Debates of April 29th, 2021

Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think anyone watching at home or in the chamber, if their heart was a little too small, it probably grew three sizes bigger today. I just wanted to thank the member. Sometimes we forget about how difficult it is to take a piece of legislation through the whole process. I congratulate him and his team.

Now that we are at third reading, the member has been through committee study. He mentioned there were a lot of suggestions, not only from his own party, but from other parties. Could the member please share some of the experiences he had at committee? Also, what does he believe will be the next step for his bill?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the committee experience was a very good one. I will start by thanking the Chair. He was so good in helping us navigate this first experience of walking a private member's bill through committee. He was tremendous. I will also recognize my hon colleague from Lakeland, who was tremendous in helping guide the bill through.

I mentioned my hon. colleague and fellow Atlantic Canadian, the member for St. John's East, over in Newfoundland. He had a good amendment that we added to enrich the bill and make sure we are looking into how sometimes there are systemic things that need to be looked at. We need to address that to make sure that, if there are patterns or things that are systematically unfair, we are making sure those are being looked at, examined and addressed as well.

I cannot thank each one of the members of the committee enough for the valuable input and encouragement they have offered along the way, as well as the witnesses we heard from for providing their stories. I look forward to the day, when we are hearing further testimony to the effects of these programs being put in place, that we will hear the stories of lives that have been transformed. I think—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will continue with the next question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member, and I am interested in getting his thoughts on the issue of restorative justice. I am sure he has likely given some thought to it, and I would be interested in hearing his opinions.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am very familiar with the principle of restorative justice. I am familiar with it from my background, and I believe those principles certainly do apply. I believe people can be restored. I believe there are so many facets that can lead to that positive restoration. I happen to be one who believes that faith can play a huge role in that.

I also believe in effective partnerships, good programming and good therapeutic counselling, and I am one of the ones who really believes that an opportunity for meaningful employment, or being able to be employed, to step back in, is one of the best ways we can help people become restored. It is about addressing the whole person and their needs, so I do believe very much in the concept of restorative justice.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say once again how impressed I am. I recognize the member's compassion and passion for this issue, coming out of his own experience and that of his friend, Monty Lewis, who took a great deal of interest in making sure people had an opportunity to be rehabilitated.

I have to say, though, his party in the past has done a disservice to the programming in prisons by reducing and closing, for financial reasons, many of the programs and services that were available to inmates to assist in their rehabilitation. I do not want to go through the list, because it is a very long one, and it is very disheartening, to say the least.

I wonder whether the hon. member would care to comment on that and whether he is prepared to acknowledge that cutting these programs has had a lasting impact on rehabilitation in our federal prisons.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his input at committee and thank him for his question here this evening. I do not think any political party can say that it has it 100% right as it relates to restorative justice or to successful reintegration back in the community after time served.

All of us need to bring a certain level of humility to any of these societal challenges we are facing and realize that we have to work together to find solutions. We build on the knowledge of past experiences, both good and bad, and try to build a bridge to a better tomorrow. We are on that path with this bill. We have seen a very encouraging sign with all parties coming together to work on this.

This bill provides opportunity for the public sector involvement, but also private sector involvement, non-profits and others, and I think it is at that interface that we will really find the keys to successful reintegration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get in on the debate all day and finally at the end I get recognized. I want to congratulate my colleague on putting forward this bill and bringing it all the way through the House of Commons. As someone who has passed a private member's motion before, I know the challenges of that and I am very excited to see this go forward.

What does he have in store next around this issue?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his encouragement along the way. I appreciate his kind remarks. What is next is that hopefully, if we are successful in getting this bill through here this evening, it will go directly to the Senate and have a very successful outcome there and become law.

Then I hope we can start to see pilot programs roll out across the country, working in conjunction with the provinces and other sectors that would be interested in doing a pilot, to see what models work best and hopefully start to see recidivism numbers come down. I look forward to those next steps, but right now let us get it through this vote this evening and hopefully off to the Senate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some thoughts with the member, who has done an admirable job in bringing this to the floor of the House of Commons, and now we are at third reading. Even though I was not at the committee stage discussions, by the sound of the presentations, I am sure it would have been of great interest. No doubt the standing committee did fine work with respect to the legislation.

When I think of Bill C-228, I think of the Speech from the Throne. In that speech, we made a commitment to introduce legislation and make investments to address certain things such as systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing and rehabilitation to records. There is a great deal of merit in what we are debating today.

The member and so many of us talk about the issue of the revolving door of our justice system. Think of the costs to society, and I am not just talking about the dollar value costs because it far exceeds the dollar. It also impacts communities. We all want to do what we can, as legislators, so our constituents can feel safe in their communities no matter what time of the day or wherever they may be located. We want to see that safety.

For residents of Winnipeg North, the element of safety is of utmost importance. How can we deal with that issue without at least addressing and taking action where we can with respect to the revolving door?

I am pleased this debate is taking place and I have a lot of thoughts on this issue. I was the justice critic for a short time when I served in the Manitoba legislature. I have had the opportunity to take tours of places like the Headingley provincial prison, the Stony Mountain federal prison and different types of incarceration facilities in communities. I also saw other alternatives in administering justice.

It is why I was very interested when the member spoke of his interest in restorative justice. Generally speaking, I was pleased with his answer. I do believe in restorative justice. Restorative justice could not only be for the perpetrator but also for the victim, where we bring both sides together and the victim can see there is a face to his or her offender. It is not universal and it cannot necessarily be applied in every situation, but in certain situations it can be done. I used to be on a youth justice committee and saw first-hand the true value of something of that nature, not to mention the more macro approach in dealing with it.

When I think of our prison systems, having done the walkthroughs and talked to many people who were in prison, I have come to a few conclusions. The incorporation of education is absolutely critical when we talk about prison life. I am talking about basic skills and things like learning to speak English or another language. It is so very important to write, to communicate or to prepare a résumé. Some of the things we take for granted are often a significant challenge for many who are in the prison system. By ensuring they have some of those very basic skill sets, we are enhancing their chances of becoming more productive citizens within our communities.

There are ways in which we can deal with the issue of substance abuse and drugs, as an example. We need to do a lot more in terms of looking at ways we can have more effective policies on that front. I do believe that as a government we have been very progressive in our approach on a number of those files.

Regarding the legislation that the member has brought forward, it is important to emphasize a couple of points, as I should have done closer to the beginning. If I may, I suggest that the government interprets this bill as applying to federal offenders only. That is an important aspect as they are they only ones for whom the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is responsible. I want to highlight that because it is an important part of the debate, even though in his comments the member accurately made reference to the importance of working with other stakeholders, in particular our provinces.

For private citizens participating, such as at justice committees, I can say that in my experience it has been very positive. One becomes an honorary probation officer of sorts and it is a quasi-judicial body, whether it is an individual or a non-profit organization. There are many non-profit organizations out there that do outstanding work, assisting people who are incarcerated. I would add that they do outstanding work in assisting victims of crimes. However, for the purpose of this bill it is recognizing the phenomenal effort of those organizations in all regions of our country, as non-profits, that are there to support real people who are trying in many ways and situations to get out of their current circumstances and to contribute more positively.

Along with the private citizens and the non-profit organizations, one could easily factor in private companies. I do not know to what degree today because I have been out of it for a little while, but often we see the private sector assisting. Whether it is participating in dispositions to reintegrate individuals who have left the system or as part of a disposition that a justice or quasi-judicial group would have given to someone who has perpetrated an offence, the private sector also has a role to play in this.

Obviously there are the provinces. That is where I should spend just a bit more time because we need to recognize that when we talk about incarcerations, I do not know the hard numbers but the member also made reference to that revolving door and I do believe that percentage is higher in provincial facilities than it is in national facilities. We always have to be careful what we talk about statistics. There are rationales that could justify why that is the case, but I know that there are systemic barriers that are real and that the government needs to focus attention on.

With respect to services, it is also important to point out that they already are doing good work to continuously review and improve their risk assessment instruments and procedures to ensure they remain unbiased, valid and reliable. When we talk about changes that will impact safety, these types of things actually move us forward.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were originally supposed to debate this bill the day after the emergency debate on violence against women. I had therefore planned to focus on that topic in my speech, since femicide is a scourge that must be eradicated at all costs, and this bill could be part of the solution. I still want to take a moment to outline the sad events of the last few months, and my colleagues will understand why.

On February 5, 2021, Elisapee Angma was killed in Kuujjuaq by her ex-husband. On February 21, 2021, 32-year-old Marly Edouard was shot in the head near her home in Laval. She had been a victim of domestic violence a few weeks earlier. On February 23, 2021, 44-year-old Nancy Roy was stabbed to death in her Saint-Hyacinthe home. Her ex-husband Jean-Yves Lajoie was charged with the murder. On March 1, 2021, 28-year-old Myriam Dallaire and her 60-year-old mother Sylvie Bisson were killed with an axe in Sainte-Sophie by Ms. Dallaire's ex-husband. On March 19, 2021, 40-year-old Nadège Jolicoeur was stabbed to death in her husband's taxi. On March 23, 2021, 29-year-old Rebekah Harry succumbed to her injuries after being hospitalized for several days in Montreal. Her husband was arrested at the scene of the crime.

These seven women were killed in the span of seven weeks in Quebec. Fourteen children lost their mothers and often their fathers, who took their own lives after the murders. Since then, the list has grown to 10. Ten women have been killed at the hands of people close to them.

The killers are violent partners or ex-partners. It is even worse knowing that several of these femicides were committed by men who had already gone through the court system and had a long history of domestic violence. It is quite clear that domestic abusers must be taken into custody, monitored and subjected to a rigorous risk assessment.

Therein lies the rub. According to the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee and criminologist Jane Monckton, the domestic homicide that is playing out before our eyes is due to public authorities' ongoing neglect when it comes to prevention, screening and tracking of high-risk cases. The risk factors are known, but they are ignored or downplayed.

In the case of the double femicide in Sainte-Sophie, an ex-girlfriend of the suspect said she was not taken seriously when she filed a complaint against him five years earlier. She had to stay confined at a shelter while he enjoyed total freedom. He already had a long criminal record by then.

It makes no sense that a woman who is a victim of violence must go to a shelter to be safe, while her violent partner or ex-partner is free.

The Alliance des maisons d'hébergement de 2e étape takes women who are most at risk of being killed. It says that, most of the time, the men are released within 24 to 48 hours of being arrested. Where do these men go once released, if left unsupervised? The answer is obvious.

Elisapee Angma's body showed signs of serious injuries when she was found on February 5 in Kuujjuaq. Two weeks earlier, her ex-husband had been released on bail, even though he had violated court orders prohibiting him from approaching Ms. Angma. Many victims of violence who trusted the court system now believe, unfortunately, that the freedom of an accused man is more important than the safety of a woman. When citizens lose trust in their justice system, they stop filing reports and stop going to the police.

The figures confirm this. There have been a lot of media reports on femicide in recent weeks. We have all had our eyes opened to a serious problem in our society that urgently needs to be addressed. However, the statistics on attempted murder, aggravated assault, threats and assault against women are even more worrisome than people think. In 2019-20, 300 women sought refuge in women's shelters in Quebec. These 300 women were victims of attempted murder by violent men, the majority of which do not factor into police statistics.

The Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes du Québec says that these women report being strangled, drowned or thrown down a staircase. In the face of such horrific acts, we have a duty as legislators to ask what we can do to put an end to this senseless violence. What can we do to ensure that women and children feel safe in their own homes? What can we do to ensure that men filled with rage have the tools they need to channel their anger and avoid causing further femicides?

One of the solutions is definitely that we must immediately improve the way we deal with violent men. We need to implement innovative measures to help them, because arresting them is a way to affirm that domestic violence is not acceptable, yes, but prison does not help violent men resolve their deep-rooted issues. In 50% of cases, they reoffend. Domestic violence is a social problem, and we need to take action on several fronts. We cannot eradicate violence against women without doing something about the violent men. That would be a mistake.

Bill C-228 is a way to better support inmates in federal prisons to minimize recidivism. This is a subject that is very important to me and that I am studying very carefully as part of my work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The problems with the handling of federal inmates are well documented.

Bill C-228 seeks to do away with mandatory minimum sentences for certain Criminal Code offences. It corrects an error made by Stephen Harper's government. The mandatory nature of the sentences takes away judges' discretion to determine appropriate sentences based on their knowledge of the case and their expertise in order to maximize the chances of rehabilitation.

The rationale for mandatory minimum sentences is the belief that length of time in prison acts as a deterrent to future recidivism. However, a major study carried out over a 30-year period with more than 336,000 inmates proved otherwise.

Researchers found 325 correlations between recidivism and length of time in prison. The goal was to determine whether imprisonment was effective in suppressing criminal behaviour and recidivism. The researchers found that imposing prison sentences was not an effective way to reduce criminal behaviour. They concluded that the primary justification for imprisonment was to punish offenders for their crime and to neutralize certain offenders for reasonable periods of time.

The report of Canada's correctional investigator, Ivan Zinger, which was released on October 27 of last year, was consistent with the study results. It was a damning report for the Canadian government, because it showed that the feds are doing a very poor job of reintegrating inmates.

I had a chance to talk to Mr. Zinger during a Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security meeting. We talked about the significant number of incidents of sexual violence in federal prisons that go unreported or that, worse yet, are reported but go unpunished. When we have proof that the Correctional Service of Canada is turning a blind eye to rape, we must take urgent action.

The key takeaway from the correctional investigator's report is that Canada is falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world with respect to digital learning and vocational skills training behind bars. The government has taken little action to implement the dozens of recommendations made by Mr. Zinger's office to improve training for inmates, which would have a direct impact on their reintegration into the community.

Based on these observations, is it any surprise that prisoners in federal penitentiaries are struggling to be rehabilitated? How can they re-enter the labour market without training that reflects the needs of today's workplace? How can we expect them to successfully reintegrate into the community if we neglect opportunities for them to obtain employment once their sentences are over? Without a legitimate way to earn a living, the door to delinquency and recidivism remains wide open.

Bill C-228 provides for the development and implementation of a federal framework to reduce recidivism. This is a good thing, and we had the opportunity to discuss it at committee with the sponsor of the bill. However, it provides for standardized programs, in other words, programs that are the same across Canada. Unfortunately, this approach directly interferes in Quebec and provincial jurisdictions.

Quebec already manages the reintegration of young offenders into the community, but this bill would override that with a federal framework. The problem is that Bill C-228 does not provide any details on the form that the federal framework would take. It gives the federal government free rein to create the framework itself and bypass Quebec and the provinces.

A Liberal amendment even changed the wording to ensure the framework is established in consultation with the provinces instead of in collaboration with them. To us, that suggests that the framework will be imposed on the provinces. We had hoped to amend the bill at report stage, but the law clerks deemed our changes to prevent federal interference to be out of order.

However, that was the whole reason we supported the bill at second reading. Offender reintegration is important to me and the Bloc Québécois. This bill undermines the efforts of Quebec, which is doing rather well when it comes to reintegration into the community.

In order for us to support the bill, it would have had to limit the federal role in offender reintegration. The recent case of Michel Cox, a dangerous sexual predator who tried to kidnap a teenager immediately after being released from prison, and the murder of Marylène Levesque by Eustachio Gallese show that recidivism among violent men is a problem.

We cannot stick our heads in the stand. The existing measures have often failed to protect the public.

Although the Bloc Québécois supported the bill at second reading, we are opposed to subjecting provincial jails to a federal model, especially since a number of studies have found that Quebec is doing a much better job with reintegration than other places in the world.

I do want to commend the member for Tobique—Mactaquac and thank him for his work.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni. I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-228 today, an act—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member just for a moment. In private members' business, there is really no provision to share one's time, unlike other occasions when we are in committee of the whole and such. The member will have to stick to his 10 minutes.

I do note that the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni is on the list. We are coming up against an end point here, but if there does happen to be time available, certainly he is on the list and will have an opportunity to speak.

The hon. member for St. John's East.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, presented by the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

Let me first commend the member for bringing forth this bill. He is a first-time member, and it is to his credit that he has gotten his private member's bill to this stage so early in his political career. He has spoken with great passion and empathy about this issue in the House from his experience in his community and the extraordinary work done by a friend of his, Monty Lewis in assisting ex-offenders.

It is also notable that the bill is coming from a Conservative member of the House. That is because we often hear from Conservatives, who see themselves as so-called “tough on crime”, seeking stiffer punishment, mandatory minimums and lengthier sentences for crimes in hopes of protecting the public, but which have not proven to do so.

It is not very often we hear from them of the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community for an offender when released from prison. This does serve to protect the public and is an important element in the improvement of society. The rehabilitation of an offender is a significant principle of sentencing and must be considered by a judge, along with other elements.

What we want to avoid is an offender reoffending. That is probably the simplest definition of recidivism, which is not a commonly used word outside the field of corrections. The bill calls for the development of a national framework to reduce recidivism to be developed within a year by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and reported to the House of Commons.

This is to be done in consultation with the provinces, with indigenous governing bodies and organizations, and other stakeholders, including NGOs, such as the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies, and other organizations and groups that work with ex-offenders.

It recognizes the need for the framework to include measures to ensure that those who are released from prison have adequate and ongoing resources, as well as employment opportunities to aid their transition and reintegration back into the community, all with the goal of reducing the likelihood of reoffending but also helping the person become a productive and contributing member of society along the way.

Employment is extremely important and basic to rehabilitation. Having a job and the opportunity to achieve self-sufficiency and the independence that comes with that is crucial and gives people some control over their life and future. A representative of the John Howard Society in my riding of St. John's East has recently stressed the need for employment skills development programs pre-release as a means to help ex-offenders get more quickly on their feet as they seek to reintegrate and build a better life.

It is hoped that consultations coming from this bill will result in productive recommendations for measures to assist in aiding rehabilitation and thereby avoiding recidivism and in helping individuals overcome the obstacles that may have contributed to their being incarcerated in the first place.

This could include helping those with a lack of access or with barriers to education and training, or those dealing with drugs and other addictions, which can be a huge factor in the lives of some of those who have been incarcerated. The bill provides an important opportunity to focus on the needs of ex-offenders and enhance the programs and resources that could be made available.

The preamble of the bill also recognizes that the purpose of the correctional system is, in part, to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders, both in the penitentiaries and in the community. One factor that is now well known is that there is a shocking over-representation of indigenous men and women, Black Canadians and persons of colour in our prisons. In 2020, according to the correctional investigator, indigenous people accounted for 30% of the prison population but only 5% of the Canadian population. Black inmates were 10% of the prison population but only 4% of the Canadian population.

What has been revealed recently is that there is also a racial bias in the tools used to assess inmates on their rehabilitation potential and their security standing when they serve in the prison itself, whether they had to serve in minimum, medium or maximum security. Black and indigenous inmates are more likely to get maximum security ratings and be assigned the worst scores on a potential for rehabilitation assessment.

The result is that they have restricted access to programs for rehabilitation within the prison, less access to parole, thereby serving a longer portion of their sentence in prison. Having fewer opportunities for programs is obviously detrimental to those incarcerated.

An amendment to address this now included in the bill was proposed by me and accepted, most graciously, at the committee stage by the member for Tobique—Mactaquac and supported by the committee. It is a provision that the framework must, “evaluate and improve risk assessment instruments and procedures to address racial and cultural biases and ensure that all people who are incarcerated have access to appropriate programs that will help reduce recidivism.”

I believe this will enhance the framework on recidivism and hopefully eliminate at least one element of systemic racism in our society, which has such negative consequences. I want to once again commend the member for this legislative initiative and offer my support for its adoption at third reading.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Tobique—Mactaquac and his team for this critical work to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism through this bill, as well as for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon.

All of us should be deeply concerned about the well-being and status of those who have committed crimes for two reasons. Those who have committed crimes are still human beings, and unless they are reformed, criminals have the capacity to hurt us, and others, again.

On the first point, I know that the member who proposed this bill previously served as a pastor. I also know that a great deal of important work affirming the human dignity of prisoners and seeking to reduce recidivism is done by faith communities. My colleague will, therefore, be quite familiar with the text from Matthew 25, which discusses those who will and will not receive salvation. In particular it says:

...the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”

I do not doubt that for many, the last line of this famous text is the most challenging. To feed the hungry, clothe the naked and welcome the stranger are comparatively easier things to do when the hungry, naked and stranger seem to be in challenging circumstances through no fault of their own. However, to be concerned with the well-being of the guilty, of those who have harmed others, and to recognize their guilt without denying their humanity is necessarily more challenging. I acknowledge that.

In affirming the immutable human dignity of the guilty, we should not seek to dismiss their guilt or blame it abstractly on social factors beyond their control. That also seems to me to be a way of denying their human dignity. To say that someone has human dignity is to say that they have inherent value and that they have free will and must bear responsibility for their actions.

Those who have committed crimes, especially violent crimes, have likely participated in acts of dehumanization by denying the dignity of others or by using them as merely a means to their own ends. It clearly does no good then for the state or others to also participate in this process of dehumanization by seeking to deny the humanity of the perpetrator, either by pretending that they did not have agency in their situation or by seeking to treat them in a way commensurate with an animal.

Following a dehumanizing act of crime, the response from the system and from society, as a whole, should be to seek rehumanization. This should include both holding an individual accountable and calling them up to behave in accordance with their humanity. Our response to dehumanization should not be further dehumanization, but rather rehumanization. Otherwise, we will have not actually established a distinction in the underlying mentality between ourselves and the criminal.

Sir Thomas More made the following observation about how dehumanization contributes to crime. He observes in his book Utopia:

If you do not find a remedy to these evils it is a vain thing to boast of your severity in punishing theft, which, though it may have the appearance of justice, yet in itself is neither just nor convenient; for if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this but that you first make thieves and then punish them?

Aside from any normative or moral arguments about dehumanization and rehumanization of criminals, there is an obvious practical advantage to seeking rehumanization. It is a fact that most criminals do end up being released. Therefore, the extent to which they have parted company with their previous modes of behaviour has consequential implications for the security of everyone else.

Theoretically, a society could seek to solve this problem by not releasing criminals ever, but aside from being unjust, this would be enormously expensive. Saving the government money is certainly the least important or compelling reason to seek to reduce recidivism, but it is a reason nonetheless.

Even criminals who are incarcerated for life can do great harm to others, such as guards, fellow prisoners or the general public. Those who think permanent incarceration is a solution should remember that Allen Legere, one of Canada's most notorious serial killers, killed most of his victims after escaping from prison. Even if someone is sentenced to spend the rest of their life behind bars, it still makes all of us safer to see their rehabilitation. As I said earlier, in practice, most of those who go into prison will come out at some point or other.

In calling for the creation of a national framework to reduce recidivism, this bill particularly highlights the importance of strong communities and not-for-profit organizations. I know this is not an accident. Meaningful human community associated with responsibilities and obligations, furnished through natural institutions like family, workplace and neighbourhood, is what helps us to learn and practice virtues that allow us to live meaningful and happy lives together.

Community is important for the development of character and for rehabilitation. Community can also in some sense be part of the problem, when people are plugged into communities that reward or reinforce anti-social behaviour. In such cases, people need to have new communities made available to them. However, we do not make criminals into good citizens by alienating them from their humanity. Nor do we make criminals into good citizens by alienating them from all kinds of community.

Government is many things, but its biggest weakness is that it is not a community. While governments create legal frameworks and provide programs, they do not embody the unique characteristics or competencies of communities. Although governments can play a supportive role, a recognition of the unique competencies of voluntary communities that must receive former criminals and nurture them in the development of virtue is why this bill emphasizes the role that partnerships must play as part of a national framework on reducing recidivism.

Having quoted scripture on Sir Thomas More, I will now rely on the film The Shawshank Redemption to help elucidate my final point. Following the suicide of a recently released prisoner, one of the others observed, “These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them.”

The adjustment to release is very challenging. The state takes responsibility for incarcerating people and then releasing them, but what is really important for combatting recidivism is the process by which released prisoners are able to integrate themselves into a new community, which will help them further develop new patterns of behaviour. The transition out, and in particular the support of communities welcoming released prisoners, is necessary for reducing recidivism. The government cannot do this work on its own, but it can help.

During the tenure of the last Parliament, I had an opportunity to visit with Cal Maskery and the team at Harvest House Atlantic in Moncton. Harvest House is a community hub for people who have recently been released from prison. It includes an emergency shelter, step-up housing, addictions recovery and skills training, and it is supported through donations and government programs.

Cal himself served time in prison, but then he turned his life around. Cal met his wife while he was in prison. She was a volunteer helping those who were incarcerated. They got married on the day of Cal's release. I was deeply inspired by Cal's story and by the work Harvest House does. This is the kind of work that needs more support through this bill.

I have also had the opportunity to visit the prison in my own riding on a couple of occasions. I encourage all members to take the opportunity to visit prisons, talk to prisoners and staff, and hear about the challenges and hopes of those who are there. I have been inspired in this context by the work of my uncle, a professional musician who runs a charity called Concerts for Hope. He brings other professional musicians with him to perform classical music concerts in prisons across the United States. Presenting convicted criminals with beautiful music promotes the rehumanization of hardened criminals and seeks to inspire in them a renewed sense of hope.

For rehumanization and reducing recidivism, it seems to me that hope is the key thing. To hope is essential for any human being. To turn their lives around, those who have committed crimes need hope: hope that something different is possible, hope that one day they can find purpose in serving others and hope, like the good thief on the cross, that even in the face of the worst imaginable punishment, there is an opportunity for grace as long as breath remains.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my hon. colleagues from the bottom of my heart for their tremendous remarks and thoughtful considerations on this.

The hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan referenced a passage that I was going to reference at at the very end, a favourite, which was when the master teacher himself said about those who inherit the Kingdom. He said, “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”

Those words ring true in my heart as we come to the conclusion of the debate on this. The difference that a compassionate heart can make, that hope can make and that coming alongside those who perhaps feel that they will be forever defined by what once was perhaps a very regrettable and hurtful decision they made at one time in their life and they live in the shadows of that feeling.

I am glad to share with the House on this occasion that I personally have witnessed and met many who have changed direction in their life and they have gone in a much better direction because there were people who came to where they were and shared a message of hope, offered a hand of friendship and provided an opportunity when probably perhaps they thought they may not get another one. This bill would go a long way in providing a framework.

The aim of the bill is to provide a structure through which the best of the best programs, both here at home and internationally, can be fostered and developed so we can all attain the shared goal of reducing recidivism among our incarcerated population and help them successfully reintegrate back into the community. We do that through these kinds of effective partnerships.

I thank everyone and I hope we can speedily get this off to the Senate and see it become law sooner rather than later.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would ask them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

National Defence

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for the magnificent riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is my privilege to represent the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces here in Canada and serving our country abroad.

My question for the Prime Minister was about providing protection from COVID-19 for soldiers being deployed overseas to Ukraine. I asked the same question for soldiers deployed outside of Canada in Latvia.

Since the start of the pandemic, over 1,525 members of the Canadian Armed Forces have contracted the virus, an infection rate that is almost double the rate of the rest of the Canadian population. Today we were told that there are 100 active COVID cases among our soldiers. Soldiers are at a higher risk. Yesterday, the news reported a COVID outbreak at Garrison Petawawa. This follows a news report of an outbreak in the civilian population near Garrison Petawawa.

The Prime Minister’s vaccine policy is putting Canadians at unnecessary risk. Leadership means giving an at-risk soldier a vaccine shot before virtue signalling in front of a camera. Once again, the Prime Minister has failed the leadership test. The Prime Minister’s open-door COVID policy is needlessly exposing Canadians to the COVID-19 virus. The decision to deploy soldiers to Ukraine without first being vaccinated is another bad decision by the Prime Minister, who has a record of bad decisions.

The Prime Minister knew that Ukraine was struggling to get access to vaccines. Out of the 2.05 million COVID cases in Ukraine, 43,391 deaths have been recorded. Over 400,000 Ukrainians are sick with the virus and Ukraine's health care system is in crisis. Hospitals are overflowing. They are short-staffed, with acute equipment shortages. Ten thousand new cases were recorded in the last 24 hours, with 432 COVID-related deaths in the same time period. This is in a population slightly larger than Canada’s. It was into this environment, an area suffering from a raging pandemic, that the Liberal Prime Minister sent unvaccinated soldiers.

The subsequent order from the Prime Minister to scavenge a vaccine from a country where soldiers are being deployed is beyond outrageous. Unless the Prime Minister has ordered Health Canada to approve the use of the Chinese Sinovac vaccine on Canadian soldiers, with its 50% efficacy rate, the communist vaccine is not even legal in Canada. The Prime Minister knows that the Chinese vaccine is the only vaccine available in Ukraine to inject into soldiers’ arms.

Canadian soldiers cannot scavenge COVID-19 vaccines from the COVAX initiative because they are not available. The first shipment of vaccines from COVAX did not arrive in Ukraine until April 16. COVAX is the global vaccine-sharing initiative, and it is intended to provide vaccines for poor and middle-income countries. Without COVAX, many of the world's poorest countries would have no vaccines at all.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the health and well-being of Canadian Armed Forces members has always been our main priority. That is why our defence policy of “Strong, Secure, Engaged” provides clear direction on our defence priorities, with a 20-year horizon. That is something no government has ever done before. In fact, chapter 1 of our policy spelled out our desire for well-supported, diverse, resilient people and families. People are at the core of everything the Canadian Armed Forces does to deliver on its mandate.

From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been taking concrete steps to ensure the safety and well-being of our members, regardless of their location. We scaled down exercises and training, we increased the number of people working from home and we adopted robust public health measures to mitigate risks.

The safety and well-being of our members is a top priority, and we continue to do everything we can to ensure their protection as we follow expert advice from the Public Health Agency of Canada. We are taking all necessary precautions, but the work of Canadian Armed Forces members at home and abroad cannot stop. They must continue their important missions to be strong at home, secure in North America and engaged in the world.

The Canadian Armed Forces is supporting Canada's response to COVID-19 and vaccine distribution efforts. At the same time, the Canadian Armed Forces must be ready to respond to natural disasters and other activities necessary for the defence of Canada and its interests. Training and recruitment have resumed, with strict measures in place to keep people safe, and the CAF continues with key operations, such as search and rescue, NORAD and support to UN and NATO efforts.

In January, members of the Canadian Armed Forces started getting vaccinated. We started with the members who were working in high-risk clinical settings and the members with health conditions that put them at higher risk.

The Canadian Armed Forces are responsible for ensuring that their members are able to get the COVID-19 vaccine, no matter where they are posted. Although members who are deployed or stationed abroad have not all been vaccinated, efforts are well under way to develop a coordinated plan and ensure that we have the resources to reach every single member who is deployed or posted overseas.

We have started vaccinating members deployed as part of Operation Impact in the Middle East, Operation Reassurance in Latvia and Operation Unifier in Ukraine. Members of the military who are preparing for deployment as part of an operation will start getting their vaccines in the coming weeks.

We continue to follow pre- and post-deployment COVID-19 protocols and rigorously apply COVID-19 public health measures, and we are abiding by the rules, regulations and restrictions applicable to the locations where CAF members are deployed or stationed.

We must protect the health and well-being of our people while ensuring operational readiness, and we must continue to be a reliable ally and partner on the world stage.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement about the Prime Minister getting on the speakers list next month for a celebrity-laden global concert promoting vaccine equity has to be the height of hypocrisy. What would the organizers of the Global Citizen “VAX LIVE: The Concert to Reunite the World” think if they knew the truth about Canada raiding the COVAX supplies due to the Prime Minister's incompetence? What would they think of sending soldiers to what has become a war zone without being first offered vaccines?

Canadians are embarrassed by the Prime Minister's decision to access vaccines from a program primarily designed to help pandemic-struggling countries like Ukraine. Forcing deployed military members to source medical vaccines from local supplies puts soldiers and their families at risk.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, any eligible Canadian Armed Forces member who wants a vaccine will be able to get one. The CAF COVID-19 vaccine prioritization framework provides guidance on the allocation of up to 150,000 vaccine doses. Vaccinations have begun at home and abroad, and they will continue as further allocations arrive from the Public Health Agency of Canada.

First up were frontline health care providers and those with health conditions, and now we are vaccinating those deployed on operations or employed in providing essential support to critical functions.

The Canadian Armed Forces is attempting to reduce the threat to their members and to maintain its operational capability to support Canadians, our allies and our partners, as needed. Furthermore, we continue to mitigate risks with robust public health measures.

Rail Transportation

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, it is my turn to speak about a matter that is very important to me and that I am very concerned about.

I am the MP for Mégantic—L'Érable and therefore I represent the community of Lac-Mégantic. I think I do need to say more. People know how extremely important rail safety is for us in the Lac-Mégantic area.

The Auditor General of Canada recently released a report on rail safety as a follow-up to the different reports she had already written in the past about rail safety in Canada. One of the main findings she mentioned in her opening remarks before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was that “the department had yet to fully address our recommendations and that, in fact, there was still much to do to improve the oversight of rail safety in Canada.”

We cannot believe it when we hear things like that. It does not make any sense. However, at the same time, we also think that we need to get things moving, and that is what I decided to do. Rather than just criticizing, I am going to talk about it. I am going to talk about it as often as I can so that things change, so that we can put pressure on Transport Canada, the railways and everyone involved in rail safety to move more quickly. That is what I am doing with the rail bypass that has still not been built. We still do not have a clear and concrete time frame as to when that will be done.

Right now, in the Lac-Mégantic area, there is much debate about whether CP and Transport Canada have told the truth about when this bypass will finally be built. I am trying to contact CP. I am trying to meet with CP representatives. The meetings are put off week after week because of availability issues. That can no longer be tolerated. We cannot wait any longer. We need clear answers, whether it be from the railway or from Transport Canada.

In 2019, there were 1,245 rail accidents in Canada. That number comes from the Auditor General's report. Are my colleagues aware that, in 2019, 72 people died in rail accidents in Canada? Twenty-eight of them died at crossings, six in derailments and accidents involving employees or passengers, and 38 in accidents that occurred when people trespassed on tracks.

All the while, rail traffic has been increasing. Freight tonnage increased to more than 328 million tonnes in 2018. In terms of goods transported, fuel oils and crude petroleum recorded a significant increase by weight of more than 45% from 2017 to 2018. Those are the most recent numbers we have.

Given these findings, I think it is important for Transport Canada to do its job so that we no longer see Auditor General reports with statements like this one: overall effectiveness of oversight activities not measured. Basically, what the Auditor General meant was that, yes, there are more oversight activities, but she does not know what to do with those numbers, and she does not know whether measures introduced over the years have done a better job of protecting people.

To conclude, I invite my government colleagues, Transport Canada and CP, which is responsible for the bypass, to do whatever it takes to speed up the work so that we can finally say that our railways throughout Canada, and particularly here in Lac-Mégantic, are safe.