prisoners because there would be no need to conduct uncomfortable searches.

The bill specifies that exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders diagnosed with mental health issues need to be formalized. It is about time.

Speaking for myself, there is something I find intriguing. The bill comes in response to recent superior court decisions that found that indefinite segregation was unacceptable under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to respond to something my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood said in answer to a question I asked 15 or 20 minutes ago. He told me that we make law, but the courts and judges interpret the law.

Nowhere in the Canadian Constitution does it say that lawmakers do not have the right to interpret the law. It is ironic to hear a lawmaker say something so absurd, because we interpret laws every day in the House of Commons. We interpret them in debate and in committee. We review laws, we rewrite laws, we pass laws and we repeal laws. The role of interpreting law belongs as much to the legislative branch as to the executive branch. The executive branch is even required to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to evaluate every bill through the lens of the charter.

Distinguished Professor Christopher Manfredi of McGill University, who is recognized by his peers around the world, said that the interpretation of each of the three branches is important because they each have their own interpretation of Canadian law and that we achieve better results for Canadians when there is vigorous competition between the powers.

In conclusion, I will say that we could have a philosophical debate about the existence of prisons. No one thinks that prisons are wonderful. At a human level, I believe prisons are probably the most horrible thing there is. However, the historical evolution of humanity shows that this is the only known way to ensure that the most dangerous members of our society will not have any further criminal impact on others. The objective is public safety. The Canadian government's main objective is Canadians' safety. That is why I told the member from Scarborough—Guildwood that he should have instead introduced another bill that emphasizes the government's role in protecting Canadians and that tells the court that it is absolutely wrong about administrative segregation in prison. It is unfortunate, but we must have prisons.

As I reiterated in my arguments, administrative segregation is the only real tool that ensures that prisoners serving a life sentence, for example, have a psychological constraint preventing them from harming other inmates in jail. How can we control a lifer without administrative segregation? It is good for the effectiveness of prisons and for the safety of guards.

We hope that the government will reverse course on this bill. I do not understand why the NDP does not want to support the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which believes that ending the practice of administrative segregation will jeopardize the safety of correctional officers.

I thank the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou for listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to remind the House that laws do not take precedence over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why Bill C-83 exists.

Members opposite seem to be saying that there will not be any solitary confinement at all and that there will be no way to deal with dangerous inmates. I would like to remind the House that there will be structured intervention units where inmates will have access to mental health care.

What do we do in cases like that of Ms. Smith, the young woman who died as a result of her time in solitary confinement? That is why we introduced this bill. What solution is my colleague proposing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for that enlightening speech. He may enable the government to improve the bill it introduced today, Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.

The bill would enact a number of measures, as listed in the summary: eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional institutions; replace those facilities with structured intervention units; use body scanners on inmates; establish guidelines for access to health care; and formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders, and offenders with diagnosed mental illness.

In a few days, this Parliament will be three years old. The Liberals have done all kinds of damage in those three years, and we can add this bill to the list. They have not thought this through. The Liberals do not know what they are talking about.

Let us look at each point individually. The first amendment eliminates the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation. On October 19, 2015, I had the privilege of being elected to represent the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, and I am so proud to do so. There is a correctional facility in my riding called Donnacona Institution. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and I recently had the privilege of visiting that institution, as luck would have it. We do our due diligence, and we know what we are talking about, because we went there for ourselves to meet with the management and the various unions. We even met some inmates. We did not see a hole during our visit. The Liberals seem to want to eliminate something that does not exist and replace it with something else that will do the same thing, but with fewer restrictions.

I am a father. Parents are responsible for disciplining their children. We teach our children that actions have consequences. Of course, they are not the same as those imposed on inmates in maximum security. Rules are put in place. There are rules, and correctional officers have tools. Unfortunately, the Liberal government wants to take away one of those tools. It wants to limit the number of days of intervention and take away this tool in order to make inmates more comfortable, inmates who have done wrong or are looking for security. It is rather appalling.

What is the government's motivation for eliminating solitary confinement and creating structured intervention units or SIUs? I will try to get used to the acronym, but I hope this legislation will not have to be enforced. It is quite an invention. The Liberals improvised. They decided that what the Conservatives did was wrong, that they are too mean, that they segregate people who have done wrong, and that they are too harsh with inmates.

One person's rights end where another person's begin. On this side of the House, we support protecting victims. We want these inmates, who have acted inappropriately in a society like ours, to face consequences. They should not be encouraged. These people must face consequences. These consequences are tools for corrections officers.

The government wants to eliminate administrative segregation, create SIUs and limit the number of days. It wants to take away consequences for inmates by limiting the number of hours a day.

Are they going to give every inmate a cake on their birthday? Are they going to roll out the red carpet when inmates arrive at Donnacona? Let us be serious here.

I must acknowledge that the government did include something worthwhile in the bill. Life is a mystery. After meeting with corrections officers and management from institutions like Donnacona, the government introduced the idea of scanners. These scanners are found in airports and even here in Parliament. People go through various checks. In penitentiaries, inmates can be strip-searched. Officers have a little metal mirror they can use to do an external check.

Yesterday, October 17, was a sad day for Canada because the government legalized marijuana. As its very name states, organized crime is organized. These people unfortunately discovered that they could use body orifices to hide things. Corrections management and officers said one of their priorities was to stop inmates and visitors from bringing drugs, cell phones and tools into penitentiaries. Criminals have a lot more time than we do to think up ingenious solutions, because we have jobs. They may work, but they do not have the same objectives as we do. They look for ways to build tools and get access to the outside world.

One thing that was addressed during our meeting last week at Donnacona was the importance of providing scanners. It seems that the government across the way is going to allow them, but we are a long way from unpacking scanners at Donnacona and other maximum-security institutions in Canada. This should be a priority. It should be considered an essential tool.

Of course, they are going to ask why the Conservatives did not take care of it. At the time, there were other technologies. Today, there are scanners. Institutions should get the tools they need to impose restrictions. There are the infamous drones, there are scanners, and there are other important tools.

The bill I am reading today seems to include some things that are more permissive and inclusive that will make life more comfortable for our inmates, but we need to be protecting the victims. We need to be strict. We need to command respect and ensure that there are consequences for these people so that they get the message. We are not against reintegration programs, but we think they should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Now the programs are being used in a general, inclusive and permissive way. Life in Canada's penitentiaries is a party. We have to be responsible and ensure that the tools are put in place quickly. This government should make it a priority to have scanners installed.

I think this will vastly and quickly improve the situation in the penitentiaries. It is a priority tool. It is important. We cannot accept this bill, even though we see the beginnings of positive solutions in it.

Clearly we cannot support this bill because of this government's improvisation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech, even though I do not agree with everything he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to add my voice in this debate around Bill C-83.

We are committed to ensuring that we not only have the tools to hold the guilty parties accountable for breaking the law but also to create an environment that fosters rehabilitation, so that we will have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities. This bill proposes to transform the way our federal correctional system works in this country to meet those critical goals.

A central element of this transformation is eliminating the use of segregation. Segregation would be replaced by the safety and intervention-focused structured intervention units, or SIUs for short. SIUs would operate in a much different way from what is currently the case with segregation. I will get to those crucial differences in just a few moments.

First, let me just say that in any large population there will be people who pose risk to those around them and to themselves. That reality holds true and perhaps is compounded in a population of offenders housed together under one roof. Correctional institutions are home to inmates whose behaviour can be dangerous to others or to themselves, and disruptive or highly difficult for those around them to endure.

It is a very challenging environment, both for inmates and for the professional, brave and hard-working correctional employees. Corrections officials and staff must have a tool they can use in cases where an inmate cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. For many years, segregation has been that tool.

However, the practice has come under fire in recent years. Watchdogs like the correctional investigator and the Auditor General of Canada have urged the government to restrict its use or eliminate it altogether. Two recent constitutional challenges in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia have found the legislation governing administrative segregation to be unconstitutional.

As of December and January, administrative segregation will no longer be a tool available in those two provinces. That means that if an incident happens in a yard and inmates need to be separated while witness statements are taken, as correctional workers find out what happened, correctional officials will not be able to use administrative segregation. This means that if several members of a gang are threatening another inmate, there will be no administrative segregation unit to use. All of those involved will simply stay in the general population. This is a recipe for disaster.

Let us be very clear that when the Conservatives say we should just keep using “administrative segregation”, which what they called it in government, or “solitary confinement”, as they call it in opposition, they are telling correctional officials to do something they will not have the legal authority to do anymore. Those sections of the act will not exist in those two provinces.

What the Conservatives are really saying, then, is to just keep all of the inmates in the general population, regardless of the risk they pose to guards and health care workers and regardless of the risk from other inmates. It is not a real plan. It is reckless, and it is reckless thinking that we would expect to hear from people who have no real policies and no ability to make tough choices that governing this country requires.

Of course, those two court rulings came subsequent to the tragic case of Ashley Smith, who died in custody in 2007 at the age of 19. The coroner's inquest into Ashley's death focused on administrative segregation and the treatment of inmates with mental illness.

The Government of Canada has committed to implementing recommendations from that inquest. The mandate letters of three ministers also commit them to addressing gaps in service for indigenous peoples and for those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. Both of those groups are not only overrepresented in the overall federal corrections system, but also in the inmate population in segregation.

Some progress has been made by Correctional Service Canada over the past few years. Canada's correctional investigator said in March of last year that CSC “for the last few years has dedicated a lot of time and effort to address the gross overuse of administrative segregation.” For example, CSC implemented policy changes that led to a sharp decline in the use of administrative segregation placements between 2015 and 2017. Those changes have ensured that inmates with serious mental illness who actively engage in self-injury and are at elevated or imminent risk of suicide are not admissible for segregation.

According to the correctional investigator's 2016-17 report, the average stay in segregation has also seen a significant drop, from 34 days in 2015 to 23 days in 2017. The correctional investigator calls these reductions “encouraging”, but he cautions that there is more work to be done.

The time has come to better focus on interventions and on safety, and that is what this important piece of legislation would do.

Under Bill C-83, segregation would be eliminated outright from Canada's federal corrections system. In its place, the government is proposing to create structured intervention units. SIUs would be established in numerous institutions. They would offer a secure and structured environment to address the safety risks of inmates who cannot be managed or integrated into the mainstream inmate population.

The initial decision to move an inmate from the mainstream inmate population to an SIU would be made by a CSC staff member under the institutional head. This decision would be based on an evaluation of the inmate's needs, including health needs, and the safety risks for themselves, others and the institution. The staff member would have to be satisfied that there were no reasonable alternatives to placement in an SIU.

The inmate would receive a notice explaining the reasons for his or her movement, the right to retain and instruct counsel, and the right to make representations regarding movement back to the mainstream inmate population, or other alternatives.

Unlike segregation, SIUs would provide inmates with uninterrupted interventions and programs tailored to address their specific and unique needs and risks. Inmates would also have the opportunity to be outside of their cells for a longer period of time, at least four hours a day rather than the two hours a day currently practised. At least two of those four hours would allow inmates to interact with others.

In addition, inmates would receive daily visits from health care professionals. The plan would include additional staff to ensure that inmates could be moved safely throughout the new SIUs as they continued to receive programming and time with other compatible inmates within the SIU.

This is truly a revolutionary approach that would lead to better rehabilitation, which would mean less recidivism once inmates were released. Fewer inmates reoffending would mean less crime, and it would mean fewer victims in our communities.

Bill C-83 also addresses key recommendations from the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith. In addition to ending the practice of placing female inmates in conditions of long-term segregation, the bill would introduce patient advocates at designated penitentiaries to help inmates navigate their health care rights and responsibilities.

All of this would facilitate the reintegration of offenders into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. It would also support their treatment and rehabilitation in preparation for their eventual release into the community. That, in turn, would support safety in our communities, because the vast majority of inmates will eventually complete their sentences and will be freed from custody.

We must do everything we can to ensure that offenders are as well equipped as possible to be productive, law-abiding citizens by addressing the underlying behaviours that got them into trouble to begin with. This is what we need to focus on.

Public safety is not well served by seeing offenders released more hardened, more bitter or more resentful than when they came in. Nor is it ever a good thing for inmates with health or mental health issues to be undiagnosed or to go untreated while in federal custody. That is why the establishment of the SIUs under this legislation would be such a big and positive step forward on the safety front. I am confident that it would mean better correctional outcomes for inmates, more security for the staff, safer institutions and greater public safety in the long run.

Bill C-83 would also correct a long-standing problem that has developed over time for Correctional Service Canada. When the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was written in 1992, CSC had facilities that were entirely dedicated to a single security classification. However, over time, CSC's infrastructure became mixed, with institutions often having, for instance, a maximum- and a medium-security wing. Today virtually all the facilities are mixed facilities. In fact, all the women's institutions are, indeed, mixed. The act, however, was never changed to reflect that fact.

Bill C-83 would ensure that CSC had the clear and proper legal authorities to operate and move inmates from one wing of an institution to another wing in the same facility.

This legislation would also grant CSC the legal authority to use body scanners. As we all know, drugs and other prohibited contraband find their way into prisons, despite efforts to keep them out. Body scanners would provide an important tool for corrections guards that is less invasive than physical searches and more effective in detecting contraband.

The bill would also ensure that audio recordings of parole hearings would be made available to victims who attended a hearing. The existing Corrections and Conditional Release Act permits a registered victim who was not in attendance to receive an audio copy of the hearing, but it does not allow someone who was there in person to have one. During the government's consultations, we heard loud and clear that for many victims, a parole hearing is such an emotional moment that the time seems to fly by. Later, they have difficulty clearly remembering what transpired. Section 34 of Bill C-83 would ensure that victims who attended in person could receive an audio recording of the hearing afterward.

Another important aspect of the bill stems from the Gladue Supreme Court decision of 1999. This was the case that required the Correctional Service to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making. Over the past 20 years, CSC has developed internal policies to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling, but Bill C-83 would go further by ensuring that the Gladue principles were fully enshrined in the CCRA.

I am proud to stand with a government that continues to take action to reform the criminal justice system, and I am proud to stand here today in support of this important bill.

As I mentioned at the top of my speech, this bill would ensure that CSC would have the tools to hold guilty parties accountable for what they have done while creating an environment that fosters rehabilitation. Effective rehabilitation means that we would have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities.

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

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

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

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

[Karen McCrimmon]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest concerns about Bill C-83 has been identified by many. The correctional investigator, the John Howard Society and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies have all identified one core piece that goes back to a recommendation made by Justice Arbour a number of years ago relating specifically to her recommendation that dealt with judicial oversight. Really, at this point, we are talking about any kind of oversight at all.

In the bill as it stands currently, notwithstanding any ability of the commissioner or the warden to continue to examine a person's presence in what essentially is still solitary confinement under a different name, even with the recommendation of health care professionals, the ultimate decision would still lie with them. There would still be a lack of third-party investigation. There would still be a lack of independent oversight and recourse in the event that the abuses we have seen take place in the past occurred again under this new system.

As I asked the minister, would the government reconsider and go forth in a direction that complies more strongly, or at all, with the B.C. Supreme Court decision and with recommendations that have been made by many experts throughout civil society?

[Karen McCrimmon]

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

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