Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—Justice

[Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, the rule of law is so important and justice should be done by a justice system, not politics, not politicians. It is our job to write the legislation, direct the policies, but it is not our job to individually micromanage it right down to the offender level. We have the experts who are trained to do that. We should leave that work in their capable hands.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians generally know that this is absolutely wrong. It is just an outrageous situation and they are disgusted by it. I have had calls and letters.

However, even looking at this situation, we all know how child killers are at great risk when they are in general population in prison. Even considering this murderer, would she not be at great risk where she is in this healing lodge? Her own life could be in danger unless she is transferred. What does the member say to that?

[Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, he is right. This is absolutely gut-wrenching. However, it is so important for us to resist the emotional calls and to address difficult issues like this one with reason, deliberately and thoughtfully. That is exactly what we are going to do.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the Liberals believe it is outside the law for politicians to give directions to CSC on the security classification of prisoners, do they believe that section 17 of the corrections and conditional release regulations is also unlawful?

[Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a copy of that particular section, but I believe it will outline the same powers and authorities, the relationship between politicians and the departments. It is our job to write the legislation and ensure the policies are in place. It is the job of the departments to enforce those through procedures and policies.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a very brief question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, just so people are clear, healing lodges have been in existence since 1992. Surely to goodness, people would recognize they are a part of the medium security prison system.

When the murderer of Tori Stafford was transferred to the medium security prison, she would have been eligible for the healing lodge process. Would my colleague provide her thoughts on why she believes the Conservatives would not have objected to the transfer from maximum to medium? It would appear as if they were—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did say it would need to be a brief question or comment.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has 20 seconds to respond.

[Karen McCrimmon]

Madam Speaker, again, it comes back to the rule of law. We need to follow the rule of law. We need to give our policies and directions, but it is up to the individual departments to enforce them.

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

Madam Speaker, we try to find words to describe what Tori Stafford's father has expressed over the last several days and what he has been going through over the last number of years.

The hon. official opposition House leader said something that was very telling. Whenever it feels like it has gotten better, something else happens, another shoe drops, and the pain comes back. Two words come to mind when I think of what that must be for this family: nightmare and hell. The courage it has taken for a father, who has done what no parent ever wants to do, who has lost his child to express his pain and ask for his government to be there to support him. That requires a level of courage that, I admit, I, nor do I believe many of us, have. I want to thank him for reminding us that we have a responsibility that sometimes leads to contradictions.

On the one hand, we hear the pain of people who have been victims of the most despicable, heinous and horrible crimes that humanity can imagine. At the same time, we try to ensure we have a system that works. Sometimes those objectives do not even out. It is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole, which is the ultimate challenge we have in this place.

Before I go any further, I would like to mention the question I addressed to my friends in the Conservative Party on the motion before us, and it is an important to look at this, which is the rhetoric around such a debate. Quite frankly, it is our ultimate responsibility to ask questions about the comportment and the decisions that are made by an agency, or service in this case, that is under the purview of the federal government, and more specific, the public safety minister. It is our responsibility to ensure that if a mistake has been made or if the law may be out of date, that those changes be made. At the same time, as we see throughout our work and indeed in other jurisdictions, other countries, provinces and territories, the rhetoric we use as politicians is also extremely important.

I raise this because there has been a question in this place with respect to the details of these horrific crimes and the debate we are engaged in. Any criticism of the use of those details has been equated with telling people to shut up. For the record, and I will only speak for myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, we have the responsibility to raise these issues.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

I would ask my colleague to perhaps not heckle me as I talk about the type of debate we want to be engaged in. That would be appropriate.

I will go back to what she is referencing in her interruption of my speech. It is the notion that the language we use has unintended consequences. Therefore, when I referenced the situation I went through, it was not to portray myself as a victim, far from it. I am only thinking of the people in these issues, not myself. I accept that the consequence of public life is that we will hear things we do not want to hear. We will have things said to us that we do not want to hear. However, I take the my responsibility in this place very seriously.

I also take the responsibility that when an individual decides that an appropriate response to a very difficult issue is to write a member of Parliament and wish the same kind of unimaginable pain that Tori Stafford's father has felt on that member's family is not appropriate. I know we are not responsible for what some deranged individual might write to a member of Parliament, but we are responsible for how we engage in this debate and not fanning the flames on a issue that is so gut-wrenching and heartbreaking.

Therefore, in response to a question about that type of decorum, to be heckled and told that I am somehow trying to get away from this by portraying myself as a victim is completely missing the point. The Conservatives are right to pose these questions, but they are wrong to politicize the sick crimes that were committed and the pain of a father, a pain I cannot even begin to imagine. I can only hope, as we all do, that we never have to experience the same thing.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

The heckling continues, Madam Speaker, which to me says that all Canadians need to know about the approach that is being taken here. We want to do right by Tori Stafford's father, who has been let down by parliamentarians and his government. He is right to feel revictimized. No one is saying the contrary. We have a responsibility to understand that. Some members from all parties, and the words they have used, may not have expressed themselves in a way that is appropriate for this type of debate on this horrible crime. That is a mistake. I think we can own up to our own failings, despite the responsibility we have as members in this place, on how we express ourselves and talk about policy when we are thinking of this type of horrible crime. That is the contradiction we face.

I understand that we face a challenge because we have a responsibility to adopt legislation. We also have a responsibility to let judges, the corrections commissioner and others who are involved in our justice and corrections system make decisions. Our ultimate failing as politicians is that sometimes we cannot be in a position to make those decisions. Sometimes when we see that too many mistakes have been made and justice is not being served, the Conservatives are correct to point out that maybe new legislation is required. That may be a failure on this place and on us, and it certainly might seem like a failure for the government. As woefully inadequate as that might feel to people who live with the pain of crimes that have been committed against them and their families, the conclusions of this review that has already been undertaken, from what I understood from the parliamentary secretary, are so important. Legislation needs to be adopted to rectify certain situations if mistakes are made.

A question that was posed to me by one of my colleagues when this motion was tabled was the following: why was this decision made? It is a very good question. It is the essence of the question that the Conservatives are posing. That is the ultimate challenge we face, because I do not know why that decision was made. Was there an issue in the institution where the person who had committed these horrible crimes was located, and a decision was made to address specific issues that we do not know about? I do not know. That is our ask of the government today, that this will be dealt with, with due haste and expedited. I believe that, at the very least, we owe that, as woefully inadequate as that may be, to the victims in the situation.

The conclusions and a better understanding will make me more comfortable as a parliamentarian asking what is next. As the sponsor of this motion correctly pointed out, without relitigating or rehashing the debate over legislation tabled in the previous parliament, a government and parliamentarians can table legislation to resolve issues. I want to understand those issues before we move forward.

I know today that those words ring completely hollow to Tori Stafford's father, and anyone else who has been a victim of this type of crime. As I said at the outset, the constant challenge we have as policy-makers is what can we do to make sure that we have the tools to get it right. We want to get it right and get it right as quickly as possible.

On one policy piece, on this extremely challenging issue that is before us today, there is the eternal challenge of what corrections faces with regard to female offenders. I have seen it on the public safety committee, and I know the status of women committee members have seen it in the studies they have undertaken. There is a lack of resources in some cases, there are challenges with security classifications and there is a lack of maximum-security institutions. There is an existing and appropriate program for mothers and children, which the parliamentary secretary explained, that is rigorously enforced, in terms of its parameters, by corrections.

These are the constant issues that Corrections Canada and, ultimately, we as policy-makers face. We want to make sure we understand, whether it is an indigenous offender, a male offender or a female offender, whoever it may be in the corrections system, the situations and how they play out in terms of their place in the corrections system or the safety of corrections officers, the integrity of the institutions or ensuring public safety, which is the ultimate goal of the system.

There are a variety of constantly moving parts. Never has that been more apparent to me, as my party's spokesperson on public safety, than with the debate that is before us today. It is a challenge, and it is a challenge that sometimes leads us to believe, as I feel today, that we have let many Canadians down.

Many Canadians are rightfully outraged, as I am, by this situation. As the member for Mount Royal said and as the hon. opposition House leader said, we are outraged. I do not want to hear anyone else try to tell this House and indeed Canadians that we do not share their pain and frustration.

We talk about the role of healing lodges in the corrections system, the challenges in women's institutions and in men's institutions, the challenge of security classifications, the variety of considerations that are taken by corrections, and the constant tension between politicians, non-partisan judges, commissioners and others who play a role in this. I will take one lesson from this motion and from this debate that I think is incumbent on all of us, that we strive to do better for those Canadians who feel we have let them down.

I certainly hope that, regardless of a motion more substantively on legislation and policy, we are always striving to do better, make sure that the corrections system is working, and ensure public safety through different roles relating to mental health and other things that corrections has to consider. I also hope, and this is the most important piece, that we are protecting those victims from the crimes themselves, and that we are understanding, and I say this with all due respect, contrary to what was insinuated earlier, that I do not understand, living with the constant pain.

In conclusion, I will go back to those two words I said at the beginning of my speech, hell and nightmare. I can only hope that, moving forward, we make the hell and the nightmare for a father, like Tori Stafford's father, although it will likely never end, easier, if possible, and that we strive to make sure no other Canadian has to live with that type of pain.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member not only for his thoughtful and detailed presentation that was done largely without notes, which is always a great thing to see in parliamentarians' discussion and debate, but also in controlling the tone of the House by asking for heckling to stop and for us to thoughtfully consider the legislation that exists and whether there need to be changes.

I wonder if the member could comment further on what we say and how we say it in this House, contributing to fear and division, or mental health stress in people who listen to our dialogue versus really getting to the heart of the issues, to try to make better laws for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague raising that point. I should have taken the opportunity during my speech. I did yell out “quiet” to the member for the riding of Lethbridge while she was responding to me earlier and I do want to apologize for that.

This is a difficult issue. My intention here as a parliamentarian is to make sure that we get this issue right. My concern is the role that politicians should or should not play in how our system functions. That is the tension that we are faced with here today.

The involvement of political apparatus in individual cases is not conducive to achieving the objectives that we want to achieve. We also need to understand that there is a great deal of pain in hearing a response of that kind. We need to debate this issue in a respectful way. If I have failed in that, I accept that responsibility. Hopefully it is something that we can do going forward on this extremely challenging issue.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, earlier this year the justice minister condemned the decision of a trial by jury in the high-profile murder case of Colten Boushie. The Canadian justice minister came out in a tweet and condemned the decision of a trial by jury. She then met with the victim's family and introduced legislation. How does that respect the rule of law? Why is there a double standard?

Why is my colleague standing here and saying that it is not the role of Parliament when in this very Parliament we have seen the exact same thing. This is not even about condemning a decision on a verdict. This is about somebody who has already been tried. This is about the authority that we have.

How can my colleague and members of his party stand here and support such a double standard?

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the tabling of legislation.

This might seem in terms of a response to be woefully inadequate, but I believe that with the information that I hope will come from this review, understanding why the decision was made by Corrections Canada, we should then be able to properly assess whether legislation should be tabled, as was done in the situation to which the member alluded.

I cannot speak for the Minister of Justice and I cannot speak for the Liberal government and how it responds to one case or another. I can speak for myself. I hope my colleagues will allow me to speak for our party in that, if legislation is deemed necessary to address a mistake that may have been made after we have the full facts of the decision, I will consider that legislation and move forward with that.

As far as I am concerned, there is no contradiction in understanding the minister's involvement in individual cases versus the role of Parliament to adopt legislation. They are two very separate things that we consider in this place.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, clearly this is a very difficult issue put before us in this Parliament, that being the policy issues behind the decision that has been brought to light.

My colleague has called for the government to expeditiously proceed with a review. To that end, I wonder if he could elaborate on the importance of that review and whether or not the information, once the review is completed, should be made public so there is that level of accountability in terms of the facts of the case and the decisions behind it.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope that the conclusions of such a review will allow us to understand why the correctional services deemed this to be the appropriate course of action. In the event that the decision the authorities made can be called a mistake and there is perhaps a yet to be determined failing in the system, then indeed I would hope that the government would table legislation to address that issue. Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this, until I have those facts, and here I can only speak for myself, it is difficult for me to understand what legislative solution would be the most appropriate.

For all I know, the determination might have been made for factors that are outside of my knowledge. That, I recognize, is the unfortunate contradiction, and I do not know if that is the right word, but it is the word I have been using. It is the unfortunate contradiction in the debate we are faced with, because I recognize and in some ways agree with the fact that the creation of a review for the father of a victim of such a heinous crime is just not enough. I do not think anyone is saying that. We understand that it is just not enough, but I hope that the government will expedite it, that it will be the priority of the commissioner and that we will see those conclusions as soon as possible. We owe at least that to this family.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the NDP giving us his opinion on proper ways the opposition should hold these issues to account. I take my responsibility here very seriously as a member of Parliament, and I have had countless calls to my office, on Facebook accounts and others, from the public expressing its outcry about the injustice in this case.

We can get into a rut where we all of a sudden say that we should not criticize the bureaucrats, that even if they made a mistake, they are the experts. We have to hold them to account, and if we do not bring up debates like this in this place, when we have Tori Stafford's father crying that an injustice has been done, it is easy to see why the general public and our constituents may think we have lost touch with the common person.

Therefore, when parole boards release people very early and they go out and re-offend, should we not question it? Should we not bring it up? Should we not hold them to account?

The opposition here takes this responsibility very seriously. A vicious murder and rape took place, and now the perpetrator has been cascaded down, not just to a medium-security facility with prison walls, but to a healing lodge where there are remarkable amenities.

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

Madam Speaker, raising this in the House is indeed appropriate, and unfortunately we may not find agreement on how it was raised. However, on the issue of the commissioner and the folks at Correctional Services Canada, I am very ready to criticize them and tell them they have made a mistake once I have the facts.

Understanding that answer will seem unsatisfying to the victim of a heinous crime, as the member said. Therefore, the challenge here is that if the correctional service officials have indeed made a mistake, and understanding the reasoning that might have been used in the decision-making process, and should a determination be made about that and legislation is tabled, I will work with that colleague and all colleagues to consider that legislation and move forward on it. That is our responsibility, ultimately. In the meantime, it is important to understand when we get to that point of criticizing, and I will criticize public servants when I have all the facts before me.

My last point is about the healing lodge. These are both medium-security institutions and I hope we will not mischaracterize how they are laid out.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The motion before us is very simple. For anyone watching, it calls upon the House to condemn the decision to move Terri-Lynne McClintic, a convicted child rapist and murderer, from a facility where she was behind razor wire and bars to a facility that has kitchenettes and where children are present and there is no fence. This woman has served only a very short part of her life sentence. In 2012, moreover, she was convicted or pleaded guilty to violently assaulting another inmate.

What I want to do for everyone who is watching is to rebut all of the talking points being used by the Liberals and the NDP in the House today. That way when people phone Liberal and NDP MPs, they can rebut their talking points with some facts.

First of all, the Liberals are saying that Stephen Harper did this. They say that about everything. However, in this case, the transfer from a medium-security facility where this vile, disgusting woman was behind razor wire and bars to a healing lodge where there is no fence happened a few short months ago. As much as the Prime Minister would like to make this Stephen Harper's fault, this occurred recently. Things happen. That is what happens when a party is in government. How one should be judged is by one's response to it. The reality is that the Liberals have been hiding behind their bureaucrats on this. That is myth buster number one.

Number two is that the Liberals say we need a review. Why do we need a review in this case? This woman will likely never be allowed to be around children again. She murdered and violently defiled a young girl. She has assaulted prisoners. She should not be afforded a spot in a healing lodge, which is normally reserved for someone who is close to release. We do not need a review of this case. She should not be in this facility. We should just be doing the right thing.

Number three, this is about the role of healing lodges. Okay, let us make it about the role of healing lodges. Healing lodges are for aboriginal and first nations people. It has been reported in the media that family members have said this woman does not fall in that category. As well, I have seen experts in this area say that a program like this should be used for someone who is close to the end of their release. This woman is nowhere close to the end of her release, thank the Lord, and she is probably taking up the spot of a first nations person who needs this treatment. Members can push back against the Liberals on that. For the Conservative Party this is not about the role of healing lodges. We are not opposing them in general, but we are opposing one being used in the case of this disgusting woman.

Number four, this is about respecting the rule of law. Both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, as well as the NDP, have said there is not enough information and that discussing this case is not the role of Parliament. I do note that the justice minister herself, after the Colton Boushie not-guilty verdict this year, stood up and tweeted that she was committed to ensuring justice for all Canadians. Thus, she commented on the verdict of a trial, implying that justice was not done. She did that and then she met with the family associated with the case. Then, she tabled legislation immediately to change the process by which juries are selected in this country in Bill C-75.

What I do not understand is how the Liberals can condemn a decision of a trial by jury, make changes in this place, and then stand up and embrace themselves in the warm fuzzy cloak of their bureaucrats. The reality is that the government has intervened and it should not be using a double standard. The Liberals either are doing this or they are not.

The next Liberal talking point is that they cannot do anything. They are patently wrong on that. For those who are listening and are about to call their Liberal MP, as they should, here is what they can say. Section 6 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives the Minister of Public Safety the power to issue directives in all areas relating to Corrections Canada, including what we are talking about today. Also, section 96 of the same act gives cabinet the authority to pass regulations determining eligibility for confinement.

To give concrete examples of where this authority has been used, the Minister of Agriculture, when he was the public safety minister in a previous government, reversed a decision to send a cop killer to a minimum security prison in B.C. using this authority. A Liberal government has already done this.

When Stockwell Day was the public safety minister, he issued a directive that all first degree murderers must spend a prescribed amount of time in a maximum security prison. The current Liberal government could issue a similar directive pertaining to child killers and this would be fixed. The Prime Minister could convene a cabinet meeting to specifically deal with this particular directive, and this could be fixed immediately.

This is not about a review. The facts are clear. The facts have been presented to the public. Everyone knows that this woman should be nowhere near a minimum-security prison. It is completely up to the government to choose to do the right thing, and it is refusing to do so.

The other reason I know that the Liberals recognize that something is wrong is that journalists have been reporting that the lodge employees themselves, when they are being called to answer questions, are now not releasing information they have released in the past. Clearly, the government is trying to intervene to make sure that this does not become a public relations disaster for it, when it should be focusing on the rights of the victim's family and ensuring they are not re-victimized.

Frankly, going back to the point on the healing lodge, where is the healing lodge for the victims of this family? I will be honest. I will not stand in this place on behalf of Canadians and defend the rights of this child killer, who has been convicted and needs to receive a significant penalty for her crimes. We should be focusing completely on the rights of Tori Stafford's family, for justice for this little girl. This woman should not be in this healing lodge.

The next thing I want to talk about is the Liberals' repeated point that having children in this lodge is normal, but the reality is that this particular healing lodge was under investigation by the public integrity commissioner as little as two years ago, because employees had been bringing their children to this facility. Therefore, there already are problems with this facility with children being brought there. McClintic should be nowhere near children.

The Liberals should not be normalizing this at all. This woman should be nowhere near children. She does not have children and does not need to reunited with her children. She should be kept away from children. There should be no children there. It is as simple as that. If someone phones their MP complaining about the issue, they should say, no, she should not be in this lodge, period.

The next point is that the Liberals are trying to spin this issue, as they did this weekend. I was on a panel with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who said he was going to chastise me for using inappropriately graphic language. The Minister of Public Safety went on a national television program and called what Terri-Lynne McClintic did “bad practices”. We have given him opportunities to stand and apologize. What does this decision do? It normalizes this activity. It says that this is a bad practice. I feel we should be reminding the public safety minister over and over again about the disgusting things this woman did so that he can get into his head that this is not a bad practice, but something that needs to be fixed.

Those are the talking points, and I am now going to appeal to my Liberal colleagues. We can get angry with each other here, but I would ask them, in their heart of hearts, to put themselves in the shoes of this man when he was writing the Prime Minister this weekend and do the right thing.

Everyone who is watching today should call Liberal members of Parliament and respectfully and politely tell them to do the right thing. This is not about partisan politics; this is about right and wrong. All of the bureaucrats at Public Safety who might be sitting in the lobby today should give their heads a shake, too. This policy should be changed, this woman should not be in this lodge, and we should be supporting this motion to ensure that a policy reversing this decision is passed to make sure that this never happens again. We need to stand behind the rights of this family. That is what we are here to do and what the executive branch is here to do.

To everyone in the House today, this motion is a no-brainer. It was passed in the Ontario legislature unanimously. Let us just get this done. Let us not make Mr. Stafford and his family come to Ottawa to protest this. Let us not re-victimize him. Let us vote for this and do the right thing. Let us get this done.

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

Madam Speaker, in 1992 a Conservative government introduced healing lodges to complement medium-security prisons. These lodges would be a possible option to use by those responsible for medium-security prisons. If we fast forward to Stephen Harper and the Conservative government just a few years ago, they allowed and authorized with no problem the transfer of a prisoner from a maximum security prison to a medium-security prison. No Conservative stood in opposition to that. Today, Conservatives are absolutely outraged.

If people dig into some of these facts, they will find that the Conservatives are using this as a political issue, because it was the Conservatives who brought in the healing lodges and the Conservatives who authorized the transfer of this person from a maximum to minimum security prison.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that when someone has the floor, to be respectful. I know the member for Calgary Nose Hill is very competent and can answer questions.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.