Interventions in the House of Commons
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Matthew Dubé Profile
View Matthew Dubé Profile
2019-02-21 16:00 [p.25644]
Mr. Speaker, I would say that our committee indeed works well together. I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, and I think we get a lot of good things done.
That being said, unfortunately, I have issues with the legislation before us, not least of which is that members on the other side continue to talk about ending the practice of solitary confinement, or administrative segregation, to use the legal jargon. The concern the NDP has is that we are going to continue creating these Band-Aid solutions to an issue that is obviously important enough that two courts have ruled that the abuses we see in the current system infringe on Canadians' constitutional rights.
Let us look at the amendments that were proposed. As one example, the member referred to some of the definitions used with respect to indigenous communities. That is interesting, because she referred to working with departmental officials. I proposed an amendment regarding a definition crafted in collaboration with the witnesses we heard, not least of which was the Native Women's Association.
I have a hard time understanding why, after talking about the importance of consultation so many times in the House, we have a bill that was panned by the witnesses. Now we have one amendment at report stage that is 2,000 words long. Does this not demonstrate that we have a patchwork solution for a practice that has been so abused that two courts in the country have found it to be unconstitutional?
Result: 1 - 1 of 1