House of Commons Hansard #330 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prison.

Topics

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I just want to remind the member to address the question and comments to the Chair and not to individual members.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, I would first say that the member is actually the first Liberal member of Parliament who has said that there is any outrage on that side of the House with respect to this decision.

We have been asking the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, and we have not heard once that, yes, this is a terrible decision. No. What we have heard from the Liberals is that they are going to form a committee to look at the policy to see if all the policies were followed. Frankly, the outrage is too little, too late.

With respect to the second question, I would be more than happy to lay out a very simple plan for the government on how it could very easily reverse this decision. I will tell members how Tori's dad and family even knew what was happening. It is because, in 2013-14, we passed a law for victims to be informed of what is happening to some of these prisoners. Therefore, I will tell the member this. If we had found out about this while we were in government, as we did with other bad decisions, we would have been the government, taken the decision, changed it and made that policy a good policy. That is what we are asking the current government to do. If it cannot do it, it should get out of the way and let somebody—

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I wanted to address the issue of the rhetoric and the graphic details being shared. Contrary to what the member just said about telling people they should shut up, it is quite the opposite. In fact, in an interview I had on the weekend I even had an opportunity to reiterate that these are important questions that need to be asked. I wholeheartedly agree with the Conservatives that it is our responsibility.

However, as politicians, as people who express ourselves in a very public way, despite the public nature of these details, despite the fact that I have pored over them as a participant in this debate, and despite that unimaginable feeling we get when hearing those details, the problem is that when the rhetoric heats up like that, when these details are used for political gain, the consequence of that is messages like I had received over the weekend, and as the stepfather of an eight-year-old girl, being told, “Maybe the same thing needs to happen to your daughter so you understand what is going on here.” That is why we have—

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Perhaps I could have a little respect instead of being heckled. That is exactly why we have a responsibility for how we address these issues. No one is saying they should not be addressed. However, there is a proper way to do it. Would my colleague acknowledge that? I am not asking her to take responsibility for the words that individuals say to me, I am asking that we take responsibility for the things we say in this place and how we tackle these extremely difficult issues.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, I do not know if that member heard my speech. I just gave a lengthy speech where I laid out what I believe and what we believe should happen. There was nothing that should have offended him. I am sorry, but he is not the victim here. I am not sure what message he is referring to.

This is the place where we have to have tough conversations. We had a difficult conversation one day in this House where we talked about what happened to Tori. It had to be heard. We had a minister of public safety who called what happened Tori “bad practices”. We had to do it. We have now been asking the government to act on it. We do not even know if the NDP will support it.

That member stood up and somehow he is maybe the victim in all of this because we had to talk about something that is difficult. It is shameful of the New Democrats. I do not know what they have been thinking these last few weeks. However, they are going to have to answer to their constituents on how they vote and how they have responded to this situation.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind members that, yes, this is a very difficult situation to talk about. However, I would ask all members to be very respectful of the different points of view on this in an effort to not offend each of the members either. I think it is going to be a very difficult debate. However, I think that everybody can be respectful of each other.

The hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, resuming debate.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the admonishment. I think it is very important that we realize that this is a very emotional debate. However, as the seconder to the Conservative Party motion, I would reiterate how we hope that the Liberal government will hear the outrage that has been expressed across the country over the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic, the killer of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, to a healing lodge in Saskatchewan.

It is incomprehensible to me that the Liberals would merely order a review in response to this travesty of justice. The evidence is pretty clear. McClintic is not eligible for parole until 2031. Since her incarceration, she has not been a model inmate, being convicted of beating up a fellow prisoner and then regretting that she had not caused more severe injuries. That is not exactly a model prisoner, so why is she being given a cushy transfer to a healing lodge with no fence?

Instead of ducking responsibility, this should have been a simple matter of doing what is right. Instead, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety are hiding behind a bureaucratic memo hastily put together by justice officials. They are failing in their duty to Canadians, who are outraged by this transfer. I put it to members that they need to step up and reverse this transfer immediately.

We know that the Prime Minister has fallen to virtue signalling on many issues, but when it comes to standing up for true justice here at home, when it comes to standing up for victims of crime, he chooses instead to mince words or stay silent, and indeed, his public safety minister is parroting the same unacceptable approach.

The decision to conduct a review of this situation makes no sense, considering the authority of the minister's office and the office of the Prime Minister and the authority they can wield when there is the will to wield it. Clearly, what is required is a firm and immediate directive from the minister to Corrections Canada to put McClintic back behind bars where she belongs.

When a minister of the Crown issues a directive to his or her department, and I was there myself and remember well what happens, the wheels are set in motion. Why would the Minister of Public Safety waste time with this review, when there is a clear injustice? He could have clearly called to reverse the transfer. He could have done the right thing, but obviously, the will is absent.

I wonder if the decision not to immediately reverse the McClintic transfer was his alone. I want to know if the Prime Minister's Office weighed in on this. Who is behind this outrageous order not to transfer the inmate? Canadians deserve to know.

I would like to put before the chamber the basic facts of the minister's powers. Under subsection 6(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the minister has the authority to direct the commissioner of corrections in all matters. This would include issuing a directive that a broad class of offenders, such as those convicted of the murder of a child, are not eligible for transfer to a minimum security facility, such as this healing lodge. Under section 96 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the cabinet could pass regulations setting out eligibility for minimum security facilities and healing lodges. This could include prohibiting those convicted of murder involving a child.

Even in the face of this evidence, the Liberals claim that they cannot reverse the transfer. However, previous public safety ministers have reversed decisions through directives to Corrections Canada.

When I served as a member of the provincial parliament in the Ontario legislature, the current Liberal agriculture minister, who was then the solicitor general, stopped the transfer of a cop killer after public outrage. That is the precedent that was set in 2000. I was a member of the Ontario legislature. We passed a unanimous resolution very similar to the unanimous resolution the Ontario legislature passed yesterday in the case of McClintic. Back then, when that cop killer was going to be moved to Club Fed, as it was called then, the outrage in Ontario was just the same. A resolution of the Ontario legislature was passed unanimously. The PCs, the NDP, and the Liberals all passed it, and lo and behold, the agriculture minister, who was the solicitor general at the time, found a way to stop the transfer to Club Fed.

In another example, former minister Toews ended prison pizza parties. Former minister Day mandated that first degree murderers had to spend a specified time behind bars in maximum security prisons. Those were both directives taken during the Harper years.

There is clearly a precedent for the current public safety minister's intervention in the McClintic case. However, last Tuesday night, in an interview with CTV, the minister defended his review of the transfer as “the best way to...rectify [McClintic's] bad practices in the past”. Bad practices in the past? Is that how he characterizes this? It is clearly devoid of humanity and reasoning.

As I am sure many in this House will admit, we have employed bad practices from time to time over the course of our lives. Perhaps even the Minister of Public Safety himself would admit to as much, but certainly, luring an eight-year-old Tori while she was walking home from school, then standing as a lookout while she was violated and then killing her with a hammer and dumping her body is not what the vast majority of Canadians define as bad practices. I make no apologies for pointing this fact out.

The Conservative Party was criticized for describing some of the graphic details of young Tori's murder in the House of Commons last week. In fact, for some media, that seemed to be the bigger story than the outrageous transfer itself. However, it is obvious from the Liberals' inaction that they needed to be reminded of the horrific nature of the crimes committed by McClintic.

Governing this great country of Canada is not always paved with sunny ways. There are times when hard truths need to be confronted and addressed, and this Liberal government remains unwilling or incapable of making hard decisions when the inevitable clouds roll in. I hope the horrific nature of this crime and the grave injustice of this transfer will lead the Liberal government to change course in this instance.

I think I speak for many when I say that we ask the Liberals to stand up and do the right thing, and then perhaps the protest being organized for November 2, just outside this chamber, over the transfer can be avoided. If not, I plan to attend that protest. I will continue to call out this transfer, and I will continue to denounce the Liberal government for its failure to act.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He once told a former employee of Stephen Harper's that he was uncomfortable with the idea of a politician deciding the fate of a particular offender. Would he mind explaining that to Canadians? I am looking for specifics here.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Madam Speaker, what I can say is that we were elected to represent Canadians. We are here to make very important decisions for all Canadians.

We are here to be elected representatives to make the right decisions for Canadians. I make no apologies for that, and the hon. members on the other side should make no apologies for that.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Madam Speaker, I have a small, simple question for the member opposite, who at one time sat on this side of the House, as he mentioned.

Why did the same member not speak up in 2014 when this person, this inmate, was moved from maximum security to a medium security facility? A medium security facility is what she is in right now. Why did he not speak up then, as a member of the governing party?

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Madam Speaker, the situation was clear. McClintic was still behind bars. She was still in a cell, and she was still behind razor wire.

By the way, the victim's family was not informed of the transfer and had to find out about it later. That in itself is a violation of the Victims Bill of Rights.

A lot is wrong with this transfer to the healing lodge. That is the question before the House. That is the issue before the Canadian public. We make no apologies for raising this issue, because people are outraged by her present circumstances as a child murderer in a healing lodge.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind members that the discussion is when a member is recognized and is not between members who are sitting. If those members have questions and comments, they should rise to be recognized.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka for his concern for the family of Tori Stafford and for reflecting the view of Canadians on how wrong this is.

I would ask my colleague to talk about why the Liberals always seem to side with the convict. They hug the thug and lack the compassion and common sense to stand up for the victims in these types of situations. They just aggravate the situation even more, rather than doing the right thing.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a good point. It is almost like asking why the sky is blue. Why do Liberal members continue on a course of conduct that totally defies common sense and the sense of justice that most Canadians feel?

We saw this in the case of the cop killer who was given veterans benefits until that was reviewed. I saw it in the justice committee when we were reviewing Bill C-75, the omnibus justice bill. Over 136 offences are going to have their sentences watered down because of a Liberal bill.

As sad and as bad as it is about Terri-Lynne McClintic, this is also about a course of conduct by the current Liberal government to water down and ignore the sense of justice Canadians feel. They have a tin ear when it comes to that sense of justice Canadians have. This is yet another example of that.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

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

Madam Speaker, we can only begin to imagine what Tori Stafford's family has been enduring the last nine years. The crimes committed against her were vicious and heartbreaking, and the people who committed those crimes deserve the life sentences they are serving in the custody of the Correctional Service of Canada.

When we hear Tori's father read his words, it is clear how raw his pain and anger still are. Of course they are. None of us has any difficulty understanding why he feels the way he does. At the same time, people who have not experienced what he has experienced can never truly understand. He, like the rest of Tori's friends and family, has every right to speak out, and we are listening.

The Minister of Public Safety has directed the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to undertake a review of the transfer decision in this case to ensure that it has followed the service's policies and procedures, and additionally, to evaluate whether the policies themselves are indeed still appropriate. The commissioner has named three people to conduct a review: Dr. Carmen Long, director general of CSC's offender program and reintegration branch; Dr. Andrea Moser, director general of interventions in CSC's woman offender sector; and Doreen Oakes, councillor for the Nekaneet First Nation and a professor at the First Nations University of Canada. The commissioner has been unequivocal that following the review he will make any necessary changes.

However, let us be absolutely clear that offender management decisions are within the purview of the Correctional Service of Canada. The government does not have the authority to intervene in these decisions, nor should it. According to section 6 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the commissioner of the Correctional Service has the control and management of the service and all matters connected with the service under the direction of the minister.

The very same language is used in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act about the public safety minister's relationship with the commissioner of the RCMP. In neither case does it mean the minister is entitled to micromanage the day-to-day operations of the agency. He cannot tell the commissioner of the Correctional Service which offenders to incarcerate where, anymore than he can tell the RCMP commissioner who to investigate or arrest. We do not need a justice system that is vulnerable to politics, and that is why the rule of law is so important.

This has been tested in court. In 1987, when considering whether the minister could direct that a particular inmate be placed in segregation, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that this language about the commissioner serving under the direction of a minister merely recognized overall ministerial responsibility, but does not authorize the minister to order the segregation of a particular prisoner. That may be why, when he was minister of public safety under Stephen Harper, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis said, “I do not control the classification of individual prisoners”. Even if it were legal, having governments make these kinds of operational criminal justice decisions would be a dangerous precedent. That may be why Stephen Harper's former staffer, Benjamin Perrin, said over the weekend, “I'm concerned with politicians being the ones who decide how any particular individual offender is treated”. He is absolutely right.

No two offenders have the same experience in our corrections system. What is more, thousands of major and minor decisions concerning the management of their cases are made every day across Canada.

There are dozens of different institutions, and each one is organized in its own way and has it own institutional culture, its own level of security, and its own types of interventions and programs. It is to be expected that offenders will move through the system over the years. They may start out in a maximum security facility at the beginning of their sentence and then move to a lower security facility, which is what happened with Terri-Lynne McClintic in 2014.

Offenders may get transferred within an institution, or from one institution to another. They may spend time in a mental health facility, or they may go to a facility with more of an indigenous focus. They will probably move through various programs, classes and institutional jobs, and occasionally be given different privileges or punishments.

It is the professionals in the Correctional Service of Canada who evaluate offenders on a regular basis, and use their training and expertise to determine the best correctional path for each individual.

I will not go any further into the specifics of the particular case referenced in today's motion. As I said earlier, the minister has ordered a review, and that review is under way. I will use the remainder of my time to discuss some of the roles of a healing lodge within our correctional system, because recently in this chamber, there have been some very unfortunate mischaracterizations of them.

Healing lodges are, first and foremost, correctional institutions. Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge is a medium-security institution. We have nine healing lodges, four run by the correctional service itself and five run by indigenous community organizations.

Healing lodges are not a free ride. The programming at these institutions is rooted in indigenous culture and practice, but offenders are still subject to restrictions and security measures, and they are still held accountable for their actions.

Let me reiterate, Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge is a medium-security institution. There are security cameras monitored 24 hours a day. There are daily searches of the facility and of offenders. Offenders are counted four times daily. There are regular security patrols all night long. Security staff has physical restraints and pepper spray. Importantly, there has not been a single escape from Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge in the last 10 years.

To correct the misconception about children at Okimaw Ohci, all women's institutions in Canada have mother-child programs for inmates with children younger than school age. This has been the case since 1997, and no child has ever come to harm as a result of this program.

To correct the very unfortunate language some of the members have been using when they refer to the healing lodges as “condos”, these are not luxury accommodations. The living quarters are actually comparable to other medium-security quarters in other women's institutions. Medium-security inmates at Grand Valley or Edmonton Institution for Women, for example, live in what is called an “open campus design”. There are houses around a courtyard. Each house has a small common area and a dozen small bedrooms. The set-up of all these institutions, Okimaw Ohci included, is the same now as it was under the Conservatives.

Let us talk about the purpose of healing lodges. As members know, indigenous people are significantly over-represented in Canada's correctional system. Approximately one-quarter of the male prison population and one-third of the female prison population are indigenous. About 90% of these indigenous women have been physically or sexually assaulted.

About 80% of them have serious problems with substance abuse.

Healing lodges are not a panacea or a quick fix, but they have show an ability to deal with complex and deep-seated problems. They are not the only answer, but they are certainly part of the answer. The correctional investigator has repeatedly recommended making greater use of healing lodges and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recently recommended that the Government of Canada ensure access to healing lodges for indigenous female offenders with a medium-security classification. Not one Conservative member dissented from that recommendation.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to stop denigrating healing lodges. They are an important element of our correctional system and have a record of successfully holding inmates accountable for the most serious of crimes by reinforcing that seriousness in the eyes of the community and of the offenders themselves.

Determining which offenders those are is the role of the trained professionals who work for the Correctional Service of Canada. They make their determinations following a thorough risk assessment with institutional and public safety always top of mind. It is not, nor should it be, the role of politicians to make these decisions. With this motion calling on the government to micromanage the operations of a criminal justice agency, the opposition is asking the government to act in violation of the law. Of course, that is not something we can support.

The minister has acted to the full extent of his authority by directing the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada to review both this particular transfer, as well as the appropriateness of the service's relevant policies in the interest of the effectiveness of Canada's corrections system and in the interest of public safety. We will follow the law and act deliberately and thoughtfully to address this issue and we await the report of the commissioner of corrections.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, I first want to correct the record. This has never been about healing lodges having a role to play in our correctional system. Certainly the Conservatives, as the member indicated by referring to the report, recognize that there is an appropriate role for them. What we are saying today that it is not an appropriate role for someone who quite recently killed an eight-year-old girl, continued to commit violent offences when she was in facilities and is now in a healing lodge, which is actually aimed at supporting people transitioning back into their communities. She is not going to transition back into her community until 2031.

The other thing I want to note is that what we are asking for is appropriate and well within the role of government. The member is reaffirming today that it is not possible for the government to reconsider a a policy that is completely inappropriate, which other governments have looked at in the past, and that it is unable to change it. Is that what she is saying, that the government is unable to change inappropriate policies that keep Canadians safe?

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.

Karen McCrimmon

Madam Speaker, we are saying that the rule of law must be paramount and that micromanaging individual offender decisions is not following the rule of law. The minister has asked for a review by the commissioner not only of this transfer but also of the overall policies and procedures that are currently in place, and we will wait for a report.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her speech.

As some members have mentioned, legislative changes may be necessary, depending on how the decision was made. Since more information is needed regarding the reasons for that decision, we must wait until we obtain the findings of the investigation.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this. Will the minister ensure that the review and investigation are conducted as quickly as possible so that parliamentarians have those findings and can make any necessary changes?

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.

Karen McCrimmon

Madam Speaker, this review is already under way. Three members have been assigned to conduct the review. We understand that this is a very important issue. I would anticipate that the commissioner will carry on with her work with the requisite speed.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend across the way. This is a solemn day, as we debate an issue that has received public outcry from coast to coast. We have heard that Tori's father, who on Facebook, has asked the government to reverse an atrocity. This criminal was sentenced to life in prison, with no chance of parole for 25 years, because she had kidnapped, raped and murdered a young eight-year-old girl.

My question for my colleague is more personal. We believe that dangerous child killers whose conduct has been bad in prison should not leave any type of institution where there are no prison cells, no gates and no methodology for keeping them behind bars.

Why do you believe she should be cascaded down to a healing lodge that has other children on the facility? This is the biggest example of injustice being done for the victim and for the family?

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the member to address questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.

Karen McCrimmon

Madam Speaker, I understand that what the family of Tori Stafford is going through is heartbreaking. However, our justice system is based on the rule of law and it is important that the government not get involved in the individual micromanaging of the status of an offender. I prefer to leave that in the hands of the experts, the people who have the training and experience to make those kinds of decisions.

We also know that it is appropriate to do a review of a decision to ensure it actually follows those policies and procedures and that those policies and procedures remain appropriate today.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Ken McDonald Liberal Avalon, NL

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague highlighted the fact of it being the rule of law and that we really do not want politicians getting involved in judicial matters. Could she expand on that a little before we end the debate? I was listening intently to her speech, but I was not reading the newspaper while I did it.