Debates of Oct. 2nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has in-depth life experience with our justice system, and he brings that wealth of knowledge to this place. I would like to thank the member for his service. I believe he was a police officer for 25 years, and maybe even longer. He served the community of Medicine Hat very well.

We are here today discussing a particular case and the movement of a particular prisoner from a medium-security facility with barbed wire, bars, gates and things like that to a place that does not have those things. I know the member mentioned it extensively.

What has been the reaction in the member's riding? Has the member received any correspondence on this matter?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the public to appreciate that the government has played with words on the use of medium security. The healing lodge is classified as a medium and minimum security facility, but it is not a medium security facility in its true sense, as was mentioned. The members will not find the ability for inmates to interact in a regular prison like they do in the healing lodge. They will find that their movements are restricted in a medium security prison because they are not safe to be in the general public.

Therefore, the reaction in my community has been loud and it has been consistent, which is disbelief, frustration, disappointment in a system they trust. People believe there should be little in the way of foot-dragging by the government on this issue. They believe it is easy to resolve and can be resolved quite simply by a decision of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety to direct Correctional Service Canada to reverse its decision and move Ms. McClintic back to the medium security prison where she was and where she needs to be. My constituents have been very consistent on this. I received information from other Canadians as well who believe the same thing.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that a lot of has been said, and we understand the reason it has been said. In an answer just now, the member said that a healing lodge was not a medium security facility by its nature. Is he now advocating as well that we change the healing lodge designation from medium to minimum security and that anyone who is there considered medium now be put back into the regular so-called gates, razor wire, chains, whatever? Is that what he is advocating for as well when it comes to the healing lodges?

Healing lodges were supported by the former government and the program was expanded by the former government. It supported the healing lodge being designated a medium security facility.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see healing lodges used in the manner for which they were designed to be used. They allow for reintegration of offenders who are nearing the completion of their term of incarceration, to have that transition back to community eased in, to allow them to integrate in a way that will allow them to be successful. Healing lodges were never designed for prisoners who are a risk to the community, who have spent less than half of their time in these facilities before their eligibility for parole.

There are minimum security facilities that have a multitude of different prisoners within their walls and who do not pose a threat to public safety. They are there to finish their sentences, their debt to society, for the crimes they committed. In this case, this individual has not demonstrated, and there is no evidence to suggest, that she is ready to serve in this capacity. She still has 17-plus years before she is even eligible for parole. Why would we want to place her in a facility where reintegration is not an option for that many years?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I rise today to talk about the transfer of an offender from one Correctional Service of Canada facility to another. The transfer in question has outraged many Canadians, the media and, especially, the victim's family, who have expressed concerns over this development.

Our government has heard these concerns and empathizes with those affected, in particular the victim's family. This is why the Minister of Public Safety asked the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada last week to conduct a comprehensive review of the transfer. Two highly qualified senior officials from the department and an esteemed member of the indigenous community will conduct this review. Their objective is to determine whether the decision to transfer this offender was in line with CSC's policies and procedures. The review will also identify potential policy amendments or changes.

Our government recognizes the impact these decisions can have on victims' families, and we certainly do not take these matters lightly. However, we also recognize the importance of allowing Correctional Service of Canada professionals to do their work without political interference so they can carry out their mandate to keep Canadian communities safe by means of the appropriate incarceration, effective rehabilitation, and proper reintegration of federally sentenced offenders.

Our government was elected almost three years ago on a campaign platform that included a promise to take a thoughtful, evidence-based approach to the exercise of power. That is why we believe correctional service professionals in the public service should be responsible for making the decisions they are in the best position to make. Our government has decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the facts of the case and will ensure that the offender was transferred in accordance with CSC's policies and procedures.

Given that this is an emotionally charged file and that there is a great deal of misinformation going around, I would like to take the time that I have left to set the record straight about the healing lodge in question. The Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge is in a remote region on the Nekaneet first nation 32 kilometres from the nearest village, Maple Creek, Saskatchewan. The healing lodge opened its doors in 1995 as a multi-level institution managed by the Correctional Service of Canada. No female offender has escaped from there in the past decade.

As is the case in every Correctional Service of Canada facility, static and dynamic security measures are in place to ensure the safety of the staff, the offenders, and the general public. Cameras are strategically placed inside the institution and on the grounds, and the images are monitored at all times by security staff. The staff are equipped to employ intrusive and non-intrusive search methods, such as regular searches of the offenders' units and common areas, strip searches, inspections with the help of ion mobility spectrometers, and urinalyses.

The healing lodge has a search plan in place, and staff conduct daily searches of the facility and offenders. Staff also conduct regular security patrols throughout the day and night. The facility is also equipped with alarm systems to notify staff when an offender leaves her unit outside of normal hours. Furthermore, an interdisciplinary team of correctional officers, health professionals and other front-line staff, including elders, ensure that any behavioural changes in offenders is recorded, assessed and managed appropriately.

Correctional Service of Canada officials are continually evaluating offenders' behaviour and the risk they present, and a transfer is initiated only when an offender can no longer be managed at the healing lodge. Transfers are an important part of the Correctional Service of Canada's capacity to manage federal inmates, as well as an important tool in properly discharging the service's mandate, which is to support the effective rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.

I want to emphasize, once again, that the Correctional Service of Canada regularly assesses the risks offenders present in order to assign an appropriate security classification.

Our government has asked the Correctional Service of Canada to review the case in question. We will ensure compliance with all laws and policies throughout the process.

The government wants to establish a culture of continuous self-reflection. In addition, it will ensure that all policies and practices are based on sound evidence, are kept up to date and take into account an ever-changing environment.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech and I appreciate his experience and expertise.

Let us try to do our best not to engage in flights of rhetoric that can sometimes be very moving, given the emotional nature of the topic, but that can also lead us off track from our common objective of finding the common good. How can we do that?

I understand the government member's explanations. Maybe one day he will be a minister, but he has only a year left to get there, because the Conservatives will certainly take power after that. Let's smile a little during this very emotional debate.

Let us come back to reality. The reality is that the law makes it possible for the person to be assessed by public officials who then make recommendations. The law also gives the minister the discretionary power to act.

In this case, all Canadians recognize that this is a terrible situation, that a horrific crime was committed, that good Canadian common sense must prevail and that the minister must use his discretionary power, what I personally like to refer to as “the power to use common sense”.

Why does the government member not tell his minister that he made some unfortunate remarks? I am sure the member agrees with me on that. Talking about bad practices in reference to the appalling crime that was committed is completely unacceptable. He made a mistake and now he is paying the price.

In my opinion, this situation could be quickly resolved using good Canadian common sense. We just need the minister to stand up and use his power to put the individual in question back behind bars.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for acknowledging the delicate and emotional nature of this matter and for seeking to work together to have common sense prevail. Sometimes common sense is overshadowed by interpretations that are not based on our system in place.

I understand what my my colleague is asking. To better respond to his request and to more effectively achieve the objectives we want on both sides, we put our trust in those who are on the ground, the experts and the people working on these issues every day, in particular the officials and the elders, who understand the emotional and cultural dimensions and, above all, the fact that this falls under the rule of law that governs us.

It is in light of this review that we will be able to see whether the decision was made properly and, if not, whether we can improve a situation that needs to be changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way. I think all of us recognize a few things. A terribly atrocious crime took place. We recognize something else, and that is that we have very good public servants and very good bureaucrats. However, we also recognize that on occasion there are times where the general public responds to a decision that was made and says that it is unacceptable. For that reason, we have subsection 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which gives the minister the authority to intervene at a time like that.

I have listened to the members of the Liberal Party today. It is almost as if Parliament is out of its realm if it should ever question a decision by anyone in our bureaucracy.

I would ask the member if he believes there is ever a place in which a minister should do that. We know the Liberal agriculture minister, when he was minister of public safety, intervened in one case. Does the member believe there should ever be a case where a minister should step in and intervene? If not in this case, then which case?

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member partly answered the question when he mentioned that we have the best public servants and specialists to deal with this case, which is exactly why we let these individuals take care of this file.

There is always a temptation to let politics get in the way in a case like this, but because of the multiple dimensions of this case, we need people on the ground who know their business to properly advise the minister. The minister was right to leave the decision in the hands of those who know the case best.

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

Mr. Speaker, like others before me I want to express my personal sympathy to the family of Tori Stafford. It must be very difficult for them to listen to this debate and what has gone on before, because in some respects it is reliving what is every parent's most horrific nightmare.

The government understands the concerns Canadians have with respect to ensuring safety in our communities. We want to assure Canadians on all sides of this debate that the protection of society is the paramount consideration for our government, and that public safety is at the forefront of all decisions regarding the classification and transfer of offenders.

Correctional Service Canada is recognized as a leader in the international corrections community and has a long-standing history of co-operating with national and international partners in the stabilization and reconstruction of foreign criminal justice systems. It is not only a nationally recognized good system, but an internationally recognized good system.

Correctional Service Canada regularly assesses all the risks presented by all offenders, to ensure they are placed in the appropriate location. The various considerations are codified in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act under the criteria for the selection of the penitentiary, as follows:

the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with an environment that contains only the necessary restrictions, taking into account

(a) the degree and kind of custody and control necessary for

(i) the safety of the public,

(ii) the safety of that person and other persons in the penitentiary, and

(iii) the security of the penitentiary;

It goes on to list several other criteria. Those are the criteria Correctional Service Canada uses for anybody coming into the facility who has to be classified as maximum, medium or minimum, as well as for their ongoing time in the facility, whether for a reclassification or a transfer to another institution.

Canadians need to keep in mind that these are not willy-nilly classifications, and that there are guidelines and policies that go with the consideration when it comes to the transfer or classification of a prisoner.

Immediately after sentencing, CSC officials begin a comprehensive assessment process to identify immediate security needs and critical concerns in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The critical factors taken into consideration determine the security level and placement of an offender, and include institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public safety. Furthermore, the custody rating scale, an actuarial tool, is also used to assist in assigning the most appropriate initial security classification for the penitentiary placement of an offender.

The aboriginal social history must also be taken into consideration during all risk assessments. Based upon the entire risk assessment, a placement decision is made by CSC.

At this point, I hope I have conveyed that this is a very rigorous process with respect to both the classification of an individual as maximum, minimum or medium, and also to the facility in which the person will be placed.

Based upon their motion today, Conservatives want to simply have the minister intervene and in effect toss that entire decision. This would put the minister in a position of having to make what is essentially a political decision. The Conservative motion asks the minister to ignore the evidence that supports the transfer to this institution and substitute his own decision based upon a set of facts that everyone in this room agrees are egregious in the extreme.

There is a review process that has been triggered by the collective outrage. I say “collective” because it is on both sides of the aisle. The commissioner came before the public safety committee last week. She was originally scheduled to talk about her mandate. However, this set of facts effectively overwhelmed her appearance there. Under repetitive and I would say occasionally even aggressive questioning by the Conservatives, she said at the end of her testimony, “I just want to be clear. This was a tragedy that changed many lives forever. I have been asked to do a review. I am committed to doing a review of the case.”

That is the proper procedure. If in fact the minister is faced with what we collectively agree is an egregious set of facts that causes questions among parliamentarians and Canadians in general, then he does not simply say that he does not like the decision and that he is going to change it. Rather, he asks the commissioner to review the file and see that proper practices were followed.

He has asked the commissioner to do just that. She repeated that over and over again, yet the members from the Conservative Party were not satisfied with that answer. They simply wanted an arbitrary decision to be made by the minister at that point. In fact, they want the minister to make a decision that is unilateral, fact-free and process-free, because the minister cannot undertake the process that I have outlined here. Therefore, they are asking him to do exactly what they would not do while in government.

The minister cannot tell the commissioner of CSC how to manage individual offenders, just as he cannot tell the commissioner of the RCMP who to arrest. My friend, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, said as much when he was the public safety minister. He also said that he did not control the security classification of individual prisoners. In 2014, he was right. Now, in 2018, on the opposite side of the aisle, he wishes for the rest of us to do exactly the opposite of what he was advising four years ago.

Benjamin Perrin, a former staffer in Mr. Harper's office, recently tweeted, “This may be unpopular to voice, but I’m concerned with politicians being the ones who decide how any particular individual offender is treated.”

Not only is it unwise to micromanage offenders, it is also illegal. No minister can tell a commissioner how to manage individual offenders, any more than he or she can tell the RCMP who to arrest. There is a wall between the commissioner and the minister, and it is founded on good logic, good law and common sense. The minister makes the policy, and the commissioner executes the policy.

I could have been more persuaded to support the motion had it not been framed in the lexicon of, “We do not care what the decision is, but make the decision now. Reverse the decision of the commissioner”, but rather, “This is an egregious set of facts. Please have the commissioner review the facts and see that the policies were followed. If these facts and the facts in other cases lead you to make a change in policy, so be it.” That should be the way proper law and policies are followed.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to support this motion. I wish the phrasing of the motion had been a little more thoughtful. However, we have what we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have continually heard the same points from the Liberals in almost every speech. They are not recognizing that they are in government. They are the executive branch. Sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes our system gets it wrong. However, when they are in government, the Liberals have the responsibility to make things right.

The Liberals are surrounding this issue with all sorts of words and talk about process. This is wrong. We are simply saying that in the past, when this type of issue has been identified, the government has acted. It had the ability to act, and it acted in a responsible way. It is not about making it for one person. It is about changing the rules so that this situation does not happen again. It would not be good enough to change it for one person. It needs to be changed so that the next time something so horrific happens it is changed permanently.

This is simple. This is logical. The Liberals seem to be abdicating their responsibility as a government to do the right thing right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is doing the exact right thing in accordance with the rules, the policy and the law as it is presently set out. The minister has asked for a review of the file. That is what is happening. There is going to be a review of the file. If the decision is changed, that will be the decision that is made.

If, however, the decision is not changed, that may inform future policy. There may be an argument to be made that future policy may change according to this set of facts. However, there may be an additional set of facts that might not be present in our debate today.

This is the process. The process is as important as the decision itself. When the Conservative members were in government, this was the process they followed. They could make policy decisions, but they did not intervene on specific files, and properly so. Ministers should not micromanage this kind of file.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I take some issue with my colleague's characterization of a government's responsibility. He has said in this place that neither the previous Conservative government nor his own government has the right, procedurally or process-driven, to intervene.

Of course they do. That is what governments are for. If a bureaucracy or a member of a bureaucracy makes a mistake or, in fact, is deemed to have made a mistake, the government has not only an obligation but a responsibility to intervene. It does not do so lightly. No government does.

However, in this particular case it is patently obvious to anyone who is paying even a modicum of attention to this case that a wrong has been done. A right is needed to address the situation. There is a responsibility. The members opposite fail to see that. All the government needed to do was to stand up and say it would immediately have McClintic transferred back to a maximum or a medium-maximum facility with bars. Then it would do a proper review. That is all the government needed to do.

For Liberal members to sit there or to stand in this place and say they are powerless and cannot make this decision because they would be interfering with Correctional Service Canada is absolutely an abdication of the responsibility of any government, and the member knows it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite to the contrary. I feel badly that I am having to repeat myself, but there is a process. The government has initiated the process. That was the responsible thing to do. That would be the responsible thing for any government to do. When the Conservatives were on this side, that is exactly what they did. The minister has initiated a review of this particular case. One cannot just go around making decisions willy-nilly.

My analogy was from my hon. friend from Saskatchewan. He knows Regina very well, and he knows the RCMP police college there. The minister does not tell the police who to arrest. The minister does not run the RCMP other than from a policy standpoint and from a standpoint of budgeting. It would be wrong for a minister to say to the RCMP, “You must arrest this person. You must try this particular person.” That would be an intervention that no right-thinking Canadian would tolerate.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in truth, I cannot believe that I have to give a speech on the topic today, because this just seems to be something so clearly about common sense that one would not have to have a debate of an entire day convincing the government of the right thing to do. However, here we are, in any event.

When a government cares for its people, and problems people are having are brought to the government, it is the duty of the government to act. Every day, in every way, as members of Parliament in our offices, we do that. There are many times people come to us with questions and problems that are seemingly insurmountable and that we do not have the answers to or that are very difficult or may not be exactly on the policy point that makes sense, but still we try, we commiserate, and we tell them that we will do our best job to fix the problem.

In all the comments I have heard from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, not once have I heard the sentiment that they will fix this problem. They will look into the problem. They will look at the process around the problem. However, never have they said that it needs to be fixed. That is why were are here today as Conservatives. We recognize that this as a real problem.

There are two parts to the issue I am going to discuss today. The first is that we need to right the wrong that has occurred. The second is that we have to make sure that this simply does not happen again.

Unfortunately, I believe that I have to start by talking about righting the wrong by actually proving that there is a wrong that has happened, because a lot of the commentary from the government side alludes to the fact that nothing wrong happened here. Either there was a change made in the classification a number of years ago, and therefore there is no wrong here, or there really is no comparison between the two institutions, so there is not really a wrong here.

The reality, and this is what constituents know and what they are talking about, is the fact that Terri-Lynne McClintic pleaded guilty to first degree murder. She was charged and sentenced to 25 years in jail, and she has served eight years of that sentence. Nine months ago, Ms. McClintic was transferred from an institution called Grand Valley to a healing lodge in Saskatchewan. One of the salient points of concern for our party and the opposition is the fact that there are children present in the healing lodge in Saskatchewan, and Terri-Lynne McClintic is serving a sentence for the first degree murder of an eight-year-old. We believe that this is the salient point to take into consideration when determining where a prisoner is going to be facilitated.

The minister hangs his defence of no action on two things. He said that her classification has not changed. In 2014, she was deemed medium security, and today she is deemed medium security. He also says that he simply does not have the power to do what the opposition is asking him to do. I disagree with both aspects.

The first point, on classification, I believe is a red herring. When governments are faced with difficult issues, to manage the issues they can take one of a few paths. The first is to try to blame it on the opposition members for something they have done in the past. The second is to say that they are going to do a review. The third is to take some action.

We have seen the first part of that trilogy. The Prime Minister answered the question by indicating that the Conservatives changed the classification, so why did we not say something then? I disagree.

If one were to do even a cursory search on the Internet, one would be able to look at the difference between the Grand Valley institution and the healing lodge in Saskatchewan. I did spend some time taking a look at the differences between the two, especially because I am concerned about children being in open areas in the healing lodge. What I discovered was that contrary to something the minister said in the House a couple of days ago, while there are children in the Grand Valley institution, they are separated from the medium security prisoners by a fence. The minimum security aspect of that institution, where there is a mothers' program, is completely and utterly separated and segregated from where Terri-Lynne McClintic would have lived. That is an important point and one that we would not have heard from the minister, because as a deflection, he would prefer to say that it is the same institution.

It is not about classification. It is completely about the choice of the institution, and the healing lodge is simply inappropriate, given the gravity and the substance of the offence and the guilty sentence of Terri-Lynne McClintic.

The second aspect of the minister's argument is that he does not have the power. I was blessed and honoured to serve as a minister in a previous government, and as such, I know of situations that come up wherein the department will advise ministers that they do not have the power to do something, they do not have policy cover and they cannot take something in a certain direction. Ministers have a choice at that point in time. They can accept the advice and let things go the way they are going, or they can choose to find a different path. What the Conservatives are asking the minister to do is choose to find a different path, because, luckily enough, in statutory interpretation, one can always find a way around what seems to be a path that is blocked.

I looked at other pieces of information to determine whether the minister has the power. Imagine sitting in a minister's boardroom, and legal has come in and presented a memo. The memo indicates that there is a medium to high risk of the minister or the institution being sued should action be taken on this matter. In the consideration of that memo, what happens is that there is a discussion about the contents of the memo, and it is determined which is the better path to take, based, oftentimes, upon risk.

If a memo were to come to me, and I was told that, as the minister, I did not have the power to do something, I would first question whether that was true and would have a serious conversation about the risk levels and what the risks would be. If I were told that there would be a lawsuit against me, I would ask who would be bringing the lawsuit. If I was told that a prisoner would be bringing the lawsuit against me for changing her institution, I would weigh that risk. Is it worth the risk of ensuring that children are safe and that there is an appropriate sentence for this first degree murderer?

The other aspect, if ministers are given an opinion they do not agree with, is to look at other documents around the opinion, because there are many other things to look at to determine what power a minister has. Indeed, I think Canadians oftentimes assume that MPs have full power to make any changes they want. We too, as MPs, think that ministers, especially prime ministers, have the ability to make changes as well.

One thing to look at is the relationship between the bureaucracy and a minister. Deputy ministers and the heads of the Correctional Service of Canada are very important people within our system and sit at the pleasure of the prime minister who appoints them. They are no longer in the public service. They are servants of Canada.

The letter the minister most recently sent to outline the mandate of the new commissioner said the following:

I will rely on your advice and input to help me establish strategic priorities for the Correctional Service of Canada and to anticipate and manage issues that affect the soundness of the organization....

I acknowledge that some of these initiatives may require new policy authorities..., which we can work on together.

The minister, in giving the marching orders to the new commissioner, is saying that the commissioner is going to advise him but that to be really clear, the minister makes the final decision. That is exactly what the minister has outlined in that relationship. However, he stands in the House and tells us that his hands are tied, effectively hiding behind the skirts of the Correctional Service of Canada official.

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

Shameful.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

It is shameful, at the end of the day.

I want to touch on one thing with respect to the process review. I would encourage this process review. I think it is important. It is atrocious that the victim's family only received notification as opposed to having the ability to comment on the transfer of the prisoner.

I will say one thing. In the mandate letter, one thing the minister pointed out is that the Government of Canada is providing clear direction on its priorities and vision, which is that the safety of the public is best protected by “effective rehabilitation and safe reintegration of people”. All I would say to the minister and members of the government is that if they are going down that path of reintegrating and ensuring that people can reintegrate on the other end of their sentences, please ensure that there is a requisite amount of time in the appropriate institutions so that we never have this situation again.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like yesterday that the whole country was glued to the news when Tori Stafford, an eight-year-old kid, went missing. The whole world was looking for good news. The whole country was looking for what had happened. Then we saw the images of a lady, a dark shape, walking with this kid. Finally, McClintic pleaded guilty to the charge of first degree murder.

Many of us here are parents. We all want to see the best for our children. No father and no mother should ever go through this sort of pain and suffering for their whole lives. All of a sudden, they are being reminded of it again.

This crime was committed by this person who is sitting in a healing lodge. Why is she not in a jail? Could my hon. friend speak to that?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague. One thing he talks about is the public outcry. Yes, there was a public outcry at the time of both Terri-Lynne McClintic's charges and trial. However, there is also a public outcry right now. One incident I can compare it to, when there was a completely different outcome, was in 2001-02, when a convicted cop killer was moved from an institution that had bars to an institution that was dubbed, at the time, Club Fed. There was clearly less security and there were more privileges for the cop killer. Across the country, we heard a huge outcry. In this House, we heard question after question, day after day. As a result, without reviews, without a process, without defending the decision, the now Minister of Agriculture, then the solicitor general of this country, took a position and made that wrong right. The prisoner was transferred back to the institution from whence he came.

The Ontario legislature has again passed a unanimous motion asking for that to happen, as it did in 2001. I would say that the same results should happen with this Minister of Public Safety.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Sun quoted a statement made by Bill Renton, the Woodstock chief of police, who was the chief investigator in Tori Stafford's murder. I would like to read a small portion of it and ask for the member's response. He said:

We question McClintic’s move to the healing centre at such an early stage of her just and proper guilty verdict of first degree murder and sentence of Life Imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. We also realize the family lives that life sentence every day that beautiful young Tori does not return home. They can hold dear the memories of their beautiful daughter, but they also hold in their hearts and minds the reminder of the heinous manner that Tori spent her last moments on this earth which haunt them continually. Such a reminder that haunts far too many, far too often.

I am a true advocate of our Charter, the Criminal Justice System and Correctional Services. I believe our Correctional System needs to be predicated on rehabilitation for those that have committed crimes and proven themselves worthy, however, I echo the concerns of a nation, that 6 years into a 25 year parole eligibility is unacceptable entrance into such a privileged program.

In other words, he is saying that it is inappropriate for this woman, who committed this terrible murder, to go to the healing centre. It is not designed for that.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for reading that into the record, because it is incredibly important.

When I first became a member of Parliament, I had a conversation with a former member of Parliament in this place, Dennis Mills, who represented the riding of Danforth, as it was. He gave me one piece of advice, which was that as a member of Parliament, we speak for those who are in pain.

I cannot think of any greater pain than what the family and friends of the victim are experiencing as a result of the non-decision to move Terri-Lynne McClintic back into an appropriate facility. That is why we are here today. We are speaking for those people who are in pain, because they do not understand the decision, they do not understand the inaction, and they do not understand why it is just so difficult for the government to say, “You are right. This is wrong, and we are going to fix it.”

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak to our Conservative opposition day motion today on this heinous topic.

“Justice”, that very word can be interpreted in many ways. It can bring comfort to those who have been wronged but made right. To others it can instill a sense of comfort knowing that regardless of one's social standing or position, the law is blind to such things and all are equal before the courts. For some, that word means the beginning of a new chapter. For others, it means the end. In most cases that word should mean closure, as justice has been delivered. Not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done.

It is hard to find a universally accepted description of the word but most Canadians know justice when they see it.

What we have learned these past few weeks is disturbing. I have struggled to digest what we have been told. It has shaken the nation and many are in disbelief. I have tried to find the words that could somehow explain what happened, and I have failed. No words could ever alleviate the sadness or repair the damage that has been done to the family of Tori Stafford.

As a Canadian, I share that sense of frustration with my fellow citizens that our system has failed. As a parliamentarian, I am ashamed that this could ever have happened. As a father, I pray that justice will prevail and this nightmare will end.

Like most Canadians sitting at home watching this debate, I too ask: how did this happen? How could our system allow this to occur? How could someone who confessed, was sentenced to life and was nowhere close to even remotely being considered for parole be sent to a healing lodge? I have a million reasons for why this was a terrible mistake and I cannot think of one justification for why this ever could have happened.

Just yesterday at Queen's Park, all political parties united to condemn this action. They put aside their partisanship. They stood shoulder to shoulder as Canadians, as parents and as elected representatives to call on the federal government to reverse this decision. This is exactly what we should be doing right here and right now.

To the family of Tori, I am sorry. I regret that they must go through this again. Our system has failed them. There is no excuse or reasoning that could ever begin to rationalize this decision.

We as parliamentarians must act. Canadians have entrusted in us the power to provide leadership and today is that day when leadership is needed. The government must exercise its moral, legal and political authority to ensure this decision is reversed. It is also clear that we need to ensure that it never happens again.

A system that allows this sort of transfer to occur under these circumstances erodes the very trust our judicial system is dependent upon. There is no justice when a convicted child murderer, who has just served a fraction of her time, is sent to a healing lodge. A convicted child murderer who, by the way, carried out violent behaviour while in jail, deserves no special treatment or sympathy. A convicted child murderer, who said herself, “Spending the next few decades of life in prison is nothing compared to what Tori was robbed of.”

Today, we must stand up for Tori, as sadly, she cannot speak for herself. Let us ensure that this act of evil deserves the punishment that it so rightfully deserves. The convicted murderer knows herself that she deserves to be in prison. She knew the day she was sentenced that she would be sent away for a very long time for the atrocious crime she committed and for the life that she stole.

Let there be no ambiguity in this debate. This individual deserves no favours from our penal system. There should be no sense of normalcy in her life while she serves her time. Her crime was not an act of rage or carelessness. It was a calculated, orchestrated and deliberate act of evil. There is no argument that could ever convince me that this woman should be in a fenceless facility.

It is abundantly evident that if a policy needs to be changed, then let us do it. If we need to stay in this chamber all day and all night to find a solution, members will find a willing partner in our caucus. There is no doubt that there is a problem, for there is no explanation for this transfer. She should never be in the same vicinity as children. She is taking a spot of someone who perhaps could be best served in a healing lodge.

My heart aches for Tori's family. No family should ever have to go through this. There are millions of Canadians who have the family in their thoughts rights now. Many constituents have contacted me in the last week to express their horror that a penal system could have allowed this to happen. I want the family to know that they are not alone in this struggle and are most certainly not wrong in wanting this decision to be reversed.

Just this morning, the lead investigator who helped discover the truth about Tori denounced the action of transferring this murderer to a healing lodge. Bill Renton, who oversaw the OPP investigation, released a statement in which he said:

I echo the concerns of the nation...I believe the correctional system needs to be predicated on rehabilitation for those who have committed crimes and proven themselves worthy...We question McClintic’s move to the healing centre at such an early stage of her just and proper guilty verdict of first degree murder and sentence of Life Imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

These are not the comments of someone who just has an opinion. This is the concern of a man who investigated this heinous crime. There is no element of this case that Mr. Renton does not know. It would be in all of our interests to listen carefully to what he had to say.

I truly believe that it is within all of us to put aside our differences and to do what is right. I call upon my colleagues to join us in our motion. We are sent here to make difficult decisions, as pointed out by my colleague for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan a few moments ago. We cannot shirk our collective responsibilities that are expected of us.

Sections 6 and 96 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act give the Minister of Public Safety broad authority to issue directives on conditions of confinement. All it would take for this individual who committed these horrific crimes and to be back behind bars is the will of the minister. He could ensure that the criteria for those being sent to a healing lodge could never be extended to someone who committed these crimes and who is literally years away from ever being considered for parole.

In Canada, we have a system of responsible government where the bureaucracy is accountable to Canadians through a cabinet minister. Asking the department to change its policies should not be considered a dramatic step. It is exactly why we elect members of Parliament in the first place. This woman has already been tried and convicted. There are no questions regarding the verdict of the court. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for us as elected representatives to demand that Correctional Service Canada's policies be changed.

If we are allowing a child murderer who is serving a life sentence to be sent to a facility that has family residential units and where children may be present, we need to change this. If we have a system that allows a convicted person with this history to have their own unit with a kitchenette, an eating area and a living-room, we need to stop this. Let us give justice to Tori.

I implore my colleagues to stand united. Let this be the day that we ensure that this sort of situation never happens again.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard it mentioned earlier in the House that we would recognize justice if we saw it, and a lot of Canadians across the country are recognizing that this is simply not just, giving a brutal murderer access to a house without even a fence around it.

Does the member think that Canadians are expecting something to be rectified here, and to put this particular murderer behind bars? The term I would like to use is that “Canadians know the right thing to do”. Does the member expect the right thing to be done in this case?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely my colleague can draw from my presentation this afternoon that I believe this individual should be re-incarcerated in the situation. If this were year 24 of 25 and there had been a stellar performance in jail during those years, it would be a different story, but this is not even halfway through the convicted time to be spent for this heinous crime.

We need to remember that this is a brutal murder of an eight-year-old child, with full knowledge of what they were doing. Moving a person halfway through her term to a healing lodge such as this is an incorrect decision made by the authorities, and the government is not acting on it as it can. As in the comments that I made, sections 6 and 96 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act give the Minister of Public Safety broad authority to issue directives on conditions of confinement.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. I had the privilege of being a representative for the area that houses Grand Valley Institution for Women, for a number of years until the riding boundaries were changed prior to the last election. I visited that facility many times. While the prisoners there are treated humanely, it is clear that they do not have access to just leaving when they want. There are fences, locks and bars. In a very real sense, there is a good amount of security there.

Here we have a situation of a murderer of an eight-year-old, someone who, as my colleague pointed out, premeditated this act, abducted, raped and murdered an eight-year-old. Only very shortly into her sentence, only six or eight years, she is now granted the privilege of being at this healing lodge. I have been contacted by a number of residents in my riding and beyond, and they are very concerned. In fact, I could use the term outraged. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the numbers and the kinds of communication he is receiving from ordinary Canadians.

In this place, one of our primary obligations is to ensure the safety of our Canadian citizens. How can we actually say we are doing that when actions have been taken to allow this person to be housed in this healing lodge in western Canada?