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

International TradeOral Questions

3 p.m.

University—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the cultural exemption is very important to all Canadians, but especially to Quebeckers. We maintained the cultural exemption, and I am very proud of that.

Chapter 19 is very important for all Canadians, but especially for Quebeckers and softwood lumber producers. I am also very proud that say that we are going to maintain that.

International TradeOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, the question was about supply management.

The government keeps saying that it protected supply management, but everyone knows that is false. Even Canada's most loyal ally, Philippe Couillard, came out and said that the agreement was very bad for Quebec.

That is not all. There is also diafiltered milk. The problem was solved, but the Liberals decided to quietly undo it all by the back door. Now it is going to come streaming across our borders from the U.S. This is not just a small breach in supply management; it is going to completely destabilize the system.

Why did the government go back on its word?

Why did it fail our farmers?

International TradeOral Questions

3 p.m.

University—Rosedale Ontario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the previous question was on Quebec and the agreement, but I would be very happy to answer questions about supply management.

We fully support our dairy farmers, their families and their communities. It was a Liberal government that created supply management and it is a Liberal government that is preserving it. I also want to emphasize once again that all dairy farmers will receive fair and equitable compensation.

Economic DevelopmentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Independent

Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Inuktitut].

[English]

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs. The minister is aware of the request to fund a feasibility study for the Kivalliq hydro fibre link. It is my understanding that a portion of this funding has or will be approved shortly.

This Inuit-to-Crown project is critical and supported by all mayors of the Kivalliq region. It will provide the region with a green source of energy and help Nunavummiut in its quest to build a sustainable economy.

Will the minister commit, as he did to stakeholders, to finding the remaining funding for this important study, which would lead to transformative change for Nunavut?

Economic DevelopmentOral Questions

3 p.m.

Mississauga—Malton Ontario

Liberal

Navdeep Bains LiberalMinister of Innovation

Mr. Speaker, the member highlighted the importance of economic development. I want to take this opportunity to underscore that our government is absolutely committed to supporting the regions. That is why, since we formed government, $750 million have been invested in all of the regions through the regional development agencies.

Specifically to the question the member opposite asked, we recognize the potential value and benefits that this feasibility study and potential future project could unlock for the Kivalliq region of Nunavut. That is why CanNor officials are working on this. I also want to highlight the fact that we will get it resolved.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

It being 3:05 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, September 27, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Saskatoon West concerning the business of supply.

Call in the members.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

Opposition Motion—HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—HousingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #889

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion defeated.

Supply ManagementPrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the fact that, yesterday, the government announced that it had agreed to open 3.59% of the Canadian milk and dairy products market to American products, despite the unanimous adoption of a motion by the House of Commons on September 26, 2017, which read:

That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.

The 2015 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English defines the word “fully” as “completely or entirely; to the fullest extent”.

This raises a question. What is the point of a motion that is adopted by the unanimous consent of the House of Commons, this assembly of representatives of the people, the very heart of parliamentary democracy, if the government can toss that motion out at will?

On page 598 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, it states:

However, orders or resolutions presented or adopted by unanimous consent express the will of the House and are as binding as any other House order or resolution.

The government disregarded a House of Commons decision to fully preserve supply management.

I want to make it clear that I am raising this question of privilege at the first available opportunity because the latest information became available during question period yesterday after the member for Mirabel asked a question.

We think the government's disregard for the clearly expressed will of the House is a grave offence to its authority and dignity. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reads as follows at page 60:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the house, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

In our opinion, the fact that this agreement was signed despite a unanimous motion by the House to fully preserve supply management is nothing short of contempt of Parliament on the part of the government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: “That the House note that the government is in contempt of Parliament by failing to respect the unanimous consent of the House, which called on it to fully protect supply management.”

Supply ManagementPrivilegeGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the member for Montcalm for his comments on this issue. I will examine the matter and come back to the House in due course.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by eight minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the great and honourable member for Winnipeg North.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Mr. Speaker, the horrific way that Tori Stafford was taken is a heartbreaking tragedy. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Tori Stafford as they continue to endure this unimaginable pain for their loss.

I would like to reiterate that the minister has directed the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to review this transfer decision and to ensure that all procedures, laws and rules were followed in the management of this case. As well, the minister has asked the commissioner to review the policies that are in place to make certain that they are up to date. Our government must continue to ensure that all decisions are made with public safety top of mind. Our government's approach to criminal justice policy will continue to be evidence-based. I have personally spoken with the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada who is doing this review, as she said at the last meeting of public safety standing committee.

We find on the website of the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, that it is committed to contributing to public safety and the protection of society, and the best way of doing this is helping offenders become law-abiding citizens. The service provides a range of programs and services to offenders to reduce the risk they may pose to society both within and outside the prison system.

As part of the CSC's mandate, one of its key priorities, as said under oath by the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, Anne Kelly, is addressing the disproportionate incarceration of indigenous peoples and ensuring that the treatment of indigenous offenders is focused on effective rehabilitation. She said that the CSC continues to enhance partnerships with indigenous peoples to create more opportunities for first nations, Métis and Inuit communities to participate in the care, custody and supervision of indigenous offenders. That is done through sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The CSC is currently reviewing proposals from several indigenous communities that have expressed interest in entering into a section 81 agreement to establish a healing lodge correctional facility for the care and custody of indigenous men and women offenders, because we know there are many indigenous people who are in the prison and the justice system.

The CSC has also established aboriginal intervention centres across the country at seven institutions for men and at all institutions for women. This initiative serves to strengthen indigenous offenders' access to culturally responsive programming in order to increase the potential for their successful reintegration into our communities, because at some point, all offenders, or almost all offenders, will be reintegrated into our society.

During this debate, the Conservative member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris said that the “law is blind”. It should be blind so that the state can do its job, and the state has the rule of law. Do we want politicians involved in deciding the fate of individual cases? I personally think, no, we do not. Maybe we would want this in Russia or other totalitarian states, but law, order and good governance require us to have cool heads. We need to have that rule of law each and every day, and that requires distance between the politicians and people's individual cases.

There is a difference between indigenous and western world views. The indigenous world view is a holistic one. We often say at the beginning of our prayers: “All my relations”. We do not simply mean the people whom we are physically related to by blood. We recognize that we are not alone in this world and that everything is interconnected. We are connected to the environment, animals, plants, the air that we breathe, and to the people who might not even be our relations. Many people have characterized the western world view as one based on retribution and fear. That is a distinctly indigenous perspective on the western world view, because, unfortunately, we have suffered many consequences as a result of the arrival of Europeans here on this territory.

One of the issues we are facing in the motion the Conservatives have put forward today is the need to ensure that people both inside and outside the prison system are safe.

With respect to those outside it, people will eventually reintegrate and be brought back into society, but it has to be done in a good way that ensures they are not going to recommit crimes that will hurt other people.

With respect to those inside the prison system, we have to ensure that it is safe for the people who are inside our penitentiaries right now. We are not islands unto ourselves. We are all interconnected. If a prisoner is causing chaos for other people within the correctional system, if we then make it harder for them to reintegrate into Canadian society, we will all suffer the consequences. This is what was recognized when the healing lodges were first recommended in a report in 1990.

There are many issues related to this, but one is women offenders. They comprise a very small and unique subset of the total federal offender population. Women offenders are more likely to be serving their first federal sentence and more likely to be successful upon release than their male counterparts.

A 1990 task force comprising a diverse mix of government representatives, correctional officials, community advocates, indigenous organizations and women offenders released a report titled “Creating Choices: the report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women”, which established a new correctional philosophy for women offenders. It encouraged a holistic approach to dealing with their specific needs back in 1990.

“Creating Choices” was founded on the principles of empowerment, meaningful and responsible choices, respect and dignity, supportive environments and shared responsibility. The report advocated the closure of the central prison for women in Kingston, Ontario and the establishment of a healing lodge and the construction of regional facilities for women offenders.

The Correctional Service of Canada has developed and continues to develop short and long-term options to ensure safe accommodations and interventions for women offenders.

Indigenous women are the fastest growing segment of Canada's federal custody population and are disproportionately represented there, making up approximately 40% of the federally incarcerated women's population.

It is not easy to go to these healing lodges, as I know after participating in a sun dance at one lodge that lasted four days and four nights. I participated with people who have been involved in the correctional system. During those four days and four nights, we allow neither water nor food to cross our lips and we pray in the blazing sun in June, July and August. These ceremonies go on across our country.

It is these types of ceremonies that are held at many of the healing lodges. They allow people to reconnect with their spirituality, so they can find out what it is about themselves that is wrong, and also what it is in themselves that could be right and made whole, because one day they will be in our society.

One of the issues that we are facing here today is the question of respect, and I am loath to raise this issue. I question if members of the House have the permission of the family to be using such graphic detail when describing this crime. I question if there is not a chance that we may be retraumatizing the family to a greater degree.

Inducing fear is extremely easy, but if I went to church, these are not the things I would do. It might be good to do some fundraising. It might be good to hold a bake sale, where we could interest people in our political activities. But is it something that we want to have in the House of Commons?

Another issue we face here is that when we deal with an individual case as Parliament, we are ignoring wider issues. Do we want to call the person referred to in this motion to the bar here? Is the opposition willing to call that person as a witness to answer for her crimes?

These are questions that we have to answer, because when we start focusing on one individual case it becomes much harder to start focusing on the larger issue's impact.

Should we have changes? That is important. I might not disagree with the Conservatives' that there might be a recourse or need to have some changes but should we be focused on this one single case?

I would also like to ask a few other questions. If we have an idea of retribution and retribution is our goal, perhaps we should remove all medium and minimum security prisons and all halfway houses in our country. Maybe we should just put everyone in maximum security prisons, as done in the 1850s, 1870s and 1880s. Maybe we should have corporal punishment in our prison system. Maybe we should make sure that the people who are locked up are locked up for an awfully long time and they regret and fear their time in that prison. Those are questions that I think we need to be talking about, because I think that is the fundamental idea the Conservatives are trying to get to.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed to hear the comments by the member for Winnipeg Centre. He talked about the law having to be done. The law was done. The law passed judgment on Terri-Lynne McClintic and threw her behind bars with a life sentence without parole for 25 years. He says that he hopes we are respecting the family's wishes. Does he not know that Rodney Stafford, the father of Tori Stafford, is active on Facebook, and wrote to the Prime Minister, and is organizing the protests on Parliament Hill on November 2 because he is disgusted and outraged by the decision of this public safety minister not to intervene after the Correctional Service of Canada transferred the killer of Tori Stafford into the healing lodge?

I am not taking anything anyway. I have a maximum, medium and minimum security facility in my riding. I have been in the minimum security facility where there is ongoing policing. The inmates do not live behind bars. It is supposed to be for those people who are ready to be reintegrated into society. Terri-Lynne McClintic is not there. She has been involved in all sorts of altercations and been subject to charges while she has been in prison, including assaulting other inmates. Therefore, I wish that this member would stand up and take action and vote with us against the actions of his own Minister of Public Safety.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, why do we not just bring her here right now and string her up right here in Parliament? Why do we not get a rope and just do it right here? I think that is what we are getting down to. Where do we draw the line? We can lock her up in maximum security for 24 years and let her out just a day before and put her in a minimum security facility. However, how is that going to actually make lives safer in this country? That is the question we have to get to.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

These people don't even usually make parole. It's what she deserves.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

I know the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman might talk loudly. However, I can talk louder here as well. I do not mind yelling about the vision I have for this country, which is one in which we work together.

This individual has done some horrific and terrible things and should pay for her crime. I do not think there is anyone who is suggesting otherwise. What we need to get down to is the best way to ensure that she is not a danger to herself and other inmates within that federal penitentiary system, and also to society when she is eventually released.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I did not want to interrupt. However, I want to remind the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman that he had and opportunity to ask the question. He may not like the answer, but at the end of the day, if he has another question, then he should get up and ask that question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I noticed that in the speech by the member for Winnipeg Centre, he remarked that healing lodges are an effective tool for the rehabilitation of inmates. Could the member speak more about why and how they are effective in doing so?

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I think any type of spiritual and religious experience is important for people. It could even be Christian. At the end of the day, if this centre allows someone to be even more successful when they reintegrate into society and contribute in some way, I think that is important for all of us. However, that process may take a long time. Do we want to have someone locked up for another 21 years who will not be a safe person within society or even contribute within the prison system? We want prisons to be safe places. We do not want to create prisons of fear. I remember reading back in the 1990s how people were so fearful of going to a prison, because they could raped, beaten up and killed there. Is this the type of place we want to have people coming out of into our society, where they have this amount of fear and have learned to act in these types of ways? I have heard time and again that people learn more bad than good in the prison system. I hope that is not true. However, if it is true, we have to recognize that eventually they are going to be living next door to us. If we are in downtown Winnipeg, they might be right there beside us. We are going to come out of our office building and they will try to get something off us. Therefore, we have to make sure that we create that safe society not only on the outside when they get out, but also inside that prison system. We cannot do it if we have a society based on retribution and absolute punishment all the time.

We can pretend we want to hang someone, but why do the Conservatives not actually put that forward, that their real motion is about setting up the death penalty or something like that, because that is the fundamentally where they want to go with this?

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. As all the members know, they should not be going back and forth, and they should not be heckling. I would ask that if individuals have questions or comments then they need to raise those at the appropriate time.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, what I would first like to do is suggest to those who are following the debate to question the motive behind the motion before us today. For example, we often have opposition days where opposition parties try to figure out what issues are of great interest to Canadians. We know there was a trade agreement reached late Sunday night. We know the Conservative Party opposes many aspects of the trade agreement. We saw that today in the number of questions the Conservatives asked and statements they made, both inside and outside the Chamber. That would have been a fantastic opportunity for the official opposition to focus debate on an issue that directly impacts every Canadian citizen in our country. Every region of our nation is directly affected. It is something that is all about Canada's middle class and the well-being of our economy going into the future. The Conservatives appear to have a great deal of concern about it. The reality is, no doubt they are somewhat grateful. They just cannot admit publicly that there is an agreement, because they know it is in the best interest of all Canadians.

As opposed to doing that, what we have witnessed today, and we have seen it through a number of different question periods, is a highly charged machine of rhetoric that is in play to try to push the emotions of Canadians and individuals following what is taking place here in the House. They believe they have an issue where they can show differences between the government of the day and the opposition.

Our government has done more on this particular file than Stephen Harper did in 2014. Let me explain why. However, before I do that I would like to make something very clear in regard to Tori Stafford. The proper words escape my vocabulary in terms of how I could best describe how horrific an act it was. It is absolutely horrific. My heart goes out to the family. I do not believe there is a member of Parliament who would not agree just how outrageous those acts were.

No member of Parliament should try to stand in his or her place and pretend they are more outraged about how brutal that murder was.

Having said that, we need to look at what has taken place. The Conservative Party, back in 1992, put in place these healing lodges. At the time, they were given a great deal of credit. There are members from all sides of the House who recognize the true value of these healing lodges. Back in the day, members on all sides of the House understood that these healing lodges were a good thing for Canadian society. We all knew they were affiliated with medium- and minimum-security prisons. There is nothing new about that. Stephen Harper, when he was the prime minister, knew that. The last Conservative government knew that. What happened in 2014 was the murderer of Tori Stafford was transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison.

Opposition Motion—JusticeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

David Anderson

: No, she was not.