Debates of Oct. 19th, 2018

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on second reading of Bill C-83, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

As the Minister of Public Safety told us, our government's top priority is protecting Canadians from natural disasters, threats to national security, and, of course, crime. We are doing a number of things to protect Canadian communities from criminal activity.

One of the most significant things we can do to enhance public safety is make our correctional system as effective as possible in dealing with people who have committed crimes so when their sentences are over they do not commit new ones. Bill C-83, the legislation before us today, will significantly strengthen the ability of our corrections system to achieve that objective and keep Canadians safe.

Following recent court decisions on administrative segregation, Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units, SIUs, which will allow offenders to be separated from mainstream inmate population as required while maintaining their access to rehabilitative programming, interventions and mental health care. If passed, the bill would allow Canada to take a major step forward to having a modern evidence-based correctional system that understands clearly the nexus between the mental health of offenders and the safety of communities.

As colleagues may not be familiar with the concept of administrative segregation, let me take a moment to provide the chamber with a foundational understanding of what it means.

The Correctional Service of Canada defines “administrative segregation” as “the separation of an inmate to prevent association with other inmates, when specific legal requirements are met, other than pursuant to a disciplinary decision.” Even now, while administrative segregation remains a tool that the Correctional Service of Canada has at its disposal, the objective is always to ensure that it is only used for the shortest period of time necessary when there is no reasonable or safe alternative. Clearly, isolating someone almost all day, every day is an extreme measure that must be used rarely and with caution.

In 1955, the United Nations congress on the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders was convened. There, delegates adopted the first iteration of the standard minimal rules for the treatment of prisoners. These represent the very first universally acknowledged minimal standards for the management of prison facilities and the treatment of prisoners. They inform the development of prison policies and practices the world over. They stood the test of time, serving as a standard-bearer for nearly half a century.

In 2011, it was decided that these ought to be updated, and by 2015 a new set of revised rules had been crafted. In December 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the revised rules, known as the “Nelson Mandela rules”, to honour the legacy of the late president of South Africa, who spent 27 years in prison in the course of his struggle for global human rights, equity, democracy and the promotion of a culture of peace. This is important to understand, because one of the primary updates that were made when the Mandela rules were released in 2015 was in the area of discipline and the use of solitary confinement. For the first time, solitary confinement is clearly defined and strict limitations are recommended for its use.

The Mandela rules define “solitary” as “the confinement of inmates for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact.” They prohibit prolonged solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days.

Many have argued that these kinds of conditions have the potential to be damaging to the mental health of inmates, with outcomes such as claustrophobia, anger, depression, hallucinations, insomnia, and obsessive ideation or fixation on dying. I am sure all members in this chamber will agree that these outcomes are not ones that we want to see for inmates, who I will remind members are, by and large, going to be released into Canadian society. It is in no one's interest, least of all the general public's, for offenders to enter a correctional institution and come out worse off than when they went in. Although the Mandela rules are not binding on Canada or any other UN member country, they are an important source of guidance and information.

We know that we can always strive to do better when it comes to our criminal justice system and the safety of our communities. That is the spirit behind this bill. Under this new legislation, SIUs would be established to provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety and security risks of inmates who cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. Inmates in an SIU would receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific situation, have an opportunity for a minimum of four hours a day outside of their cell, have an opportunity for at least two hours a day of meaningful human contact and receive continued programming to help them progress toward their correctional plan objectives.

At the end of the day, all members of this place must remember this. Almost all federal offenders will return to the community one day. Safe and humane custody and access to programs and services while incarcerated increase the chance that offenders will come back as law-abiding contributing members of society. This creates greater public safety for all Canadians.

It is for these reasons that I support Bill C-83 and encourage all members to do the same.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up some very good points. There are some parts of Bill C-83 that we support, like the scanners that we would like to see a bit further.

Earlier, we asked two different members of the Liberal government about whether they had done the costs. We note in the Liberals' departmental plans that even before wage increases for our correctional officers it is showing, with inflation, about an 8.8% cut in spending. We asked the parliamentary secretary and she said to ignore that because they have spent so much in the last two years. I introduced a Library of Parliament report that shows they actually cut spending to Correctional Service in their first three years of government. We asked another Liberal member of Parliament, who said that the Conservatives cut money to border services. I would be happy to table this report that shows the Liberals have cut money to CBSA since they came to power.

Has the member across the way done the study on how much this is going to cost in services? Where are they going to find the money to provide the extra officers to escort the prisoners and to renovate the prisons, when they are showing in their own departmental plan that they are cutting resources to Correctional Services? This is not a partisan question. This is a safety issue for our corrections officers. How are we going to provide resources to them when we are showing at the same time that we are burdening them with extra work, but we are cutting their resources in the Liberals' plan?

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

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Library of Parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be rising in the House to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Before I go any further, I want to express my unqualified admiration and appreciation for the incredible and very important work done by the employees of the Correctional Service of Canada and Drummond Institution, especially the mental health professionals.

I have had the opportunity to meet with their union representatives on several occasions to learn more about what they are dealing with. What they go through every day is not easy. I take my hat off to them for doing such a terrific job. They deserve the highest praise.

I should note that these employees have been affected by the infamous Phoenix pay system problems. In 2017, 60% of the employees of Drummond Institution had issues with the Phoenix pay system. Sadly, the people at Drummond Institution have had a rough time, whether because of their poor working conditions or because of the Phoenix pay system fiasco.

Again, I thank the people at Drummond Institution who work hard to keep our communities safe while inmates serve their sentences. They also do all the work involved in rehabilitating the inmates so that they can contribute to our society and our community when they leave prison.

I now want to get into the context around Bill C-83 because that has an impact on today's debate. By the minister's own admission, the bill was only ever meant to address some of the concerns expressed by the courts in their rulings.

First, the Supreme Court of British Columbia explicitly said that there are not enough tools for ensuring that a lawyer is present during administrative segregation hearings. Inmates are put in administrative segregation without independent third-party oversight, which would allow for a second opinion before proceeding.

It also mentioned the inhumane conditions resulting from overuse of administrative segregation and the fact that a predetermined time limit on the use of administrative segregation had been ignored. That is extremely important. There has to be a limited number of days and even hours during which inmates can remain in administrative segregation.

That ties in with part of the ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which states that more than 48 hours in administrative segregation may cause serious and irreversible mental health problems. Earlier we were talking about rehabilitation. That is another very important aspect. When people have served their sentence and reintegrate into society, we do not want their mental health to be aggravated by their stay in prison. We want them to be rehabilitated so that they can contribute to our community in a positive and constructive way.

That is the most troubling part.

The use of administrative segregation has been found to be abusive by the correctional investigator countless times and in countless reports that he has published over the past decade.

In addition, some vulnerable populations, such as women with mental health issues and indigenous peoples, are overrepresented in administrative segregation. More than 42% of inmates in administrative segregation are indigenous. This situation is obviously quite problematic.

What exactly does this bill do? We are concerned that it is nothing more than a repackaged administrative segregation system. The name is different, but inmates can still be kept in segregation for an indeterminate period of time, for up to 20 hours a day. The government claims that this is a big step forward, since the maximum will be 20 hours instead of 22, but that is essentially the same. This is obviously just window dressing.

This can cause permanent damage to inmates' mental health. These inmates will be returning to society. We do not want their mental health to be permanently damaged. On the contrary, we want them to be rehabilitated and to reintegrate into society.

I am a teacher by profession. Some of my colleagues teach in the adult education program at the Drummond Institution to help inmates do everything they can to improve their situation when they return to society. These are good things that are happening in our correctional institutions. It is important to mention them and to point out all the work that is being done, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

The current situation is very difficult. Very painful things have happened. There was the tragic death of Ashley Smith and the subsequent recommendations from the coroner. In June 2017, 399 federal inmates were in administrative segregation and 94 of them had been there for over 90 consecutive days. Over 90 consecutive days in administrative segregation can have an impact on a person's mental health. It is just not right.

Instead, we need to improve the situation in our correctional institutions. How is it that we still have overcrowded prisons? How is it that we still have a lack of mental health care professionals? How is it that there is a lack of programs for inmates so that they can get the training they need to find jobs when they get out of prison?

That is extremely important. We need a different approach to administrative segregation, with limits and external oversight so that there is a different point of view from that of prison workers.

In recent years, the two rulings that I mentioned earlier have shown how important it is to implement legislation that is much more structured than Bill C-83, which will do little to to change the situation.

Many studies have shown that prolonged administrative segregation can trigger or aggravate certain psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, depression, impulsiveness, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, and more. It can increase the number of suicide attempts or make inmates suicidal.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

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

We will continue with the parliamentary secretary .

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-83.

One of the things that I find truly remarkable about this bill is that specific measures were taken for the rehabilitation process of inmates with mental health problems.

Before becoming an MP, I promised myself to go see things that I could not see as a regular citizen. The first such thing was to visit a military base and meet the men and women who are committed to serving the country.

The second was to visit a prison. I knew that the reality in penitentiaries was quite different from that of ordinary Canadians. In December 2016, I had the privilege of visiting a penitentiary and that experience had a real impact on me. I saw the conditions that criminals are living in. There certainly are people who deserve to be there, but they will leave prison one day. It is important to provide all the necessary services to give them the best chances to reintegrate into civil society.

I visited two men's prisons. The inmates not only have trouble obeying the law, but also have mental health issues. I am very proud that this bill will give them access to services that can help them learn to deal with their mental illness. I think a holistic, comprehensive solution to all this is key to ensuring that people have a chance to deal with their problems. In many cases, mental illness is what led these people to break the law.

That is why I am very proud to participate in this debate and support this bill. The program will enable inmates to reintegrate thanks to better services that help them deal with their mental illness.

The second reason I am so proud to participate in developing this program is that it will give us an opportunity to take a close look at issues affecting indigenous populations. As we all know, 4% of Canada's population is indigenous. I went to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to visit the penitentiary, where the majority of the population is indigenous. In general, penitentiary populations are between 26% and 28% indigenous.

That is six to seven times higher than their demographic weight, which I think indicates a number of things. First, we need to do better with respect to many issues affecting indigenous communities. Second, systemic discrimination exists in our criminal justice system. We need to do everything we can to tackle these issues. I was very proud to hear the speech given by the Minister of Justice last June, I think, when she was introducing Bill C-75. She said that we are going to try to address this, because it is extremely important.

As a black Canadian, I am well aware that people in the black community are also victims. There were a lot of black inmates in the prison I visited in 2016, even though it was in a very remote area of Saskatchewan. This also indicates that there is a problem with systemic discrimination in our justice system. We need to address and resolve these issues. I am proud to say that the provisions of this bill will give us the opportunity to ensure that all services are provided, which is very important and can improve the chances that these individuals will be able to successfully integrate into society. That is the goal.

We are not like some people who believe that humans can be treated like animals, that you can put them in a cage, lock the door and throw away the key. That is not acceptable. That is inhumane. That view is not worthy of a civilized society such as ours. We must ensure that we properly address these issues. When people break the law, there definitely will be consequences. Those people deserve to be in jail, but we must plan for and consider the day that they will get out of jail.

We cannot just punish them. We also have to teach them how to be members of our civilized society and how to be good citizens. In order to do that, we have an obligation to ensure that they receive all services they need to better adapt and better reintegrate into our society. I encourage all my colleagues who have not yet done so to follow my lead and visit a penitentiary or a prison.

That will change their minds. That will encourage members to focus on finding solutions that will help these people to get out of jail, learn their lesson and learn to obey the laws and customs of a civil society. If they do not, there will be consequences. However, we want to ensure that these people are ultimately well reintegrated into our society. That is why I am delighted to learn that we will have services to try to help these people address their mental health issues.

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

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

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

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