Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2018

Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #898

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

Elections Modernization Act

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask you to rule new clause 344.1 in Bill C-76, reported back from the Procedure and House Affairs Committee yesterday afternoon, out of order for offending the so-called parent act rule.

Before getting into the substance of my argument, I want to acknowledge that this is essentially an appeal of a committee chair's ruling. However, this issue falls within the allowable categories of such points of order. On April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, Speaker Fraser said:

As the House knows, the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

Your immediate predecessor cited this passage as an authority in a ruling he delivered in relation to the parent act rule on May 1, 2014, at page 4787 of the Debates.

Turning to the substance of my point of order, the parent act rule, page 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:

In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

That latter point traces back to citation 698(8)(b) of Beauschene's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, edited by Fraser, Dawson, and Holtby.

In the present case, an amendment, known in the Procedure and House Affairs Committee proceedings as “Liberal amendment 55”, purported to add a new clause to Bill C-76 for the purpose of making an amendment to section 498 of the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-76, as introduced, would amend both sections 497.5 and 499 of the Canada Elections Act, the two sections that bookend section 498, but not section 498 itself.

In ruling on my point of order at committee, the chair stated that there is an exception to the parent act rule for consequential amendments, but cited no authority in that regard. An exception such as that could have wide-sweeping consequences, which merits a passing reference somewhere in our various procedural authorities so that members may be guided appropriately.

No such reference, aside, or footnote articulating this exception to such a clear-cut rule appears in a canvassing of Bosc and Gagnon, O'Brien and Bosc, Marleau and Montpetit, Beauschene's or Erskine May. However, I have found the words of Mr. Speaker Fraser, from the ruling I cited earlier:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

This sentiment was reiterated much more recently by no less an authority than this House's esteemed former law clerk, Rob Walsh. Mr. Walsh, at page 115 of his book On the House: An Inside Look at the House of Commons, published just last autumn, offered this perspective from a drafter's point of view:

An amendment to a bill amending an existing Act of Parliament, if passed, cannot amend a section in the “parent act” that may be implicated in the change but is not being amended in the bill. As a lawyer, I found this rule problematic at times. Occasionally it seemed clear that a section in the parent act, untouched in the amending bill, would need to be amended if the bill's amendments were passed. This is a “consequential” amendment, an amendment that is a consequence of another amendment. The lawyer drafting an amendment for a private member...might see that another section in the parent act would also need to be amended if the member's amendment is to work effectively, but the procedural rules won't allow the consequential amendment to be proposed.

These citations, I submit, are quite clear that consequential amendments, no matter how tempting, cannot be made to a bill if such amendments run afoul of our clear rules and procedures.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find new clause 344.1 to be out of order and that it be struck from Bill C-76. Nonetheless, should you find favour with the analysis of the member for Yukon, the chair of the committee, I would ask that the Chair's ruling in consideration of Standing Order 10 “state the...authority applicable to the case” so that all members will understand the applicable limits when contemplating amendments they might like to propose to legislation in the future.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for his point of order and in-depth analysis. I will come back to the House in due course with a ruling.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has four minutes remaining in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue discussing Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. When I last spoke on Friday, I referred to the fact that the government's justification for rushing the bill forward is that the courts made them do it, that the courts made them ban both segregation for administrative and disciplinary purposes in all circumstances. The problem with that justification is that it is simply not so.

Neither the British Columbia Supreme Court decision nor the Ontario Superior Court decision provide for that. Indeed, in the case of the Ontario Superior Court decision, the primary basis of that decision related to the independence of the review upon the determination made by the institutional head to put an inmate into segregation. The Ontario court determined that the lack of an independent review mechanism contravened fundamental justice under section 7 of the charter. That was the basis of the Ontario decision.

I need not remind the government that aside from these two court decisions, neither the Mandela rules nor the Arbour commission of 1996 called for the elimination of segregation in all circumstances. It is simply the government doing so with this rushed legislation without real, meaningful consultation with the men and women who work in correctional institutions, the most dangerous, difficult and stressful workplace environments. It is really quite unfortunate, but what is worse is that the changes the government is proposing to make will require a lot more resources to handle inmates.

Each time an inmate is removed from their cell to have some time out of it and away from segregation, that requires two guards to accompany them. What the government is proposing is to extend that to four hours. For this to work, it is going to require more resources, and so where are the resources for this from the government? They are nowhere to be found.

Instead of providing our correctional officers with the tools they need to keep our correctional facilities safe, what is the government proposing? It is proposing an 8.8% reduction in Correctional Services Canada's budget. That is what the Liberals are doing. While they are putting a greater burden on correctional officers, taking away vital tools that correctional officers need to keep institutions safe, the government is cutting back at the same time. It speaks to the misplaced priorities of the government and the fact that once again it just cannot get it right.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that this bill is being rushed through. Time allocation was put on it this morning without it being fully debated and without all members having an opportunity to speak for or against the bill, as the case may be, on behalf of their constituents, as the Liberals are in a rush to get it to committee.

Would the member like to comment on the government's confusion, the conflict between this bill and an earlier justice bill that is already before the House? Would he care to comment on the government's confused agenda on this topic?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, this morning the government once again used time allocation, a government that said it would never ever use it or would use it, at best, sparingly. This is the 50th-plus time that the government has moved ahead with time allocation. Its justification is to get it to committee, which can hear from witnesses. If it is all just a matter of getting things to committee, why have this place? Why allow for debate? There is a reason, and it is so that every member in the House can speak on legislation that impacts public safety in a very significant way. However, the government has decided it wants to shut debate down after very little debate on a very problematic bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the member's answer to the previous question. The Conservative Party, as the official opposition, is determined to see this bill defeated. It is very clear on it. It opposes it and does not want it to pass. It even brought forward a reasoned amendment to attempt to prevent if from passing. If it were up to the Conservative Party, we would debate this for 100 days, but the House will not be sitting. We might be able to deal with two or three bills if we followed the Conservative agenda. Maybe that is what the Conservative agenda is. The member said this government has used time allocation on 50 times; I do not necessarily buy the 50 times. The Harper Conservative government used time allocation over 100 times in four years.

Was Stephen Harper wrong in using time allocation 100-plus times and what was the rationale that he used when he was prime minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely we on this side are against Bill C-83 and we are going to do everything that we can to defeat it, a bill that the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers said is problematic. It raises the question of whose side the Liberals are on. Are they on the side of criminals or are they on the side of the men and women who work in correctional institutions?

I know which side Conservatives are on. We are on the side of the men and women who work in our correctional institutions. Their union has spoken out against problematic aspects of this bill. We are absolutely against taking a tool away from them to protect other inmates, to protect the integrity of criminal investigations and to protect inmates from themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has insisted that it has to rush this bill because of court imperatives and in response to a court decision. My colleague has clearly articulated how that is not accurate. Could he share with us what the courts actually said Liberals had to do and how this bill does not align with what is supposed to happen as we move forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate that both the British Columbia and Ontario decisions made no such determination of banning segregation in all circumstances, as Bill C-83 provides for. In the Ontario court decision, the heart of the decision related to the independent review process. As opposed to fixing the independent review process, the government instead has decided to eliminate a tool that is necessary to keep our institutions safe.

On the issue of whether segregation violated section 12 of the charter or targeted inmates with mental illness disproportionately, so on and so forth, the court ruled against all of those arguments against segregation.

[Dan Vandal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise on behalf of the citizens I represent in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

I am very pleased to rise in the House to support the government's legislation, Bill C-83, which revolutionizes our correctional services.

As the Minister of Public Safety said, the government is recognizing two things. The first is that institutional security is an absolute imperative that the Correctional Service of Canada must always meet. Second, it recognizes that the safety of Canadian communities depends on the rehabilitative work that happens within secure correctional institutions.

Safety is indeed at the heart of this legislation. We know that some inmates are simply too dangerous or too destructive to be managed within the mainstream inmate population. Our correctional officials must therefore have a way to separate them from fellow inmates.

The current practice is to place those inmates into segregation or, as our American friends call it, solitary confinement. However, two court rulings have found that practice unconstitutional. Those rulings are being appealed, one by the government and one by the other party, but the facts remain that they are scheduled to take effect in the coming months.

As a Parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that the correctional service has the legal authorities it needs to keep its staff, as well as the people in their custody, safe in a way that adheres to our Constitution. We can do that by adopting this bill, which proposes to eliminate segregation from federal institutions and replace it with a safe but fundamentally different approach.

Under Bill C-83, structured intervention units, SIUs, would be created at institutions across the country. These units would allow offenders to be separated from the mainstream inmate population when and if required, but they would also preserve offenders' access to rehabilitation programming, interventions and mental health care.

Inmates in an SIU would receive structured interventions and programming tailored to address their specific risks, as well as their specific needs. They would be outside their cell for at least four hours a day, which is double the number of hours under the current system. Four hours is an absolute minimum. I need to stress that it is a minimum. It could be more.

The inmates would also get at least two hours of meaningful human interaction with other people each day, including staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains, visitors and other compatible inmates. This is something that hardly exists under the current system. A registered health care professional would visit them at least once a day.

In other words, this bill introduces a new and more effective approach to managing the most challenging cases in our federal correctional system. It would promote not only the safety of correctional institutions, but also the safety of Canadian communities all across our country.

I would remind members that nearly all federal inmates will one day finish serving their sentence and be released. Accordingly, providing them with the opportunity to continue their treatment and rehabilitative work will increase their chances of successfully reintegrating the general prison population and, eventually, society.

Reducing the risk of recidivism will better protect Canadians and all communities, from our biggest cities to our smallest towns.

Other important measures in this bill complement the proposed creation of SIUs. For example, the bill would enshrine in law the correctional services obligations to consider systemic and background factors when making decisions related to indigenous offenders. This flows from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision in 1999. It is something that has been part of correctional policy for many years, but we are now giving this principle the full force of law.

This is part of achieving the mandate commitments the Prime Minister gave the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety to address gaps in service to indigenous people throughout the criminal justice system. The two ministers have likewise been mandated to address gaps in services to people with mental illness in the criminal justice system.

As I noted earlier, inmates with an SIU would receive daily visits from a health care professional. More than that, the proposed reforms in Bill C-83 would require the correctional service to support the autonomy and clinical independence of health care professionals working in correctional facilities.

The proposed legislation would also allow for patient advocacy services to help people in federal custody understand their health care rights and to ensure they receive the medical care they need. This was recommended by the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith.

There is also an important measure in this bill to better support victims of crime. Currently, victims are entitled to receive audio recordings of parole hearings but only if they do not attend. If they show up, they are not allowed to receive a recording. That does not make sense. Victims advocacy groups have said that attending a hearing is sometimes so emotionally difficult that victims simply cannot always remember what was said, which is entirely understandable. Under Bill C-83, victims would have the right to a recording of a hearing, whether they were present or not. They would then be able to listen to it again, later on in a more comfortable setting whenever it is convenient for them.

The first priority of any government should be protecting its citizens. When someone breaks the law, there are consequences. In the interest of public safety, we need to have a correctional system capable of addressing the factors that lead to criminal activity, so that offenders become less likely to reoffend and create more victims.

A proper, effective correctional system holds offenders to account for the wrongs they have done, but it also fosters an environment that promotes rehabilitation. Canada's correctional system already does an excellent job of providing rehabilitation and reintegration support for inmates under very challenging circumstances. However, Bill C-83 would strengthen that system, and public safety would be improved with safer institutions for staff and inmates, fewer repeat offenders, and fewer victims in the long run.

For all of these reasons, I fully support this important and transformative piece of proposed legislation, and I invite all honourable members to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues with the bill is that it is going to require a lot more resources in order to make it work. Yet, under the plan for Correctional Service Canada, there is actually an 8.8% planned reduction. Not only that, nowhere in the 22 priorities of Correctional Service Canada is there any mention about protecting the safety of correctional officers.

How is this going to work in the face of an 8.8% planned reduction and no mention of putting the safety of correctional officers first?

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that when the member's party was in government for 10 years, the Conservatives were not very worried about providing more support for our departments and our public service who do tremendous work, and all of a sudden they are.

This is clearly a priority of this government. I have full confidence in the finance minister, the Prime Minister and the public safety minister that the resources necessary to properly implement this proposed legislation will be there when the time comes.

However, first things first. We have to get this to committee. We have to hear from the unions and other people who are interested in this legislation. We need to get it to committee, we need to have those discussions, and we need to get it back here to actually make it the law of the land.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill certainly looks after inmates, those who have committed a crime. However, I have a concern with respect to correctional officers. When individuals who have committed some of the most heinous crimes possible are allowed out of their cell for four hours a day and to wander freely, what resources have been put in place on behalf of the correctional officers to ensure they return to their homes at the end of the day, safe, sound and secure, and can return to their jobs the next day, feeling that their needs are being met and that they are being looked after as correctional officers? They serve our country in an incredible way.

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, at the very heart of this bill is public safety. Something the other side fails to recognize over and over again is that the vast majority of inmates end up in our cities, villages and rural municipalities. When they are at the checkout stand at the Safeway next to our aunts, uncles, mothers or fathers, I would like to know we have done the absolute best job we can at rehabilitation so our communities, cities and rural municipalities are safer. Rather than focusing on punishment alone, we need to put a focus on rehabilitation so when they leave the penitentiaries, the communities are safer because of the time they have spent there.

With respect to the officers, part of the legislation involves body scanners, which will make the union members safer as well.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about ensuring that people would come out better on the other end. Would he please comment on the importance of getting this to committee so we can hear from the correctional officers, the unions, the people involved in these institutions and make the necessary amendments to ensure they are safe going forward? I do not think anyone on either side of the House wants our corrections officers to be left in an unsafe position.

[Dan Vandal]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. This has been debated at length already. It is important to get it to committee to hear from correctional officers, other unions, other people and other interest groups that are interested in this policy. I stress that public safety is at the core of this legislation. We need to move it forward to committee to hear from the public.