//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoyal AssentMessage from the SenateInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1420)[Translation]I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast; C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act; C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages; C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures; C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act; C-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.Aboriginal languagesAboriginal peoplesBritish ColumbiaBudget 2019 (March 19, 2019)C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ActC-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coastC-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesC-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and familiesC-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measuresCare for childrenCoastal areasCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCustoms tariff and customs dutiesEnvironmental assessmentFamilies and childrenGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersInternational tradeMain estimates 2019-2020Messages from SenateOil tankers6008159BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoyal AssentInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1450)[Translation]I have the honour to inform the House that when this House did attend Her Excellency this day in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms—Chapter 9.C-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free Canada—Chapter 10.S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins)—Chapter 11.C-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting—Chapter 12.C-59, An Act respecting national security matters—Chapter 13.C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence—Chapter 14.C-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 15.C-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act—Chapter 16.C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)—Chapter 17.C-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18.C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 19.C-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabis—Chapter 20.C-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020—Chapter 21.C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act—Chapter 22.C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages—Chapter 23.C-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families—Chapter 24.C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 25.C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast—Chapter 26.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act—Chapter 27.C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 28.C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures—Chapter 29.(1455)[English]It being 2:55 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 16, 2019, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).(The House adjourned at 2:55 p.m.)The 42nd Parliament was dissolved by Royal Proclamation on September 11, 2019.Aboriginal languagesAboriginal peoplesAccess for disabled peopleAccess to informationAdjournmentAgriculture, environment and natural resourcesBritish ColumbiaBudget 2019 (March 19, 2019)C-101, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal ActC-102, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coastC-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-59, An Act respecting national security mattersC-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequenceC-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearmsC-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-77, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-78, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and to make consequential amendments to another ActC-81, An Act to ensure a barrier-free CanadaC-82, An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shiftingC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActC-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsC-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languagesC-92, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and familiesC-93, An Act to provide no-cost, expedited record suspensions for simple possession of cannabisC-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measuresCannabisCare for childrenCetaceansCoastal areasCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal record suspensionCruelty to animalsCustoms tariff and customs dutiesEnvironmental assessmentFamilies and childrenFirearmsFisheries and fishersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersInternational tradeMackenzie ValleyMain estimates 2019-2020Marriage and divorceMilitary justice systemMultinationalsNational securityOil tankersPersons with disabilitiesPossession of a controlled substancePrivate Members' BillsRoyal assentS-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (ending the captivity of whales and dolphins)Senate billsTax avoidance6008183BruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsBusiness of the HouseInterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House: (a) the amendment to the motion respecting the senate amendments to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be deemed negatived on division and the main motion be deemed carried on division; and(b) the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-100, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican States, be deemed negatived on division and that the Bill be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.Amendments and subamendmentsC-100, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican StatesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesDivisionsGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersLeave to propose a motionMotionsReferred to Committee after second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on International TradeTrade agreements600522560052266005227GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsBusiness of the HouseInterventionThe Speaker: (1230)[English]Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.(Motion agreed to)Amendments and subamendmentsC-100, An Act to implement the Agreement between Canada, the United States of America and the United Mexican StatesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseDivisionsGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersLeave to propose a motionMotionsReferred to Committee after second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on International TradeTrade agreements60052306005231BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (2145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 has two main objectives. First of all, it would allow federal inmates to be separated from the general prison population when necessary for security reasons. Second, it will ensure that inmates have access to the interventions, programs and mental health care they need to safely return to the general prison population and make progress toward successful rehabilitation and reintegration.[English]The bill would achieve these objectives by replacing the current system of administrative segregation with structured intervention units. In SIUs, inmates would be entitled to twice as much time out of their cells, four hours daily instead of two, and two hours of meaningful human contact every day. We have allocated $448 million over six years to ensure that the Correctional Service has the resources to provide programs and interventions to inmates in SIUs and to implement this new system safely and effectively. That funding includes $150 million for mental health care, both in SIUs and throughout the federal correction system.Bill C-83 was introduced last October. It was studied by the public safety committee in November and reported back to the House in December with a number of amendments. There were further amendments at report stage, in February, including one from the member for Oakville North—Burlington that added a system for binding external review.In recent months, hon. senators have been studying the bill, and they have now sent it back to us with proposed amendments of their own. The high level of interest in Bill C-83 is indicative of the importance of the federal corrections system and of the laws and policies that govern it. Effective and humane corrections are essential to public safety, and they are a statement of who we are as a country. In the words of Dostoyevsky, “the degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons.”I extend my sincere thanks to all the intervenors who provided testimony and written briefs over the course of the last nine months and to parliamentarians in both chambers who examined this legislation and made thoughtful and constructive suggestions.Since the Senate social affairs committee completed clause-by-clause consideration of the bill a couple of weeks ago, the government has been carefully studying the committee's recommendations, all of which seek to achieve laudable objectives. We are proposing to accept several of the Senate's amendments as is or with small technical modifications.First, with respect to minor adjustments, we agree with amendments that would require a mental health assessment of all inmates within 30 days of admission into federal custody and within 24 hours of being transferred to an SIU. This fits with the focus on early diagnosis and treatment that will be facilitated by the major investments we are making in mental health care. We agree with the proposal to rearrange section 29 of the act, which deals with inmate transfers, to emphasize the possibility of transfers to external hospitals. The Correctional Service runs five certified psychiatric hospitals of its own and will now have significant new resources for mental health care. Even so, there may be cases when a transfer to an external facility is appropriate. If the transfer can be done safely, if the hospital has the capacity and if it is in the best interest of the patient, then it should be done. In fact, that is why we allocated funds in budget 2018 for more external mental health beds. (2150)We also agree with an amendment regarding the initial review of SIU transfers. The bill would require a review by the warden in the first five days. This amendment clarifies that the clock on those five days would start ticking as soon as the transfer decision was made, as opposed to the moment the inmate physically arrived in the SIU. With minor changes, we agree with two amendments to the section of the bill that would require consideration of systemic and background factors in decisions involving indigenous offenders. One of them would provide greater precision by specifying that a person's family and adoption history should be included in the analysis. The other would clarify that these factors may be used to lower the assessment of an inmate's risk level, but not to raise it. These provisions in themselves would obviously not be enough to solve the problem of indigenous overrepresentation in the corrections system. The upstream socio-economic factors that result in higher rates of indigenous people involved with the criminal justice system must generally be addressed in concert with other departments and agencies, and efforts to that effect are indeed under way. The Correctional Service is charged with ensuring that indigenous people in its custody get a genuine opportunity to turn their lives around, and these amendments should help advance that objective.There are two other amendments on which we agree with the intent, and we are essentially proposing to meet the Senate halfway.The first is an amendment that seeks to add certain elements to section 4 of the act, which establishes guiding principles for the Correctional Service. In particular, it puts a focus on alternatives to incarceration, and we agree that those alternatives should be consistently considered and used wherever appropriate.We are, however, suggesting a few changes to the language drafted in the Senate. For example, the amendment lists sections 29, 81 and 84 of the act as alternatives to incarceration. Section 29 refers to hospital transfers, and section 81 refers to healing lodges, so their inclusion here makes sense. However, section 84 is about community-supported release following incarceration. It is not an alternative; it is the next step, so we are proposing to remove it from this list.The amendment would also require that preference be given to alternatives to incarceration. Frankly, that is very problematic. Alternatives to incarceration should be used where appropriate, but there are situations when putting someone in prison is a valid and necessary approach. Alternatives should be considered, but not necessarily preferred.Also, for clarity sake, we are proposing to remove or replace certain terms that do not have established legal meanings, such as “carceral isolations” or “incarcerated persons” or “a broad interpretation informed by human rights”. Certainly, everything government agencies do should be informed by human rights principles, but to be enforceable and actionable, legal terms need to have clear and precise definitions. If we asked everyone in this House to explain what it means to interpret legislation broadly and in a manner informed by human rights, we would probably get 338 different responses.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCivil and human rightsConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsHospitalsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthStructured intervention unit600395460039556003956600395760039586003959600396060039616003962600396360039646003965600396660039676003968600396960039706003971BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (2155)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is why we are proposing to remove these terms. Even so, of course, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply to everything the Correctional Service does.The other amendment that we are proposing to partially retain has to do with strip searches. The Senate is proposing to prohibit any strip searches conducted as a matter of routine and we wholeheartedly endorse that objective. It would not be pleasant for any of us to be strip-searched. People in prison have often experienced trauma, including sexual abuse. Strip searches can cause them to relive that trauma and can even deter people from participating in programs like work release if they know they will be strip-searched on their way out or on their way back in. The Correctional Service should do everything possible to minimize strip searches. That is why Bill C-83 would allow for the use of body scanners similar to what exists in airports as recommended by the United Nations. Rather than a blanket prohibition though, the government is proposing that the law require that Correctional Service use a body scanner instead of a strip search whenever one is available. That accounts for the fact that it will take some time for body scanners to be installed in every institution and it recognizes that sometimes machines break down. In those situations, correctional staff still need to be confident that inmates are not smuggling drugs, weapons or other contraband. That is important not only for staff safety but for the safety of other inmates as well. As body scanners become more available in federal institutions, strip searches should become increasingly rare.I will now turn to the proposals from the Senate with which we respectfully disagree.To begin with, there are two relatively similar ones that would take existing concepts used for indigenous corrections and expand them to other unspecified groups. This would apply to section 81 of the act, which allows for community-run healing lodges and section 84, which allows for community-supported release. Both of these concepts have proven valuable and successful in an indigenous context and the idea of expanding them is indeed worthy of serious consideration. Certainly, there are other overrepresented groups in federal custody, particularly Canadians of African descent. Our government is wholly in favour of examining whether strategies that have worked for indigenous corrections can be successfully applied in other contexts and with other communities. We are opposing this amendment not because we disagree with the principle but because the serious consideration and examination I mentioned has not happened yet.Before moving forward with something like this, there should be extensive consultations to determine which groups would be interested. Where does the capacity exist? And how the experience of the relatively few indigenous communities and organizations that run section 81 facilities is or is not applicable more broadly. (2200)It would be a major policy change and potentially a positive one, but the study and analysis should come before we change the law, not after.We also respectfully disagree with an amendment that would require the Correctional Service to approve the transfer to a provincial hospital of any inmate with a disabling mental health issue. As I mentioned earlier, in the 2018 budget, our government increased funding for external mental health beds. The use of provincial hospitals may be appropriate in some circumstances. The fact is, though, that it can be very difficult to find provincial hospitals willing and able to house and treat federal inmates. If we want to change the law without the aim of bringing about the transfer of a significant number of people from federal correctional institutions to provincial hospitals, it is imperative that we consult the provinces first.It is also important for the sake of preserving the clinical independence of the health care providers who work in corrections that the law not pre-empt their professional judgment. The law already allows for these kinds of transfers where possible and appropriate and where recommended by medical professionals. At the same time, we are dramatically bolstering mental health resources within the federal correctional service so that inmates receive high-quality mental health care wherever they serve their sentence. We are also proposing not to accept an amendment that would allow sentences to be shortened on application to a court, due to acts or omissions by correctional personnel deemed to constitute unfairness in the administration of a sentence.Once again, the goal of deterring improper conduct by correctional staff is commendable. There are a great many people working in federal corrections who are committed professionals doing excellent work. Anything less should be deterred, denounced and the persons potentially disciplined or dismissed. Inmates who are negatively impacted by inappropriate conduct on the part of correctional staff already have recourse, in the form of grievances or lawsuits, for example. The idea of retroactively shortening court-imposed sentences in these circumstances would be a major policy change. Before enacting this kind of provision, there should be consultations with stakeholders, including victims groups as well as provincial partners and other actors in the justice system. Parliamentarians in both chambers should have the opportunity to study it at length. It is not something that should be tacked on at the end of a legislative process that did not contemplate this kind of approach.We also respectfully disagree with the recommendation to have the new system reviewed by parliamentary committees after two years rather than five. This House added a five-year review to the bill, and that is a reasonable time frame. It gives the new system time to get off the ground and be fully implemented and that will actually make Parliament's review more meaningful and impactful when it happens. In the interim, the minister will soon be appointing an advisory panel to monitor implementation of the SIUs as they roll out. That panel will be able to visit sites, meet with inmates and staff, provide feedback to the commissioner and sound the alarm if something is really not working out as it should. Of course, parliamentary committees do not need legislation to tell them what to study. Even without a legal requirement, if committees of this House or of the other place want to review the SIU system two years from now, they are perfectly free to do so.(2205)Finally, the government respectfully disagrees with the proposal to institute judicial review of all SIU placements after 48 hours. Bill C-83 already has a strong system of binding external oversight. Independent external decision-makers appointed by the minister will review any case where someone in an SIU has not received the minimum hours out of cell or minimum hours of meaningful human contact for five days in a row, or 15 days out of 30. They will also review cases where the Correctional Service is not following the advice of a health care professional to remove an inmate from an SIU or change their conditions. They will review all SIU placements at 90 days and every 60 days thereafter for any inmate still in the SIU at that point. That is in addition to regular and robust internal review at five, 30 and 60 days.Simply put, judicial review of SIU placements is unnecessary. Colleagues do not have to take my word for it. At the public safety committee, the correctional investigator supported using the independent chairperson model to oversee SIUs. That is a model that uses ministerial appointees, not judges.Plus, while no court has considered the new SIU system proposed by this bill, courts in Ontario and B.C. have rendered decisions about the kind of oversight they deem necessary for the current system of administrative segregation. In B.C., the court found that oversight of administrative segregation must be external to the Correctional Service but did not say that judicial review was required. In Ontario, the court actually found that internal review was preferable, saying, “The reviewing tribunal can have adequate independence without having all the attributes of a judge.”Beyond being unnecessary, requiring judicial review of all SIU placements longer than 48 hours would have considerable impacts on provincial superior courts. There would need to be new judges appointed to handle the caseload. Those judges would be paid for out of federal funds and they would require support staff paid for by the provinces. There would also be changes required to the Judges Act, as well as to corresponding provincial legislation. In other words, accepting this amendment would mean imposing legislative and financial requirements on the provinces without so much as a phone call to check and see if they are on board.If judicial review were the only way to ensure that this new system works properly and to provide the procedural safeguards required, then one could make an argument that all of these complications, making legislative amendments across the country, finding the money in federal and provincial coffers, and fast-tracking the appointment of a bunch of new judges would just have to somehow get done. However, judicial review is far from the only option. There must absolutely be robust oversight of the new system proposed by Bill C-83 and review by independent external decision-makers meets that need.(2210)[Translation]I thank all hon. senators for their efforts and their contributions. At this point, the bill truly is the product of the Parliament of Canada as a whole. If the version we are sending back to the Senate receives royal assent, it will be a piece of legislation drafted by the government, amended by Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Green Party members, and amended by our colleagues in the Senate, as well.[English]For all of our frequent disagreements, this bill is a good example of the strength of the legislative process in our parliamentary democracy. Most importantly, it will significantly improve Canada's correctional system, enhancing the safety of the people who work and live in federal institutions and improving the system's effectiveness when it comes to rehabilitation and safe, successful reintegration.I look forward to the passage and the implementation of Bill C-83.Aboriginal peoplesBody searchesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConditional releaseConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceEthnic and cultural communitiesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHealing lodgesHospitalsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersOversight mechanismSentencingStructured intervention unit60039906003991600399260039936003994600399560039966003997600399860039996004000600400160040026004003600400460040056004006600400760040086004009600401060040116004012BruceStantonSimcoe NorthMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (2210)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. This bill is being offered as a product of all of Parliament, while we reject any of the substantive amendments that the Senate is bringing forward.Certainly, I do not want to be an apologist for the Senate, with some of the legislation it is holding up. In particular, Senator Pate, who worked on this, is someone who comes from the community of civil society, of folks who have worked on these issues for a long time. The reason I say that is because the bill was panned by every witness who came to committee. In fact, the Ontario Superior Court, when it offered the extension to the government, which has allowed this unconstitutional practice to fester for four years now, said that there was nothing in its mind that seemed to indicate there would be any remedial effort brought forward.What I find really frustrating and baffling about the bill is that ultimately it is just a rebrand, and I am not the only one saying that. Many others have said it as well, including Senator Pate.I want to ask the member a question. Judicial review has been offered. It was offered years ago, even decades ago, by Justice Arbour when she was looking at some of these issues. The reason why was because we were essentially changing someone's sentence, we were extending someone's sentence by adding additional punishment through the system.Does the member not recognize that? If the government truly believes there will be an undue burden on provincial courts, is that not because the practice has been used in such an abusive way that it would require that additional judicial oversight?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanism60040136004014600401560040166004017KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2215)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is always someone who contributes in committee work, and I personally appreciate the contributions he has made to this bill.As always, on the question of judicial review versus independent oversight, there are limited resources that could actually do the work. The government has to decide where those limited resources will be used and whether anybody else can do this work.It has been the determination that these independent decision-makers can be in the position to do this work without imposing an additional workload at the provincial and federal court levels.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSplitting speaking time600401860040196004020MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I chair the public accounts committee. There are some significant changes in this bill.When we look at the supplementary estimates, $448 million were given to CSC. However, when we have tried to find out what the financial implications are, the cost of all the measures in the bill, we can not get an answer from the government.The parliamentary secretary is privy to those briefings with the department. I know that typically those answers are given by the department.If we have scanners, and the parliamentary secretary talked about limited, I wonder, and I think Canadians wonder as well, what the costs of the bill would be.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsGovernment expendituresImprisonment and prisoners6004021600402260040236004024KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2215)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is really a considerable move forward when it comes to the use of administrative segregation into a structured intervention unit. There will be need for infrastructure changes. There will be need for personnel changes. There will be need for programming changes and mental health care.That number is that $448 million have been put into the latest budget to ensure we actually have the money to do this well. However, it is going to be shared over a series of requirements, everything we need to implement a structured intervention unit. We are going to do it right. Involving all the stakeholders in these decisions as we move forward will be very important.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsGovernment expendituresImprisonment and prisoners60040256004026KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (2215)[English]Mr. Speaker, for my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety,, I recognize that the bill before us would make improvements in the situation of solitary confinement. I am particularly grateful to her colleague, the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington, for working so collaboratively on the committee and helping some of my amendments get through.However, I am very troubled by the rejection of some of the Senate amendments. I am sure the parliamentary secretary is aware of the letter from Senator Pate to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, which was shared with many members. It spoke to something that is quite compelling, which is unusual when legislation goes through this place. We already have a foreshadowing from the Ontario Court of Appeal that the legislation will not be found to be constitutional. The citation is from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association case, where the Ontario Court of Appeal comments in relation to the five-day review. The key sentence reads, “Nothing more has been done to remedy the breach”, and this is a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the interim, “and it remains unclear how Bill C-83 will remedy it if enacted.”The Senate amendments and the ones that the hon. parliamentary secretary referenced must go through. We can get the bill faster by accepting these amendments from the Senate. The administrative objections that I heard from the parliamentary secretary do not measure up to the imperative of ensuring the bill is constitutional.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSolitary confinement6004027600402860040296004030KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her caring about this, for her compassion, and also the hon. member to my right.This matters. This is not an easy thing to do. We are making significant change to the administrative segregation regime in Canada. We need to do it. The court has told us that we need to do it. There has been a letter explaining why this new way of doing administrative segregation is going to meet the court requirements. We need to move forward with this to make it happen. Then we will be in a position of having a better chance to help people have a successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSolitary confinement600403160040326004033ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, because we are near the end of the session, I want to thank my staff, Brad, Erica, Susan, Ellen, Alisha and formerly Denis Sabourin for their great work. Also, anyone in the House who has questioned the existence of the Senate, which we call the other place here, this is a great example of where it has provided a number of suggested amendments and the government is accepting a number of them. This has happened since Confederation, where laws in Canada have been approved like this.With the structured intervention, there would be significantly more time away from the cell and more time for programming, etc. Does the bill direct Correctional Service Canada to record these times to ensure they are followed. If it does not, are there penalties in the bill for CSC? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanism600403460040356004036KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. There is a requirement to record meaningful human contact and time out of the cell, and it needs to be during reasonable day hours. It cannot be during the night. It cannot be at other inopportune times. It must be at normal operating times. On whether there is a penalty for CSC if it does not provide that, I think there will be recourse. CSC needs to record that time and will be encouraged to meet those standards.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanism60040376004038LarryBagnellHon.YukonMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, to go back to the last answer, I would like to quote for the parliamentary secretary Dr. Adelina Iftene who is a law professor at Dalhousie University. Following these amendments and the response to the work that Senate Pate was doing, she said:The government claims that these units don’t fall under the definition of solitary confinement because the amount of time prisoners would be alone in their cells is 20 hours versus 22 hours. While that falls within UN standards...The UN standards state that meaningful contact of two hours or less per day is also considered solitary confinement. Do the Liberals not believe that living up to the UN standard is the very least they could do, but they have not?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit600403960040406004041KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, the UN standard is very important, but there is also a requirement to actually be able to fulfill that. When we talk about meaningful human contact, we are also talking about the kind of programming the offenders would need. That was the problem with the old system. If inmates were in administrative segregation, they lost so much access to the kind of programs that would help them succeed, that were would help them move past the position where they were. That kind of mental health programming, that kind of literacy programming, that kind of addiction counselling program will now be available to inmates.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit60040426004043MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to seek unanimous consent for this speaking slot to be a regular 20-and-10 speaking slot, rather than unlimited time, and to split the time with the member for Yellowhead. We have unlimited time slots and would ask for unanimous consent to split the time so my friend from Yellowhead can share some of his stories of the Correctional Service.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004044KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2225)[English]Does the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot have the unanimous consent of the House to regard this time slot as a 20 and 10 for the purpose of splitting his time?Some hon. members: Agreed.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSplitting speaking time60040456004046KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson: (2225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the chamber for doing that.This undoubtedly will be the last time I ever speak in this place. As I rise on this night, I want to thank the throng of people that have come out to hear this speech.I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.This legislation seeks to eliminate administrative segregation in correctional facilities; replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs; introduce body scanners for inmates; set parameters for access to health care; and formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues. Just as we fundamentally opposed the bill in its original form, we oppose the government's motion respecting the Senate amendments.We on this side of the House believe that this legislation has the potential of making prisons more dangerous both for offenders and for correctional officers. I will get into that in a bit. Drumheller Institution, a medium security facility, is located within my riding of Battle River—Crowfoot. Over the many years I have represented this riding, I have developed a very good rapport with many of the good people who work there.Correctional officers contact my constituency office on a regular basis, asking for assistance in resolving cases and issues they have within and with their institution. I would never support a bill that could potentially endanger their lives any more than they already are, given that they are employed in an inherently hazardous occupation. Currently, my office has 20 active files and 50 inactive files, but also unresolved files from Drumheller correctional workers with respect to pay issues due to the Phoenix pay system, as well as other issues. They are not alone. Nearly two-thirds of public servants have unresolved pay issues more than three years after the Phoenix system was launched.Now the national union president representing correctional officers is raising serious concerns about the very real possibility of some new measures taking place within the institution. One of them is the first supervised drug injection site for prisoners. The Correctional Service of Canada has neither confirmed nor denied this is about to happen by the end of the month.As National President Jeff Wilkins told the National Post in an article that appeared on June 9, “The correctional officers are dead set against the prison needle-exchange and the current way it's being rolled out.” It is a program that he says is unsafe for guards, as they are responsible for distributing needles to prisoners in their cells, a scheme that has done nothing to stop needle sharing and defies reason in that people in prison should not have access to those drugs.One of my constituents wrote me, “As a Correctional Officer, I am opposed to the proposed Needle Exchange program, which is definitely defeating the purpose of the whole anti-drug thing that we were shooting for in jail. Is there any way that I and other co-workers can express our concerns with our MP?”l told him that I was definitely open to hearing and discussing these concerns with him and his colleagues. I could not assure him, however, that the Liberal government would listen. I did in fact tell him that I would bring his concerns to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness but was not at all confident that he would be receptive to those concerns.After 19 years in this place and a number of years as our party's public safety critic for the official opposition in 2001 until about 2005, I have learned that when it comes to justice, under Liberal governments inmates and their rights take precedence over victims and correctional officers' rights.For the 19 years that I have been in this place, I have repeatedly stood in the House fighting for victims' rights, fighting for changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to end such things as statutory release and promoting the idea of protection of society as a guiding principle in our justice system.(2230)I oppose conditional sentences as originally prescribed by the Liberals, which saw rapists and other violent offenders serve their sentences at home. My constituents back me up on that. I am equally opposed to needle exchange programs in our correctional institutions, and I am opposed to injection sites. I wholeheartedly agree with the union president that rather than providing needle exchanges and designated sites within prisons for inmates to shoot up, we should perhaps have medical facilities closer to these prisons to deal with the drug overdoses that may result.So much more should and can be done to stop the drug trade within the correctional facilities, which is leading to overdose, to death and to the continued gang wars that take place within our prisons. Canadians would agree that it defies reason that drugs make their way into the prisons, not to mention the huge amount of drugs and number of needles that circulate. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. This has been going on for years. The Liberals' only solution is to give the inmates what they want. I disagree.I fully understand that many inmates are drug addicts and that many of them are in prison as a result of criminal behaviour related to their addiction. They need help. They do not need more drugs, especially drugs that are bought or bartered for within prison. The fact that drugs cannot be stopped from entering our prisons certainly is a blight on the reputation of the Correctional Service of Canada.As I pointed out this year when I last spoke to this bill, the Correctional Service of Canada certainly has been the subject of much criticism over the last number of years. In that speech, I mentioned one of the fall reports of the Auditor General of Canada, in 2017. It was entitled “Preparing Women Offenders for Release”. The objective of the Auditor General's report was this:[to determine] whether Correctional Service Canada assigned and delivered correctional programs, interventions, and mental health services to women offenders in federal custody—including Indigenous women offenders—that responded appropriately to their unique needs and helped them successfully reintegrate into the community.We heard our parliamentary secretary talk about correctional programs tonight, and this bill also deals with indigenous women offenders.As noted by the Auditor General:Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Correctional Service Canada is required to provide programs and services that respond to the needs of women offenders.The report states:Overall, we found that Correctional Service Canada had not implemented an initial security classification process designed specifically for women offenders.... As a result, some women offenders risked being held at inappropriate security levels....Furthermore, and most relevant to our debate here this evening, the Auditor General concluded: We found that Correctional Service Canada had not confirmed whether its tools correctly identified women offenders with mental health issues or assigned them the appropriate level of care.I also spoke about report 6 of the fall 2018 Auditor General report on community supervision of offenders, in which the Auditor General found that while the number of offenders released into community supervision had grown and was expected to keep growing, the Correctional Service of Canada had reached the limit of how many offenders it could house in the community. Despite the growing backlog and despite research that showed that a gradual supervised release gave offenders a better chance of successful reintegration, the Correctional Service of Canada did not have a long-term plan to respond to its housing pressures.The Auditor General also found that the Correctional Service of Canada did not properly manage offenders under community supervision. Parole officers did not always meet with offenders as often as they should have, nor did parole officers always monitor offenders' compliance with special conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Canada.I continue today to implore the Liberal government to focus on ensuring that the Correctional Service of Canada fully meets its mandate. The safety and security of Canadians depends on the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society upon their release. Given the findings of the Office of the Auditor General, I believe that uneasiness with respect to safety and security of Canadians extends well beyond Bill C-83.(2235)I implore the current government to start thinking about those who find themselves in danger's way daily by implementing measures and policies to protect them. If it only took the time to consult them, I am confident their ideas, based on years of experience, would ensure Correctional Services Canada would be able to fulfill its mandate.I am thankful for the opportunity to speak tonight. I look forward to any questions.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMaximum security institutionsMental healthNeedle exchange programParole supervisionPublic consultation600404760040486004049600405060040516004052600405360040546004055600405660040576004058600405960040606004061600406260040636004064600406560040666004067600406860040696004070600407160040726004073600407460040756004076600407760040786004079BruceStantonSimcoe NorthPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, while we are debating Bill C-83 tonight, the hon. member spent a great deal of time talking about corrections officers and the needle exchange program, which has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. He mentioned that there has been no consultation with corrections officers. I would like to correct the record on that. I have met with them numerous time and the minister just recently spoke at their meeting in Calgary. Quite frankly, if we had not had the draconian cuts to corrections that were made over the last 10 years, our corrections officers would be much better prepared in their daily efforts at work. I have the utmost respect for corrections officers.My question to the hon. member has to do with the Senate amendments, which is what the debate is about tonight. Will his party be supporting them?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultation600408060040816004082KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson: (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consultations, let me quote what Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said. This is partly involving the costing of the bill. He stated, “Unfortunately, due to cabinet confidentiality, as our commissioner often tells us, we weren't really consulted.” That is what the union said. When I speak to my officers, they are not consulted about a whole host of issues. A member of the committee said she spoke to a number of people. However, it should not just be a chat with someone on the sideline of a committee meeting, but deep consultations with not just the union but correctional officers.Godin continues, “The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody. I don't see the bill before it comes onto the table, so we weren't officially consulted on Bill C-83.”Here is our problem. I asked the parliamentary secretary tonight about the costing of the bill. She gave us a line item, but she did not specify what the costs would be for the scanners or the change to the integration system and no longer having the administrative segregation. We do not have those answers. This is another one of these bills where we moved into tonight's last few hours of debate after the government invoked closure and time allocation. I will go into some of what Senator Pate said. She stated, “If there have been no meaningful consultations to this point on this process, then I would not have faith that those mechanisms would be put in place within the prison setting”. Although the Senate has brought forth amendments, the senator is saying she recognizes there is a lack of consultation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultation6004083600408460040856004086600408760040886004089PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, talking about consultation, interestingly, two weeks ago there were several hundred correctional officers who gathered on the lawn here on Parliament Hill to protest the current government and its decision to introduce a needle exchange program within the federal prisons. Officers would say they were not consulted on this decision and that they very much feel they have been put in harm's way by the installation of this program.I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on this further and highlight the importance of consulting with those who are on the front lines, day in and day out. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programPublic consultation60040906004091KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson: (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I served in government. I know consultations. For me, it was budget consultations across the country, meeting with as many as we could, meeting with people in every community and every chamber. There were consultations online, as well as in person.The hon. member is correct. When I spoke to my correctional officers, they said they were not consulted. When we speak to the union, it said there was inadequate consultation. In the case the member is referring to, which is a little different than what the scope of the bill is, on the needle exchanges the officers are very concerned about their safety. We know that the needle that was maybe used to shoot up a drug could also be used as a weapon in the hands of that offender against other offenders and against correctional officers. It is one thing to say they are employed in an inherently dangerous surrounding, and another for governments to say they had better consult and make sure that what they are doing is the right thing. Unfortunately, the current government fails on consultation every time.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programPublic consultation600409260040936004094RachaelHarderLethbridgeJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (2240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my partner from Battle River—Crowfoot in speaking to Bill C-83. I have stood in the House a number of times to speak to it, and I was on the committee that studied Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.This has been a bad bill right from the beginning. The Liberals did not listen to very many people. They wrote the bill, brought it before committee and forced it upon it, as they are doing today, forcing us in the second-to-last day Parliament is sitting to speak to the amendments that have been brought in by the Senate. The Liberals do not like the amendments, but they want to push this through.From the beginning, when we started studying Bill C-83 at committee, a number of witnesses came forward. The John Howard Society said it was bad. The Elizabeth Fry Society said it was bad. We had a 19-year prisoner who admitted to being a pretty bad guy, and he said parts of the bill were bad. He was the type of person who needed to be put into a segregation unit to protect the guards and other prisoners, and even himself. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association said it was a bad bill. The Native Women's Association said it was a bad bill. There were a number of organizations. Now we have it brought before us, as I said, on the second-to-last day before the House rises for the summer.My friend from Battle River—Crowfoot just mentioned the corrections union and that his union was not spoken to. Very much like the institution in his riding at Drumheller, which is medium-security, I have a medium-security facility in the town of Grande Cache, in the great riding of Yellowhead. It is probably one of the most beautiful jail settings in North America. It is on top of a mountain overlooking the Rocky Mountains. There are a large number of aboriginal prisoners there. I know some of the guards there very well; some of them went to school with my daughter years ago. They are very concerned that they were not consulted properly and that Bill C-83, if enacted the way it is, will make it dangerous for the guards. That is totally unacceptable.The change would make prisoners more dangerous for the guards, as they will have to deal with the worst of the worst and the most volatile being out and about from their cells for four hours a day.I totally agree that things need to change and we need to be civil and human in how we treat prisoners. Many years ago, I had the privilege to be on what the RCMP called provost duty. I escorted prisoners throughout British Columbia and western Canada back and forth from remand centres and detachments to prisons, etc. I came to know many of these individuals on a personal basis and many times I travelled 200 or 300 miles with three prisoners by myself.One could be a real dick and those guys would hate it by the time they got to the destination, or one could be a decent individual, have a conversation with them, treat them decently, with respect and dignity, and have a 200- or 300-mile drive with three prisoners.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unit600409560040966004097600409860040996004100600410160041026004103KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (2245)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my last speech, and I do apologize. It was just the terminology that slipped out.Years ago we learned that we had to give respect to the prisoners. They had to be treated properly. That is no different today. I realize that Bill C-83 is trying to do that in a number of areas. As our colleagues in the Senate have said, there are some things that need to be corrected. I hate to say it, but the Liberals are not listening again.My primary purpose in getting up today is to say that the women and men who work in our institutions do a great job for our country. They are a fantastic group of people. In many cases, maybe even more than police officers who are out on the street or our military who might be defending some country somewhere, these guys are right on the front lines. A lot of our prisoners are everyday common people. We do not need to worry too much about them. They are civil. We can have great conversations with them. We can joke around with them. However, we do have some real bad apples there. Some have mental health problems. Some are just downright mean. Some can be rehabilitated. Some, and I am going back to 50 years of experience, cannot be rehabilitated or do not want to be rehabilitated, and that is where the problem comes with segregation.I know that the Supreme Court has ruled that we need to change our policies. We need to give prisoners more rights, but that will come at a cost to the country. I guess we will have to accept that, because that is what it has ruled.However, the primary thing is that I want my friends and my constituents who work at Grande Cache Institution to be safe. I want the average prisoner who is there, who maybe was picked up for impaired driving or maybe something minor, who is not really a bad person, to be very safe in our institutions. That is my primary concern.My colleagues across have been given a number of recommendations from the Senate that I think need to be addressed and cannot be ignored. I did not pick up on all of them, and I am not going to deal with all of them. However there is one I thought I would spend a little time talking about. The Senate said that the authority should be left with the institutions as to the movement of a prisoner to a provincial institution. That is only rational, good, common sense. I am not knocking professional health people. They do a great job for us, but we have some great con artists in our jails who could sweet talk the Speaker into letting them sit up there while the Speaker took their place. That is how good they are. I know that the Speaker would never be conned. However, that is where my fear comes in. The institution staff know these people. They are dealing with them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They know how slick the prisoners can be.A medical professional coming in, maybe for an hour or two or maybe three hours a week, could be baffled. That is why I think it was a very wise decision that came back from the Senate. It was a common-sense correction, yet it is being ignored.I appreciate being given the time to stand up here to defend the institutional guards at Grande Cache and others across the country. They are doing a great job for us.(2250)Get rid of the needles. I am not going any further with that. It is the biggest mistake we ever made.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHospitalsImprisonment and prisonersMental health60041056004106600410760041086004109600411060041116004112600411360041146004115AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the hon. member for his service to this country and everything that he has done in this place. From the bottom of my heart, I want to give him my thanks. It was truly an honour and a pleasure to work with him on the public safety committee. I have so much respect for his opinions.I am asking this question from a very sincere place. As the member knows, we are under a timeline from the Supreme Court of Canada. We have passed this bill. It has gone to the Senate. The Senate has come back with some fairly significant amendments, some of them requiring judicial oversight, which we do not agree with. Some of them we have agreed with, such as the one for mental health assessment when a prisoner first arrives in the institution.I am just wondering if the member feels it is important to get this legislation done, because the alternative would be that the courts would impose a solution. I just recently spoke with the past president of UCCO and I have spoken to corrections officers, and they were concerned that if we do not get this legislation done, the courts could put something else through. They are concerned that they would have zero input into that. I am wondering what the member's thoughts are on that, and I give my thanks again for his service.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental health6004116600411760041186004119JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I hate to rush anything unless it is correct. The Senate has studied this bill, as has the committee, and we have heard from many witnesses. If we just bring it forward because we are threatened by the possibility that the courts might take action, we should have thought of that right off the bat and got at it a little more quickly than we did. We are here on the last day. Again, the issue goes back to the safety of the people. Yes, I agree with a psychiatric review when a person comes in, but if we bring these measures forward, is that going to make it very difficult to correct them afterward, and is it going to put a guard's safety in jeopardy in the next month or two before we come back to help correct it in the fall?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental health60041206004121PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington, I do want to thank the member for his service and say what a pleasure it was to work together on the public safety committee. He is certainly a straight shooter, and it led to probably some of the best witness testimony we could get. At the risk of mixing metaphors, it was also a bit disarming. I think we tend to like to be verbose at committee, but getting to the point is something we could do more of. My thanks to him for that.I do want to ask the member this question. We have talked a lot about consultations. He mentioned it in the context of correctional officers. We both know from being at the committee that most of the major stakeholders on this file, if not all of them, told us at committee that they were not consulted. There was a first go that the government had at this, Bill C-56, which never got to be debated at second reading when it was tabled in 2017. This bill was tabled late last year, and we are now finalizing debate. I just wonder what my colleague thinks about this. While there is a tight timeline and he is talking about rushing it, the reality is that with the Ashley Smith inquest and some other things, this has been on the agenda even before the government took power. I am wondering what the member thinks of the fact that there was the opportunity to consult and there was the opportunity to get it right, but now there have been some court decisions, a rushed timeline and a bit of legislative dropping the ball, if I am allowed that turn of phrase. What does the member think about that situation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004122600412360041246004125JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (2255)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. None of the witnesses really agreed with this bill. We were given this bill as written by the senior management of Canada's institutional system, but with no consultation with the unions or stakeholders. The committee was to get it through as fast as possible and get it passed. The Senate saw the mistakes. We could see the mistakes. The witnesses could see the mistakes.We are going to make a bigger mistake if we go and vote for it with the errors or with the Senate submissions being omitted.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners60041266004127MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (2255)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be proposing an amendment at the end of my speech. Please let me know when I have one minute remaining.I would like to share with the House a few important quotes.First, I will go over the topic I just raised in my question to the hon. member for Yellowhead. In Canada, administrative segregation is a scourge. It has been overused for many years and was an issue well before the current government came to power.During the previous Parliament, two of our colleagues, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, who was the critic, and the former member for Alfred-Pellan, Rosane Doré Lefebvre, who was the deputy critic, asked many questions about the inquest into the tragic circumstances surrounding Ashley Smith's death. I invite all parliamentarians who wish to speak about that case to read that file.It is horrifying to see that this teenager, this child, was killed. The findings of the inquest attest to the negligence and abuse in the prison system. The Correctional Service of Canada has to take responsibility for its role in this tragedy.It is all the more troubling when we consider that members of her family, namely her mother and her sister, if I remember correctly, came to testify before the Senate committee. Senator Pate, who was doing amazing work on this file long before being appointed to the Senate, had invited them to testify. In their testimony, the family members said they were disappointed and furious with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, who were supposed to make improvements to ensure that the circumstances surrounding Ashley's death never happened again. They invoked her name and her memory to justify their approach, but in the end this approach will not help resolve the situation at all.Since the Liberals took office, two courts and the Supreme Court have granted extensions and the government has requested a stay because the legislation before us has not yet passed. The courts found what we have known for a long time, namely that excessive use of administrative segregation is unconstitutional.That pronouncement is deeply disturbing. We know of numerous cases of abuse. Incidentally, those cases of abuse are not exclusive to federal institutions. However, given our jurisdiction and the limited time we have left, we cannot delve into the many troubling cases that worry us, including the one that happened recently in Ontario. (2300)[English]It is important to bear in mind that the remedy the government is proposing is no remedy at all. In fact, it is quite the contrary. The reason so many stakeholders, and in certain cases, the loved ones of victims of the abusive use of solitary confinement, have deplored this is that all we have is a rebrand. It is solitary confinement under a different name.As is unfortunately too often the case with the government, we have to propose amendments and make changes to bills, pointing out there are a few things that might be better. Experts agree that the courts will continue to find this practice, even if under a different name like structured intervention units, to be unconstitutional. I will come back to this with some quotes I pulled up earlier, which I want to share with the House.Bill C-83 was one of the first bills that came before our committee and was opposed by all the witnesses. Rarely had I seen this until quite recently, although there have been a few since then. I am sure Liberal members could pull out a couple of quotes to say that corrections officers think this would be an okay approach. However, the witnesses were opposed to this approach, because a variety of things were not in place that needed to be.[Translation]One of the Senate's proposed amendments is to require judicial approval for an inmate to be held in solitary confinement. This is nothing new. Justice Louise Arbour conducted an inquiry into riots at an institution in Saskatchewan. She noted that the overuse of segregation has an impact on inmates. Judges sometimes impose sentences of imprisonment as part of their duties and authority. However, when segregation is overused, this means that institutions, their managers and, ultimately, the Correctional Service of Canada are altering the judge's decision. They are modifying the sentence handed down by the judge. This was Justice Arbour's argument, which is why she advocated for the use of judicial supervision. (2305)[English]What is particularly troubling to me is that I proposed an amendment, now Senator Pate has proposed an amendment and these amendments are being rejected by the government. My understanding, after hearing the parliamentary secretary's speech earlier tonight, is that it would cause an increased workload on provincial courts. Ultimately, the sad and tragic thing about that argument is that the only reason it would cause an increased workload is because of the abusive use of solitary confinement as so many individuals are being subjected to the practice when they should not necessarily be.Focusing on women offenders in particular, I presented an amendment at committee to end the practice completely in women's institutions. Why? The figures demonstrate two things. One is that the number of women in solitary confinement is infinitesimal. The practice is not necessary for maintaining security in our institutions, which is obviously the primary reason it is used most of the time. The second is quite simply that pregnant women, women with mental health problems and indigenous women are the women most often negatively affected by the abusive use of solitary confinement. There is certainly an argument to be made about that, but at the very least, it should be with judicial oversight.In fact, the argument might also be made that Senator Pate's amendment goes too far. I do not think so, which, as I said, leads us to support the amendment, but there are other routes as well. I proposed an amendment that sought a longer period of 15 days before judicial oversight would be required. It is certainly a much longer and wider threshold than what Senator Pate is proposing. That was also rejected.The fact of the matter is that the issue we are facing here is quite contradictory. I want to go back to another issue that was raised by the parliamentary secretary about the burden we would be putting on provinces. The parliamentary secretary mentioned the burden on provincial mental health hospitals and institutions. That is one of reasons I wanted the Senate amendments. Members will forgive me for not recalling the exact amendment, but this was being proposed. We look at the same Public Safety department, through the work of my provincial colleague in Queen's Park, Jennifer French. It has fought the Ontario government for years over the fact that it has contracts with Public Safety Canada to detain, in some cases with dubious human rights parameters, immigrants who have sometimes not even committed crimes and have uncertain legal status in our country. When that is the purview of the federal government, these individuals are treated very poorly. I do not have the title with me, but I would be happy to share with them a great report in the Toronto Star two years ago, if I am not mistaken, on some of these individuals. One individual, for example, in the U.S. was apparently accused of stealing a DVD, but was never found guilty in court. He came to Canada, was working through the process for permanent residency and due to a variety of issues, he is now being detained in a provincial prison under poor circumstances, without the proper accountability that a normal detention process would have. Even though that is the responsibility of the federal government, there are issues like overcrowding and such, and that is through subcontracting that the federal government does with the provinces.[Translation]Why am I talking about a completely different case? I am simply trying to demonstrate the government's hypocrisy.The government has no qualms about working with the provinces. In some cases, it even forces them to implement legislation and various mechanisms related to our legal and correctional systems. Now, the government wants to use the provinces as an argument to continue violating inmates' rights.As promised, I will share some quotes. I want to share two of them with the House.[English]First of all, I want to go to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling granting the second extension, in April. Certainly my colleagues who are lawyers will not appreciate me selectively quoting. It is always a dubious and dangerous game, but I will do so for the sake of expediency. The court said this: Extensive evidence is put forward outlining the legislative process, the steps necessary to implement the Bill [Bill C-83]including cost, staff training, infrastructure, public consultations.... But this court remains where we were when the first extension was argued: we have virtually nothing to indicate that the constitutional breach identified by the application judge is being or will be addressed in the future. It is pretty clear from that quote and that extension, and not even the initial judgment ruling that the practice was unconstitutional, that this is an issue the bill will not resolve. I sort of opened the door to this at the beginning, and I did not quite finish that thought, but I did want to come back to it, because I just mentioned the second extension.Bill C-56 was tabled in 2017, the first attempt by the government to deal with this, because it was, after all, part of not one minister's but two ministers' mandate letters, the minister of justice and the Minister of Public Safety. As I said, it was a debate that began in the previous Parliament and even before through a variety of public inquiries and the like. Finally, we get to Bill C-83, which was tabled late last year. Here we are now, at the eleventh hour, having it rammed through, because the government, quite frankly, did not do its proper homework. It is problematic, because here we have the Liberals asking for extensions and having to go now, in the last few weeks, to the Supreme Court, of all places, to get an additional extension. The thing is that the witnesses at committee were not consulted. No one was consulted except the officials in the minister's office, and they all came to committee to tell us that.[Translation]I would like someone to explain to me how this could be an issue when the Prime Minister included it in his 2015 mandate letters for the ministers responsible. A bill was introduced in 2017, and two decisions by two different courts, the B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, were handed down in late 2017 and early 2018. Then Bill C-83 was introduced in late 2018. Then not one, not two, but three applications were filed for an extension to implement what the courts had requested.That is interesting. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Oakville North—Burlington. Earlier, when she asked the member for Yellowhead a question, she stated that it might be more beneficial for correctional officers if we were to pass the bill so as not to have to impose the will of the courts upon them.Personally, to defend human rights and prevent people from dying in our prisons due to excessive use of administrative segregation, I would like the courts' restrictions and terms to be imposed. Of course, that is what we wanted to see in the legislation.On a similar note, I would like to come back to the UN rules concerning segregation, which are known as the Nelson Mandela rules.They cover a number of factors: the number of consecutive days in administrative segregation, the number of consecutive hours in administrative segregation and the number of hours spent outside the cell. Viewers might see that last point as problematic, but when inmates are outside their cells, they are not frolicking in wildflower meadows. I hope my colleagues will forgive my humorous tone when talking about such a serious issue. All that means is outside the cell used for administrative segregation. The rules also mention the importance of meaningful human contact.Now I would like to read the quote I read a small part of when I asked the parliamentary secretary a question.(2310)[English] Dr. Adelina Iftene is a law professor at Dalhousie University. I will read the full quote and I ask for colleagues' indulgence. She said:The government claims that these units don’t fall under the definition of solitary confinement because the amount of time prisoners would be alone in their cells is 20 hours versus 22 hours. While that falls within UN standards, the amount of time prisoners would have meaningful contact with other human beings–-two hours per day--does not. The UN standards state that meaningful contact of two hours or less per day is also considered solitary confinement. The government simply cannot argue that its proposed regime is not segregation. Passing a bill that does not include a cap on segregation time and judicial oversight will lead to another unconstitutional challenge.... Refusal to pass the bill with amendments would be a sign of bad faith, disregard for taxpayers’ money and for the rule of law. It is disheartening to see such resistance to upholding human rights at home by a country that champions human rights abroad.[Translation]That drives home the point that the window dressing may have changed, but the store still carries the same goods. Please forgive my use of such a light-hearted expression. The system is the same, and it still has harsh and sometimes fatal consequences for people.Some people argue that there are public safety reasons for this and that some of these inmates have committed horrible crimes and deserve to be punished. However, by far most of the people subjected to excessive use of administrative segregation struggle with mental health problems. That is a problem because these people are not getting the care they need for either their own rehabilitation or to ensure public safety objectives are achieved and they stop posing a threat to communities and society. Excessive use is at odds with our mental health and rehabilitation goals, and that is bad for public safety. I would encourage anyone who says this measure will improve public safety to think again because there is a situation here we really need to address.I have a lot more that I would like to say, but my time is running out. As members can see, this problem has been around for years. Many stakeholders gave inspiring testimony, despite the sombre issue and our discouragement with regard to the government's proposals and inaction. What is more, what the Senate has been doing when it comes to some of the bills that were democratically passed by the House is deplorable. I am thinking of the bill introduced by my colleague from James Bay and the one introduced by our former colleague from Edmonton, Rona Ambrose, on sexual assault. That being said, Senator Pate has done extraordinary work. She has experience in the field. She used to work at the Elizabeth Fry Society. She knows what she is talking about, much more than anyone in the House. I tip my hat to her for the amendments that she managed to get adopted in the Senate. I support them. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Jonquière:Amendment That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, be now read a second time and concurred in.”Amendments and subamendmentsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHospitalsImmigration and immigrantsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthOversight mechanismSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWomen60041286004129600413060041316004132600413360041346004135600413660041376004138600413960041406004141600414260041436004144600414560041466004147600414860041496004150600415160041526004153600415460041556004156600415760041586004159600416060041616004162600416360041646004165600416660041676004168JimEglinskiYellowheadAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaAnthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): (2315)[Translation]The amendment is in order.Questions and comments. The hon. member for Yukon.Amendments and subamendmentsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004169MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. I think the member answered one at the end of his speech. I think the Conservatives will vote against this bill, this concept, because they think it makes the prisons and people more dangerous. The member is making the case that because of the effect of solitary confinement on a person's mental and social situation, it makes it more dangerous not to deal with it.The member wants improvements to the bill, which could come with a new Parliament in the fall, or at the five-year review or through the court challenge that he mentioned. However, if the votes of the New Democrats cause the bill to be defeated so nothing happens, does the member not think some inmates could have poorer treatment this summer? There are some improvements in the bill, obviously not enough, but there is more time out of cell, more rehabilitation services, etc.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSolitary confinement600417160041726004173AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaAnthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (2315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.[English]I have a couple of things. First, as I said, the bill, despite some extremely minor improvements, will perpetuate the status quo. In fact, I would not be concerned about the bill being scrapped, because the consequence of that would the court's conditions would be imposed on Correctional Service Canada, which are much more restrictive in the use of solitary confinement.I will go back to the other part of the member's question; I was getting to it at the end of my speech. The concerns raised by corrections officers are certainly valid. At the end of the day, the member from Oakville was correct in pointing out that the cuts they had been subject to was something they continued to have to deal with. Interestingly enough, they are also part of the reason why this practice has perpetuated. For corrections officers, a decision has to be made about an offender who is causing an issue within the institution. If there is a mental health issue and there are no mental health resources available, or the officers do not have the resources, the only option then is to put the offender in solitary for safety reasons. I am open to a debate on this. I proposed amendments to eliminate it at women's institutions. There is an argument from the John Howard Society and others that it still has its place in men's institutions. Ultimately, that is the role of judicial oversight. We do recognize there might be an urgency within 24 or 48 hours, maybe even over the span of a couple of days, depending on who is asked or what expert we speak to.At the end of the day, without the proper oversight, and this bill just does not have it in my estimation, the concerns will still remain. Corrections officers are stuck. They are flying by the seat of their pants, and improvising a little. It is not something they want to do. I do not think this legislation provides them with either the resources or the clarity they seek to do the work they would like to do. Their goal is not to prejudice anyone's rights; it is the contrary. They need our help to do it and they are just not getting it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSolitary confinement600417560041766004177600417860041796004180AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKarineTrudelJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88488KarineTrudelKarine-TrudelJonquièreNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/TrudelKarine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Karine Trudel (Jonquière, NDP): (2320)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for his excellent work.I have had the opportunity to work with him over the past four years. I find he has a way with words and that his speeches help us better understand what is really going on.In his speech, my colleague said that he had a lot more to say but that he was running out of time. I would therefore like him to take this opportunity to elaborate further.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners600418160041826004183AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (2320)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words, which are very much appreciated.Indeed, this is a complex file. As I said earlier today during the debate on another motion, when dealing with public safety and correctional institutions, people often talk about individuals who do not deserve any sympathy, and with good reason. However, we have a duty to make sure they are rehabilitated. That is one of the objectives of the Correctional Service of Canada. It it also an objective that we all should share, for reasons I mentioned, namely public safety. After all, any effort we can make to lower recidivism rates will contribute to public safety. We also need to uphold human rights. To repeat some of the quotation I read, we champion human rights abroad and denounce how prisoners are treated in other countries. I will not name any, but we can all think of some examples. It is important that we be consistent here at home. We must acknowledge that human rights abuses can adversely affect the mental health of Canadian citizens, whether criminal or not, and then those individuals continue their journey as inmates in a correctional institution. In some cases, it can even cause the deaths of certain individuals, in all kinds of tragic circumstances. We need to recognize that there is a still a great deal of work to be done.In closing, I am very disappointed that the government has done nothing even though it clearly said it would fix the problem. Civil society is progressing, but the government is satisfied with what it has done. Unfortunately, regardless of what the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the Liberals agreed to amendments that are, at best, cosmetic and, at worst, watered down and much weaker than what was put forward initially.I believe this measure comes to us from the minister's office and does not take into account the goals Canadians want us to achieve. It certainly does not reflect what we heard from people who are involved in this issue and have spent decades working to improve our communities, in part through the correctional system.I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to recap.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004184600418560041866004187600418860041896004190KarineTrudelJonquièrePamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work on the bill. Along with this legislation is an investment of $450 million, of which $150 million will be for mental health. I know we disagree on the legislation, but I am wondering whether the hon. member feels that this investment is important for corrections.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004191MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, since this may be the last time to speak on this issue, which we have had the chance to work on, I want to thank the member for her advocacy and the opportunity we had to work together. As I mentioned in a previous response, the public safety file is a challenging one because we are sometimes swimming upstream when it comes to dealing with complicated issues that are not always the issues that garner the most sympathy from the public, but they do have important outcomes for our communities and for many individuals in Canada. We were able to accomplish many important things, and I thank the member for that and for her continued advocacy. As she mentioned, while we might disagree, I certainly know that, at the very least, she is a persistent voice in the minister's ear on some of these issues.I am never going to speak against any further investment on issues that I believe are important, and certainly the investments she talked about are important. It does leave me to raise a final concern with the remaining few seconds that I probably have left. There were some specifics I raised at committee, concerns that I had with some of the wording of the bill.Often, as I mentioned earlier, corrections officers do not have the resources, or even if there are mental health resources in an institution, they might not always be readily available at the time of an incident. Therefore, it sometimes makes it challenging for them to make the decision that leads to the best mental health outcomes.My concern is that some aspects of the bill are phrased in such a way that there could be a potential loophole. Some of those concerns were alleviated, but others still remain. I am pleased to see them continue to go in that direction, but unfortunately we will have to agree to disagree on the substance of the bill. I do not believe that this is the right approach. I want to see strong parameters around the use of solitary confinement in the country, in line with the court decisions we have seen, with UN standards and certainly with judicial oversight. That is the direction I believe we need to go in.Again, I want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with the member and hopefully we can push these issues forward in the years to come, even if it is not in these roles or any other roles that we might play in this place.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners60041926004193600419460041956004196600419760041986004199PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been studying Bill C-83 for the last nine months. Its essence and objective are the same now as they were when the bill was introduced: to provide a way to separate inmates from the general population in an institution when doing so is necessary for safety reasons, without cutting off those inmates from rehabilitative interventions, programs, mental health care and meaningful human contact.The main feature of the bill is the replacement of administrative segregation with structured intervention units, or SIUs. In SIUs, inmates would get a minimum of four hours out of the cell every day, twice as much as they currently get in administrative segregation, and for the first time, there would be a legal entitlement to meaningful human contact of at least two hours every day.In addition to these legislative changes, the government is investing $450 million so that the Correctional Service will be able to hire the staff necessary to provide programs, interventions and mental health care in SIUs and to do it all safely. This investment is critical to the success of the SIUs.During my conversations with both the Union of Safety and Justice Employees and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, as well as during visits I made to corrections facilities in Edmonton and Saskatoon last year, something I heard loud and clear was that there was a need for meaningful investments in corrections to atone for 10 years of cuts by the previous Conservative government so that we can ensure the best rehabilitative outcomes for inmates, and just as importantly, ensure the safety of those who work in corrections.My friend Stan Stapleton, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, wrote an article in May 2019, and I would like to read from it now:Correctional Service Canada's use of solitary confinement must change. The long-standng practice of managing difficult offenders by [the use of]...solitary confinement is totally unworkable. As Canada's courts have said, it is also profoundly inhumane. Men and women serving federal time are broken and desperate human beings in need of meaningful contact, not further isolation. At the same time, federal prisons are fraught with danger. The pressure cooker environment and threats of violence lead some prisoners to seek time away from the general population for their own sanity and safety. Other offenders with a strong propensity for violence and few coping skills simply cannot manage long periods with others without posing a real threat. In a system with few safety valves, administrative segregation (or solitary confinement) has tragically become one of the few.The new legislation proposes significant changes to solitary. Bill C-83 definitely won't solve everything, but it's a worthy next step. It will mandate that Correctional Service Canada dedicate the appropriate human resources for sustained rehabilitative efforts. Until now, the opportunity for parole officers, program officers, and teachers to spend quality time with the highest needs offenders has been minimal, if existent. It will render offenders separated from the general population a priority, instead of an after-thought, within Corrections. It will enforce better reporting and accountability mechanisms. I believe the proposed segregation units will benefit from independent oversight outside of Corrections, as is proposed by the Bill. This is crucial. But to ensure that the Bill does what is intended, the Correctional Service needs to glean the ongoing wisdom of those on the front lines of rehabilitating offenders every day.... A commitment to keep all Canadians safe means serious investments in rehabilitating all offenders in federal prisons, 90 percent of whom will be released back into the community, ready or not. I am hopeful that Bill C-83 passes so that the real work can begin. That is the end of the article.I want to thank Stan for his years of service to corrections, for his assistance with my understanding of our corrections system and for providing all of us with the critical perspective of those working in corrections.Let me return to Bill C-83. The amendments made at the public safety committee last fall addressed practical concerns raised by certain witnesses to help ensure that the new system would function as intended.The committee heard from indigenous groups, including Dr. Allen Benson and the Native Women's Association of Canada, who called for changes to the definition of indigenous organizations to ensure that it properly captured the diverse range of indigenous groups and organizations working on these issues across Canada.(2330)Following the discussion, the committee was able to unanimously approve an amendment that called for indigenous organizations to predominantly have indigenous leadership. We also heard about the need for CSC to seek advice, particularly in matters of mental health and behaviours, from indigenous spiritual leaders or elders. I was pleased that my amendment to that effect was adopted at committee.The bill has changed in significant ways since it was first introduced. I am proud to work for a government that is amenable to feedback and was receptive to amendments, informed by witness testimony that we heard at the public safety committee, that make the bill even stronger. At report stage, we made a major additional amendment, one that I am incredibly proud to have introduced, that creates a mechanism to provide binding, independent, external oversight of SIUs.The Senate has sent the bill back to us with some additional proposals. I appreciate the intent of all of the Senate's proposals and I am glad the government is accepting several of them, in whole or in part.Those that we are accepting include the following: mandatory mental health assessments for all inmates within 30 days of admission and within 24 hours of transfer to an SIU; adding precision to the section of the bill that requires the Correctional Service to consider systemic and background factors in decisions affecting indigenous inmates; establishing the consideration of alternatives to incarceration, where appropriate, as a guiding principle of the Correctional Service; and minimizing the use of strip searches.Other proposals from the Senate are interesting ideas, but they really should be studied as stand-alone items rather than included as amendments to this bill. For example, the idea of expanding the use of measures developed for indigenous corrections to non-indigenous inmates might be valid. When I visited the Pê Sâkâstêw and Buffalo Sage healing lodges in Edmonton last year, I saw first-hand the incredible impact that the programming in these institutions was having on outcomes for inmates who are serving their sentences there.At Buffalo Sage, I was honoured to take part in a circle with Elder Vicky and hearing from strong female offenders, women who have survived what life has thrown at them and are now on a healing journey, immersed in their culture and on the road to rehabilitation and reintegration. These were women who had escaped violent abusers and themselves ended up in prison, women whose lack of housing and poverty led them to the criminal justice system, and women who lost their children to the foster system. One individual at Buffalo Sage shared with me that for the first time since entering the correction system, at Buffalo Sage she felt that she was able to heal.I also had the privilege of visiting Pê Sâkâstêw, a men's healing lodge, where I had a memorable meeting with a 39-year-old indigenous man who first came into the justice system at 12 as a young offender. After a life in and out of jail, a life that included abuse and addictions, he was serving a sentence for robbery and now was on a successful healing journey. He lives as a man in prison and a woman outside, and prefers the “he” pronoun. He had reconnected with his community for the first time in 20 years.I have a lot more that I could say in support of healing lodges and their impact on correctional outcomes for indigenous offenders, but a lot of work would have to go into determining how the Senate's vision would be executed, including what aspects could be borrowed from indigenous programming, what elements would have to be redesigned, what kind of community support exists and where the funding would come from without diminishing from the services provided to the indigenous prison population, which we know is the fastest-growing prison population in Canada.Another example from the Senate is a proposal designed to deter misconduct by correctional employees and to support inmates affected by it. It is important to point out that the vast majority of correctional staff are trained professionals doing a very hard job with skill and dedication. They are individuals for whom I have the utmost respect, who work in a job that gets little in the way of accolades from Canadians. Whenever there is an issue with someone working in corrections, we must absolutely address those situations. However, in my opinion, the Senate's proposal of shortening inmates' sentences because of the conduct of correctional personnel is not the right approach. The Senate has also proposed an amendment that would require the authorization of a provincial superior court for any SIU placement longer than 48 hours. Once more, I understand and share the objective of ensuring that SIUs are properly used. Robust oversight will help see to it that SIUs will be a last resort, that placements in SIUs will be as short as possible, and that inmates in SIUs are receiving all the time out of cell and meaningful human contact to which the bill entitles them. (2335)It is important to note that in the context of administrative segregation, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has found that placements must be examined by the fifth working day by a reviewer who is “completely outside the circle of influence of the person whose decision is being reviewed” and ”able to substitute its decision for that of the person whose decision is being reviewed.” The court was explicit that the reviewer need not be external to the Correctional Service Canada and, in fact, recommending “an administrative review provided by the Correctional Service of Canada.” While this finding was specifically in relation to administrative segregation and not SIUs, Bill C-83 would create a review process for SIUs consistent with what the court required for administrative segregation. Under Bill C-83, SIU placements will be reviewed by the fifth working day by the institutional head who does not report to the initial decision-maker and who has the authority to overturn the initial decision. Importantly, whether in the context of administrative segregation or SIUs, no court has required judicial oversight and no court has set 48 hours as a timeline for review of any kind.I would remind the House that robust oversight was discussed at length at the public safety committee, and has already been added to the bill in my report stage amendment. Independent external decision-makers would be appointed by the minister to review any case where an inmate in an SIU does not get the minimum hours out of cell or minimum hours of meaningful human contact for five days in a row or 15 days out of 30. They will also review situations where Correctional Service Canada does not accept the advice of a health care professional to remove an inmate from an SIU or change their conditions. In addition, they will review all SIU placements at 90 days and every 60 days thereafter for inmates still there at that point. The determinations of independent external decision-makers will be binding and reviewable by the Federal Court. All of that external oversight is on top of regular reviews within the Correctional Service, beginning on the fifth day of placement in an SIU. There are several advantages to using independent adjudicators rather than judges to provide oversight in this context. For one thing, our courts already have a heavy case load. Giving them additional responsibilities would mean giving them additional resources, namely increasing the number of Superior Court judges, which involves changes to legislation and making budgetary allocations both at federal and provincial levels. That raises another problem. There are provincial Superior Courts. We should not be adding to their workload to this extent without engaging in thorough consultations with the provinces. Also, the flexibility of a system of independent adjudicators is a big advantage in this context. A few of them could be stationed in different parts of the country and could be reactive to needs in different provinces. With judges, they are appointed permanently to a specific court and only deal with cases in their jurisdiction. Even for the current system of administrative segregation, the courts have not said that a judicial review is required. The Ontario Superior Court actually expressed a preference for non-judicial review, so decisions could be made faster. Ultimately, while I appreciate the intent of the Senate's proposal about judicial review, an independent adjudication system already in Bill C-83 can meet the need for oversight without the drawbacks of using the courts. I appreciate all the Senate's contributions and hard work. This bill has gotten a lot of attention from parliamentarians over the last nine months, and rightly so. We entrust Correctional Services with the task of carrying out sentences that are supposed to be a deterrent to and punishment for criminal activity and we entrust it with the physical separation of potentially dangerous people from the rest of Canadian society. At the same time, we charge the Correctional Service with the rehabilitation through measures including behaviour counselling, anger management programs, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, education and vocational training. In a country like Canada, we demand that these tasks all be carried out humanely and with respect, even for the rights of people who have done terrible things, and in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-83 would help ensure that all these goals can be achieved. When I spoke to this bill at report stage, I said that I felt strongly that the legislation, combined with the additional investments from our government, would transform our correctional system. That is why I support the legislation and the motion before us today. I urge my colleagues to do the same.(2340)This is the last time I will be speaking in the House before we rise. I would like to acknowledge my staff who are present today: Hilary Lawson and Conor Lewis. This legislation benefited from the input of Hilary, and it would not be the legislation that it is right now without her hard work. Conor has worked with me on the status of women committee. I can quite confidently say that I have the best staff on the Hill. I thank them both for all of their efforts.I would also like to extend my thanks to the members of the public safety committee who are here tonight. I am sorry I do not know their ridings, but they have both spoken tonight. They have both been incredible members to work with. It is rare that we see members work across the aisle as well as we did on the public safety committee on issues that were by nature very controversial. We always found a way to work together, and even when we did not agree we always did it in a very agreeable way. I would like to commend them for their work, as well as my Liberal colleagues on the committee. We got a lot of good work done, and this bill is one that I am very proud of. I will be going back to my riding knowing that we have passed legislation that will truly be transformative for our corrections system.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHealing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMental healthOversight mechanismSolitary confinementStaffingStructured intervention unit6004200600420160042026004203600420460042056004206600420760042086004209600421060042116004212600421360042146004215600421660042176004218600421960042206004221600422260042236004224600422560042266004227600422860042296004230600423160042326004233600423460042356004236600423760042386004239MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyPierre-LucDusseaultSherbrooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71553Pierre-LucDusseaultPierre-Luc-DusseaultSherbrookeNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DusseaultPierreLuc_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP): (2340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and for her work on this file.The obvious question in this debate was raised by my colleague, our critic on this file, who delivered a very eloquent speech. There is no need for me to repeat it. It is very likely that the constitutionality of this legislation will be challenged in court once it is passed and receives royal assent.I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the constitutionality of this legislation. Does she think it will stand up in court in the event of a challenge?Later on, when we review previous debates of the House, we will know whether my colleague was on the right side of history or whether she was mistaken on this.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004240600424160042426004243PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (2345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada have both reviewed this legislation. They did send a letter to the Senate today with regard to some of the amendments that the senators felt they needed to make, in order to, in their opinion, bring the bill to be constitutional. However, Bill C-83 does meet the requirements that the courts were looking for. The courts did not require judicial oversight. No court set 48 hours as a timeline for review. Yes, we do believe that this bill is constitutional. I will rely on the judgment of my colleagues, in particular the Minister of Justice, who has far more experience than I do on this, that the bill is what we need to do to move forward and to meet the demands from the court.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners60042446004245Pierre-LucDusseaultSherbrookeGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her service in this place. I know we have disagreed from time to time on certain issues, but I do know she has the pleasure of representing my in-laws. I do not know that I can say they are Liberal supporters, but I am sure they appreciate her efforts in this place.I want to pick up on something the member said at the end of her speech. She said that we need to recognize the rights of people, even those who have committed heinous crimes. I agree with that. I fundamentally agree that we need to affirm the rights and dignity of all people, regardless of what they have done in their life, at a fundamental level.We often talk in this place about rights. We use the word “rights” very often. I do not think we are going to disagree on this. I wonder if the member could talk a bit more about how we explain the origins of those rights at a core level. In other words, how would the member explain this to somebody who disagrees? On what basis should we say definitively that all people have rights regardless of their circumstances?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCivil and human rightsConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners600424660042476004248PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (2345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have met the hon. member's in-laws. They are wonderful people, and I am very proud to represent them. He is probably right that they are not Liberal supporters, but that is okay, because I represent all the residents of Oakville North—Burlington in this place.I think the member is talking about this in the context of people who have gone to prison. They are in prison and their freedom has been taken away. They are serving time that has been determined by the courts. They are receiving a punishment, but that does not mean they are not entitled to human rights. Most importantly, as I said in my speech, 90% of people who go to prison will be released, so it is important for us to recognize what kind of people we want to release from prison. They will be our neighbours. They will be in our neighbourhoods and in our communities. We want to ensure the public safety of all Canadians, and in order to do that, we need to provide things like programming to help them deal with mental health issues, provide rehabilitative programming and provide them with the human rights that we expect not only for Canadians but for people all around the world.I know the hon. member feels quite strongly about human rights around the world. While we may disagree on some issues, I think on this one we are in complete agreement.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCivil and human rightsConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004249600425060042516004252GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1796LarryBagnellHon.Larry-BagnellYukonLiberal CaucusYukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BagnellLarry_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): (2345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the member for all her hard work on this file at committee and her very good amendments, which make this bill much better. I am sure she has more to say, so I will leave her time to do that, instead of asking a question. However, I want to make one comment for the next Parliament. A number of people in solitary have FASD, and those people are not treated appropriately in the correctional system because of their affliction. I presented a bill earlier this year, which almost passed. Hopefully, some parliamentarians here will pick that up in the next Parliament.I will let the member continue on the topic she was doing so well on.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners600425360042546004255PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (2345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I heard something yelled across the way. I actually supported the member's bill.When I visited Edmonton Max, someone said in a meeting that if there was one thing that could be done in corrections, it would be to deal with individuals who have FASD. The Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon is running a pilot program. As the hon. member knows, and I do commend him for his efforts on that, individuals with FASD can be difficult to diagnose. They can have behavioural issues and, as a result, often end up in administrative segregation.I do believe that with this bill, because of the additional mental health supports that will be provided in prisons, individuals with FASD who have been ending up in solitary confinement will now be going into an SIU, where they will get the supports they need and we can start to deal with that. In addition, I have to say that the Senate's amendment that would require an assessment within 30 days of arriving at an institution would go a long way toward ensuring that individuals with FASD are diagnosed upon admittance. That way, staff will have the knowledge they need to deal with those offenders.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners6004256600425760042586004259LarryBagnellHon.YukonRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, currently, correctional officers do not even have enough resources to allow prisoners out of their cells for two hours a day. How is the government going to ensure that the monetary resources are in place to ensure that these inmates can come out of their cells for four hours a day? Some of these individuals are what we might call the worst of the worst. They have committed some very atrocious crimes. These individuals, then, need to be monitored during their time out of their cells, and correctional officers need to be kept safe during this time. Their security is put at risk in the process of them doing their job. What is the government going to do to ensure their safety and well-being, and where is the monetary investment?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unit60042606004261PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear that we would never put the safety of anyone working in corrections at risk. That is why we are investing $448 million, in addition to this bill, that was in the fall economic statement.When we talk to corrections officers, when we talk to parole officers, they have said that the only way this can work is with an additional investment, and that is what we have done. This will allow for more staff, for the infrastructure that is needed to implement these SIUs. It will allow for hiring additional mental health care professionals.The government is putting money behind the legislation to ensure that it will be successful, to ensure that people who work in corrections always have the support they need, unlike the previous government that cut corrections because it was the easy thing to do. Conservatives cut prison farms, they cut programming, and they actually put the public at risk because they were not allowing individuals in prison to get the programming they needed to be rehabilitated and released into the community.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unit600426260042636004264RachaelHarderLethbridgeAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this will be my last speech in the 42nd Parliament. I hope to be able to continue after the next election, but, as Forrest Gump says, “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you are going to get.”I will take advantage of this opportunity before I launch into my specific remarks on this bill to do a couple of things. One is to thank my colleagues, my constituents, my staff and especially my family for their support and the opportunity to serve.I did want to make a point of paying particular tribute to my friend, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, who is retiring. He is a champion of justice and human rights and someone who has been a great mentor to me as I have sought to engage on many of the same issues that he has been championing for years. I look forward to seeing the ways in which he will continue with these important issues in whatever role he takes on afterwards.It has been a pleasure to work with members on all sides. I certainly wish my friends on the Liberal side well as they prepare to transition to the private sector. I do plan to campaign in their ridings and I hope they do not take it personally. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to go for a drink afterwards, and I will even bring the Solo cups.This is the one other point that I wanted to make to honour a promise I made to a particular community. It is that I want to briefly highlight the Zoroastrian community in Canada. The ancient Zoroastrian religion is one of the oldest religions in the world. Members of this community have been migrating to Canada for many decades, yet they still remain relatively unknown to Canadians, so I thought it would be important to acknowledge their community and their contributions. The Zoroastrian religion is based on three key principles: good thoughts, good words and good deeds. These are principles that align with Canadian values and represent traits that all Canadians should aspire to have. These teachings were passed on by their prophet, Lord Zoroaster, and through the Zoroastrian religious text, the Avesta. Zoroastrians believe there is one creator god. The primary symbol of Zoroastrianism is fire, which is seen as a conduit for wisdom and spiritual knowledge. Zoroastrianism originated in what is now modern-day Iran, but because of persecution, the community had to emigrate to other parts of the world. Zoroastrians, like so many communities, have often come to Canada to escape persecution. There are 100,000 Zoroastrians around the world and 7,000 of them reside in Canada. Zoroastrians are a peaceful and well-educated community, and we celebrate their work and their contributions.I am speaking today on Bill C-83, which proposes to replace administrative segregation with so-called structured intervention units.During its tenure in office, the government has put a big emphasis on the naming of things. “Foreign Affairs” became “Global Affairs”. The universal child care benefit became the Canadian child care benefit, and administrative segregation becomes structured intervention units. When it comes to the name changes, to this bill, and to the record of the government in general, by this point in the mandate, people are asking that all-important question whenever they hear of a name change, “Where's the beef?” As Shakespeare wrote in Romeo and Juliet, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” In other words, would administrative segregation by any other name be of the same nature?Parenthetically, Confucius speaks in The Analects about the importance of naming things correctly. He said the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. He also said:If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.So much of politics, so much of what we have seen here in the last four years, involves effort by government to change the names of things and to re-engineer language. It becomes increasingly difficult to have dialogue and to know the difference between justice and injustice if things are not called by their proper names.We often bemoan political polarization and the decline of meaningful dialogue. Perhaps we should consider how this is born out of the breakdown of meaning in language, how leaders and elites so often try to name things based on political objectives exogenous to the substance of the thing, rather than simply calling a thing what it is.(2355)The vast majority of stakeholders oppose this legislation because they see it principally as a renaming exercise as opposed to a substantive one. In practical terms, the legislation requires a person in this new form of administrative segregation to have a minimum of four hours out per day, as well as legislated meaningful human contact. This raises questions about the capacity of the government to respond in terms of providing the resources necessary to operationalize this new framework.In our judgment, the resources are not there to do this safely and effectively, and the distinctions made are not meaningful. This raises further questions in terms of the strength of the drafting of this legislation and the planning that went into it. We also have residual questions of what constitutes meaningful contact and how that can be defined.On that basis, and recognizing that my time is running short, I will conclude. I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to spend so much time with members in the House. I encourage members of the government caucus to get away, enjoy the summer, go on vacation, travel and spend time in the Caribbean islands.I will of course be working hard in my riding. In particular, I hope to spend a lot of time in the beautiful riding of Spadina—Fort York. Maybe the member and I can start an Alasdair MacIntyre discussion group. The member can share with me from his reading of Ayn Rand and I can share more with him about Alasdair MacIntyre and Aristotle.It has been a pleasure. I wish all members the best, including yourself, Mr. Speaker. I hope to be able to come back in the next Parliament.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReligion6004267600426860042696004270600427160042726004273600427460042756004276600427760042786004279600428060042816004282600428360042846004285600428660042876004288600428960042906004291AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)(1200)[English] moved:Motion That, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the Senate amendments stage of the said bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the Senate amendments to the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599622659962275996228BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1205)[English]Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will be a 30-minute question period. I ask hon. members who wish to participate in the 30 minutes to rise so I can get an indication of how many want to speak.As is the usual case, I ask hon. members to keep their interventions to approximately one minute. That will allow all members who wish to speak the opportunity to do so. Members can be recognized more than once. I remind hon. members that most of the question time in the 30 minutes is reserved for opposition members. However, members from the government side are certainly welcome to participate as well.We will begin now with questions. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsQuestions and comments periodTime allocation599622959962305996231BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the government said that it would do things differently, that it would respect Parliament and would move away from motions that did not allow appropriate time for debate.I want to point out something very unique and interesting about this bill. It took you, Mr. Speaker, approximately 11 minutes to read the amendments to the bill. Within four minutes of debate, the government gave notice of a motion of closure. Not many speakers had the opportunity to debate the bill before that.How is this consistent with the promises the minister made in 2015 to do things differently?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599623259962335996234BruceStantonSimcoe NorthRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have arrived at the stage of debate where there is now an opportunity for the House to respond to the work that was done in relation to this legislation by the Senate. In other words, the bill has had a thorough debate in the House. It has passed through all the stages in the House. It has had extensive committee hearings. It has gone to the Senate and has been reviewed there. The Senate has considered the legislation, made a number of amendments and sent the bill back to the House with those amendments. The point is that this is a very advanced stage of debate. We are not beginning with the bill in its raw form; we are beginning with the bill at a very advanced stage. Therefore, members have had extensive opportunity to debate, consider and in fact make amendments.The point of contention between the House and the Senate is the independent review process that was crafted by the House. Therefore, we are defending the position that was taken by the House on the very important question of how there could be proper review and oversight of the correctional system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599623559962365996237CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am so saddened, as I think most Canadians are, that every day the Liberals continue to repudiate all the commitments they made back in 2015 to work with members of the House of Commons, to stop omnibus legislation and to stop the abuse of the use of closure. As the House knows, the government has gone far beyond the previous government's abuse of closure by bringing in a new “gag” closure that allows only 20 minutes of discussion after it is moved and only one member of the government gets to speak. Members of the opposition do not get to ask questions, make comments or anything of that nature. It shows how toxic the government has become with respect to trying to move legislation through the House and get it improved so the legislation does what it purports to do.In the case of Bill C-83, the NDP offered dozens of amendments, because the bill has been largely criticized by the Elizabeth Fry Societies and many other intervenors. We brought forward the witness testimony and said it would improve the bill. The government refused all of that. Is that not the reason why the government is ramming it through today, because it is a controversial bill that has been much criticized and the government refused to listen to all the witnesses and members of the opposition who tried to make improvements?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation5996238599623959962405996241RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I have to disagree with the hon. gentleman.First, he was critical of omnibus legislation. This is not omnibus legislation. It is legislation pertaining specifically to the correctional service and is focused upon one piece of legislation, not a number of different bills.Second, he was concerned about what he called a “gag” order or the closure procedure. This is not a closure procedure. This is time allocation, which is qualitatively different from what he was criticizing.Third, I would point out that amendments to the legislation have been welcomed and accepted from all parties in the House and indeed by the Senate as well. Therefore, this is not a peremptory approach. There has been a huge amount of debate and a lot of input. That input has been weighed very carefully and a great deal of it has been accepted.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962425996243599624459962455996246PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, this morning proves that the Liberals will do anything and say anything to get elected. In the last election, they promised they were not going to use closure motions as often as we had in the last parliament. They are also saying that they are not going to raise taxes after the next election, even though their spending is way out of control. There has only been four minutes of debate on this bill prior to this closure motion being moved. Does the minister think that is appropriate?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962475996248RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, there have been many hours and days of debate in consideration of the legislation through all the stages in the House of Commons and in the Senate. We are now at the point of responding to the Senate's recommendations. It is not as if the debate was just beginning today or four minutes ago. In fact, the motion that was moved by the House leader provided for five more hours of debate on the specific question of how the House would respond to the recommendations made by the Senate. This is not a closure motion, it is time allocation and it follows the full length of parliamentary procedure through both the House of Commons and the Senate, where many worthy suggestions have been made, a lot of very well-informed debate has taken place and many amendments have been accepted. We are now into the final stages of that discussion where it is appropriate for the House to take a decision and to vote.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962495996250ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a great deal of concern in regard to the process of things. We have seen member after member stand up on a wide variety of pieces of legislation. Even when I was in opposition, at times we need to use this tool in order to advance legislation. We could see opposition members debating things indefinitely, unless either the tool of time allocation is used or the opposition is prepared to allow the debate to come to an end. I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the matter that time allocation is a tool that is necessary at times, that we have seen New Democrats and Conservatives support time allocation, and that this is not outside the norm.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962515996252RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is quite right. There are occasions when such procedures are perfectly appropriate, and that is especially the case when we are into the final days of a Parliament. We all know what the parliamentary calendar is, and it is important for key measures to be approved by Parliament while the time remains for that work to get done. I would point out that the matters at issue in this legislation are also before a number of courts in this country where the courts have set a deadline. They have indicated that Parliament has an obligation to take certain decisions one way or the other, to make up their minds and vote, so that certain situations pertaining in the correctional system can be corrected. If Parliament is not able to take those decisions in a timely way, that could in fact throw the system into chaos. Therefore, because of the court proceedings, it is also important for Parliament to be timely in bringing this legislation to a conclusion.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962535996254KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, unfortunately here we go again. We see time allocation being moved by the current government. The Liberals have been lax throughout this Parliament. They are coming down to the last few days of Parliament and we see this modus operandi of the government to start pushing debates and halting debate to get this legislation through regardless. Again, it is not simply that the Liberals are invoking this measure; this is the measure they said they would not be invoking. This is the measure on which the current Prime Minister stood and said it is the kind of thing that Canadians lose confidence in a government on, and that the Liberals would not do this kind of thing. It is exactly what we have seen more and more, especially in the last few weeks.The parliamentary secretary said that this prevents a filibuster by the government, and debate and debate and debate. We have had four minutes at this stage to even talk about this. Canadians expect that when issues like this come through, good healthy debate takes place here and it has not. Neither has consultation. I have a penitentiary in my riding. Not only is it the well-being and safety of offenders that Canadians question, but also of the guards and the correctional officers.There are two points. We have legislation that needs to be debated and we have another promise broken by the current government as to time allocation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation5996255599625659962575996258RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman brought up the issue of consultation because, as always, we try our very best to consult with all of those who have a stake in the decisions that are made with respect to our public safety systems in this country. A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to attend the triennial meeting of the major union that represents correctional officers who work at the various institutions across this country, including the one in the hon. gentleman's riding. That national meeting of the union was held in Calgary. It was very well attended by correctional officers all over the country. We had the opportunity to discuss this specific legislation. It was clear from that discussion that the union representatives were anxious to see legislation of this nature proceed because it is needed for the safety of the officers, the inmates and the other members of the public who attend from time to time within the correctional system. Indeed, that consultation has taken place.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962595996260KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, with respect to the minister, I do understand the difference between a closure motion and time allocation. I realize that the government is allocating time for this.The major issue, though, is the fact that on Friday Bill C-83 had proceeded with only four minutes of debate when the government House leader rose in the House to give notice that time allocation was going to be moved. I understand that this bill is at a relatively advanced stage, however, it is tradition that this House, the people's House, the representatives of each of these ridings get to have the time to carefully consider what the other place has done.When I put what the government's actions are with respect to Bill C-83 within the context of what it did on Thursday with all of the other government bills, I think the pretense of any respect for Parliament has completely evaporated. Right now, the government is quite obvious. It has a week left, it has a checklist, and is it going to use its majority to simply ram through every piece of legislation, no matter what members of the opposition might have to say on it, despite the fact that on this side of the House, our parties, collectively, represent roughly 60% of the Canadian populace.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599626159962625996263RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, once the discussion about time allocation has concluded, members will have five additional hours of debate to consider this stage, which is on top of all of the stages in the Senate, which was on top of all of the previous stages in the House of Commons. There has been extensive opportunity to examine the details of this legislation. In particular, the portions of the legislation that are subject to the advice and recommendations coming from the Senate are the portions of the legislation which this House and the committee examined in detail, and made extensive changes and improvements to during the course of the parliamentary committee's work. It is not as if this is a new subject that suddenly has been sprung upon the House of Commons or upon the public safety and national security committee of the House. The House examined this in detail, and in fact renovated these provisions in detail. It was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, who was not in that role at that time but who was a member of the public safety committee who moved those extensive amendments, which were then debated in the House and adopted in detail by the House.There has been very careful, conscientious attention given to this issue by members of the House of Commons.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation5996264599626559962665996267AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—Eastman//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, here we go again. It is over 100 times now that the government has used closure or has limited the amount of debate we can have any time on these bills. This stands in stark contrast to what the minister used to say when he was in the third party. The member for Winnipeg North used to stand and holler every time there was a closure motion or anything to limit the debate we were having on any motions before the House.We only had four minutes on Friday to start the debate on the amendments that were proposed by the Senate. I still have to go back and talk to my UCCO members who work at Stony Mountain Institution in my riding to ensure that the health and safety provisions that are in the bill are going to be properly enforced and how that is going to occur. They still have those questions.However, because the Liberals are stifling debate here in the House, I will not have the time to go and consult, and discuss this with UCCO members and with penitentiary staff on how this will impact our riding and how it is going to impact the care and incarceration of those who are currently serving sentences.There are still so many questions out there. The hypocrisy that we are seeing from the Liberals continues to amaze all of us, because when they were in the third party, they used to scream and holler at the top of their lungs every time the previous government tried to do this.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962685996269599627059962715996272RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, while I may have spoken vigorously when I was a member of the opposition on issues of this kind, I do not think it is fair to describe it as screaming and hollering. It was passion.In relation to this legislation and the important question the hon. gentleman makes with respect to the UCCO union, the point that they made was really twofold in the consultation. Number one, there needed to be a system whereby when it was necessary, inmates could be separated from one another in the interests of public safety. They wanted to ensure that that kind of a system would be available to maintain safety within the institution. This legislation does that.Secondly, they wanted to be sure that the resources would be there for the mental health services and the other correctional services that would be necessary to make this legislation effective. I am pleased to confirm that the Minister of Finance has made that funding available in the last fall update and in the spring budget. A total of $450 million has been made available for the implementation of this legislation to meet what the UCCO union suggested was absolutely essential for success.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599627359962745996275JamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I too am disturbed about the fact that the government is using this tactic bringing either time allocation or closure to this House on government bills. This would be the 76th time that the government has embarked on this since I have been here.This is the end of our term but I am still a new member of Parliament. I still recall that in the 2015 election the Liberal members advocated for and promised Canadians that they would not embark on a process like the Harper government of shutting down debate in this House to put in time allocation or closure. Here we are, yet again, doing exactly that. Last week, the government moved a similar motion twice in one day on different bills.I would say this to the minister. Will the Liberals not follow up on what they promised Canadians in the 2015 election and stand down on this motion?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599627659962775996278RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me once again point out that what we are beginning here is not the end of the debate but another five hours of debate on this very topic. There will be five more hours of debate, in addition to all of the debate that has taken place in the Senate, in addition to all three stages that were dealt with earlier in the House, plus extensive committee hearings by both the Senate and the House of Commons.The opportunity to discuss in detail has, in fact, been very considerable. I congratulate all members on this side, on the opposition side and in the other place, who have participated in this discussion about Bill C-83 in a very fulsome way.I would also point out this timing consideration. As I said earlier, there are several outstanding court cases pertaining to the use of administrative segregation in the Canadian correctional system. Those court cases date back to 2015. They have come to decisions in the last number of months, which have imposed upon the government and Parliament an obligation to consider the matters and make decisions in a timely way. We are up against those deadlines now, so it is simply not possible and it certainly would not be responsible to ignore the deadlines that have been imposed by the courts. Otherwise, we are inviting chaos in the correctional system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599627959962805996281JennyKwanVancouver EastMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a couple of questions to the minister on this time allocation motion.He has stated numerous times in the last few minutes of debate that there will be another five hours of debate. I would like to ask the minister this. Has he confirmed with his government House leader that there will be no closure declared on that debate, similar to what the government did on Bill C-69 last week? It closed off debate on that. It closed off discussion on Bill C-69 at the committee stage when there were hundreds of amendments, hundreds even from their own Liberal Party on their own poorly drafted bill. The government closed off debate. It does it time and time again, because it simply does not want to hear the truth. Will the minister confirm again that there will be no closure and there will be five hours of debate on this bill?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation5996282599628359962845996285RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, those are indeed the terms of the motion put before the House by the government House leader, and as soon as we adopt that motion, the five hours are written into the procedures of the House.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation5996286MelArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the bill and its importance for the corrections system. We had rigorous debate during committee hearings. A number of significant, not minor, changes were made at committee. The Senate has also made some changes to it. My understanding is that the only thing we are debating when the bill comes back is the Senate amendments. We have had rigorous debate on the bill itself. It has received support from the parole officers union and from the correctional officers union, which recognize the importance of getting this legislation done due to court challenges.Could the minister speak about the importance of this legislation and what we are actually debating here?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962875996288RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, as well as all members who served on SECU and all the senators in the other place who have been debating this legislation. It has been given very conscientious attention, amended many times and improved in the process. We are now in the final stages of sorting out the last of the amendments to finalize the bill. The issue is simply this. When we abolish the long-standing practice of administrative segregation, as this legislation does, and replace that with specific units within the correctional system that can provide the capacity to separate people when necessary but ensure that their programming, mental health services, counselling and other treatments continue nonetheless, when we establish that new system to replace administrative segregation, the question is what kind of oversight we need to ensure that all the rules are being properly followed by the Correctional Service of Canada.The Senate has made one set of proposals. The legislation includes a different set of proposals. Indeed, we believe that the procedures in the legislation, with proposals put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, are the correct ones. Our response to the Senate is to thank senators very much for their very hard work, but to defend the amendments that were made by the House.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599628959962905996291PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is terminology that the hon. gentleman likes to use quite often in the House. I count eight substantive amendments that the government is accepting or has modified from the Senate. The minister said that the government has considered this and is satisfied with it, and therefore it is moving time allocation, which provides us with only five hours. Several members who have penitentiaries in their ridings have risen on our side of the House. They would like to go back to their constituents and get their opinion on this, and I would like to go back to former prison guards who live in my riding. However, today we are being told there are five more hours and that is it. The member for Peace River—Westlock mentioned this was four minutes at this stage of debate. How many members can speak in four minutes? Very few could provide substantive feedback. The time allocation being moved today by the government is shutting down debate. I have seen this time and again, both at standing committees of the House and on other legislation.I spoke to Bill C-83 before and mentioned all my concerns and worries that constituents had explained to me over the distinct sections and technicalities of the bill. The issue now is that, with only five hours left, it gives us literally no time to return to our constituents to get their feedback on these eight substantive amendments.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation5996292599629359962945996295RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, if this were a brand new topic that had never been introduced in the House before, it would present a challenge to deal with all of the detail within five hours, but this is a topic that has been amply debated in the House, in the Senate and now back in the House again. It is time, in light of the very pressing court decisions that are outstanding, for the House to conclude the debate and take a final vote, knowing very clearly, already on the record, what the important views are, for example, of the correctional officers union, which has been very clear in its position, wanting to see Bill C-83 accepted by the government and by Parliament.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962965996297TomKmiecCalgary ShepardPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier and will say again, the government has repudiated all the promises it made back in 2015. The minister was being a bit disingenuous a few minutes ago, when he said that this is not omnibus legislation. A point that opposition members have been making is that the government said it would end the practice of omnibus legislation, but instead it has accelerated it.In terms of the gag closure, the government said that it would reduce the number of times it would impose closure, but instead it has accelerated it. The gag closure, which is a new measure, never before seen in Canadian history, eliminates the right of opposition members to even speak to a bill once closure is moved. The 20-minute government speech is all that is permitted on the floor of the House of Commons.We have before us legislation that is deeply flawed, and, for the 76th time, the government is imposing closure. The nitpicking about it being a different category of closure, TA closure as opposed to standard closure or gag closure, does not make the harm that this does to Parliament any less. The Liberal government has used closure 76 times, proportionally more than the Harper government. The bill itself is deeply flawed. There is no limit on the number of days that somebody can be put in solitary confinement. Is that not the reason why the government is trying to ram the bill through the House?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation59962985996299599630059963015996302RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1235)[English]No, Mr. Speaker, and let me help the hon. gentleman with some further information.All of his criticism in the statement he has just given is directed toward the procedure of closure. This is not closure. It is a different procedure under the House. I appreciate the passion with which he opposes closure, but he should direct that toward another target, because this is not closure.The member is obviously very opposed to solitary confinement. So am I. That is why, in this legislation, we abolish it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation599630359963045996305PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1315)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsTime allocation5996318BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1315)[English] moved:That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, the House:agrees with amendments 1, 4(a) and 5(b) made by the Senate;proposes that amendment 2 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:“(c.1) the Service considers alternatives to custody in a penitentiary, including the alternatives referred to in sections 29 and 81;(c.2) the Service ensures the effective delivery of programs to offenders, including correctional, educational, vocational training and volunteer programs, with a view to improving access to alternatives to custody in a penitentiary and to promoting rehabilitation;”;proposes that amendment 3 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:“(2.01) In order to ensure that the plan can be developed in a manner that takes any mental health needs of the offender into consideration, the institutional head shall, as soon as practicable after the day on which the offender is received but not later than the 30th day after that day, refer the offender’s case to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the offender.”;proposes that amendment 4(b)(i) be replaced by the following amendment:1. Clause 10, page 7: replace lines 25 to 28 with the following:“(2) The Service shall ensure that the measures include(a) a referral of the inmate’s case, within 24 hours after the inmate’s transfer into the structured intervention unit, to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the inmate; and(b) a visit to the inmate at least once every day by a registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service.”;respectfully disagrees with amendment 4(b)(ii) because it may not support the professional autonomy and clinical independence of healthcare professionals and does not take into account the inmate’s willingness to be transferred to a hospital or the hospital’s capacity to treat the inmate;respectfully disagrees with amendment 5(a) because it would result in a significant addition to the workload of provincial superior courts, and because further assessments and consultations with the provinces would be required to determine the probable legislative, operational and financial implications at federal and provincial levels, including amendments to the Judges Act and provincial legislation and the appointment of additional judges;proposes that amendment 6 be amended to read as follows:“6. Clause 14, page 16:(a) replace line 7 with the following:“48 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a staff member of the same sex as the inmate may”;(b) add the following after line 15:“(2) A body scan search of the inmate shall be conducted instead of the strip search if(a) the body scan search is authorized under section 48.1; and(b) a prescribed body scanner in proper working order is in the area where the strip search would be conducted.”;”;proposes that amendment 7(a) be amended by replacing the text of the French version of the amendment with the following:“c) l’identité et la culture autochtones du délinquant, notamment son passé familial et son historique d’adoption.”;proposes that amendment 7(b) be amended to read as follows:“(b) replace lines 32 and 33 with the following:“ing the assessment of the risk posed by an Indigenous offender unless those factors could decrease the level of risk.”;”;respectfully disagrees with amendment 8 because extending the concept of healing lodges designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, and because it would impede the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada, which is responsible for the care and custody of inmates pursuant to section 5 of the Act, to be part of decisions to transfer inmates to healing lodges;respectfully disagrees with amendment 9 because extending of the concept of community release designed specifically for Indigenous corrections to other unspecified groups is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation;respectfully disagrees with amendment 10 because allowing offenders’ sentences to be shortened due to the conduct of correctional staff, particularly given the existence of other remedies, is a major policy change that should only be contemplated following considerable study and consultation, including with provincial partners, victims’ representatives, stakeholder groups and other actors in the criminal justice system;respectfully disagrees with amendment 11 because five years is an appropriate amount of time to allow for robust and meaningful assessment of the new provisions following full implementation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGoodale, RalphGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMessages to SenateMinister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessSenate amendments599360159936025993603599360459936055993606599360759936085993609599361059936115993612599361359936145993615599361659936175993618599361959936205993621599362459936255993626599362759936285993629599363059936315993632AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 has two main objectives.First, it will allow federal inmates to be separated from the general prison population when necessary for security reasons. Second, it will ensure that these inmates have access to the interventions, programs and mental health care they need to safely return to the general prison population and make progress toward successful rehabilitation and reintegration.[English]The bill would achieve these objectives by replacing the current system of administrative segregation with structured intervention units. In SIUs, inmates will be entitled to twice as much time out of their cells, four hours daily instead of two, and two hours of meaningful human contact every day. We have allocated $448 million over six years to ensure that the correctional service has the resources to provide programs and interventions to inmates in SIUs and to implement this new safety system effectively. That funding includes $150 million for mental health care, both in SIUs and throughout the federal corrections system.Bill C-83 was introduced last October. It was studied by the public safety committee in November and reported back to the House in December with a number of amendments. There were further amendments at report stage in February, including one from the member for Oakville North—Burlington, that added a system of binding external review. In recent months, hon. senators have been studying the bill and have now sent it back to us with proposed amendments of their own.A high level of interest in Bill C-83 is indicative of the importance of the federal corrections system and of the laws and policies that govern it. Effective and humane corrections are essential to public safety. They are a statement of who we are as a country. In the words of Dostoyevsky, the degree of civilization in a society is revealed by entering its prisons. I extend my sincere thanks to all the intervenors who have provided testimony and written briefs over the course of the last nine months and to the parliamentarians in both chambers who have examined this legislation and made thoughtful and constructive suggestions.Since the Senate social affairs committee completed clause-by-clause consideration of this bill a couple of weeks ago, the government has been carefully studying the committee's recommendations, all of which seek to achieve laudable objectives. We are proposing to accept several of the Senate's amendments as is or with small technical modifications. First off, with minor adjustments, we agree with amendments that would require a mental health assessment of all inmates within 30 days of admission into federal custody and within 24 hours of being transferred to an SIU. This fits with the focus on early diagnosis and treatment that would be facilitated by the major investments we are making in mental health care. We agree with the proposal to rearrange section 29 of the act, which deals with inmate transfers, to emphasize the possibility of transfers to external hospitals.(1330)[Translation]I thank the hon. senators for their efforts and contributions.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisoners599363359936345993635599363659936375993638599363959936405993641BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Notice of time allocation]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionTime allocation59936455993646BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Notice of Closure Motion]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1330)[English] Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActClosureConsideration of Senate amendmentsCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motion5993648BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1145)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, for four years now, the Minister of Public Safety has been ignoring decisions handed down by various courts ruling that excessive use of solitary confinement is unconstitutional.Yesterday, the family of Ashley Smith spoke out against the government's broken promises and the fact that it is invoking their daughter's name to justify its failure to act. Bill C-83 will do nothing to fix this appalling situation. Will the government abandon the bill, comply with the court rulings and, above all, apologize to the family of Ashley Smith?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesOral questionsSolitary confinement595654859565495956550ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1145)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his concern and his hard work at committee.Ashley Smith's death was a tragedy and we continue to extend our condolences to her family. We are working hard to prevent what happened to Ashley Smith from happening to anyone else. The new system we are putting in place will provide programs, mental health care and daily social interaction with inmates who need to be separated from the general population for safety reasons. We have backed that up with a $448-million investment, and unlike the current system, there will be new oversight mechanisms and regular reviews will be enshrined in law.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesOral questionsSolitary confinement59565515956552MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKylePetersonNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1940)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption5830276GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1000)[English] moved that Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, be read the third time and passed. Bill C-83. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that we have reached together the third reading stage of Bill C-83, legislation that would significantly strengthen our federal corrections system in a variety of important ways. It would make institutions safer both for employees and for inmates. It would enhance support for the victims of crime. By improving the ability of the Correctional Service of Canada to successfully rehabilitate and safely reintegrate people who have broken the law, this legislation will better protect Canadians in communities across the country.The bill's main feature is the replacement of the current practice of administrative segregation with structured intervention units, or what is commonly known as SIUs. This is a new system that would allow inmates to be separated from the rest of the institution when that needs to happen for safety reasons, while giving them more time out of their cells, more meaningful contact with other people and greater access to mental health care and other rehabilitative interventions.(1005)[Translation]I would like to thank the members who participated in the meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, as well as the many individuals who appeared as witnesses or submitted briefs. The bill was reviewed in meticulous detail, and the participants were, by and large, motivated by a sincere desire to strengthen our correctional system.[English]In response to witness testimony, committee members made a number of important amendments. Strangely, the opposition has been arguing that this is somehow a bad thing. We make no apologies for being receptive to feedback and willing to let legislators legislate. It is a testament to the strength of our parliamentary process that at least one amendment was accepted at committee stage from every party that made a submission during the committee's study of Bill C-83. There were even situations where an amendment was proposed by a member of one party and then subamended by a member of another party and then supported by both of them together. This stands in stark contrast to the way that things worked during the Harper days in Parliament. The Conservative government generally operated as though its bills were immaculately conceived and good-faith amendments were dismissed as heretical.An hon. member: It is true.Hon. Ralph Goodale: The opposition has correctly noted that is not our government's approach, and I am very proud of the fact that we have worked together on amendments.Most of the amendments made at the committee responded directly to various questions that were raised by witnesses about whether the SIUs would work as intended. For example, there were concerns that the opportunity for time out of the cell might be offered in the middle of the night, which would obviously be unreasonable. Therefore, the bill now prohibits that.There were concerns that inmates' interactions with other people would only occur through the doors or through the meal slots. The bill now makes clear that this is to be a truly exceptional practice.Some witnesses thought that the provision relieving the Correctional Service, in exceptional circumstances, of the obligation to provide time out of the cell could be too broadly construed. Therefore, the bill now includes a specific list of the kinds of extraordinary circumstances that provision is meant to respond to, like natural disasters.While the bill already allowed medical professionals to recommend that an inmate be removed from the SIU, some witnesses wanted greater assurance that such a recommendation would in fact be taken seriously. Therefore, the bill now requires that if the warden disagrees with the recommendation, the matter would be immediately elevated to a senior panel external to that particular institution.These and other amendments preserve the fundamental objectives of Bill C-83, while providing more clarity and confidence that the new system would function as planned and accomplish the transformation that is intended.There is one other thing that happened at committee that I would like to highlight.Along with their amended version of the bill, committee members sent this House a specific recommendation, that as we go about replacing segregation, particular attention should be given to the circumstances at women's institutions. Under the existing system, women tend to be housed in segregation less frequently and for shorter periods of time than men, and there is almost always a serious mental health issue involved. Also, while segregation cells and regular cells are quite similar at men's institutions, the same is not the case for women. I am, therefore, pleased to report that in line with the committee's recommendation, the Correctional Service is taking a gender-informed approach to the implementation of SIUs. The service has confirmed that it will be engaging stakeholders, such as the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, as it develops plans to implement the new law in a way that is appropriate for women's corrections.Having completed a brief overview of the work that was done at the committee, I would now like to turn to the report stage debate that has occurred in this House in recent days. One notable outcome of the report stage process was the addition of an external oversight mechanism, thanks to an amendment proposed by the member for Oakville North—Burlington. As I mention that particular member, let me also congratulate her on becoming the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.SIU placements now, thanks to that amendment, would be subject to binding review by independent external decision-makers. This process would kick in if, for whatever reason, an inmate in an SIU does not get his or her minimum hours out of a cell or minimum hours of meaningful human contact for five straight days or for 15 days out of 30. At that point, the independent decision-maker would determine if the Correctional Service has taken all reasonable steps to provide those hours out of the cell and may make corrective recommendations. If after a week, the decision-maker is not satisfied, he or she can order the inmate removed from the SIU.The independent decision-maker would also get involved if the Correctional Service is keeping an inmate in an SIU despite the recommendation of a health care professional. A review would be conducted of each SIU placement after 90 days and every 60 days thereafter. That is in addition to internal reviews that would be done by warden and the commissioner. Importantly, the determinations of the independent external decision-makers would be appealable to the Federal Court by both the inmate and the Correctional Service of Canada in accordance with section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. Independent oversight is something that has been advocated by a number of stakeholders, including The John Howard Society, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association and Aboriginal Legal Services, as well as the correctional investigator. I was, therefore, a bit surprised during the third reading proceedings to see the NDP join with the Conservatives to oppose adding independent oversight to the bill. At committee, the NDP member for Beloeil—Chambly said that he indeed wanted independent oversight in the legislation, and the NDP member for Salaberry—Suroît made several calls for independent oversight in this place on Tuesday of this week during the debate. However, on Tuesday night, for some reason, the NDP voted against independent oversight and in favour of keeping all the reviews of SIU placements internal to the Correctional Service. That was an absolutely baffling turn of events, and I would be very interested to hear NDP members explain it during the course of the debate today.There were a couple of other points made during the report stage debate that are worth touching upon. First, Conservative members accused us of not putting any resources toward the implementation of Bill C-83. I suppose none of them have had the opportunity to read the fall economic statement, which allocated in fact $448 million over six years to “support amendments to transform federal corrections, including the introduction of a new correctional interventions model to eliminate segregation.” (1010)I suppose that the Conservative members of the public safety committee did not actually read the written response that was provided to them by my department in November outlining the breakdown of that funding. As was set out in that document, we are putting nearly $300 million over six years, with $71.7 million ongoing, towards staffing and other resources required to run the SIUs. The other approximately $150 million over six years, with $74.3 million ongoing, will be devoted to enhancing mental health care both within SIUs and throughout the correctional system. All of that is on top of the nearly $80 million for mental health care in corrections that was provided in the last two federal budgets.In my meetings with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, a key point of emphasis has been the importance of having the staffing levels and other resources needed to safely implement this legislation. The new investments that I have just outlined will in fact ensure that is the case.That brings me to the matter of staff safety, which has also come up repeatedly during this debate, as indeed it should. The success of our corrections system relies on the skills and dedication of correctional officers, parole officers, program officers, medical professionals, elders, aboriginal liaison officers, chaplains, support staff and a great many other employees and volunteers. Ensuring that they have a safe work environment is a prerequisite for everything that the Correctional Service of Canada is mandated to do. That is why Bill C-83 allows inmates who pose a security risk to be separated from the general inmate population. The enhancements to mental health care and rehabilitative interventions are also important for staff safety, because staff will be safer when inmates make correctional progress and when their mental health issues are under control.It is worth remembering that in 2014, the head of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers at that time said, “We have to actively work to rid the Conservatives from power.” He said that because he felt that the Harper government's policies and budget cuts were endangering correctional officers.Those cuts were deep. During their last term in office, under their deficit reduction action plan, the Conservatives cut $846 million from the Correctional Service of Canada. Those cuts had a considerable impact on institutional and public safety. For example, they resulted in a freeze of transfers to the organizations that run halfway houses, which play a key role in the safe reintegration of former inmates. That freeze is finally ending this year. Conservative cuts resulted in the near elimination of the CoSA program, an initiative that has been shown to dramatically reduce the recidivism rates of sex offenders. We restored funding for that effective program in 2017.The Conservative cuts caused the closure of prison farms, which serve important rehabilitative and vocational purposes. The work to reopen the farms is now under way. When I met recently with parole officers, they explained how cuts to so-called administrative functions can affect public safety. For instance, when the people fired are those who handle billing and travel arrangements, that work has to get done by parole officers, who then have less time to spend with the inmates whose rehabilitative progress they are supposed to be supervising. There is naturally more work to be done to compensate for the decade of Conservative cuts and policies that treated rehabilitation as the opposite of public safety. In fact, one cannot have one without the other.I am pleased with the work we have been able to do so far. Bill C-83 is a vital step as part of that.(1015) I will close with this. Court rulings finding the existing segregation regime unconstitutional are due to take effect in coming months. The courts have recognized explicitly that simply ending segregation without having a new system in place to replace it would put correctional workers, employees and inmates at greater risk. The replacement we are proposing in this legislation is clearly a major improvement, with double the time out of the cell, a focus on mental health care and rehabilitation, independent external oversight and the investments to make it all work. Just to make sure, I will be appointing an advisory committee to monitor the implementation of the new SIU system. This committee will comprise experts with a diversity of relevant experience in areas such as corrections, rehabilitation and mental health care. Its role will be to advise the commissioner on an ongoing basis and to alert me directly if anything is not proceeding as it should.Bill C-83 is legislation I hope we can all support. I thank the hon. members who engaged in a thoughtful study of the bill and proposed constructive amendments. I want to thank the witnesses who provided the informed and useful feedback that led directly to some of those specific amendments. I want to thank in advance the correctional employees who will be charged with implementing this new system, and who work hard every day in very, very challenging circumstances, to effect successful rehabilitation, safe reintegration and the protection of Canadians and our communities.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCommittee studies and activitiesConstitutionalityCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsGovernment expendituresImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismPublic consultationSafetyStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoptionWomenWorkplace health and safety58031855803186580318758031885803189580319058031915803192580319358031945803195580319658031975803198580319958032005803201580320258032035803204580320558032065803207580320858032095803210580321158032125803213580321458032155803216580321758032185803219580322058032215803222KellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister mentioned that people on this side of the House had not read the supplementary estimates, but I have to ask him if he has read his own departmental plan from Correctional Service Canada that he himself signed. If he had read it, he would have seen a couple of remarkable items.In the departmental plan, which sets out the government's priorities for the coming years, there is not a single priority listed for the safety of correctional services officers, but he talks about resources. In the departmental plan from 2015, when the Harper government was in power, to 2021, there is a 13% cut in resources to correctional services when a minimal inflation rate is counted in.Further, there is a cut of 150 full-time equivalents. I have to ask, where is the minister getting his information from? Why is he so wrong? Is it Brison's fault? Is it Harper's fault, or is it perhaps the former attorney general's fault for this error?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption580322358032245803225RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. gentleman to read the deficit reduction action plan that was imposed by his party when the Conservatives were in government. I believe that the year 2010, followed by the budget of 2011, followed by the budget of 2012 and all those budgets imposed severe cuts and restrictions on vital services such as the correctional system. I mentioned in my remarks that over $800 million was cut because of those measures implemented by the previous government. As well, I would point out that between the RCMP and CBSA, the Conservatives cut another close to $1 billion from security services in this country. If the Conservatives want to have a debate on fiscal responsibility and the investments that are necessary to make sure that our correctional service, the police service, the border service and the intelligence and security services of this country are adequately financed, I would be delighted to have that debate, because their record is one of talking a great game and delivering zero.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption58032265803227KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I often like to say, I love to see the Conservatives and Liberals argue about who provided less for the public services we need. In this case, we know that the key problem with the management of offenders is the lack of resources for treatment programs and rehabilitation programs. The minister asked why the NDP is opposing this bill. I want to cite two people who are probably the country's best authorities on this issue. One is Senator Kim Pate, who said, “With respect to segregation, Bill C-83 is not only merely a rebranding of the same damaging practice as “Structured Intervention Units”. Ivan Zinger, the correctional investor, said, “Bill C-83 is widening the net of those restrictive environments. There's no procedural safeguard.”These two people, undoubtedly the people who know the most about this in the entire country, have said that this is just a rebranding. We are going to end up back in front of the courts with the same problem of violation of people's rights, and we are going to end up with more victims of this system of segregation, because the bill expands the net of those who will be drawn into it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption5803228580322958032305803231RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is caught in a bit of a time warp. The legislation has been amended. In fact, a number of the safeguards witnesses before the committee asked for have now been made part of the legislation, particularly the whole process of independent review to make sure that there is external scrutiny of the decisions made within the correctional system. Plus, as I mentioned, I have made sure that there are the financial resources necessary to deliver mental health care and other treatment programs and services. Over $400 million was allocated in the fiscal update last fall. Finally, I announced today that we are appointing an independent monitoring and advisory committee, which will keep a very close eye on the implementation of the structured intervention units. It will make sure that the implementation is being accomplished in the right way and that the objectives we have set for this legislation are being achieved. If there is any deviation from that path, the monitoring group will inform the minister, and I will make sure that the House is aware of it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption580323258032335803234RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for his work on this file. Both in this House and outside of this House, the minister speaks quite positively of the work of the committee and the role it plays. I am wondering if he can expand on the work the committee did on this bill to make improvements and amendments and what his perceptions are of that work.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCommittee studies and activitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption58032355803236RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, the committee heard from an extensive list of witnesses representing a range of experiences, backgrounds and expertise, people who could offer good, practical input into the operation of our correctional system. They had some very clear recommendations to make. The committee listened to them and then acted on the recommendations.As I mentioned in my remarks, the proposed amendments came from all parts of the table, not just one side or the other. All the political parties involved made recommendations to respond to the witnesses. There were amendments from all sides that were ultimately accepted by the committee. It was truly a collaborative effort to make sure that the legislation would achieve the objectives we set for it, which was to abolish the old practice of administrative segregation and replace it with a whole new approach whereby we would retain the ability to separate inmates for physical and safety reasons while at the same time having the capacity to continue with programming, mental health services, human contact and so forth that would ultimately lead toward rehabilitation.The committee listened to that evidence very carefully and then crafted amendments that would deliver on the objectives of the legislation, particularly the element of external oversight and review, which is a critical element in assuring the public and all stakeholders interested in the correctional system that, in fact, the administration of the system was being conducted properly. The independent review process externally was the committee's greatest contribution.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCommittee studies and activitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption580323758032385803239ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we are debating something related to our criminal justice system in Bill C-83. The Minister of Public Safety is the inheritor of the old solicitor general role. In fact, the minister was part of the government that changed that. The last official solicitor general for Canada was Anne McLellan, his former colleague. Therefore, the public safety minister is, by extension, the solicitor general, the second-highest ranking legal official in the government of Canada.We are in the middle of a crisis with respect to the demotion of the former attorney general, the top legal official in Canada, after she refused the orders of the Prime Minister's Office and pressure by major officials. The solicitor general needs to ensure that there is confidence in our system of justice in Canada. As the second-highest ranking legal official in the government of Canada, a barrister solicitor himself, I would like the member to tell us why Canadians should have faith in Bill C-83 in the corrections part of the criminal justice system, when we have just been witness to the spectacle of the top ranking legal official in the Canadian government suggesting that the Prime Minister interfered with the course of justice. Should the minister not withdraw this bill and all other bills that are now sullied by the government's lack of respect for the rule of law in Canada?8555-421-1699-01 Charities funding Canadian political activity or campaignsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPolitical influenceThird reading and adoption580324058032415803242RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. When we heard from the former attorney general in her testimony before the justice committee earlier this week, there were two points she made abundantly clear. She was asked these questions several times by different members of the justice committee, and her answer in each case was the same.She made these two very important points. First of all, the Prime Minister gave her no direction with respect to the disposition of the matter before her. The decision was entirely hers to make. Second, there were no laws broken. Nothing unlawful was done in the process. She made that point, unequivocally, over and over again.An hon. member: She was fired, Ralph.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPolitical influenceThird reading and adoption580324358032445803245ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption5803248AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Durham brought up a very valuable point. It will frame how my 10 minutes will move forward on the topic of Bill C-83.I am glad to see that our hon. colleague across the way, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is not at Rideau Hall right now, being shuffled away. It is nice he is here with us, as the Prime Minister tries to shuffle himself out of a crisis of confidence.That is where we are. A great emergency debate took place last night, with valuable comments from all sides.I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, and I reiterate that the government has used time allocation to once again force closure to limit debate. Why is that? As we have seen time and again, if the government does not like what it is hearing or does not like the message, it is going to force closure on debate. The Liberals do not want to hear anymore.It was on day 10 of the 2015 election that the member for Papineau told Canadians that he was going to do things differently, let debate reign and not resort to parliamentary tricks such as closure and time allocation. He said that under his government, Canadians would see the most open and transparent government in the history of our country and sunny ways.What have we seen over the last three years? We have not necessarily seen a lot of sunshine, but have heard a lot of questions. Canadians have a lot of questions, and rightfully so. Today, we are in the middle of a crisis of confidence.We should always arm our front-line officers, those who we trust to protect us and who serve our country and our community. We should be giving them to tools so they can fulfill their missions, come home safe and sound and remain healthy.Bill C-83 is another attempt at being soft on crime, making things easier for those who commit the worst crimes in our society. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that these criminals are okay and that somehow solitary confinement or segregation is cruel and unusual punishment. One day these criminals get out of prison and will walk among us.Let us consider Paul Bernardo, Robert Pickton, Clifford Olson, Eric McArthur, Travis Winsor and Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff. These are the types of offenders who are in solitary confinement and they are there not only for the protection of officers and other inmates, but for their own protection as well.The minister talked about consultation, saying that the Liberals had consulted with the union of correctional officers and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The testimony we heard is considerably different from what they have said. They purport there is support for the bill. There is support for elements in the bill, such as body scanners. However, the union of correctional officers has some serious concerns with it. In fact, the president remarked that there would be a bloodbath behind bars with the implementation of Bill C-83. He said that prisons did not have the resources now for the two hours inmates in solitary confinement were allowed to be out each day, let alone for four hours per day.(1035)It has been said that solitary confinement is used as an administrative tool for both the safety of the officers as well as other inmates. However, 23% of offenders who are in solitary confinement are serving life sentences; 23% of offenders are serving a sentence between two years and three years less a day; and 681 offenders are serving a sentence with a “dangerous offender” designation. Dangerous offenders very likely never get out of these institutions, because they have committed some of the worst crimes.The Liberals want people to believe the opposition is sowing the seeds of fear, but the government is soft on crime. We have seen it with Bill C-75. Convictions for serious crimes could now be punishable with just a fine. Bill C-83's intent is to bring the prison population down from 12,000. Prominent witnesses have had serious issues with Bill C-83. They have said it is flawed. As our hon. colleague for Durham remarked, how can Canadians have confidence in any legislation moving forward?I will go back to the testimony we heard earlier this week from the former attorney general. It was three hours and 40 minutes of powerful testimony. The Liberals are going to spin it each and every way they can. They are going to say nothing untoward happened. The former attorney general has serious concerns. She spoke truth to power in what happened. She was shuffled. She was demoted, fired. Over the course of the following weeks, the Liberals have done everything to tarnish her character, cast doubt in her testimony. This is what they do, and it is shocking. I challenge Canadians to take a moment to listen to that testimony, three hours and 40 minutes of it. It will give them a glimpse into our country's highest office and the extent to which it is willing to go to subvert justice. It will shock them. It will strike fear into Canadians. Make no bones about it, the world is listening.Today is not just about Bill C-83. Today is about the crisis of confidence we have in the Prime Minister, his office and indeed his entire front bench. Those in the gallery and those who are watching should pay attention and listen. If they do one thing today, I urge them to find that testimony and listen to it. Hear in her own words how the pressure was sustained. Despite saying no multiple times, there was sustained pressure for her to subvert justice. After all, the Prime Minister was going to get his way one way or the other. That is shameful. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal prosecutionsGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPolitical influenceSNC-Lavalin Group Inc.Solitary confinementThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety58032515803252580325358032545803255580325658032575803258580325958032605803261580326258032635803264580326558032665803267AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand what the Conservative Party's position is based on the comments of the minister responsible for the legislation. I refer specifically to some of the criticism of those members during second reading. Members of the Conservative Party made false allegations. It is not the first time they have given misinformation and they are very consistent about giving it.The Conservatives are giving the impression to correctional officers and others that no money is flowing as a result of the legislation we are debating today. This is not the case. The minister has been very clear about to that.Now that the Conservative members have been enlightened, now that they know money has been allocated, will they at least admit to the truth and admit they are wrong in their assertion that no money has been allocated? The opposition party has no qualms in saying something that is just not true. We see that again with respect to this legislation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsGovernment expendituresImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption580326858032695803270ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I guess the question today is whether the Prime Minister admits he was wrong.Our hon. colleague is a good soldier. I am saddened that he is not down at Rideau Hall. I wish him better luck next time.We have read the departmental plan for this department. One of our colleagues made note of it and questioned the minister on it. It shows about a 13% cut from the time we were government, 2015-16, to today. Correctional Service Canada managers have been tasked to look for efficiencies. In other words, to find ways to cut. Bill C-83 has not been costed. We have made attempts to get the minister to tell us about the model the government is using and whether it has been costed. All we get is deflection. The Liberals are doing again what they usually do, which is to blame those before them. The Liberals cannot accept the truth, they do not know the truth, we have not yet heard the truth and they cannot handle the truth.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsGovernment expendituresImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption58032715803272580327358032745803275KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLindaDuncanEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if the member would correct the slight he made to my colleague. The Hon. Kim Pate, senator and former long-standing head of the Elizabeth Fry Society and who received the Order of Canada for her work against segregation in prisons, said two days ago that Bill C-83 could have been made meaningful. Instead of just changing the name, the government could have made significant changes by including provisions that would allow for the transfer of those who had mental problems to mental health facilities. I wonder if the member could speak to that. Would the legislation really resolve the problem we face where so many have been put in segregation and suffer severe mental problems? There are other solutions? I have worked with many people in the criminal law field. I have been to those facilities of incarceration. The Hon. Kim Pate is a person whose advice should be considered.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption580327658032775803278ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, the issue today is that if the Liberals do not like the narrative or the message coming from others, they will do everything to tarnish their character. We have seen it with the former attorney general, one who still sits among their very own ranks. That is shameful.We should be doing everything in our power to ensure that those who face tough times have the tools they need so they can remain healthy. However, we should always ensure that those who we task to protect, to serve our country or our communities have the tools they need to remain healthy, safe and secure at work so they can go home safely and remain healthy at home.Bill C-83 would do none of that. It is flawed legislation. The Liberals should remove it immediately.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption580327958032805803281LindaDuncanEdmonton StrathconaJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act. While there are a few colleagues across the way that think this is good bill, a number of people and organizations that testified at committee disagree. One organization said that structured intervention units, or SIUs, are not needed, that the bill fails to focus on the programs and that there are concerns with section 81. That was the Elizabeth Fry Society. The John Howard Society disagrees, saying that it needs more information on what exactly the difference is between solitary confinement and structured intervention units, believing that there is really no difference other than in the wording. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association disagrees. It will not support this bill, citing a lack of external oversight, a lack of programming needed to assist prisoners to reform and lack of sufficient resources and staff to meet social and educational needs.The Native Women's Association of Canada also disagrees. It is one organization in a long list that were not consulted. It expressed reservations that the bill does not address traditions, protocol or cultural practices and does not clarify what is meant by “indigenous communities”.The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers also disagrees, expressing very real concerns over the feasibility of SIUs and over prisoners and officers being more vulnerable under this bill.The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also disagrees, citing that Bill C-83 has no meaningful reform and should be repealed and expressing apprehension that there was little to no consultation as well.Aboriginal Legal Services also disagrees with Bill C-83, citing a lack of consultation and speaking about the expanse between rhetoric and reality.A Canadian correctional investigator who testified also disagreed with this bill, expressing that eliminating solitary confinement was one thing but that replacing it with a regime that imposes restrictions on retained rights and liberties with little regard for due process and administrative principles was inconsistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, when there is little regard for the rule of law, disregarding the charter is a trivial thing. I just hope that no one is hurt or killed because of this legislation before November, when Conservatives can repeal this piece of legislation. I am not sure if my colleagues have detected a pattern or not. Clearly, the government sees no problem with ignoring the concerns of those most affected by this bad bill, but this lack of interest in listening to Canadians does not end with Bill C-83.In the Correctional Services departmental report, 2018-19, on page 26, if the members opposite care to follow along, there is actually a cut in spending to Correctional Services of Canada of about 6.6%. That is comparing 2015 to 2019. It went down 6.6%. Also in that departmental report is a list of departmental priorities. Believe it or not, there is not one mention of officer safety in that report. How is that even possible? Again, there is a pattern that is consistently repeating itself here.With respect to the government's carbon tax, much promoted on their side, no less than four provinces are taking the Liberal government to court, and more are waiting. The Prime Minister's carbon tax does nothing for the environment, but it will increase the cost of gas, home heating and everyday essentials. Worse still, it is going to get more expensive. For Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, in 2019 the Prime Minister's carbon tax starts at $20 a tonne, going up to $50 in three years. However, internal government documents confirm that the Liberals are already planning for a carbon tax of $300 per tonne. That is 15 times larger than what it will be on April 1 when it kicks in. The Prime Minister has cut a special carbon tax side deal with Canada's largest emitters, which means they will continue to pollute for free while families and small business owners get hit with the full force of that tax.(1050)For wealthy individuals, an extra $100 a month on a grocery bill or electricity bill might not seem like a big deal, but it matters a lot to a family trying to make its household budget last to the end of the month. Canadians do not want it, but like the stakeholders who testified on Bill C-83, they are being ignored by the government. The bill is very much about protecting the rights of criminals, particularly those who continue to behave badly in prison. The Supreme Court of Canada recently made a ruling that the law that makes criminals pay surcharges to help victims is unconstitutional, and the Liberals have jumped on this. Instead of looking at ways to protect victims' rights, they have introduced legislation to remove this necessary instrument for ensuring criminals are held accountable. Victims' rights must always be at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is why our previous Conservative government took unprecedented steps to ensure that the rights of victims were protected. The Liberals' approach to Bill C-83 is similar to what we are seeing in a lot of other pieces of legislation, and I will outline a few more ways the government continues its pattern of failing to listen to Canadians. The Prime Minister failed to move an ounce of dirt or build one inch of new pipeline. They had to nationalize it, and they still have continued to fail on this file. After killing the northern gateway, he vetoed the energy east pipeline and obstructed Trans Mountain. This lack of pipeline capacity has turned an already difficult economy in western Canada into a full-blown national economic crisis that is threatening tens of thousands of jobs, on top of the 100,000 jobs already lost in the energy sector since 2015. The Prime Minister also failed to fix the mess he created at our border with the United States. Since his #WelcomeToCanada tweet last year, 40,000 people have crossed illegally into Canada, at a cost of up to $34,000 each. By 2020, this crisis will have cost Canadian taxpayers $1.6 billion. As well, the Prime Minister failed to balance the budget, despite promising to do so in the 2015 election campaign. This year is supposed to be the year of the Prime Minister's final deficit before returning to surplus in 2019. Instead, this year's deficit is three times larger than projected and the budget will not be balanced until 2045. He is spending Canada's cupboards bare in good economic times and leaving us open to disaster when the downturn next hits. The Prime Minister has also failed our veterans. After promising in the 2015 election that veterans would never have to go to court to obtain benefits from his government, he has spent nearly $40 million fighting veterans groups in court over benefits claims. When asked why at a town hall meeting in 2018 in Edmonton, he said that veterans were asking more than we are able to give. The Prime Minister failed to equip our armed forces. He is spending $2.5 billion less than what he promised in his defence policy. The Royal Canadian Navy is in need of new warships, and to meet Canada's international obligations, the Royal Canadian Air Force requires a new fleet of fighter jets, not used CF-18s from Australia. Canada's peacekeeping is at an all-time low, and the Prime Minister failed to represent Canada with dignity on the world stage, as he failed to maintain relationships with key allies. His trip to India was a PR disaster for Canada and seriously damaged relations with the world's largest democracy. Relations with the United States and other traditional long-standing allies are also strained. The Prime Minister failed to uphold the standards of transparency, accountability and ethical behaviour he promised. In 2018, he became the first prime minister in Canadian history found guilty of breaking ethics laws after accepting a vacation from the Aga Khan, while his ministers continued to abuse their power for political gain in 2018. Now, with his handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair and his attempts to manipulate a favourable decision for his friends at SNC-Lavalin, he has lost the moral authority to govern. He must resign. It seems unless someone employs workers in and around the Prime Minister's riding, there is not much the government will do to listen to their concerns. I have laid out why this side of the House will not support Bill C-83. I welcome questions from my colleagues. Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsGovernment performanceGovernment policyImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety58032825803283580328458032855803286580328758032885803289580329058032915803292580329358032945803295580329658032975803298580329958033005803301580330258033035803304580330558033065803307580330858033095803310ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, this legislation is one of those government initiatives that is long overdue. It is going to have a very positive impact for our corrections system and will make our communities safer in the long run. A vast majority of the individuals in our prison system ultimately end up going back into communities, and one of the ways we can prevent crimes from taking place is by investing in the right resources and at the same time supporting our correctional officers. I am wondering if my colleague could point out any specific parts of the legislation that the opposition members would have liked to have seen changed at the committee stage, where I know we did accept opposition amendments to the legislation to improve it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption58036485803649AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, I listed organization after organization that either raised concerns with this piece of legislation or felt that they were not consulted on this piece of legislation. I laid out the issues that I had with the use of SIUs and the fact that prison officers and the unions representing them have said on multiple occasions that the SIUs could not only put themselves in danger but also potentially other inmates as well. I think I listed that very well in my speech.The hon. member talked about investments in law and order, security and justice, but the government's own departmental plan includes a cut of a third of a billion dollars in the RCMP budget. Not only that, the Correctional Service of Canada budget has received a 6.6% cut from 2015 when compared to 2019. Again, the Liberals' words are not backing up their actions.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption58036505803651KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, anyone who has looked at this question of solitary confinement, administrative segregation or its new title, structured integration units, knows that those with mental illness problems are the ones most likely to end up in this situation. I know the hon. member was not here in the last Parliament, but the Conservatives brought in an extremely large number of mandatory minimum sentences, which resulted in people who should otherwise be treated for mental illness ending up in a corrections situation. Does he still support the use of mandatory minimums, which result in people with mental illness ending up in administrative segregation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMandatory sentencingThird reading and adoption58036525803653JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, the mandatory minimums were aimed at keeping the worst of the worst, the violent repeat offenders, off our streets. I do not believe those who refuse to be rehabilitated in any way should be allowed to go free on our streets. Although there are a number of tools in the tool box that court officers, judges and law enforcement professionals have, the more tools the better. What Bill C-83 fails to address is the fact that the union representing corrections officers has said on many occasions, especially through its testimony, that this is one tool being taken away that could jeopardize the safety of workers and the safety of other inmates.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMandatory sentencingThird reading and adoption58036545803655RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns we have raised again and again is the government's lack of seriousness over the safety of our correctional services officers. In its mandate letter to the head of correctional services, a 1,400-word mandate letter, only 52 words discuss officer safety, including this gem, “to instill within CSC a culture of ongoing self-reflection.” The government does not once mention safety of the workers in the departmental plan. It cuts resources, but wants to instill a culture of self-reflection. Is this a government concerned with the safety of corrections services officers?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety58036565803657JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, it clearly is not, due to the fact the departmental report does not talk about officer safety and that the union representing corrections officers has commented on many occasions that Bill C-83 could potentially endanger the lives of its officers or other inmates. This is also the same government that is sending returning ISIS fighters to poetry classes, so we know where its priorities are.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety5803658KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish I were rising today to support Bill C-83. We have a problem in our corrections system with the use of what was originally called solitary confinement, which then became administrative segregation and is now being rebranded as structured integration units. We are trying to deal with a real problem in the corrections system, but instead, the bill is trying to rebrand the problem out of existence.I do not think there is any way the courts will be fooled by the bill. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court have clearly found that the practice of solitary confinement is unconstitutional. The bill would actually make that practice more common than it is now, and it would have fewer protections for inmates than there are now. I will return to this question of rights later.I want to talk about the bill from two other perspectives, which I think are equally important: the perspective of corrections workers and the perspective of victims.In the last Parliament, I was privileged to serve as the NDP public safety critic. I was given that task based on my 20 years of teaching criminal justice at Camosun College, which is essentially a police and corrections worker training program.The majority of the students who came into that program wanted to be police officers, as they still do. Once they are in the program, they find out that there are a lot of other jobs within the corrections, policing and criminal justice world. Many of them end up going into corrections.I always talk to the students who are about to go into corrections about the challenges of that job. It is not as glamourous as policing. There are not many shows on TV glamourizing corrections officers. However, it is an equally challenging job.One of the first challenges workers have to learn to deal with is being locked in during the day. For some, that is psychologically too difficult to handle. That goes along with the second challenge of that job: Corrections workers do not get any choice in who they deal with. In fact, they have to deal the most anti-social and most difficult people to deal with in our society.Our corrections system often makes corrections workers' jobs harder. We have long wait-lists for treatment programs within our system. We also have long waits for rehabilitation programs. While people are serving their time, it is not just that they are not getting the rehabilitation they need for when they come out. It is not just that they are not getting the addiction treatment they need. They are not getting anything. They are just serving time.Many will say that this is the kind of punishment people need. However, they tend to forget the fact that far more than 90% of the people in our corrections system will come back into society. If we are worried about the perspective of victims, we have to do a good job on rehabilitation and addiction treatment so that we do not create more victims when people come out of our corrections system.In response to a question I posed earlier, the minister claimed that I was living in a time warp. He said the Liberals have solved all these problems and have earmarked new money for addiction and mental health treatment within prisons. He said that on the one hand, while on the other hand, he is making cuts in the corrections system.We have a system, which is already strained from years of cuts by the Conservatives, being held in a steady state of inadequacy by the Liberal budget. It is great for the Liberals to say that they have earmarked these new programs, but if they do not have the staff and facilities to deliver those programs and the things they need to make those programs work, it does not do much good to say they are going to do it, when they cannot do it.One of the other critical problems in our corrections system is the corrections system for women. It is even more challenging than the corrections system for men in that it is by nature, given the number of offenders, a much smaller system. There are fewer resources and fewer alternatives available for offenders within the women's system.I think the women's corrections system also suffers from what many would call “essentialism”. That is the idea that women are somehow different from men, and therefore, with their caring and nurturing nature, do not belong in prison. There is a prejudice against women offenders that they must somehow be the worst people, even worse than male offenders, because we expect it from men but we do not expect it from women. That kind of essentialism has really stood in the way of providing the kinds of programs we need to help women offenders, who largely deal with mental health and addiction problems.(1230)While women have served traditionally, or experientially I would say, less often in solitary confinement and shorter periods in solitary confinement, it is the same phenomenon for women as for men. It means that all kinds of mental illnesses, rather than being treated, end up being exacerbated, because while an inmate is in segregation he or she does not have access to those mental health programs. The same thing is true of addiction problems. If an inmate is in administrative segregation, he or she does not have access to those programs.In the women's system of corrections those programs are already very limited, are hard to access, are hard to schedule and if women spend time in and out of administrative segregation, they do not get the treatment and rehabilitation that they deserve before they return to society.Sometimes politicians make correctional workers' jobs harder and they do this by making offenders harder to manage. One of the things we hear constantly from the Conservatives is a call for consecutive sentences. They say the crimes are so horrible that if there is more than one victim we ought to have consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. We have to make sure that the worst of the worst do not get out. That is the Conservative line.When we do that, however, we make sure we have people in the system who have no interest in being rehabilitated, they have no interest in being treated for their addictions, and they have no interest in civil behaviour, if I may put it that way, within the prison. If inmates are never going to get out, then they might as well be the baddest people they can be while they are in that situation. Calling for consecutive sentences just makes correctional workers' jobs that much harder and encourages all of the worst behaviours by offenders.Related to that was the elimination of what we had in the system before, which was called the faint hope clause. This, for the worst offenders, allowed people to apply for early parole after serving 15 years.The argument often becomes entitlement. Why would these people be entitled to ask for early parole? But it is the same kind of thing I was just talking about earlier. If people have a faint hope, which is why it is called faint hope, that they may eventually be released, then there is still an incentive to behave civilly while within the system. There is an incentive to get addiction treatment and there is an incentive to do rehabilitation work. If we take away that faint hope, which we did in the last Parliament as an initiative of the Conservatives, an initiative that was supported by the Liberals, then we end up with people in prisons who are extremely difficult to manage and, therefore, very dangerous for correctional workers to deal with.The people who are trying to use the faint hope clause are not the most attractive people in our society. The issue of eliminating the faint hope clause from the Criminal Code came up in the case of Clifford Olson in 1997. He was the serial killer of 11 young men and women. It is important to point out that when he applied for his early release, it took only 15 minutes to quash the process. Those people who are in fact the worst of the worst will never get out of prison.There were about 1,000 applications under the existing faint hope clause. Of those 1,000 applications, 1.3% received parole, and of those 1.3%, there were virtually no returns to prison, no recidivism.The faint hope clause worked very well in preserving discipline inside the corrections system and in making the environment safer for correctional workers but unfortunately only the NDP and the Bloc opposed eliminating the faint hope clause.A third way in which politicians make things worse, which I mentioned in an earlier question to my Conservative colleague, is the creation of mandatory minimums. Under the Harper government we had a whole raft of mandatory minimum sentences brought in with the idea that we have to make sure that each and every person who is found guilty is punished. I would argue that we have to make sure that each and every person who is found guilty is rehabilitated. That is what public safety is all about.The Liberals promised in their election campaign they would repeal these mandatory minimums, yet when they eventually got around after two and a half years to bringing in Bill C-75, it did not repeal mandatory minimum sentences.(1235)We are still stuck with lots of offenders, be they aboriginal people or quite often women, or quite often those with addiction and mental health problems, who do not belong in the corrections system. They belong in the mental health treatment system. They belong in the addictions treatment system. They need supports to get their lives in order. However, under mandatory minimums, the Conservatives took away the tools that the courts had to get those people into the programs that they needed to keep all the rest of us safe.When we combine all of these things with the lack of resources in the corrections system, which the Conservatives made a hallmark of their government and which has been continued by the Liberals, then all we are doing here is making the work of corrections officers more difficult and dangerous, and we are making the effort to make sure people are rehabilitated successfully less likely.I want to talk about two cases, one federal and one provincial, to put a human face on the specific problem of solitary confinement. The first of those is the sad case of Ashley Smith. Ashley Smith, from the Maritimes, was jailed at the age of 15 for throwing crabapples at a postal worker. She was given a 90-day sentence, but while she was in custody for that 90-day sentence, repeated behavioural problems resulted in her sentence being extended and extended until eventually she served four years, 17 transfers from one institution to another, because she was so difficult to manage, forced medication and long periods in solitary confinement.What happened with Ashley Smith is a tragedy, because she died by suicide after repeated incidents of self-harm while she was in custody. It is unfortunately a sad example of the outcomes when we place people in, whatever we want to call it, solitary confinement, administrative segregation or structured integration units. It does not matter what the label is. It has enormously negative impacts on those in particular who have a mental illness.The second case is a provincial case in Ontario, the case of Adam Capay, a mentally ill indigenous man who was kept in isolation for more than four years, without access to mental health services, and under conditions that the courts found amounted to inhumane treatment. The effects on Mr. Capay were permanent memory loss and an exacerbation of his pre-existing psychiatric disorders.While he was in an institution, unfortunately, Mr. Capay did not get the treatment he needed, and he ended up stabbing another offender, resulting in the death of that offender. What this did, of course, was to create new victims, not only the person who lost his life while in custody but the family of that person.The result here was a ruling by provincial court Judge John Fregeau that Mr. Capay was incapable of standing trial for that murder within the corrections system because of the way he had been treated and the excessive periods of time he had spent in solitary confinement. The prosecutors did not appeal this decision. It resulted in Mr. Capay's release, to the great distress of the family of the murder victim.What is the real cause here? The real cause, the fundamental cause, and I am not even going to say it is solitary confinement, is the lack of resources to deal with mental health and addictions problems within our corrections system.Let me come back to the bill very specifically. The Liberals say they are setting up a new system here to deal with the difficult offenders. They have given it that new title. Senator Kim Pate, who spent many years heading up the Elizabeth Fry Society and has received the Order of Canada for her work on women in corrections, said:With respect to segregation, Bill C-83, is not only merely a re-branding of the same damaging practice as “Structured Intervention Units”, the new bill...also virtually eliminates existing, already inadequate limitations on its use.Strangely, what the Liberals have done in the bill, in attempting to get rid of administrative segregation, is that they have cast a broader net. They are setting up a system that will actually bring more people into the isolation and segregation system within the corrections system. The Liberals have actually removed some of the safeguards that existed on the length of time someone could end up spending in what should be called solitary confinement. There is actually no limit in the bill on how long someone could end up in solitary confinement.(1240)Our correctional investigator, Ivan Zinger, an independent officer of Parliament, has criticized the bill, saying people will end up in much more restrictive routines under the new system than most of them would have under the old system. The bill would make things worse.Josh Patterson, from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, pointed out that the bill would allow the same practices that the courts had criticized as inhumane treatment in the new bill as existed under the old administrative segregation. Therefore, we have merely relabelled the existing practices in the bill.The final piece I want to talk about is the question of oversight. In earlier debate, the minister said I was living in a time warp. Sometimes I wish that were true. However, he was talking about oversight and said that I had missed the amendments he made on oversight. What is really true is the minister missed the point of the witnesses on oversight. Stretching all the way back to the inquiry into events at the prison for women in Kingston, Louise Arbour recommended judicial oversight of the use of solitary confinement. That is truly independent. That is truly an outside review of what happens. Also, as Josh Patterson pointed out, not only is there no judicial oversight, there is no recourse for those who are subjected to solitary confinement to have legal representation to challenge the conditions under which they are being held. Therefore, what the government has done in its amendments is to create not independent review but an advisory committee to the minister. That is not independent oversight and that is one of the reasons the NDP continues to oppose the bill.I want to come back to the B.C. court decision, which pointed to two key reasons why the existing regime was unconstitutional. Those are the lack of access to counsel for what amounts to additional punishment measures being applied when someone is placed into solitary confinement and the possibility of indefinite extra punishment by being in solitary confinement. The bill deals with neither of those two key unconstitutional provisions of solitary confinement. Therefore, where are we likely to find ourselves down the road? We are going to find ourselves back in court, with the new bill being challenged on the same grounds as the old regime of solitary confinement.As I said at the beginning, I would like to be standing here to support a bill that would create a system for managing those most difficult offenders, those with mental health and addiction problems, in a way that would respect their constitutional rights and in a way that would guarantee treatment of their addictions and rehabilitation so when they would come out, they could be contributing members of society. Unfortunately, Bill C-83 is not that bill. Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConsecutive sentencesConstitutionalityCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationFaint hope clauseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthOversight mechanismSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoptionWomenWorkplace health and safety580365958036605803661580366258036635803664580366558036665803667580366858036695803670580367158036725803673580367458036755803676580367758036785803679580368058036815803682580368358036845803685580368658036875803688580368958036905803691580369258036935803694580369558036965803697580369858036995803700580370158037025803703JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting at times when we get differing opinions from the opposition parties. For example, the member spoke a great deal about solitary confinement and the idea of segregation, saying that not too much really had changed in the legislation. If we listen to some of the Conservative speeches, in particular during second reading, it is almost as if they are accusing us of getting rid of any sort of solitary confinement and the element of danger in doing so. If we look at the substance of the legislation, there is a significant change, which puts it in compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on the matter. I would ask the member opposite for some clarification on this. I could be wrong on this, but I had thought the NDP was in support of the legislation originally. I know when it went to committee, opposition amendments to the legislation were proposed, including from the NDP, and some were accepted. It highlights what the Prime Minister has always done, put a high priority on the independence of the committees and see them doing some fine work. That was demonstrated very clearly on this bill. I thought that was a positive thing. Therefore, I do not quite understand what might have caused the NDP to have change its mind on the issue. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption580370458037055803706RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison: (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that the hon. member is wrong. We opposed this bill at all stages.However, what I said at the beginning still remains. New Democrats would have liked to support a bill that recognized the realities in the corrections system. There needs to be something to deal with some of the people who are the most difficult to deal with in the system. We are not denying that. However, we have to have a regime set up that guarantees the safety of corrections workers and the safety of other offenders, and at the same time we have to make sure that those difficult offenders still get addictions treatment, still get rehabilitation and still have their rights respected within the criminal justice system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption58037075803708KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, certainly we all remember with sadness the case of Ashley Smith. We should learn from mistakes in tragic cases in our system.We hear concerns from correctional workers that they have not been properly consulted in the process. We also hear concerns from organizations, from Senator Pate and others, that Bill C-83 does not have the intended purpose to deal with some of the issues the member raised in his speech. However, I am raising the wider issue that with the government now in a crisis of confidence with respect to the rule of law, maybe the Liberals have lost their moral authority on criminal justice issues, including corrections. There is widespread disagreement on both the left and the right on Bill C-83. The fact is that the government is now tarnished. I talked about how the public safety minister is the modern equivalent of the solicitor general, the second-highest-ranking legal official in the government of Canada. In the absence of moral authority, should the government not go back to the drawing board and speak to the organizations that can give Bill C-83 its intended purpose?I would like the member's comments on the wider issue of how the government and the Prime Minister and his office, in particular, have called into question their ability to bring forward appropriate legislation on both the rule of law and the criminal justice system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPolitical influenceThird reading and adoption58037095803710580371158037125803713RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison: (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important point. The independence and impartiality of our criminal justice system, and the firewall that should be there to protect politicians of any stripe from using that system to advance the interests of their friends, is important. It is important in the corrections world for another reason, which is to make sure that people are treated fairly, not that the most unpopular people are treated worse than other people who we might think are more deserving. We have a system that it is never popular to advocate for. We are not going to win any kudos in most places by going out and saying that we need to spend more money on offenders, but in fact, we need to spend more money on offenders. If we want to have public safety, if we want to have rehabilitation and if we want to have our communities secure, we have to have a correctional service that deals with mental health and addictions problems and provides rehabilitation. Ultimately, that is the way to get community safety.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPolitical influenceThird reading and adoption580371458037155803716ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, no matter how it is called, we are talking about the confinement of an individual. We are talking about a man or a woman who is deprived of all human contact for 22 hours a day. The proposed changes will make that 20 hours a day. It is not a big difference.As my colleague said, these people often have mental health problems. Even if they are offered certain services, they have mental health problems. In addition, there will no longer be a limit on the number of days they spend in solitary confinement.I would like to ask my colleague what effect that could have on people who already have mental health issues.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption580371758037185803719RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, the research on the phenomenon of solitary confinement is quite clear that solitary confinement exacerbates mental illness problems. It makes what we call psychiatric disorders much worse. It does that through the conditions under which people are held. Quite often, in situations like that of Mr. Capay, in Ontario, people are held in conditions where the lights are always on so they cannot sleep. Not only are they denied basic human contact, they are held in conditions that are actually labelled by the courts as being inhumane.The other part of this is that while people are in this kind of segregation, they cannot access mental health supports. Those who need the help the most are most often those who are in segregation and therefore cannot get treatment. I am not disputing that there needs to be some kind of regime for the most difficult offenders. Quite often when they are suffering from mental health and addiction issues, they are not behaving rationally. We have to have some kind of system, but it has to respect their right to get treatment, to get rehabilitation and to be treated as human beings.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption580372058037215803722MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise at third reading of Bill C-83. This important piece of legislation proposes significant reforms to Canada's correctional system. These changes would make our federal correctional institutions safer places for staff and inmates alike, and that in turn would contribute to greater safety for people in our communities. Under Bill C-83, administrative segregation would be eliminated and a new correctional intervention model would be established through the implementation of structured intervention units, SIUs, which would serve to address the safety and security risks of offenders who are at any given time too dangerous or disruptive to be managed in the mainstream inmate population. When those offenders need to be separated for safety reasons, they would be placed in an SIU. While they are there, they would continue to have access to the interventions and programming they need to make progress on their correctional plan and improve their likelihood of rehabilitation. The goal is to help offenders reintegrate into the mainstream inmate population as quickly as possible. That has been the main goal of Bill C-83 from the very beginning and remains so today in the bill's current form. We have arrived at a very solid, concise and thorough piece of legislation that was very strong to begin with. That is a testament to a robust, democratic and healthy legislative process, including thoughtful discussion in this chamber and careful scrutiny and informative testimony at committee. That process led to a number of amendments that have strengthened this bill. Many of those amendments focus on additional measures to ensure that the SIUs would operate as intended. For example, amendments were made to specify that daily time outside an SIU cell must be offered between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. and that opportunities to interact through human contact must not be mediated or interposed by physical barriers. Other amendments are about enhancing oversight and transparency when it comes to SIU placement decisions. However, today I would like to focus on one amendment in particular, proposed by the member for Oakville North—Burlington, which would introduce a new independent external decision-making function.Under Bill C-83, independent external decision-makers would review an inmate's placement in an SIU if it falls under any one of three specific circumstances. The first circumstance is if an inmate has not received or taken advantage of the opportunity to spend a minimum of four hours a day outside of their cell or two hours of interaction with others or five consecutive days or 15 cumulative days over a 30-day period. The second is if an inmate has been confined to an SIU for 90 consecutive days. The third is if a health care committee of senior officials from the Correctional Service of Canada has made the determination to maintain an inmate in an SIU contrary to the recommendations of a registered health professional. This process would ensure that decisions to maintain an inmate in an SIU would be subject to scrutiny and ongoing assessment at specific time periods through a mechanism that would operate at arm's length from the Correctional Service of Canada.Reviews conducted by independent external decision-makers would create additional external monitoring of inmates who are placed in SIUs. This would include vulnerable inmates, such as those who are not participating in programming or interventions or receiving meaningful human contact. It would also support transparency around decisions to maintain vulnerable inmates in an SIU. In all cases, the external decision-maker would be authorized to order the inmate to be released from the SIU entirely. In addition, when it has been recommended by a registered health care professional, the external decision-maker could order the modification of the inmate's conditions of confinement in the SIU. The proposed addition of the independent external decision-maker's response was one of the main points raised at the committee stage by various witnesses. More specifically, concerns were raised that inmates in an SIU could still be subjected to indeterminate and prolonged confinement. The introduction of an additional external review mechanism addresses these concerns and would help keep our correctional system safe, lawful and accountable.Another issue that was raised by witnesses at committee, including those representing front-line staff in federal correctional institutions, involved whether additional resources would be made available to support the implementation of the bill. (1255)To ensure that our federal correctional system has the resources it needs to successfully implement the changes proposed in Bill C-83, the government announced a total of $448 million in funding for corrections in last year's fall economic statement. That includes approximately $297 million over six years to implement the proposed SIUs, funding that, in the words of the Minister of Public Safety would ensure that Correctional Service Canada “has people with the right skill sets in the right places at the right times”.Canada's federal correctional system is already in a class of its own. Operating in a challenging environment, it does a remarkable job of fulfilling its objectives of holding guilty parties to account, while fostering their rehabilitation. An important part of that rehabilitation process is making sure that offenders, including those who must be separated, are able to take part in reintegration programming in order to make progress against the objectives set out in their correctional plan. That programming is essential to a successful transition to the mainstream inmate population, and after that, to the community at the end of a sentence. The bill would improve the way that works. In doing so, it would help bring about safer institutions for staff and inmates, in the short term. In the long run, it would mean fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and safer communities for all.Getting the bill to where it is today has been a truly collaborative effort. I have been impressed and heartened by the careful attention and constructive input given to the bill from all parties and all corners. I would like to thank hon. members for the roles they have played throughout that entire process so far. The result is improved legislation that, if passed, I am confident will lead to a better, safer and more effective correctional system.For all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-83 at third reading and I encourage all my hon. colleagues to join me in doing the same.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsGovernment expendituresImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismSplitting speaking timeStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoption58037235803724580372558037265803727580372858037295803730580373158037325803733580373458037355803736580373758037385803739RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk to my colleague a bit about the process of the bill in consultation, because there seems to be a lack of consultation with the government. I am from Oshawa. We are having a horrible situation where the government has chosen to amalgamate the Port of Oshawa with the Port of Hamilton and gave us 30 days with no consultation on it.For the bill, even the correctional investigator of Canada told the public safety committee that all the consultations seemed to have been done internally. To his knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think this is why we may end up with something that perhaps is not fully thought out.For my colleague from the Liberal Party, which has purported to put consultation up on a pedestal, this seems a little strange. If the Liberals did not consult with the union, they did not consult with victims and they did not consult with prisoner advocates, can the member opposite tell me who exactly they consulted with when drafting the bill?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationThird reading and adoption580374058037415803742DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, there were a number of stakeholders consulted on this, including Corrections Canada law enforcement officials. There was plenty of opportunity for input at the committee stage for increasing opportunities for consultation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationThird reading and adoption5803743ColinCarrieOshawaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague who has a great deal of expertise in the area of health care and understands probably more than most individuals just how important it is that, when we consider our correctional facilities, there needs to be a health care component to it. If we want to allow for and encourage healthier integration after being in our prisons, we have to at least have a genuine attempt to address some of those health conditions that prisoners often end up in prison for, such as a mental health issue that might have resulted in a particular crime being committed.By providing these types of services, in the long run, we are preventing potential crimes in the future. I wonder if my colleague can comment on how important it is that we have these health care services.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthThird reading and adoption580374458037455803746DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. People often talk about the revolving door of the prison system and there is a revolving door. However, there are those who think that the answer to that is longer and harsher punishments. In fact, the evidence is clear that longer sentences and harsh conditions during incarceration actually increase the likelihood that an inmate will reoffend. Furthermore, during my visit to Stony Mountain penitentiary, north of Winnipeg, it became clear that there are large numbers of inadequately treated people with mental health issues, who are essentially being warehoused in our correctional system because they do not have the adequate treatment in the community and, therefore, offend. This is a valuable way to ensure that these people receive the care and rehabilitation they need. They will actually be less likely to reoffend and this will improve public safety.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthThird reading and adoption58037475803748KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, with respect to the safety of correctional officers, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers said that it opposed the needle exchange program and that it was consulted minimally. This will dramatically change the work environment of officers.Does the member feel confident that enough resources are there so the safety concerns brought forward by the union will be addressed?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety58037495803750DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, needle exchange programs have been shown, in many environments, to improve safety and improve the health of the users. A needle exchange program does not introduce additional needles to the program. These people already have needles that have been smuggled in and they reuse them, which can transmit infectious diseases. These needles are exchanged for clean ones, which will make for a safer environment.As well, part of the enhancements of the bill will include body scanners to make it much less likely that such needles would be smuggled into the prison in the first place. Therefore, the needle exchange program would improve the safety of inmates and the safety of staff.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety58037515803752ColinCarrieOshawaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see that this legislation is at third reading stage. I had the opportunity to express a number of thoughts on the legislation at second reading in particular, and I suspect that if we were to check, I likely would have implied, because I know the minister's approach to legislation quite well, that the government is always open to looking at ways to change legislation. My colleague and friend from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, who spoke just before me, referenced some amendments. That is a nice way to start my comments.We have this wonderful process that allows us to go through second reading and into committee stage, and often amendments are brought forward at committee stage. What is interesting about this legislation is that it exemplifies how open this government really is to opposition amendments. My understanding is that amendments from the opposition provided additional strength to the legislation before us. That tells me, in good part, that committees can be constructive and effective in improving legislation, in dealing with reports and even in discussion. It is a question of having confidence in our standing committees and allowing them to do the fantastic work they can do. Today, Bill C-83 is a good example of legislation being enhanced, and as a direct result, all Canadians will benefit.Bill C-83, to me, is a good example of how this government has approached the whole crime and safety issue, recognizing just how important it is that no matter where one lives in Canada, there is an expectation that government is going to do what it can to make our communities safer places to be. This is legislation that would do that, and I do not say that lightly. The majority of people incarcerated in our jail facilities, we have to realize, will leave at some point in time. When they leave, we want to ensure as far as possible that they have the opportunities to succeed and never return to a prison setting. If we are successful in doing that, it means that in Winnipeg North and all over Canada there will be fewer crimes. With fewer crimes, there are fewer victims. There should be no doubt that when people are guilty of something, yes, there needs to be a consequence for inappropriate behaviour. That is why we have jails, probation and an array of consequences for individuals who commit offences. We also need to recognize that one way we can improve safety in our communities is by ensuring, wherever we can, that there is a sense of responsibility by providing programming and services to minimize the number of repeat offenders. That is what I like about Bill C-83 more than anything else.There are other aspects to the legislation that would also make a difference. One example is body scanners. I had the opportunity to tour provincial facilities and even some federal facilities in my days as an MLA. Some provincial facilities use scanning technology, from what I understand, and with this legislation, we would better enable body scans to take place in our federal institutions. I think that is a good thing, because we often hear of drugs, among other things, being smuggled into facilities. This is one of the ways we will be able to reduce that kind of smuggling. It will be a safer environment.(1305) We not only hear about this from individuals in the Ottawa bubble, if I can put it that way, but, more important, we hear it from our constituents and correctional officers. These types of things can really make a difference.At times, the Conservatives can be somewhat misleading. I am trying to put it as kindly as I can. When they say we are not providing the funds necessary, it is important to recognize that the government is committing almost a half-billion dollars over the next six years to ensure correctional officers and inmates have the supports they need and our system will have a safer environment.I find it a little odd that the Conservative Party and New Democratic Party do not necessarily support legislation that a sound majority of our constituents would want us to support. There is some really good stuff in here, like the one about audio recordings. I have used the example of someone who is a victim of a sexual assault and whose perpetrator will now go to a hearing. Under the current law, the victim is unable to receive the audio of that hearing. I am sure members of all sides can appreciate the emotions a victim of a sexual assault would feel when put in the same room as the perpetrator. Why would we not allow for that individual to have a copy of the audio recording at a later date? This legislation would allow that.On the one hand, some very obvious things within the legislation would have a very positive impact. Then some wonderful little things would make a real difference for victims. Whether it is this legislation or the legislation on military justice, when we talked about the Victims Bill of Rights, there are really encouraging things in the legislation.We are moving forward on a number of different fronts as we modernize. Whether it is the military justice or civil justice, at the end of the day, we want our communities to feel safe. We want to work toward minimizing the number of victims by preventing crimes from taking place whenever we can. We want to ensure there is a consequence to criminal activities. That is why we have different tools to ensure that takes place. I am encouraged by the attitude of the government, in particular, in trying to ensure we are moving forward on this front.When it comes to the issue of segregation, it is interesting to hear the contrast between the Conservatives and the NDP. The NDP says there is no change in the segregation and the Conservatives say we are going too far on this issue. The reality is that this is a response to the Supreme Court's decision, and we are complying with that decision with the new system we will be putting in place.(1310)Those structured intervention units are in fact a progressive way forward that will ensure that we meet the Supreme Court's requirements, while at the same time allowing more services to be made available. Again, we will hopefully minimize the repeat offenders. We do not want people who are leaving our institutions to be committing more crimes. We want safer communities, and that is really what all of this is about, trying to get communities across Canada to be safer, more harmonious places to live. It is with great pleasure that I support Bill C-83.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSafetyStructured intervention unitThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime580375358037545803755580375658037575803758580375958037605803761580376258037635803764580376558037665803767DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25452AnthonyRotaAnthony-RotaNipissing—TimiskamingLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RotaAnthony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): (1315)[English]It being 1:15, pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, February 26, 2019, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: No.The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.Some hon. members: Yea.The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): All those opposed will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay.The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): In my opinion the nays have it.And five or more members having risen:The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 18, 2019, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDeferred divisionsGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersThird reading and adoption5803778KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)(1045)[English] moved:MotionThat, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579104057910415791042GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1045)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question that the government still has not answered with regard to the implementation of structured intervention units.The government has said all sorts of good things about the segregation area but has never really explained the structure of it.There is one thing I am trying to understand. If an area that is currently being used for administrative segregation is changed into a structured intervention unit, what will be the major physical difference between the two?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579104657910475791048GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, under the legislation we are continuing to provide the correctional service with the authority and the physical system to be able to separate inmates from each other when that is necessary in the interests of safety within the institution. The existing infrastructure within the correctional system lends itself to that approach already in some cases. In others, there would need to be some physical modifications in terms of the actual structures.To deal with the specific questions from the hon. gentleman, I would be happy to ask the correctional system to provide him with some design options so that he can see physically what the new arrangement would look like. He would see that it could accomplish the objective of providing separation when that is necessary for safety and security, at the same time allowing the programming to continue, particularly mental health and other counselling services that are necessary to ensure that the particular inmate or offender is properly managed within the institution. I would be happy to provide the member with some physical examples, if that would be helpful.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation57910495791050PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, here we have a bill that is a new iteration of dealing with solitary confinement. Bill C-56 was tabled almost two years ago, and then we had two court decisions that the government has clearly not complied with. Those two court decisions addressed abuses of what is called administrative segregation but is better known as solitary confinement in federal prisons. The courts found that the abuses were unconstitutional in different ways, and extremely troubling and problematic. The government is not only appealing those decisions but also coming forward with a bill it is claiming would get rid of the practice altogether, when in reality, as every stakeholder has said, this is just the same practice under a different name. Every single witness who came to committee, barring officials from the minister's department, panned this bill. The corrections investigator referred to it as something that was not well thought out. Therefore, two years after the first piece of legislation and with two appeals before the courts, why do the Liberals now all of a sudden feel the need to time allocate, when clearly both the consultation that was done and all the thought behind this bill were simply not adequate to address the types of human rights abuses we are seeing too often in our prisons?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579105157910525791053RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, administrative segregation has been an issue the government and the correctional service have been dealing with over the course of the last three years. Obviously, we inherited a system that needed considerable fixing, so we are in the process of doing that.As various items of legislation have been presented to the House, at the same time there have been court proceedings going on that predated the change in government. These are court proceedings that relate back to 2015 and even earlier. They have come to a decision time before the courts in the last number of months. As the courts have considered those matters that existed prior to 2015, a number of different prescriptions and requirements have been offered in the judgments in two different provinces. The hon. gentleman is right that both of those judgments are under appeal, one by the government and one by the other side. Therefore, it is a cross-appeal that is going on. Obviously, it is important to meet the parameters set out by the courts, one of which is to get solutions to this situation in a timely manner, and the courts have set deadlines. Accordingly, it is important for Parliament to act in a timely manner to respond to the issues that have been raised by the courts. Therefore, allocating a certain number of hours to conclude the debate and get on with it is important in order to comply with the court judgments. I would also point out that many of the amendments that are before us now at report stage deal with transparency, oversight and accountability, and there is broad agreement that these amendments would in fact improve and strengthen the legislation. Therefore, we are approaching the time when it is necessary to conclude the debate, vote and take a decision.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation5791054579105557910565791057MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, three and a half years ago, virtually every person in this House was subjected to candidates debates. The Liberal candidates would reiterate over and over again that if they were elected, they would form a government of consultation, openness and seeking input. However, in the entire process that has brought us to the report stage of this bill, whether it is the Correctional Service of Canada ombudsman, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, indigenous groups or others, all of the stakeholders have indicated that the consultation that brought us to this point was totally inadequate. Here we are at the report stage of the bill and the government, without any debate, has already invoked closure on it, limiting the ability of this side of the House to represent the communities we have been elected to represent, whether they be the correctional officers or the people in our communities. The safety of Canadians and our correctional officers is at stake, and to have closure placed on this bill is totally inadequate.Why would the minister not only limit input from stakeholder groups during the consultation process but also limit the input of members of Parliament who were elected to represent their constituents here?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParticipatory democracyReport stageTime allocation579105857910595791060RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, the bill is going through all of the normal parliamentary stages, including extensive work at committee, further debate at report stage with additional amendments being considered, and a third reading debate. Then, according to our parliamentary process, it will go on to the Senate for the appropriate consideration there. Therefore, all of the parliamentary steps are being properly complied with.I would note that back in 2014, the head of the correctional officers union in this country at that particular time was quoted as saying, “We have to actively work to rid the Conservatives from power.” He accused the Harper government of endangering correctional officers with prison overcrowding and cuts to rehabilitative programming. Some of that will be corrected by C-83.I would also point out that the courts have said that to simply allow the present system of administrative segregation to expire in compliance with the court rulings, with nothing in place to replace it, would in fact make the system more dangerous. Therefore, all the measures in Bill C-83 are intended to address those very real issues that perpetuating the debate will not solve. Taking a decision will help us to come to a solution.On the issue of consultation, I would point out that I have met with the correctional officers union on multiple occasions, both before and after Bill C-83 was introduced. This particular issue was discussed on every occasion.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParticipatory democracyReport stageTime allocation5791061579106257910635791064HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is the only bill in my experience where, as my colleagues have already indicated, not one witness who came to committee had anything positive to say about it, except for the minister's own officials. It is really unfortunate but that is the reality. The minister has just claimed that the bill responded to issues raised by the courts, and that segregation caused the unfortunate deaths of two inmates. Actually, if we look at those cases and study the court decisions, it is very clear that those unfortunate deaths were the result of operational and management failures in both of those circumstances.The correctional officers union was one of the witnesses at committee, and so were former inmates. All of them testified that segregation is essential to managing volatile and violent offenders, and that the bill would create more risk to staff. Although the minister claims that public safety and the risk to members working in these facilities are important, I wonder whether this bill would actually do anything to improve their safety.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation57910655791066RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, the bill clearly provides the power, the authority and the mechanisms to separate offenders in correctional institutions when that is necessary for the purposes of public safety. Therefore, the power would continue under the legislation to provide that kind of separation.It also provides for the continuation of the programming, including of mental health and other counselling services, that is necessary in those institutions to achieve the ultimate objective of greater rehabilitation. This will result in a safer institution and a safer situation when those inmates are ultimately released. The whole purpose here is public safety, including the safety of correctional officers, to ensure that our institutions are secure and that, to the maximum extent humanly possible, we are achieving the objective of rehabilitation that will make our communities, our society and the public safer in future.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579106757910685791069GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in this place for a very long time. I sat on the committee hearings with respect to this bill, which heard from a number of witnesses. A number of them came forward with suggestions for changes to the bill. I would correct the hon. member from across the way: Stan Stapleton from the Union of Solicitor General Employees said he supported the bill provided investments were also made, and the government said they would be made alongside the legislation.In your experience, minister, have you ever seen a committee make a—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579107057910715791072RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister has ever seen such significant and important changes made to a bill based on testimony heard at a committee that was allowed to listen to testimony and amend the bill to reflect the testimony it heard.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation5791074GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, this legislation is probably unique in that regard. Quite frankly, I think that is a very good thing.We are dealing with an issue here that should not be partisan in nature. The proper functioning of our correctional system and the need to have a successful system that produces a safer society is an objective all of us share, I am sure. Therefore, it is a very good thing that the standing committee heard from witnesses, received advice, information and recommendations, and took the initiative to make a number of amendments to the legislation to improve it, consistent with the advice and testimony that were presented to it. That process continues at report stage, where further amendments have been added, particularly on the important issue of oversight and review. This is a good example of the House and its processes proceeding in the way they were intended: to listen to the evidence, to draft amendments in response to the evidence, and to implement those amendments according to what the witnesses recommended.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579107557910765791077PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, here we are again. I do not know exactly, but the number of times the current government has invoked closure is probably well in the sixties now. Again, I will bring us all back to day 10 of the 2015 campaign, which we have to do time and again, where the member for Papineau at that time said he would not resort to parliamentary tricks such as limiting debate. He would let debate reign.The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers said that while Bill C-83 may have been well intended, these changes fall short as they are not feasible under the current staffing and infrastructure models. Many of the inmates currently managed within segregation units are highly vulnerable and are segregated for their own protection. The same president also expressed serious concern for the safety of the correctional officers and the work they are doing, and felt that Bill C-83 was falling short in ensuring that.We should always ensure we are doing everything in our power to put the necessary tools in the hands of those who are protecting not only the mental well-being but also the physical well-being of the public and Canadians. Bill C-83 falls short in that regard. Witnesses who gave testimony all commented on that, with some very powerful messages from the president of the union of correctional officers. I would like to ask our hon. colleague, the minister, how that concern has been addressed by limiting debate on this important piece of legislation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579107857910795791080RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, a number of people, including union representatives and expert professionals within and outside the correctional system, have made the observation, as the hon. gentleman said, that the transition to the intervention units, identified as SIUs in the legislation, is good in principle, but we need to ensure the resources are there, financially and otherwise, to run the new system properly and effectively.In that regard, I informed the standing committee last fall that in the fall economic statement a total of $448 million were allocated over six years for the implementation of the legislation. That includes about $300 million for staffing and other resources specifically for the SIUs, and $150 million for mental health care improvements in the SIUs and throughout the correctional system. Moreover, there was a pre-existing $80 million for mental health care for Correctional Service of Canada in the two federal budgets prior to the fall update.With respect to resources being made available, yes, that is an absolute requirement and, yes, the funding has already been allocated.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579108157910825791083ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member has quite a history when it comes to public safety. He was one of the senior ministers who led the attack and jailing of farmers who simply wanted to sell their own grain. A number of them ended up in jail. He is now working behind the scenes to target legitimate handgun owners.When it comes to criminals, we do not have to look any further than the Terri-Lynne McClintic transfer. He and his government transferred a lady from a maximum-security prison to Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, a minimum-security prison in my riding.Why has the member so consistently targeted law-abiding Canadians while insisting on coddling hardened criminals and shutting down debate on this bill?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579108457910855791086RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, the question is a complete non sequitur. Moreover, its fundamental premise is absolutely flawed. There is no relationship between the issues that he raises in his question and what is in Bill C-83.Bill C-83 and the amendments that are now before the House are intended to make our correctional system safer and more successful in keeping society safe and secure. The amendments that we are now considering at report stage have to do in large measure with review and oversight to ensure our correctional service has the power and authority to run the system in a way that keeps the system safe and that respects the needs of those in the institutions. This is to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, rehabilitation can be achieved.If we reject the objective of rehabilitation, we are saying that when sentences expire, we should release inmates willy-nilly, with no concern for future public safety. That is surely a formula for disaster, which the official opposition seems to embrace.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579108757910885791089DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety talks a lot about the safety and concern for the correctional service officers. However, in his departmental plans for Correctional Service of Canada, on which the minister signed off, there is not one single goal or mention regarding the safety or welfare of correctional service officers.There are obvious criticisms regarding Bill C-83 about making things more dangerous for workers. He stands again and again to talk about safety. Why has he neglected to mention even once in his plan the safety of correctional workers?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation57910905791091RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned that objective repeatedly, including the provision of very nearly half a billion dollars over the next six years for the successful implementation of this legislation. That includes $300 million for staffing and other resources specifically related to the SIUs.That obviously demonstrates a very proactive response to a number of the issues correctional officers have raised to ensure they have the resources, the staffing and training necessary to administer these new provisions in a successful manner and in a manner that keeps them safe.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation57910925791093KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, this legislation underscores the difference between a Conservative approach to corrections and a Liberal approach.As Liberals, we believe in integration and rehabilitation, knowing, as the minister said, that at the end of the day inmates are going to come back out into society and we want them to be transformed into productive and contributing members of society.Since this is such a significant overhaul of the legislation, could the minister comment as to where he sees the benefits for inmates at the end of their sentences, as they seek to be rehabilitated into our societies?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579109457910955791096RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the past, the offenders who tended to become involved in administrative segregation were obviously the ones who were very often the most difficult to manage and the ones with the least prospects of successful rehabilitation.The fact is that under the existing system of administrative segregation, once an offender is put into those circumstances, all the programming aimed at rehabilitation, changing their behaviour, making their conduct more safe for the rest of society, stops. It is physically impossible to provide that kind of mental health treatment, or other counselling or other types of programming in the existing arrangement for administrative segregation.The correctional service tries its best to continue with those services and programs, but it is very difficult to do it under the rules of administrative segregation. By transforming the system to the new intervention units, the system will be able to achieve the same kind of safety provisions, but without cancelling the programming that is aimed at changing the behaviour, accomplishing rehabilitation and making the ultimate release of those offenders more safe when their sentences has been served.The legislation, indeed, leads to a much safer situation, both for those who are running the institutions and for the public generally.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation5791097579109857910995791100MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. minister about one of the witnesses who testified, Senator Pate. She testified before the committee and indicated that the legislation, Bill C-83, as presented and as amended was bad legislation.Senator Pate did a very good job of dismantling the claims of the minister and the bill on what segregation would do at the end of the day. Her experience in Nova Scotia was that one of the prisons she visited had renamed a segregation unit to the intensive intervention unit. However, at the end of the day, it did not change anything. It appears as if whatever overhaul was intended with this legislation, changing the name of a segregation unit to the function of it is not necessarily what is going to happen in the bill. The costing has never been done for the legislation either.Would the minister enlighten us on exactly how, other than potentially changing the paint and the name of something, it will actually make a difference in what we are trying to achieve with rehabilitation, still keeping in mind the protection of our guards and other inmates, and the rehabilitation of the prisoners who are there?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation5791101579110257911035791104RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, first, the legislation would provide for greater time outside the cell for the person who is in a structured intervention unit. In fact, the time outside a cell is doubled. The interaction with human beings is increased. The programming related to rehabilitation, mental health services and other sorts of counselling, training and education continues, all of which is fundamentally different from the idea of administrative segregation. The whole fundamental approach changes with the SIUs.Second, the funding that is necessary to make that change is specifically being provided and allocated in advance. It was in the fall economic update: $448 million, on top of $80 million that were in the previous two federal budgets. A very substantial financial commitment is being made to ensure the theory of a structured intervention unit is lifted off the page and actually implemented.One of Senator Pate's major concerns had to do with oversight, accountability and transparency, and the very amendments that we are considering at report stage address that critical concern of hers.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation579110557911065791107GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Harold Albrecht: (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, in addition to the criticism that inadequate consultation occurred, one of the pointed criticisms of the legislation is that far too much is left to the regulatory process. As co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee, I can attest, and there are colleagues here from that committee, such as my colleague for Laval—Les Îles who will attest to this as well, that too often in the scrutiny of regulations committee we are faced with regulations that have been written but do not have the adequate legislative authority to be implemented. Therefore, it is critical that this place, the legislature, gets it right before it is left to the regulatory bodies to write the regulations. I wonder how that can possibly enhance the process of this good legislation to which my colleague refers if, in fact, we have inadequate time to debate the legislation so the regulatory-writing body gets it right.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParliamentary democracyReport stageTime allocation579110857911095791110RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, the greater danger is to talk this process to death so that at the end of the time established by courts the existing system of administrative segregation expires with absolutely nothing in place to replace it. That would be very foolish. It is important for Parliament to do its work, to do it in a thoughtful, conscientious and thorough manner, which is part of what we are doing right now, and at the end of the day to vote and take a decision to implement a new system, with the funding that has already been allocated, to make our system more successful, more secure and safe for the future, with better correctional results for society. I have every confidence that the safeguard institutions we have put in place, including the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, will be able to do their jobs properly to ensure the content of the legislation is properly implemented.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParliamentary democracyReport stageTime allocation579111157911125791113HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, recently, Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff, was transferred from maximum security to medium security without acknowledgement or notification to two of the families of the four victims. Cody Legebokoff heinously murdered four young women in our communities in Cariboo—Prince George. He has not admitted guilt and has not formally told the victims' families where the remains of the victims are. I would ask my hon. colleague across the way if he will review this case of the transfer of Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer, from maximum to medium security.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation57911145791115RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, the particular item raised by the hon. gentleman obviously does not relate to Bill C-83, but on the substantive issue he has raised, I will examine the facts and get back to him with further information.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsReport stageTime allocation5791116ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1155)[Translation]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageTime allocation5791129GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-83.[English]It is a transformative piece of legislation for our correctional system. Its ultimate goal is to promote safety, both inside and outside our federal institutions, and it prioritizes rehabilitation as an indispensable part of achieving that goal. The core innovation in Bill C-83 is the proposed introduction of structured intervention units, or SIUs. These SIUs would address a reality in any prison across our country, which is that some inmates are, at certain times, simply too dangerous or disruptive to be safely housed in the mainstream inmate population. The current practice is to place those offenders in administrative segregation.Segregated inmates in federal institutions can be in their cells for as many as 22 hours a day. Interactions with other people are highly limited. Bill C-83 would offer a more effective way forward for all involved. Safety will always be priority number one for our government, and should be for any government in power, but prisons are safer places in which to live and work when inmates receive the programming, mental health care and other interventions they need. Inmates who receive these interventions are more likely to reintegrate safely into the community when their sentences are over. The solution the government is proposing in Bill C-83 is to eliminate segregation and to replace it with SIUs. These units would be secure and separate from the mainstream inmate population so that the safety imperative would be met. However, they would be designed to ensure that inmates who were placed there would receive the interventions, programming and treatment they required.Inmates in SIUs would be given the opportunity to leave their cells for at least four hours a day, as opposed to two hours under the current system. It is worth noting that currently, those two hours are set out in policy and not in legislation. Bill C-83 would give the four-hour minimum the full force of law. Inmates in SIUs would also have the opportunity for at least two hours of meaningful human contact. During that time, they could interact with people such as correctional staff, other compatible inmates, visitors, chaplains or elders. The goal of these reforms is for inmates in an SIU to be in a position to reintegrate into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. Bill C-83 has undergone rigorous analysis at every stage of the parliamentary process to date. Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security went over it with a fine-tooth comb. Based on testimony from a wide range of stakeholders, a number of useful amendments were adopted at the end of the committee's study period. Bill C-83 was a solid and worthwhile bill from day one. It is now even better and stronger for having gone through vigorous debate and a robust review process. It is worth noting that the bill that has been reported back to us reflects amendments from all parties that proposed them. I wholeheartedly reject the idea we have heard during this debate that somehow the fact that the bill has been amended in response to public and parliamentary feedback is a bad thing. I am proud to support a government that welcomes informed, constructive feedback and that respects the role of members of Parliament from all parties in the legislative process. I would like to thank all members in this House who contributed to amending and making this bill better than it was.Most of the amendments made to Bill C-83 are about ensuring that the new SIUs would function as intended. For instance, some witnesses were worried that the opportunity for time out of the cell would be provided in the middle of the night, when inmates were unlikely to take advantage of it. Therefore, the member for Montarville added the requirement that it happen between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.(1205)Other witnesses wondered whether the mandatory interactions with others might happen through a door or a meal slot, a reasonable concern. To address that concern, the member for Toronto—Danforth added a provision requiring that every reasonable effort be made to ensure that interactions are face to face, with a record kept of any and all exceptions.To address concerns that CSC might make excessive use of the clause allowing for time out of the cell not to be provided in exceptional circumstances, the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore added a list of specific examples, such as fires or natural disasters, to clarify how this clause should be interpreted.Amendments from the member for Toronto—Danforth at committee and from the member for Oakville North—Burlington at report stage will enhance the review process so that each SIU placement is subject to robust oversight, both internally and externally.All of this will help ensure that the new structured intervention units operate as intended. However, that is not all. Amendments have also been accepted from the members for Brampton North, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Beloeil—Chambly and Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would like to thank them once again for their contributions as well.We all want safer institutions and safer communities. We all want Canadians to feel safe and to be safe. Successful rehabilitation and safe reintegration of people in federal custody are key to achieving our shared objective of enhanced public safety. By allowing inmates who must be separated from the general prison population to receive more time out of their cell and more mental health care and rehabilitative interventions, Bill C-83 represents a major step in the right direction.Again, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues for their contributions in the House and at committee throughout the entire parliamentary process so far, and I urge them to join me in enthusiastically supporting this bill. It will ensure the safety of the inmates and those who work in the correctional institutions, and Canadians as well.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stageSafetySolitary confinementStructured intervention unit579113257911335791134579113557911365791137579113857911395791140579114157911425791143579114457911455791146579114757911485791149GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really touched me when we were hearing from the witnesses was the need for robust oversight. That is the glue that holds everything together. We need to build trust when we are working with a new system. We are creating something that no one has really worked with before, so how do we make sure that people believe this is in fact going to work as a new system of structured intervention units? I would like to hear my colleague speak about how that oversight provision and the office of the correctional investigator can help to build the trust that the system will be working correctly.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stageStructured intervention unit57911505791151PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we need proper oversight in this process. We were grateful to have the testimony of many people working in correctional facilities who pushed for these kinds of oversight. As well, many in organizations that were looking for more oversight throughout this process came and testified at committee and met with members of Parliament from all sides of the House. That is a core component of the legislation that we have put forward.I would also like to add that it is important to develop trust among players involved in this system. We have been able to do that by making them a part of the process so far of developing the proposed law, Bill C-83, and also by listening to them and ensuring that they have the resources in place through new investments and investments that have been already put in place to ensure their safety as we put in place this new methodology to deal with those particular inmates.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stageStructured intervention unit57911525791153JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister this morning described that $448 million is allocated to Bill C-83 over the next six years. We know that a considerable amount of infrastructure renovation would be required to meet the requirements laid out in Bill C-83.Of the portion of money that has been set aside for the infrastructure rebuild, could the parliamentary secretary please advise the House as to how much is actually going to go to the services provided and to the correctional officers' requirements in playing out all of Bill C-83?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57911545791155PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88649PeterSchiefkePeter-SchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchiefkePeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Peter Schiefke: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my hon. colleague for his work in amending this bill, making it better and improving upon it.My hon. colleague is correct that $300 million has been set aside for resources for the SIUs, including $150 million for mental health, and as he mentioned, over $80 million is already in place. The reality is that those funds are needed. We heard loud and clear from those who testified, as well as those who met with us individually, that in addition to having this measure in place, those who ran correctional facilities wanted to make sure that resources would be in place to ensure we are doing right by those working in these facilities in making sure they are being kept safe. We have been able to do that here.We have also been able to allocate some funding toward improving the infrastructure in these facilities to ensure they have the infrastructure to keep the correctional staff safe, as well as to do right by the inmates who are going to be moved into these new facilities. This is all to say that this was a whole-of-government approach. A lot of times in this House we fiercely debate and are fiercely opposed to different laws being put in place, but this is one time when I was very happy to see all parties come together to put in place a law we can all agree on, a law that would keep Canadians safe, as well as those doing the hard work in those correctional facilities.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57911565791157579115857911595791160GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88333DarrellSamsonDarrell-SamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SamsonDarrell_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Darrell Samson (Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Lib.): (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this new chamber to speak to Bill C-83.When this bill was introduced, it was an important piece of legislation. However, what is even more important is that the parliamentary process has helped enhance this very important bill.I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members who have participated in the debate, who provided information and who shared their views.The witnesses were also helpful. Some came to us, while others provided additional information in writing that helped us improve this bill as much as possible. All of these contributions will help build a safer and more effective correctional system, which is essential.I also want to point out that more than 100 amendments were proposed. This means that there were a lot of discussions on this bill. I should also note that every party was able to contribute to these amendments in one way or another. One of the amendments was about broadening the scope of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to ensure that correctional policies, programs and practices respect religion, sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, and the special needs of visible minorities. Those are very important aspects.Another amendment was about making every reasonable effort to provide inmates in structured intervention units with human contact, which is very important to their mental health. Some felt it was important to give individuals in structured intervention units a reasonable amount of time outside their cell. That does not mean waking inmates up at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.; time outside the cell must be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. In terms of health care, the bill provides further assurances to inmates by requiring an additional review when the institutional head disagrees with the recommendations of a health professional with respect to altering the conditions of an inmate's confinement or removing the inmate from the unit.I am very pleased to say that the bill will be reviewed every five years. This is another approach our government has been taking since 2015. We are bringing in legislation that provides for reviews and allows for improvements to be made. This will give us an opportunity to examine the bill's implementation and make the necessary changes.The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness also mentioned that the government would be open to an important addition, specifically, external oversight. The member for Oakville North—Burlington moved that amendment at report stage, and the government has signalled its intention to support it. This addition will address one of the main concerns raised during testimony in committee. It is also very important to ensure that the necessary resources are put in place to move this crucial bill forward. I will explain in my speech where we have made those investments.The national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, Stanley Stapleton, shared this sentiment. I am delighted to say that the government also took his calls into account. (1215)The Minister of Finance of Canada announced a $448-million investment in corrections in the latest fall economic update. A large part of this money will be put towards the provisions of this bill. As the Minister of Public Safety pointed out, this funding will ensure that the Correctional Service of Canada will have properly trained staff at the right time and in the right place. This investment also includes $150 million for extensive improvements to mental health care in prisons. This money is in addition to the considerable investment of almost $80 million that was announced in our government's last two budgets.In other words, the government has followed through on its commitment to ensure that the corrections system holds offenders accountable for their actions but also supports their rehabilitation in a safe and secure environment. The goal is to have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims, and ultimately, a safer country.Bill C-83 will strengthen the federal correctional system by implementing a new intervention model, improve health care governance and victim support services, and better take into account the specific needs of indigenous offenders. That is very important. What is more, it will eliminate administrative segregation and make way for patient advocates, as recommended in the coroner's report on the death of Ashley Smith. It will also enact less intrusive alternatives to strip searches and body cavity searches.The bill will help better support the role of victims in the criminal justice system by guaranteeing them access to audio recordings of parole hearings. This is a marked improvement over the former system, under which only victims who did not attend the hearing could obtain an audio recording. Now victims who attend will also get the recordings. The bill also enshrines into law the principle by which health care providers at correctional institutions will have to make decisions based on their medical judgment, independently of correctional authorities. The bill also enshrines in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. In summary, we drafted a comprehensive bill that will strengthen the security of our institutional staff, inmates and our communities. It will make it possible for Correctional Service Canada to separate certain offenders while ensuring that they receive the interventions required. It will also improve the quality of their rehabilitation.Once again, I want to thank all members who contributed to this important bill. Its passage through the House so far demonstrates what can be done when members from all parties work together to pass legislation that will help the community. I am proud to support Bill C-83 today, and I encourage members of the House to do so as well.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMinoritiesOversight mechanismReport stageStatutory reviewStructured intervention unitVictims of crime5791161579116257911635791164579116557911665791167579116857911695791170579117157911725791173579117457911755791176579117757911785791179PeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers president, Jason Godin, told the public safety committee that “by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations.” Mr. Godin went on to say, “The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody.” Can the hon. member opposite explain how the correctional officers' safety is being considered within the bill when they were not even consulted on it?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57911805791181DarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88333DarrellSamsonDarrell-SamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SamsonDarrell_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Darrell Samson: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote Mr. Godin. He is the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. He also said that to put this together, what is really crucial is that the investments follow and we make sure that our government is putting those investments in to ensure that this law can proceed and to ensure the safety of the employees and the safety of the individuals in the correctional centres.Again, our government has come forward with $448 million to help move this process along, which is crucial. Bills cannot be put out there if they do not have the funding to support them and to ensure that the implementation is put in place.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57911825791183GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/23915GuyCaronGuy-CaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaronGuy_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows very well that Bill C-83 had to be brought in because of superior court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia that found the current segregation policy to be unconstitutional.In the two rulings handed down in Quebec and Ontario, recommendations were made and put in writing to explain their decision and to guide future government policy or legislation.Bill C-83, however, fails to implement most of these recommendations, and I would like to ask my colleague why that is.Why did the government refuse to consider the recommendations of the judges, who ruled that the situation was unconstitutional?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement5791184579118557911865791187DarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88333DarrellSamsonDarrell-SamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SamsonDarrell_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Darrell Samson: (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises an interesting point about the decisions from Ontario and British Columbia, which certainly raised certain issues.However, we added two measures to alleviate segregation. First, the hours when the inmates can leave their cells are between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. That is a very important measure, one that I think will ensure a greater degree of success. There is also the whole issue of human contact. These additions to the bill will support the segregation issue.I also want to mention that the parties brought forward over 100 amendments and that amendments from every party were accepted. That means the entire House has a hand in the bill's success.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement579118857911895791190GuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—Lacolle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88442BrendaShanahanBrenda-ShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShanahanBrenda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.): (1225)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am impressed by my colleagues' speeches and by the fact that the amendments came from every party. I would like to ask my colleague which measures involve the correctional officers and health care professionals who work directly with the inmates.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57911915791192DarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88333DarrellSamsonDarrell-SamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SamsonDarrell_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Darrell Samson: (1225)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. As we know, the people working in these institutions have contributed to the success of this bill. Consultation was an important component for us.We also injected funding to ensure that the necessary safety infrastructure was in place so these people could do their work. If a recommendation with respect to health is submitted to the head and is not accepted, a second will follow.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57911935791194BrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-83. As we know, it is a bill that symbolizes the current government's approach to leadership in this country. It is an approach of ignoring the concerns of many, providing little in the way of moral leadership and transparency, and putting the safety of Canadians at risk for the benefit of political gain. I have said many times in this place that it is and should be the top priority of the House to put the safety of Canadians first, ahead of any other issues or politics. With the bill, the House would fail to meet that expectation.To paraphrase my NDP colleague from Beloeil—Chambly, I can think of no time when a bill has come before Parliament where there are no witnesses who support the legislation. That is exactly what happened with Bill C-83. The minister claimed the bill would end administrative segregation. The witnesses who refuted the bill included prisoner advocacy groups, civil liberties groups, former wardens, professors, correctional unions, the correctional investigator and a senator. The overriding sentiment was that the legislation lacked the detail and information needed to back up such a claim by the minister. The minister claimed the bill responded to issues raised by the courts that segregation caused the death of two inmates. However, the facts are clear in these two unfortunate deaths that they were the result of operational and management failures in both circumstances.The minister claimed safety and security of staff were the top priorities. However, correctional workers and former inmates testified that segregation is essential to managing violent and volatile inmates, and that the bill would create more risk to staff.Civil liberties groups called the bill unconstitutional and said it would make things worse rather than better. They noted the bill lacked external oversight, a check against the authorities of Correctional Service Canada. The minister actually acknowledged this lack of oversight existed. Senator Pate testified before the committee and indicated that Bill C-83 was a bad piece of legislation. The senator dismantled the minister's claims as to how the bill would end segregation. In a visit to a Nova Scotia Prison, Senator Pate noted that it had renamed the segregation unit, the “intensive intervention unit”. The minister will claim otherwise, of course. However, I will take the testimony of a senator and her eyewitness account over the minister's promise, especially given the minister's repeated track record of misleading Parliament and Canadians. Perhaps the only accomplishment by the minister with respect to the bill is that he brought together the NDP, the Green Party and the Conservatives, who all oppose the legislation. I would like to note the unexpected and very valuable contribution of written testimony from Mr. Glen Brown, someone who knows the system well. Mr. Brown is a highly experienced former warden and deputy warden, who now teaches criminal justice and criminology at Simon Fraser University and Langara College. As someone once responsible for segregation units, he notes that the Ashley Smith and Edward Snowshoe cases were more about mismanagement of behavioural issues and neglect. These issues are not legislative problems. They are management, training and accountability issues. When in segregation, inmates should receive bolstered communication on current risks and mental health issues. They should have increased contact with officers and staff, and they should have an increased potential for services. All this should bring greater attention to an offender's rehabilitation plan. Mr. Brown wrote:The strength of a functioning administrative segregation process is that it should bolster all of those things: oversight is strengthened; case management should be more active; information sharing should be more robust; referral for clinical service should be prioritized and case management intervention to develop plans should be urgent. After noting that science and research has shown that properly managed segregation units do not cause short- or long-term harm, Mr. Brown noted, “To respond to current circumstances with sweeping legislative reform is only to react ideologically, and to ignore science and evidence.”(1230)On the minister's grand solution to segregation, which is to rename segregation units to “structured intervention units”, Mr. Brown noted that Bill C-83 described SIUs in such broad and vague language that the consequences of implementation were very uncertain, that the details were unknown and the details were the key. The current layout of many segregation units did not facilitate socialization and programming. The emphasis on programming suggested longer-term stays in SIUs, weeks or maybe months. SIUs would not be suitable for short-term management of volatile inmates, such as those under the influence. There was the inability to have specialized staff for particular subpopulations in a prison. Finally, he noted that given the current layout of many prisons, a wing may need to be deemed a structured intervention unit, meaning up to 96 inmates may be subject to 20 hours a day of confinement where before it would be only 16. To be clear, someone who is an expert and has worked for years in prisons with segregation says that he cannot discern the minister's plan. Moreover, he says that prisons often lack the infrastructure, are inappropriate to what is needed and could have the opposite effect to what the minister claims.Perhaps the only potential value in the legislation could come from an external review mechanism of segregation, because it could provide Canadians with greater confidence in offender management. The minister, however, told the committee that we did not have the authority to do this, an order the Liberal MPs on the committee followed, while the opposition members put forward mechanisms to provide such oversight, which were soundly rejected. When we pushed the Liberals at committee to amend the worst parts of the legislation and pointed to the glaring issues raised by the many expert witnesses, we were told that Liberal MPs were voting with “faith in the minister”.The role of committees is not to provide support and faith to a minister. It is to conduct detailed examinations on challenging issues, to hear from experts and impacted Canadians, to examine programs, spending and legislation to determine if it will meet the needs of Canadians or, at the very least, what the minister claims it will meet. On this, our committee has failed.At the conclusion of committee debate on Bill C-83, my Conservative colleagues and I put our views on the record. We indicated that the committee failed in its role to review the legislation and ensure that it could make informed decisions. We also said that we believed the minister withheld information from committee that was clearly available to him at the time, namely the cost and how it would be used and implemented in the bill, which most witnesses said was essential to knowing if the bill would be useful. For the minister, it seemed more important that he withhold his plan from the committee. Half a billion dollars connected to a bill, where and how the money will be used is essential to know if the bill will work. We still do not have a plan necessarily for that money.What was the response to the overwhelming criticism and skepticism of the bill? Government MPs stated that they were “making a leap of faith” and putting their trust in the minister. What was accomplished by the committee in reviewing this legislation? In my opinion, next to nothing. The Liberal members rejected amendments on how the money would be used. They rejected a requirement to publish the standards of the new SIUs. They rejected limits to reclassifying prisons. They rejected having the minister provide us with how he would implement this new plan. On this legislation, the Liberals have turned their backs on Canadians. We are to trust the minister who has an extensive track record of misleading Canadians on things like the disastrous India trip, Bill C-59 and Bill C-71, failure to provide funding for police to tackle gangs, and I could go on. We as a House can do better. We must do better. We can all rise to a higher level. Personally, I feel this committee failed its constituents, its communities and its country. Bill C-83 is yet another example of the many failures of the Liberal government.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCommittee studies and activitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stageSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5791195579119657911975791198579119957912005791201579120257912035791204579120557912065791207579120857912095791210579121157912125791213579121457912155791216DarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is one of those moments where I am going to agree with the member from across the way in that we can do better: We can do better with the level of debate in this place. I am a member of this committee. I worked hard with the other members on the committee. We listened to the testimony. It is simply incorrect to say that we did not push for amendments and make amendments that improved the bill at committee. It is unfair, with the level of debate in this place, to ignore that and make it sound as if it was just a leap of faith. It was not. There were amendments, in fact, large amendments in respect to oversight. There were amendments with respect to the conversations about what was meaningful contact. There were amendments made and there was discussion among members about what we could make this a better bill. We did respond to concerns that were raised. In fact, to leave it as a statement that there was nothing done but a leap of faith does a disservice to the hard work by the members of this committee. I stand by that work. This is a comment not a question. It is simply a fact that we need to correct the record as to the work that was done.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCommittee studies and activitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5791217579121857912195791220GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, absolutely I will.The nice thing about a democracy is that we can and we are allowed to disagree. I sit on the committee, just as my hon. friend across the way does, and quite frankly I was disappointed. The main issue we were trying to address was the rehabilitation of prisoners. That is the purpose of corrections. We want to place them safely back into the community.Bill C-83 fails in that respect. Witnesses had many other amendments, all of which were ignored by the Liberal majority on the committee. Were amendments made? Yes, but they did not strengthen the bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCommittee studies and activitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579122357912245791225AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingPierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71447PierreNantelPierre-NantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/NantelPierre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): (1235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I just heard him say that the purpose of this process is to place criminals back into society as safely as possible following their time in prison.He must be familiar with the two provincial rulings, one in British Columbia and the other in Ontario, I believe, that challenged the value of administrative segregation.Would the member not agree that administrative segregation is often used in the case of people with mental health issues and that, in many cases, this only makes matters worse?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement5791226579122757912285791229GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, we need go back even further, before individuals enter the justice system. Many individuals with mental health issues end up in the justice system in the first place because our society fails to properly deal with them on the level that we should. They end up there because of the crimes they commit due to their mental health.I mentioned the court decisions from B.C. and Ontario. If we study the rulings, we can see that they do not point back to segregation but rather to the mismanagement of correctional facilities themselves and the operational mismanagement regarding how to deal with individuals with mental health issues.Do we need a more robust system to properly deal with this? Yes. Unfortunately the experts we heard did not believe the bill would address the issues the member has bought up.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement579123057912315791232PierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in favour of Bill C-83. The purpose of the bill is to move away from the system of administrative segregation in place at the moment toward new structured intervention units. We have heard before in the debate in the House that this responds to two recent decisions by courts in Ontario and British Columbia. I read those decisions again last night. I have read them a few times now. They are difficult decisions. They set out clear problems with our existing system. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques raised a question earlier, saying that the bill did not respond to what was set out in the decisions. I do not believe that is correct. There are two reasons, some of which I will go into later as we discuss the matter. However, in addition, it is because the system that was being reviewed and some of the rules that were being put in place when the judges were making their decisions were based on the system we have now. The system we would be putting into place with Bill C-83 would have a very different set of rules. We need to take that into account, and I will work through some of it. I believe this change in legislation, the change to the system we would putt in place, would increase charter compliance and would respond to the issues that were raised. I will admit that I approached the bill with some concerns. When the bill first came before us, I had a lot of questions. I listened to the testimony. We heard from inmates, corrections officers and lawyers. A lot of people brought forward their concerns on the bill. It made me think long and hard about what was the right way for us to address these issues.What was really clear to me, the most important part when I looked at what was needed to improve the bill, was oversight. In fact, oversight and decision making was one of the key issues raised by both court decisions as a matter of procedural fairness. It was not only in the transfer to a unit but also in the decision to keep a person in what was at the time an administrative segregation unit. I want to highlight the fact that oversight is the glue that keeps it together. Ultimately we need to have a system that is safe and secure, conducive to inmate rehabilitation, to staff safety and to protection of the public. We are all working toward that. There is much more work to be done, but there is also much work under way.Regardless of Bill C-83, some improvements are already in place. There has been more than a 50% decline in administrative segregation placements over the last four years. That is already a change in the way things are happening on the ground. The other part is the fact that the correctional service commissioner's mandate letter highlights the need to work in a collaborative relationship with the Office of the Correctional Investigator in order to address and resolve matters of mutual concern. I have the highest respect for the Office of the Correctional Investigator. When we read those annual reports, we get an insight into what happens in our correctional system. To have that need to work together collaboratively in the mandate letter to resolve issues that have been raised is a very important statement about how we move forward with Correctional Service Canada. I would also add that the budget for the Office of the Correctional Investigator has been increased. I welcome that as part of the essential oversight we need for the system. When talking about the bill specifically, at committee I worked closely with my colleague, the member for Oakville North—Burlington, on how we could improve oversight in the bill. How could we, when looking at structured intervention units, improve oversight. I want to thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington for introducing an amendment, to which the government has given royal recommendation, to allow for properly funded external oversight. That piece is essential. It responds to many of the concerns that were raised, not only by the courts but by witnesses as well. It builds on amendments that were made at committee. (1245)At committee, for example, there were additional oversight pieces. One part I worked on would ensure that when people were transferred into a structured intervention unit, they would get written reasons for it in very short order. That is important, because one cannot appeal a decision if one does not have the reasons for it. It sounds legalistic, but it is important to have written reasons so people can appeal a decision if they wish. Another piece I worked on was this. If a health expert recommended that an inmate be moved out of a structured intervention unit, and the warden disagreed, an additional review would be built in at a more senior level within Correctional Service Canada so that the decision could be reviewed. It is the layers of oversight that are essential and is why I believe that the work at committee was very important in moving that forward. I have talked about oversight. Another issue we needed to address when we looked at the court decisions was the essential piece on what is now administrative segregation, which was highly criticized, and what we are proposing as far as moving toward structured intervention units. This turns on two parts: time in the cell and time in the cell without meaningful contact with people. Currently, inmates have 22 hours in a cell, plus shower time. The court was clear that shower time is over and above the two hours and does not mean that inmates are in their cells for over 22 hours. It completely rejected that as a notion. Inmates have two hours out of their cells.There is an international set of rules, the Mandela Rules. Rule 44 sets out that solitary confinement is 22 hours without meaningful contact with people. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association case, which is one of the cases that gave rise to this, spoke specifically to this issue. It said, Canada can take itself outside of the literature dealing with solitary confinement...in administrative segregation both in terms of the time that an inmate spends in his or her cell and the nature of the human contact that they have while segregated.When the court was reviewing it, it said that we needed to make changes to the system in those two ways. That is, in fact, what this bill would address. Clause 36 of the bill would require that inmates spend a minimum of four hours a day outside their cells. In addition, though, an amendment was introduced at committee that said that it had to be at a reasonable time. Those four hours could not be in the middle of the night, when people want to be sleeping. Therefore, those four hours would have to be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., a reasonable time when inmates may want to be outside their cells. Of those four hours, inmates would have to have an opportunity to interact for a minimum of two hours through activities, including, but not limited to, programs, interventions and services that would encourage inmates to make progress toward the objectives of their correctional plans or that would support their reintegration into the mainstream inmate population and leisure time. These are meaningful ways people could have contact and interact. When I was looking at the B.C. case in particular, one of the things that really hit home was the fact that a lot of the contact inmates are having is through a meal slot. When they are interacting with staff and individuals, a lot of it is happening just through their meal slots, and that is just unacceptable. Without eye contact, that is not meaningful contact. It is important to make sure that there is contact, not just people walking by without interacting. These are important changes. The bill gives us a chance to think about an entirely new system, which it really would be. We would be moving from administrative segregation, which is 22 hours in a cell without meaningful contact, to 20 hours and a requirement for meaningful contact. We would be changing things in a way that would be meaningful and important and that would respond to these court decisions. I understand that people have raised some issues, but I believe that this is an important step forward, and I am pleased to speak in favour of it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stageSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit57912335791234579123557912365791237579123857912395791240579124157912425791243579124457912455791246579124757912485791249GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to remind our colleagues in the House, as well as Canadians who are listening today, that segregation is used for the worst of the worst criminals. It is an administrative tool to keep inmates safe. It is to protect them from other inmates, to protect them from themselves and to protect correctional officers.Our hon. colleague went on about the doubling of time inmates will be allowed to be out of their cells, from two hours per day to four hours per day. The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has stated that they are concerned that they currently do not have enough resources to provide inmates in segregation with two hours outside their cells.What resources will be in place to ensure the safety of correctional officers when the worst of the worst are allowed out of their cells for four hours per day, regardless of the time of day they are allowed out?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety579125057912515791252JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a concern when we speak about individuals as the worst of the worst. We may have strong issues with what people done, but to refer to them as the worst of the worst is really not an appropriate way to speak about these individuals.As far as responding to the question of how we can make sure that staff in correctional facilities are protected, that is absolutely a concern, and it is a concern we must address. That is part of the way we looked at it. It was not ignored, and to say that it was is not correct.Investments have been made. The fall economic statement included $448 million for corrections over the next four years. Of that, $300 million will go toward human resources and the infrastructure updates required to establish structured intervention units.It is being taken into account, and it is being worked on.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety5791253579125457912555791256ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgePierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71447PierreNantelPierre-NantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/NantelPierre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.I understand her reaction to the comments made by my Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George regarding the worst of the worst. I agree with her. These individuals must be treated like human beings. Earlier a Conservative member said that segregation problems are often related to mental health issues, and I understand those concerns.Considering my colleague's expertise, however, I do not understand how she cannot see that the bill, in its current form, will cause the same problems that led to the rulings handed down by the two provincial courts.Is that not the case?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement5791257579125857912595791260JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin: (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.Last night, I took a look at the decisions in question. When I prepare my remarks, I like to have a good idea of what was said and the complaints about the existing system.I believe that we should not just consider the hours spent by inmates outside their cells. The bill states that inmates must have human contact. One of the concerns raised was that some inmates had a great deal of difficulty because they lack human contact. The B.C. ruling indicates that there were days when inmates spoke with no one and saw no one.In my opinion, that is a major difference. It is not just about the hours spent out of the cell; we are also requiring that inmates have access to rehabilitation programs.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement5791261579126257912635791264PierreNantelLongueuil—Saint-HubertJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Let me state from the outset that I am opposed to this bill, not for what the bill purports to accomplish but for what I am afraid the bill would unintentionally accomplish.This legislation proposes to eliminate administrative segregation in corrections facilities by replacing these facilities with new structured intervention units and to also allow the commissioner to reassign the security classification of each penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary.It is a tenet of our free and democratic society that the worst punishment one can consign to people is to deprive them of their liberty. Indeed, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is clear on that matter. Section 7 states,Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.It is that clause that allows a democratic society that holds the fundamental principles of life, liberty and security of the person in such high esteem to deprive another of them. If someone commits a crime in Canada, particularly a heinous crime, that person will be locked away to protect society from that person's acts. There are Canadians, particularly those who have endured unimaginable pain at the hands of criminals, who believe that they should have no rights in jail. On a deeply personal basis, I understand that cry for vengeance, the need to make another suffer for the way that person made a loved one suffer. As a parliamentarian, I must, like my colleagues in this House, temper my personal feelings with the duty Canadians have sought fit to invest in me to ensure that all people are treated equitably under the laws of this great nation.As such, inmates in Canada are afforded a number of protections through human rights legislation, various statutes and the supreme law in Canada, our Constitution. They too are protected from the most dangerous criminals inside our institutions.Segregation, or isolation, whatever we want to call it, affords protection for inmates, and let us not forget, the correctional staff who work in these facilities. The law requires that a balance must be struck between the protection of inmates and staff and the protection of inmates in segregation. Inmates who are determined to be at risk to themselves or others would now be placed in new structured intervention units, or SIUs. Inmates would be given at least four hours a day outside their cells and guaranteed at least two hours to interact with others. The introduction of SIUs would pose a risk to prison guards and inmates and to the inmates for whom solitary confinement is used for their own safety. Bill C-83 would strip the ability to use segregation for discipline. This change would make prisons more dangerous for the guards, as they would have to deal with the most violent of inmates, those who continue to prey on others inside the institution. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has said that it has not been properly consulted on Bill C-83. On October 21, the Vancouver Sun reported that the head of the national prison guards' union predicted a “bloodbath” behind bars as the federal government moves to end solitary confinement in Canadian prisons. The national president, Jason Godin, explained: ...by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations. We are concerned about policy revisions that appear to be reducing the ability to isolate an inmate, either for their safety or for that of staff....I share this concern that no thought has been given to what measures we need to take to make sure that nobody gets hurt.Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator of Canada, stated: ln effect, Bill C-83 proposes a softer version of segregation without any of the constitutional protections. The bill is uniformly short on specifics and places too much discretion and trust in correctional authorities to replace segregation with an unproven and not well-conceived correctional model.Bill C-83 goes further than what was raised in either of the Superior Court decisions. With respect to SIUs, the bill would allow the commissioner to reassign the security classification of each penitentiary or any area within a penitentiary. These sub-designations have raised concerns about whether this would allow an entire penitentiary to become an SIU and what that would mean for security and staffing.(1300)Furthermore, these sub-designations could lead to more cases of higher-security prisoners being in a lower-security space, based on technicalities. We know just how soft the government is already on the most despicable elements of our society. Recently, Terri-Lynne McClintic, who was convicted of first degree murder in the 2009 kidnapping and brutal killing of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford, was transferred to a minimum-security facility in Saskatchewan, even though she is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years. Now the government wants to institute an official policy to allow this to potentially happen on a regular basis. It will not be on our watch. Conservatives are opposed to any legislation that opens the door to allowing high-risk offenders to be housed in low-security facilities. Dangerous child killers, pedophiles and murderers—the most heinous of people—deserve to be behind bars. ISIS terrorists deserve to be in prison, not offered poetry classes by the government.This bill is just another example of Liberals putting the rights of dangerous criminals ahead of the rights of victims and their families, ahead of the safety and well-being of correctional officers who must work in these facilities and of course ahead of common sense. The legislation is too wide-ranging. Debra Parkes, a professor at the UBC law school, stated: The first point is that the proposal for structured intervention units actually expands rather than eliminates segregated conditions. These provisions give incredibly broad powers to the commissioner to designate whole prisons or areas of prisons as SIUs. Purposes for placing in SIUs are also very broad, including from proposed paragraph 32(a), to “provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons”, undefined and unclear. It's very broad.While the supplementary estimates show $448 million for CSC over the next six years, this piece of legislation has not been costed. Our correctional officers are doing an exemplary job at keeping everyone safe, including themselves and the inmates, but situations arise and people do get hurt. Now we are asking our correctional staff to do more with less. As situations continue to arise—and they will—more people will get hurt, and that is not acceptable. Jason Godin, the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, stated:As recently as a couple of weeks ago, I was in Edmonton sitting in the segregation unit asking the staff in there if they were meeting the two-hour requirement, with the showers and the phone calls, and they said, “Absolutely not. It's 10 o'clock at night and we can't meet them.”Currently, segregated inmates are supervised at a two-to-one guard-to-prisoner ratio when they are not in their unit. Bill C-83 purports to expand services to inmates in segregation and to double their time out of segregation without costing the resources needed to keep inmates and staff safe. This is another reason I oppose the bill. It just does not add up, and the result could mean that people will be getting hurt. The CSC ombudsman, the union of correctional officers, civil liberties and indigenous groups have all commented on the lack of consultation and they are concerned that too much of this legislation is being left to regulations. I am anxious that not enough consideration was given to the concerns of indigenous groups, to civil liberty organizations and to the correctional services staff who must maintain security in these institutions. The lack of consultation and foresight from the government on Bill C-83 is, to be frank, appalling. Jason Godin offers this insight into the process, stating:Unfortunately, due to cabinet confidentiality, as our commissioner often tells us, we weren't really consulted. The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody. I don't see the bill before it comes onto the table, so we weren't officially consulted on Bill C-83.There was also this shocking revelation by Ivan Zinger: All the consultations seem to have been done internally. To my knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.It is of concern that the Liberals are moving away from segregation, particularly as a deterrent to bad behaviour, as it strips front-line officers of their tools to manage difficult prisoners. Solitary confinement must take into account the mental health of prisoners balanced with the safety and protection of guards, workers, and fellow inmates. The safety of inmates and correctional service officers must be the priority for any legislation put forward by this government. It is clear, in our opinion, that the Liberals did not do their homework when it came to Bill C-83, and Canada's Conservatives call on this government to go back to drawing board with Bill C-83 and put forward legislation that prioritizes inmate safety and the safety of correctional service officers.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesDangerous offendersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPrivate consultationsReport stageSafetySolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety5791265579126657912675791268579126957912705791271579127257912735791274579127557912765791277579127857912795791280579128157912825791283579128457912855791286579128757912885791289579129057912915791292579129357912945791295579129657912975791298JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his well-thought-out speech. He brought up a lot of great points.My colleague talked about a lack of resources in the government's plans. At the beginning of the estimates process, which seeks the authority to spend, the government is required to submit a departmental plan. The departmental plan has three parts. It includes an overview of the spending, it lists the resources required, and it also lists out the priorities and strategic outcomes. The plan for Correctional Services was tabled by the Minister of Public Safety and signed for by the Minister of Public Safety, and we heard the Liberals stand again and again to and say they have put aside the money and have put aside the resources.However, the departmental plan shows that over the next four years, the Liberals are cutting $225 million from Correctional Services. This is what they have tabled in Parliament. Further, for actual resources for manpower, they are not increasing it by one body over the next few years. The Liberals are planning to spend money on added resources for renovations at prisons and this and that, but at the same time they are cutting $225 million. Does it sound a bit odd and contradictory to the member that the government says it is going to provide extra resources, but at the same time its own plan is showing a cut of $225 million?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5791299579130057913015791302JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely I agree with everything my friend said. The departmental plan is very clear, and even in the case of Bill C-83, which we are discussing today, this plan that the Liberals have has not even been costed. We are already dealing with correctional officers who feel overworked and stressed as it is, and now they are being asked to do more with less. For those who are working hard, sometimes in dangerous conditions each and every day, and at times dealing with the worst of the worst within our society, asking them to continue while taking away a tool that they use to protect themselves and others is simply irresponsible.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57913035791304KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that Conservative opposition members continue to try to give a false impression in terms of financial resources. I am sure that the member across the way has been informed, at least through debates and no doubt in other ways, that millions of dollars, well over $100 million, are being incorporated to assist in the many changes that are going to be required. Could the member at the very least acknowledge that there is a significant budget allotment to ensure that we are able to support the legislation and our correctional officers and so forth?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57913055791306JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite looks at page 32 of the departmental plan that was signed off by the minister on that side, he will see that $152 million was cut out of that budget this year compared to last year. The numbers speak for themselves, and it is in the report on page 32. I invite the hon. member opposite to read that page.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5791307KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I also would like to inform my colleague from Winnipeg North that if he looks at page 30 of the departmental plan issued and signed off by his own minister, he will see the details of the $225 million cut.The government again talks about the safety and security of the workers in the Correctional Service of Canada. In this departmental plan, the government lays out 20 priorities for the coming year, yet not a single priority makes any mention of safety and security for the workers. Does this not clearly show that the Liberals are intent on helping criminals and not the victims of crime or the people who have to guard them in our prisons?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57913085791309JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would agree with what my friend beside me has said. I would also point out that during my speech, I listed quote after quote from people involved in the correctional services who were saying that they are not consulted, that they are being asked to do more with less and that they do not have the proper resources as it is. This new legislation, Bill C-83, if it passes, will actually hamper them in doing their job and could put more officers at risk, so the Liberals are not protecting those they claim they are protecting.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57913105791311KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me contrast the member's statements to reality. The reality of this legislation is far from what the Conservatives are trying to tell Canadians and others who are trying to follow this debate. Let us be very clear in terms of what this legislation will do. It will make our communities safer. It will ensure that there are fewer victims. It will also ensure that there is accountability for those individuals who are breaking our laws. In this contrast between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, there is a significant difference in approach in dealing with the crime and safety file.The Conservative Party likes to sound as if it takes a really tough position on crime and safety, and that has not necessarily proven to be the case. Conservatives have the spin, and they are very good at the spin. I give them full credit for that. However, it takes away from their ability to be able to deal with the issue when they take the position of voting against this particular bill. By doing that, the Conservatives are in fact voting against what I believe is in the best interests of the communities we serve. We all want to have safer communities, fewer victims, and accountability.Let me give the House a specific example of what I am talking about in the rhetoric that comes from the Conservative Party. The speaker before me made reference to Terri-Lynne McClintic. We are all very familiar with that particular file. This is the individual who was involved in horrific criminal activities and the murder of a child, among many other things.Members will recall that the Conservative members jumped over their seats, hollering and screaming about how the government dared to allow this particular individual to go into a medium-security facility, a place with no fence, a healing lodge. I can recall, as I am sure people who follow the debates of the House will recall, the type of verbiage coming out of the Conservative Party. It was all hype, and I do not say that lightly. Very horrific things events happened, and we saw members of the Conservative Party actually stand in their place and remind Canadians of just how horrific those actions were.The government said it would look into the matter and that it would report back to the House. The government, through the leadership of the minister, in fact rectified the problem. However, what I found interesting was that the very same sort of criminal activity that was causing the Conservatives to jump out of their seats and be critical of the government for not acting on had occurred on numerous occasions under Stephen Harper. Why did the Conservatives not care about those individuals, the criminals who were child molesters and killers? Instead, under Stephen Harper, those criminals were transferred, and some went to healing lodges. We are not talking about one or two or three people; we are talking about a number of those individuals. The Conservatives had no problem being quiet on the issue back then. They did not raise it once while they were in government. However, they have a different approach in opposition. I will give them credit. They are a pretty decent opposition party. They are pretty good at it. They know how to really ramp things up.(1315)As I pointed out yesterday, I was in opposition for far too many years. I hope to see the Conservative opposition continue to be in opposition for many, many more years, maybe as many years as I was in opposition if we combine the provincial and federal levels.I suggest that the bill will have a positive impact on all of our communities. The Conservatives believe that once a criminal goes into jail, that person is a real, superbad person in all cases and is going to be in jail for a long time. They do not believe in the importance of rehabilitation. They do not recognize that.The reality is that a majority of the individuals who are going in are in fact going to be going out. If we can provide better rehabilitation programs within the prison system for that majority, there will be a greater likelihood that crimes will be prevented when offenders exit our prisons.That is consistently overlooked by the Conservative Party, and that is unfortunate. This legislation is going to include the provision of additional health and other services, which will ultimately allow many prisoners to be assimilated into our communities in a better way. That is important to me and the constituents I represent, because we know that a majority of offenders are going to be leaving prison.There are other aspects of the legislation, such as the body scanner. Maybe the Conservatives have singled that aspect out as a positive thing. I would like to think they have. It would ensure that there are fewer drugs entering, and that searches are less invasive when people visit or enter the prison. We have provincial facilities that already have it. This will allow it to occur in our national facilities.There is another aspect that I would like to draw attention to, and that is the audio. Under the current law, if a person who committed a sexual assault is going before a board hearing, often the victims will attend because they want to listen in on that board hearing. If victims choose to do that, then they are not eligible to receive the audio recording of what took place.Under this legislation, victims will be able to receive the audio whether they attend or not. I am sure people can imagine the situation for a victim of being in that room. They can imagine what might be going through the victim's mind, and they can understand that the victim is not necessarily at a stage where he or she can fully digest everything that is being said. That is one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, why victims would want to see this aspect of our law changed. This legislation incorporates that.I spoke to the legislation at second reading and encouraged individuals to get involved by looking at the legislation. The minister indicated that he is open to improving the legislation. At the committee stage we saw many amendments brought forward, and they were not only government amendments. We had opposition party amendments, and even the leader of the Green Party brought in amendments. Not only were a number of those amendments brought in by opposition members, but they were also accepted.(1320)The legislation we have today is even better than it was prior to going to committee, which speaks volumes as to how effective a standing committee can be if we take some of the partisanship out and people focus on improving legislation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCommittee studies and activitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationDangerous offendersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersReport stageSafetyVictims of crime5791312579131357913145791315579131657913175791318579131957913205791321579132257913235791324579132557913265791327579132857913295791330JamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, when my friend across the way said that we have no interest in rehabilitation, that was even more ridiculous than the things he usually says.Our caucus has a very strong interest in effective rehabilitation. We understand that part of the process of rehabilitation is personal responsibility. A perpetrator must come to understand what has been done, what is wrong about it, and how to respond and make restitution with the victim. That is part of the process of rehabilitation. Philosophies on criminal justice that deny personal responsibility and want to blame social factors for everything really do not move us effectively toward rehabilitation.While we are on the subject of criminal justice, I want to ask my friend a question about these special remediation agreements that individuals might want to enter into. Suppose there is an individual who is the parent of six or seven dependent children, and he or she commits a crime. I wonder if that individual should be able to access a remediation agreement. I am curious to hear the member's views on whether individual criminals should have access to remediation agreements if they have many dependents who might be affected by their situation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579133157913325791333KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, one would expect that individuals who enter into our prison facilities recognize that what they have done is wrong and is the reason they are going into the facility in the first place. Governments, whether it is this one or previous governments, have consistently acknowledged that there has to be accountability or consequences to any form of criminal behaviour. I used to sit as the chair of a youth justice committee, and that was an absolute given. Therefore, when the member reflected on what I said, it was one of the silliest comments I have heard from him in the last three to three and a half years, and he has made quite a few. Of course there has to be accountability and consequences for people who commit criminal actions or actions outside of what is acceptable. It is an absolute given that it will land them in a prison facility or is the reason they are in a facility.The difference is the Conservatives never want to talk about rehabilitation and its benefits inside this chamber, because they would rather talk about how they are tough on crime. They would rather say that if people commit a crime they will go to jail, and if it was up to them the key would be thrown away. They want to make it sound as if they are tough on crime. However, their actions often lead to communities that are less safe, and to more victims.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579133457913355791336GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had a number of amendments accepted in this process, and I found the clause-by-clause process of Bill C-83 to be quite collaborative. I was briefly out of the chamber. Therefore, I have to apologize if this point has come up already. Earlier today one of my hon. friends referred to people in segregation units or solitary confinement as the worst of the worst. I think of the coroner's report with respect to what happened to Ashley Smith. She was a young woman with mental health issues who was moved 17 times in the period before she was found in her cell. She had committed suicide, but the correctional guards were watching as she died. The coroner's report was very clear. This bill attempts to deal with some of that. Edward Snowshoe is another example of somebody who died in solitary confinement. These are not the worst of the worst; rather, “There but for fortune may go you or I.” Ashley Smith's mother was desperate to help her. However, the correctional authorities and the system kept a mother away from a girl who was suffering and ultimately killed herself. Therefore, let us not judge the people who get stuck in solitary confinement, but rather recognize it for what it is: a form of torture, which we must not use. This bill does not go far enough. I will vote for it and hope it gets improved again in the Senate. I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to talk about the fact that some of the people in solitary confinement are there because of mental health and addiction issues. Could he explain how it compounds the torture when they are kept away from people who can have good, healthy contact with them?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement579133757913385791339579134057913415791342KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a fair assessment. It would be most inappropriate to say that only the worst of the worst are in solitary confinement. People are put in solitary confinement for a wide range of reasons, which could be everything from a personal safety type of issue, to some of the worst of the worst, to issues dealing with mental health. The member is quite correct in her comments in many ways. However, I would like to recognize that this proposed legislation would have a positive impact on our communities in terms of making them safer. I truly believe there will be fewer victims as a direct result of progressive legislation of this nature.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement57913435791344ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—Lacolle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88442BrendaShanahanBrenda-ShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShanahanBrenda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.): (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House and to participate in today's debate on Bill C-83.This piece of legislation will transform our corrections system. Ultimately, we want to promote safety and security, both in and out of our federal institutions. The bill also prioritizes rehabilitation as a key factor in achieving this objective.The key innovation in Bill C-83 is the proposal to create structured intervention units, or SIUs. These SIUs would be found in every prison. Some inmates are sometimes too dangerous or disruptive to be housed safely in the general prison population. Currently, these inmates are placed in administrative segregation. Federal inmates placed in administrative segregation can spend up to 22 hours a day in their cells and have very limited interaction with other inmates.Bill C-83 offers a more effective solution for everyone involved. Safety will always be the top priority. Prisons are safer for those who live and work there when inmates have access to programs, mental health care, and other interventions they need. Inmates who benefit from these interventions are more likely to reintegrate into society safely when they leave the institution.The government's proposed solution in Bill C-83 is to eliminate administrative segregation and replace it with structured intervention units. These units will be safe and separate from the general population to ensure compliance with safety requirements. They will also be designed in such a way that inmates who are placed there will receive requisite interventions, programs and treatments. Inmates in structured intervention units will be allowed to leave their cells for at least four hours a day instead of the two hours allowed under the current system. It should be noted that the two-hour period is currently established by policy, not by law. Bill C-83 would enshrine the four-hour minimum in law.Inmates who are placed in SIUs will have the opportunity to have at least two hours of meaningful interaction with other people, including corrections staff, other compatible inmates, visitors, chaplains and seniors. The objective of these reforms is to ensure that inmates in SIUs are able to reintegrate into the general prison population as soon as possible.Bill C-83 has been thoroughly analyzed at every step of the parliamentary process thus far. Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security went through it with a fine-tooth comb, and some useful amendments were made at the end of the committee review period based on the testimony of a broad range of stakeholders.Bill C-83 was already a robust and effective piece of legislation when it was introduced, but after being vigorously debated and carefully examined, it is now even better. It is important to point out that the bill that was sent back to us includes amendments from all of the parties that proposed amendments.I disagree with the suggestion made in debate that it is somehow a bad thing that the bill was amended in reaction to comments from the public and parliamentarians.I am proud to support a government that welcomes constructive, thoughtful input and that respects the role members from all parties play in the legislative process.(1330)The purpose of most of the amendments to Bill C-83 is to ensure that structured intervention units, SIUs, work as intended.For example, some witnesses were concerned that time outside of the cell might be made available in the middle of the night, when inmates are unlikely to benefit from it. The member for Montarville added the requirement that time outside the cell be provided between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Other witnesses wondered whether mandatory interaction with others might be provided through a door or a meal slot. To address that concern, the member for Toronto—Danforth added a provision stating that every reasonable effort shall be made to ensure that human contact takes place face to face and that a record of exceptions is kept. In response to concerns about Correctional Service Canada making inappropriate use of the provision stating that time outside the cell can be denied in exceptional circumstances, the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore added a list of specific examples, including fires and natural disasters, to clarify the interpretation of that provision.Amendments put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth in committee and by the member for Oakville North—Burlington at report stage will strengthen the review process to ensure that placement in SIUs is subject to robust internal and external oversight.All of these measures will help ensure that the new SIUs are used as intended.We also accepted various amendments put forward by the members for Brampton North, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Beloeil—Chambly and Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank them all for their contributions.We all want our institutions and communities to be safer, and we want Canadians to feel and be safe. The successful rehabilitation and reintegration of people serving a federal sentence is essential for achieving our shared objective of enhancing public safety.By enabling inmates who need to be separated from the general inmate population to spend more time outside their cells, have more access to mental health services, and receive more rehabilitation interventions, Bill C-83 is a big step in the right direction.Again, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for their contributions at each step of the legislative process so far, and I urge them all to join me in enthusiastically supporting this bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit57913455791346579134757913485791349579135057913515791352579135357913545791355579135657913575791358579135957913605791361579136257913635791364KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to bring this back. I feel it is important we do this at every opportunity. Each member from the government side has said there have been significant consultations and witnesses that appeared before the committee, and their concerns were heard. However, we know through comments from the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers that there are still significant concerns. Witness after witness has said the bill is flawed right to the core. Therefore, I want to go back to what we are dealing with again today. During the 2015 debate, the member for Papineau, now our Prime Minister, said he would let debate reign. He would not force closure on debate. We have seen it well over 60 times. On a piece of legislation, such as Bill C-83, which is so important, all sides would agree to that, the Liberals have forced time allocation once again, limiting debate and essentially limiting the voices of the members of Parliament on this side. We are the voices of the electors who put us in the House to ensure the voices of our regions and ridings come to Ottawa. What the Liberals have done now, as they have done so often, is that they have silenced those voices of opposition. Why, on such an important piece of legislation, do the Liberals feel the need to force closure and ignore the comments and concerns of the witnesses that came before the committee? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersParticipatory democracyReport stage579136557913665791367BrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—Lacolle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88442BrendaShanahanBrenda-ShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShanahanBrenda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMrs. Brenda Shanahan: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, far from parliamentarians, the stakeholders and the Canadian public being silenced, I am actually quite taken with the amount of consultation that went into this legislation, which is long overdue for a problem that was putting in jeopardy not only the people that were incarcerated but also those who work with them. I have something of a background in community and social work service and I had many colleagues who worked in the prison system. I was very much taken with how they were able to work in such difficult conditions with so few tools. It is one thing to talk and it is another thing to take action. To come forward with a piece of legislation such as Bill C-83, which meets those demands while at the same time coming with $448 million in investments, including in infrastructure and the kinds of tools that would keep people safer within and outside of the prison system, shows that our government is taking action where it counts and that people have been heard.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersParticipatory democracyReport stage57913685791369ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeGuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/23915GuyCaronGuy-CaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaronGuy_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the question is quite simple. I asked another Liberal member the same question, but I did not really get a response.Bill C-83 was tabled in response to decisions handed down by superior courts in Ontario and British Columbia that deemed the current administrative segregation model unconstitutional. These decisions included a number of recommendations, but upon reviewing Bill C-83, it would seem that most of them were overlooked.Why did the government not seize this opportunity to respond to the two court rulings that struck down the current administrative segregation model as unconstitutional?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement579137057913715791372BrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—Lacolle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88442BrendaShanahanBrenda-ShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShanahanBrenda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMrs. Brenda Shanahan: (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is very concerned about the problem of administrative segregation.After reading Bill C-83, I think that structured intervention units are a major step forward in resolving this problem. They will ensure that inmates have access to human contact and appropriate interventions that promote their rehabilitation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement57913735791374GuyCaronRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. I understand that Bill C-83 is designed to make a number of significant changes to our correctional system. It seeks to eliminate administrative segregation in correctional facilities, replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs, and introduce body scanners for inmates, among other changes.There have been a lot of problems with the correctional system and Bill C-75 could make it worse. The policies under Bill C-75 include serious offenders receiving sentences of a maximum two years less a day. People who have committed serious crimes to persons and property will be in provincial jails, downloaded. We now will have a system where there will be less chance to deal with serious offenders in provincial institutions. It has become a revolving door, where some know they will be in and out very quickly and will not be provided the help they may need in a prison system.I know the legislation has prompted some strong responses from stakeholders. I am happy to convey some of those serious concerns. The CSC ombudsman, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, civil liberties and indigenous groups have all commented on the lack of consultation. Unions and employees have not been consulted. Nor have indigenous groups.The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, whose members will be directly impacted by the legislation, even said, “The bill was as much a surprise to us as it was to anybody.” It does not sound right that it was a surprise to those who would be affected the most. It is something like the Parks Canada budget that had a $60 million pathway in it and Parks Canada knew nothing about it.The correctional investigator of Canada told the public safety committee:All the consultations seem to have been done internally. To my knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out. For a government that supposedly loves to consult, it sure seems to have left a lot of people dissatisfied with this process.Of particular note are concerns we have heard from correctional officers. These are the people who wear the uniforms. These are the people who protect us and inmates. The introduction of SIUs may pose a risk to both prison guards and inmates. The legislation goes further than what was raised in either Superior Court decisions. It completely bans administrative segregation and introduces the structured intervention unit model. We need to take a lot of care in how we deal with youth offenders or those with mental illnesses or mental disease for which segregation may not be an option. We need to be very careful in how we use segregated models with those people.This has the potential to make prisons much more dangerous for guards and inmates. Guards will lose an important disciplinary tool. In fact, the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers told the public safety committee, “by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations.” That is a very troubling statement. In other words, was the consultation there to find another solution? I do not think so. Guards will be placed in greater danger as they attempt to control extremely dangerous offenders without the ability to fully separate them from other inmates. Who is going to want to be a guard if things continue this way? It is already an intensely stressful, challenging occupation. We cannot keep placing these people under greater strain. Dangerous inmates will be forced together in units with each other. Is that the right way to go?I understand that this change is well intentioned. Canada has a fundamentally sound and humane correctional system, especially compared to many other jurisdictions around the world. We do not want a draconian system, but we do need to balance the mental health of prisoners with the safety and protection of guards, workers and fellow inmates.(1345)The bill would fail to do some of those things. It ignores the reality on the ground in many prisons. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles noted, some inmates request to be in administrative segregation for their own safety. They do not want to rub shoulders with other dangerous offenders.Legislation intended to improve our correctional system should not compromise safety and security. The government needs to go back and fix the bill. It should not force the bill through over the objections of virtually all interested stakeholders and put lives at risk in doing so, especially the lives of those who wear the uniform.I am also surprised to find that the legislation does nothing to ensure that high-risk offenders are not transferred to low-security facilities.It was just last year that Canadians from coast to coast expressed outrage over Terri-Lynne McClintic's transfer to a healing lodge. Only after massive public pressure did the government finally move to address the injustice and send her back behind bars. The Prime Minister personally attacked his critics and accused Canadians of politicizing this issue. Thankfully, Canadians were able to pressure him enough to act so that decision was changed.However, a prime minister should never have to be shamed into doing the right thing. There was an opportunity in this legislation to take real action to prevent similar situations in the future, but no action was taken on this topic.One clear positive aspect that would result from the legislation is the introduction of body scanners. If this system is applied properly, it should be helpful in intercepting drugs before they make their way into prisons. It is important that the scans apply to all individuals entering the prison. Drugs simply should not be flowing into correctional facilities and creating even more dangerous conditions there.However, I am unclear why the Liberals' haphazard plan to supply inmates with syringes would still being implemented if we have scanners. Our objective should be to prevent drug abuse in prisons, not facilitate it. Furthermore, legitimate concerns have been raised over the weaponization of the syringes. It should be obvious that the worst offenders will try to use syringes as weapons. This presents yet another threat to guards who are already operating in a dangerous environment. The body scanners should receive the highest priority, and the needle exchange program should be scrapped.In summary, this flawed legislation is not right. It does not prioritize the safety of correctional service officers. It compromises the safety of inmates. Almost all of the witnesses the public safety committee heard were critical of the bill. The consultation process was obviously not complete.Instead of scrapping the legislation in light of witness testimony, the Liberals are pressing forward with it. I join my colleagues in opposing the bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersNeedle exchange programPublic consultationReport stageSafetySolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety57913755791376579137757913785791379579138057913815791382579138357913845791385579138657913875791388579138957913905791391579139257913935791394579139557913965791397BrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my Conservative colleague. I am really struck by the sudden interest the Conservative Party has in those who would be affected by the legislation, namely the prison guards, and their work conditions.Where was the former government when it came to the massive increase in double-bunking and the cries from the guards at the time to do something about that? It did absolutely nothing. It continued to promote and encourage double-bunking. Where was the previous Conservative government when it came to the union changes that heavily regulated how unions could operate?The member spoke at length about the rhetorical comments that were made in the House. What about the hypocrisy that is being displayed in the Conservative Party's sudden interest in the union that represents the guards in our prisons?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579139857913995791400MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the things I often speak about in my comments is history. I find that over his three years here, my colleague has spent a lot of time speaking of history and past governments. I am talking about this legislation. I am talking about the legislation from the current government, its flaws and how it could be better.Rather than talking about history and the past, we are talking about the current government and what it is attempting to do. It did not get the bill right.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57914015791402MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJohnNaterPerth—Wellington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88917JohnNaterJohn-NaterPerth—WellingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NaterJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for Bow River for doing a great job of illustrating some of the concerns he has with the legislation.I would ask my friend and colleague what specific recommendations he might have made going forward that would have improved the bill but, unfortunately, were not listened to at report stage or were not listened to when making amendments.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57914035791404MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the things that really bothers me is the issue of syringes. We know there is drug abuse. However, when we travel, we are all familiar with scanners and we know how good they are in identifying objects. If I leave a dime in pocket, it will be found. We know how good scanners can be. If we could reduce drug abuse in prisons, that would be the first step. The second step is to reject the exchange of syringes. We know they will be used as weapons on other inmates and guards, which is just wrong.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57914055791406JohnNaterPerth—WellingtonToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I take a little offence with our colleague across the way who likes to go on and on. He lives in the past. He does not take any blame for the legislation the Liberals have put forward. Again, I would remind those in the House and in the gallery that it is over 60 times now that the government has forced closure on important legislation, which means it is silencing the voices of those who are elected in the official opposition, and that is shameful.In my hon. colleague's opinion, in the three and a half years we have been here, why does the government continue to force time allocation on such important legislation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579140757914085791409MartinShieldsBow RiverMartinShieldsBow River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89109MartinShieldsMartin-ShieldsBow RiverConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShieldsMartin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionMr. Martin Shields: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, whenever I am in the House listening to speeches, members have a variety of different viewpoints. It is these different viewpoints that we may not hear when we close debate all the time. There may be some commonality in speeches, but each individual brings differences in his or her speech, and that is important for us to hear.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5791410ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersReport StageInterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, thank you for that generous five minutes.I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-83. I join this debate in two capacities: as an interested member of Parliament and as the chair of the public safety committee, which reviewed the bill, heard the witnesses and put forward quite a number of amendments to the original bill, which in some respects reflects the interest in the bill and how the government was open to amending the bill at committee.The bill would replace the existing administrative segregation system with structured intervention units. The new SIUs would ensure a separation from the general prison population, which is sometimes necessary for security reasons. Even those witnesses who had actually been segregated prisoners emphasized the need for some mechanism by which a prisoner is separated from the general population. This, however, does not mean separation from rehabilitative programs, mental health care and other interventions. If members think that this is just an academic exercise, I direct their attention to the front page of The Globe and Mail this morning. It read:Ontario will not appeal a judge’s decision to abandon a charge of first-degree murder against Adam Capay, the 26-year-old from Lac Seul First Nation who spent more than 1,600 days in solitary confinement before a public furor over his plight forced officials to send him to a secure hospital.The very issue that we are debating today is on the front page of The Globe and Mail. The article continued:In deciding against an appeal, the province is consenting to a scathing ruling from Justice John Fregeau that set Mr. Capay free last month and faulted the ministry of corrections for allowing a term of solitary that was "prolonged, egregious and intolerable.”In particular, he found that the jail’s procedure for reviewing Mr. Capay’s segregation was “pro forma, perfunctory and meaningless”....Further on, there is some disaggregation of the errors and omissions:At the time, nothing was controversial about the initial decision to lock him in solitary confinement. Correctional officers have authority to segregate a prisoner if they believe he could harm himself or others. On average, 472 provincial inmates faced segregation every day in 2012.But in the Capay case, the institution started racking up serious errors and omissions that led directly to his release without trial.The Supreme Court long ago ruled that people keep some residual rights and liberties after the courts send them to prison. If those residual rights are further reduced by being placed in segregation, the state must hold regular review hearings of the decision.In Ontario, the law requires segregation review hearings to be held at the institutional level....The article goes on to discuss Mr. Capay's case, but also the larger issue and that is the larger issue that we are facing today. As I said earlier, when we heard testimony from various witnesses, those who actually had been subject to segregation and those who were supporting those who had been subject to segregation all argued for the need for segregation. The bill fits with the broader approach to corrections, which is based on the fact that public safety is best served by effective rehabilitation and treatment. Naturally, there are some inmates who will never be granted any form of conditional release by the Parole Board. They are mostly people serving life sentences who will never progress to the point where the risk they pose to the outside can be managed outside of a correctional institution.(1355)I see that my all too generous five minutes are now up and I will be delighted to resume after question period.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit57914125791413579141457914155791416579141757914185791419579142057914215791422579142357914245791425579142657914275791428AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will resume where I left off, which has to do with the utility of committees. I noticed that was a theme of question period, that committees are assigned tasks and committees doing their work make significant differences. Therefore, I want to go over a number of the significant differences the committee made with respect to the original Bill C-83 and the Bill C-83 that is before us as amended by the committee. We listened to witnesses and suggested changes to the government, and in many instances the government listened to the committee and made those changes. The bill now includes a strengthened health care review system. If the warden disagrees with a recommendation from a health care provider to move inmates in or out of SIU or to alter their conditions of confinement, the committee or senior CSC personnel, external to the institution, would review the matter. That was a Liberal amendment.The Conservatives contributed an amendment, which said that a new provision would allow CSC staff to recommend to a health care professional that an inmate be assessed under certain conditions, such as self-harm, emotional distress, adverse drug reaction, etc. The NDP-Green Party amendment reinserted the principle that CSC and the parole board impose the “least restrictive” measures, consistent with security. The language existed for 20 years until the previous government changed it to “necessary and proportionate”. Least restrictive is back in, thanks to the amendments provided by the NDP and Green Party. The NDP wanted a meaningful four hours of face time. Therefore, when CSC records the fact that an inmate did not get his or her four hours out, it would now have to include in the report the reasons for refusal. About 14 or 15 different amendments were provided by all parties. Those amendments strengthen the bill and recommend the bill to the House. The bill would enshrine in law the principle that medical professionals in CSC must operate independently of correctional authorities. It would also require CSC to consider systemic and background factors when making decisions that would impact indigenous people in federal custody. None of this is a panacea. Even once the bill passes and the considerable resources to implement it are put in place, there will remain a lot of work to do.One of the amendments I did not mention was that we insisted on a five-year review. Therefore, this is an open bill. It is not a panacea, but it is to be recommended. The effective rehabilitation and safe integration of people who have broken the law is essential for public safety. That is why I support the legislation and commend it to hon. colleagues. Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStatutory reviewStructured intervention unit579171357917145791715579171657917175791718579171957917205791721GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1515)[English]Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on this. When we talk about standing committees and the positive role they play, while the bill was up for debate during second reading, the minister responsible for the legislation was fairly open to receiving amendments, if the amendments could be justified. I was not at the committee stage, but my understanding is that not only did amendments come from the government benches, but from opposition parties as well. Even the leader of the Green Party was able to bring forward a series of amendments.It is one thing to see them brought forward. Often, especially under the old regime of Stephen Harper, we never saw them passed. However, we have seen more and more amendments, even from opposition parties, being adopted to improve legislation. This bill is a good example of that. If there is a desire at the standing committee to have a positive outcome, we can see that positive outcome with respect to legislation changing. Today's legislation is actually better than it was before it went to committee. Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57917225791723JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. John McKay: (1515)[English]Madam Speaker, I have the delight of chairing what I regard as an excellent committee. The members work well together. The partisanship occasionally flares up, but it is by and large minimal.With respect to this bill, there was some divergence of opinion regarding what amendments should and should not be included. However, I note that of the 14 or 15 amendments, six were from opposition parties.I recommend this attitude of openness in amending bills to all ministers, frankly. The committees can do useful work if they are allowed to do it. Indeed, if members on the committees assert themselves in a collective fashion, the legislation going into committee can be improved before leaving committee.As I said, this is not the end of our addressing solitary confinement. There are more things to be done. This is not a panacea bill, but it is a bill to be recommended to members.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5791724579172557917265791727KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1515)[English]Madam Speaker, once again we hear our colleagues across the way mention that they consulted broadly with respect to Bill C-83, yet at committee, witness after witness talked about the failure to consult properly. In fact, the correctional investigator of Canada told the public safety committee that all the consultations seemed to have been done internally. To his knowledge, there were no consultations with external stakeholders. He commented, “I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out”, such as Bill C-83.It is so odd to hear time and again that the Liberals have consulted broadly. It seems that it is a tick box in their vernacular to say they have consulted broadly. All they have done is rushed this legislation through.Witness after witnesses expressed concerns with respect to Bill C-83. Why does our hon. colleague feel the need to rush Bill C-83 through after faulty consultation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationReport stage579172857917295791730JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. John McKay: (1520)[English]Madam Speaker, I partially agree with my hon. colleague in that there was considerable criticism of the original bill presented to the committee. However, that is the point of a committee. Members listen to testimony and suggest amendments. These amendments are before the House as we speak. There are 14 amendments, six of which are from opposition parties. If that is not appropriate committee work, I do not know what is.The other gun to the head, so to speak, is that there are two outstanding lawsuits. If we do not move this legislation forward, there will be no solitary confinement units or segregation units in prison. That would be a shame.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationReport stage57917315791732ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1520)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This legislation proposes to limit administrative segregation in correctional facilities; replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs; introduce body scanners for inmates; set parameters for access to health care; and formalize expectations for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues.I have the privilege of chairing the public accounts committee, and at committee, we work very closely with the Auditor General's office. We studied the reports the Auditor General released, and much of what I want to speak to today actually quotes from the Auditor General's reports. One of those reports, in the fall of 2017 reports of the Auditor General of Canada, was entitled “Preparing Women Offenders for Release”. The objective of this audit was to determine whether Correctional Service Canada assigned and delivered correctional programs, interventions and mental health services to women offenders in federal custody, including indigenous women offenders, that responded appropriately to their unique needs and helped them successfully reintegrate into the community.As noted by the Auditor General, “Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Correctional Service Canada is required to provide programs and services that respond to the needs of women offenders.” What the Auditor General found was that, again, CSC had not implemented an initial security classification process designed specifically for women offenders, and as a result, “some women offenders risked being held at inappropriate security levels”. Furthermore, CSC had not implemented an appropriate tool for referring women offenders to correctional programs that were in line with their risk of reoffending, nor had they “assessed the effectiveness of its correctional programs in addressing the factors associated with a risk of reoffending”. Last, and most relevant to our debate today, the Auditor General concluded that CSC “had not confirmed whether its tools correctly identified women offenders with mental health issues or assigned them the appropriate level of care.” Paragraph 5.104 of “Report 5” revealed, “We also found that out of 18 women offenders identified with a serious mental illness with significant impairment, 7 were placed in segregation at some point during 2016.” According to the Auditor General's report, CSC acknowledged that segregation for persons with serious mental health issues “should be limited.” I draw my colleagues' attention to the word “limited”. The AG disagreed with limited use and recommended that CSC ensure that women offenders “with serious mental illness with significant impairment are not placed in segregation” and that there be improved oversight and enhanced observation of these offenders.Correctional Service Canada agreed with the Auditor General's recommendations, and therefore, the public accounts committee had asked in our report that by May 31, 2019, CSC provide us with a report regarding the relocation of observation cells out of segregation ranges. Obviously, this request was thwarted by the introduction of Bill C-83 on October 16, 2018, less than five months after the public accounts committee tabled our report, which would eliminate administrative segregation and establish the SIUs, or structured intervention units.(1525)Proposed section 32 of Bill C-83 says: The purpose of a structured intervention unit is to (a) provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons; (b) provide the inmate with an opportunity for meaningful human contact and an opportunity to participate in programs and to have access to services that respond to the inmate’s specific needs and the risks posed by the inmate.In other words, CSC is simply being compelled to do exactly what it is already mandated to do: deliver correctional programs, interventions and mental health services that respond appropriately to an offender's unique needs. As pointed out earlier, an audit by the Office of the Auditor General revealed, with respect to women offenders, that CSC has failed in its mandate. In the fall 2018 report of the Auditor General, it was also revealed that CSC has not properly managed offenders under community supervision. As of April 2018, approximately 9,100 federal offenders, or 40% of all federal offenders, were under community supervision. According to “Report 6” of the fall 2018 Auditor General's report:The number of offenders released into community supervision had grown and was expected to keep growing. However, Correctional Service Canada had reached the limit of how many offenders it could house in the community.... Despite the growing backlog [for accommodation], and despite research that showed that a gradual supervised release gave offenders a better chance of successful reintegration, Correctional Service Canada did not have a long-term plan to respond to its housing pressures. CSC “did not properly manage offenders under community supervision”. Parole officers “did not always meet with offenders as often as they should have”, nor did they always “monitor [offenders'] compliance with special conditions imposed by the Parole Board of Canada.” We met with CSC last week, and we discussed this very report. These deficiencies were brought out with an action plan to correct them. However, I would humbly suggest that the Liberal government should be focused on ensuring that Correctional Service Canada fully meets its mandate, as the safety and security of Canadians depends on the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society upon their release. To meet its mandate, a good start would be for Correctional Service Canada to start listening to its correctional workers. I am fortunate to have Drumheller penitentiary in my constituency. Over the years, I have met countless times with wardens, correctional officers and other staff in Drumheller. I can tell members that there are concerns about this bill. Concerns have come forward to the public safety and emergency preparedness committee. Again, I am concerned that many of these correctional officers are not being listened to. In fact, Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, stated that they were not consulted on Bill C-83. We have a leader of one of the unions of correctional officers, and his frustration is that the Liberal government has not consulted. The Correctional Investigator has said:What I would agree with is that there has been very little detail provided by the Correctional Service or the government on how this [Bill C-83] is going to be implemented. If you read the proposed bill as it's currently written, there's a lot of stuff that seems to be pushed to regulation, as prescribed by regulations. We don't know what those regulations would look like. I think that's why there's a lot of uneasiness about this particular piece of legislation. Given the findings of the OAG, I believe that this uneasiness with respect to the safety and security of Canadians extends well beyond Bill C-83. I certainly know, from the number of calls and emails I have received from correctional workers, that considerable uneasiness exists in the Drumheller Institution. The reason for that anxiety ranges from concerns about their safety and their colleagues' safety to pay issues around Phoenix. I currently have 70 files, some inactive, on Phoenix. (1530)We have a bill now that would affect correctional officers, and they are bemoaning the fact that the government is not listening.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConditional releaseCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthParole supervisionPrivate consultationsReport stageSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWomen579173357917345791735579173657917375791738579173957917405791741579174257917435791744579174557917465791747579174857917495791750579175157917525791753JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, I am sure that my friend and colleague can recall the approach to governance of former prime minister Stephen Harper. Under a deficit-reduction action plan, the Conservatives actually cut $846 million from CSC in their last term. How did that help rehabilitation and public safety?The Conservatives talk a big line, but they cut hundreds of millions of dollars. How do they reconcile the support they supposedly have for correctional officers and public safety when they had that sort of massive cut in the dying years of Stephen Harper's government?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57917545791755KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson: (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into the long issues with the current government. The Liberals came in promising low deficits, a cap on deficits, and the Liberals have thrown every plan out the window and just thrown money at every problem. The problem is that when it comes to corrections, my colleague tells me that over the next three years, the government is saying that it is going to cut over $200 million. The Liberals are going to cut from public safety and from the Correctional Service Canada file.I know one thing. Sometimes when governments look, they try to find ways to streamline programs. When a program is in they come in with new programs. There is always a shuffling around of funding. I think every Canadian understands now that when the Conservative Party was in power, the Conservatives cared about law and order. They were concerned about a justice system. They were concerned about a correctional penal system. They understood that our guiding principle always has been the protection of society and making sure that dangerous offenders are in a penitentiary, not the 9,100 we see out under community supervision somewhere.There are massive differences of opinion between the current government and our former government, but make no mistake. All Canadians understand that when it came to law and order, policing and the issues that deal with prisons, parole, police and CSIS, the Conservative government got it, and they got public safety.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5791756579175757917585791759KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, there is a large philosophical gap between those who see our prisons as correctional facilities, with the hope that people will re-enter the population, and the notion of “tough on crime” we heard through the Harper years. Because my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot is, in fact, a friend, I will ask him this. The cuts that occurred in the Harper years included eliminating the chaplaincy program in our prisons. They also included eliminating the farm program, prison farms, so that people who had been convicted of crimes could get outdoors and do a good day's work, as I know my hon. colleague does, where he lives in the Prairies, on his farm. Do we not all in this place owe it to people who find themselves incarcerated to try to get them on a path to being able to take up a job in society again? Can we not stop saying that if they are in prison, they must be in the worst possible conditions, and find those conditions that actually lead to their being able to play a useful role in society? Why cancel the chaplaincy program? Why get rid of prison farms?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579176057917615791762KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootKevinSorensonHon.Battle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson: (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, I can recall that when we looked at the prison farm program, one of the interesting components of what we noticed when that program was phased out was that there were very few people, after being integrated and rehabilitated, who ever went out and became employed on a farm. Any of the great lessons they would have learned while they were out working on someone's farm were not necessarily lessons that enhanced opportunities for them to get jobs after. There were different programs, such as carpentry and welding. More resources were put into those programs, because that is where the jobs were when these individuals left the penitentiary system.I am personally not in favour of cutting a chaplaincy program. The faith component is one that does help with rehabilitation. However, that was the answer on the farm program.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57917635791764ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand to speak once again on Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The Liberals seem to have a long history and a running streak of putting forward bills focusing more on criminals' rights than on those of the victims, and in some ways this bill seems to be another one of those. It is mostly a poorly thought-out bill that provides no resources or thoughts to employee safety among those working in correction services.The government should have spent time consulting with CSC workers, figuring out how it could reconfigure the prisons and how it would also pay for all of these changes. Bill C-83 is another example of the government making a big announcement and thinking that everything ends at the announcement, that everything is done, without putting any planning behind it.We have seen this with the government and its infrastructure program. It announces $180 billion in infrastructure spending, but kind of overlooks the fact that $90 billion of it was commitments from the previous government. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is not able to locate within the budget or the estimates a significant amount of the spending. The Senate committee did a study on the infrastructure spending, and it said that the only metric for success in infrastructure was how much money was spent, not how many roads were built or how many highways were upgraded; it was just how much money was spent.We see the same thing from the Liberals with their housing plan. They make grandiose announcements, standing in this House again and again to say it is $40 billion. Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer, reported that it is actually about $1.5 billion. The Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary responsible for housing stood up in this House and said that a million families have been helped under this plan, believing that if they just make an announcement, then everything happens. It turns out that if we look at the departmental results plan, it was 7,500 families helped, not a million.We see this again and again. Bill C-83 is no different. I will get to that later.There are some things in Bill C-83 that I can support. The Liberal government is much like a broken watch, which is correct twice a day, and sometimes the government can be correct in its bills. The bill calls for body scanners to prevent contraband and drugs from getting into the prison. I fully support that. I wish the Liberals would modify it so that everyone coming in gets a body scan. However, I do have to agree with the people I have talked to at corrections services. Why are we trying to stop drugs, but at the same time bringing in and handing out needles to the prisoners? These are needles that we have heard are being used as weapons against CSC workers.I also like the fact that Bill C-83 gives more consideration to indigenous offenders. It is no secret that the indigenous population is overrepresented in prisons, and that has to be addressed, so I do agree with that measure. However, there are too many parts of the bill that would negatively impact the safety of corrections officers. We all know of the Ashley Smith situation, which was a tragedy, and the government should do everything in its power to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. However, a poorly thought-out plan and an underfunded bill that just bans segregation is not the answer.We have to keep in mind that it is not just inmates who are committing crimes who are going into segregation. Often it is a victim. They are put in there to assure their safety by moving them away from their abuser. They obviously do not want to name their abuser because of prison rules, so to speak, so the assaults continue unless the victim is moved into segregation. Unfortunately, that person eventually has to desegregate back into the prison system or change prisons. Nothing in Bill C-83 addresses that issue.A CBC report says segregation is not the deterrent it once was. Prisoners now receive all of their possessions, their television and all of their belongings, within 24 hours of being put in segregation. Another CBC report quoted a couple of corrections officers. One of them stated that whereas the more violent inmates used to be in separate containers, now they are all in one bag, so they are just waiting for one to go off. That sets the rest of them off, and they end up with murder, stabbings, slashing, and officer injuries higher than ever.Another one is saying that the inmates can get away with a lot more than they used to in the past, and that contributes to the growing violence and the crisis in corrections. Another says that all removing segregation does, especially disciplinary segregation, is soften reprisals for bad behaviour. Inmates know there is one less tool for corrections officers to use to maintain order and ensure their own safety.(1540)In September 2017, with respect to a provincial study that I imagine would also cover federal, the CBC reported a massive upswing, a 50% increase, in inmate assaults over the five years that segregation had been removed or reduced. Under this proposal, whenever inmates move from segregation to have their additional hours in the open, two officers will be needed to escort them. I have to ask where those resources will come from. If I look at the manpower figures in the departmental plan for the Correctional Service of Canada, which shows what its budget would be several years out, I see that the figures are identical in 2021 to what they are now. We are planning all this extra work for the officers, but there is no plan to provide extra officers. In fact, if we look at the plan, which has been signed off by the Minister of Public Safety himself, we see that the Liberals have cut the number of officers on staff from what it was when the Harper government was in charge. Again, where are the resources coming from?As well, where are the added dollars coming from to renovate these new cells? I have heard the Minister of Public Safety stand and say that there is $80 million from the last budget and $400 million in the estimates. That is fine, but when we look at the departmental plans, again we see that from last year in 2017 to this year, the Liberals have cut $152.5 million from corrections services, and in the next couple of years, they are cutting an additional $225 million. If they are spending $400 million on renovations and resources and the end result is $225 million less, where is the missing $600 million? I am sure the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be unable to find where this money is, as was the case with the missing infrastructure money.Getting back to the departmental plans, these plans lay out the priorities for the government for this department. Again, the plans are reviewed and signed by the Minister of Public Safety. In this plan, there are 20 priorities, yet not a single one mentions or addresses officer safety or the safety of anyone working for corrections services.The government, when discussing Bill C-83, brags about how it is the first time ever it has given the head of Correctional Services of Canada a mandate letter. I looked at the mandate letter. There are 1,400 words in the mandate letter for the head of the CSC. Let us keep in mind the government is so proud of this letter. Of the 1,400 words, 24 are about victims of crime, and just 52 are about the safety or well-being of corrections officers. The 52 words include this gem: “I encourage you to instill within CSC a culture of ongoing self-reflection.”Can members imagine an inmate coming at them with a knife or a needle? What would their response be? If we looked it up in the manual, we would find “self-reflection”. Self-reflection sounds like something that would be more appropriate after being confronted after having groped someone at a concert, not when dealing with inmates in a criminal institution.The president of the union of correctional officers, Rob Finucan, described how a guard in the Millhaven Institution was slashed across the face with a shard or knife. Why? It was because of the new rule that inmates can only be handcuffed in front and not behind. The inmate was cuffed and being moved to segregation. He had a shard of glass or a knife with him and cut across the face of the officer. Luckily, the officer's eye was not lost, but that happened because of rules we are putting into effect without any consideration for the officers.In the minute I have left, I will end with the money set aside for mental health for inmates in the last budget. No one can argue with that, as it is obviously a very important issue. Money has also been put aside for mental health for RCMP officers. There is 40% more money put aside per capita for inmates than for RCMP officers. That sums up the government's priorities in a nutshell: more money for criminals, less for the RCMP and less for our valued officers in prisons. I think it is time for the government to show some self-reflection on this issue.Aboriginal peoplesBudget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersInfrastructureMental healthMillimetre wave scannersNeedle exchange programPrivate consultationsReport stageSafetySocial housingSolitary confinementWorkplace health and safety5791765579176657917675791768579176957917705791771579177257917735791774579177557917765791777579177857917795791780579178157917825791783579178457917855791786579178757917885791789KevinSorensonHon.Battle River—CrowfootLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, the summary by the hon. member across the way at the very end was interesting in its reference to less money for the RCMP and correctional services. Is the previous government's $300-million cut to correctional services and the RCMP, as well as cuts to emergency services, the route he wants us to take, similar to what the previous Harper government had done?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5791790KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, I will repeat what I stated. In its budget, the government is putting aside 40% more per capita for mental health for inmates than it is for RCMP officers serving and protecting Canadians. The priority of the government seems to be putting inmates ahead of those who are on the streets risking their lives for Canadians. It is wrong.Continuing on to his comments about cuts, I suggest he read his own government's departmental plan. Obviously, the Minister of Public Safety has not read it, even though he signed off on it. Over the next couple of years, the government is reducing the corrections budget by $225 million, on top of the $152.5 million that it cut from last year to this year. Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57917915791792LloydLongfieldGuelphHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the criticisms we heard over and over again during the process of getting this bill to report stage is about the lack of consultation with stakeholders, with the correctional officers' union and with the Correctional Services of Canada ombudsman. One of the other criticisms was that because of the lack of consultation and the rushed method in which this bill is being brought forward, many of the legislative pieces that should be nailed down more precisely are going to be left to the regulatory process. As chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee, I can attest to the fact that too often the regulations on any of these bills go way beyond the mandate that the legislature intended. Could my colleague comment on the lack of consultation with the people who are going to be impacted by this bill—the correctional officers on the front lines whose safety is at stake—and also on the lack of a proper legislative framework to ensure the regulatory process is authorized? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPrivate consultationsReport stage579179357917945791795KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up a very valid point about the lack of consultation. Throughout the day we have heard a lot of quotes from various correctional services workers about lack of consultation. One of them in my riding wrote to me and said, “I have lost all faith in my employer. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. No one should feel that way entirely.”On top of that, we have the recently produced employee surveys for the entire government. In the case of correctional services, 51% of workers disagreed with the question that asked if they would describe their workplace as being psychologically healthy. Another question asked if employees felt the quality of their work suffered because of having to do the same or more work with fewer resources, and 53% of CSC workers are saying that they have been asked to do more with less resources, which is putting their safety at risk.The government should listen to its own survey. It should listen to its employees. There is a crisis going on with CSC, and it is not being addressed. As well, it is not being helped by bringing closure on debate of such an important bill as this one.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPrivate consultationsReport stage579179657917975791798HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1550)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the bill talks about structured intervention units. However, when we read Bill C-83, we see that it covertly replicates administrative segregation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit5791801CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: (1550)[Translation]One of the major differences is that inmates who spend 22 to 23 hours a day in segregation will now spend only 20 hours a day in segregation, but still for an indefinite period of time. A number of courts, including the courts in Ontario and British Columbia, found that to be unconstitutional.It is unconstitutional because inmates can be kept in segregation for an indefinite period of time and because there is no oversight. Without independent oversight, segregation can aggravate mental health problems and produce permanent negative mental health effects. It has been proven that many indicators of mental illness, such as psychosis and suicide attempts, can be seen as early as 48 hours after segregation. People have committed suicide because they were placed in— C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit57918085791809Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, I wish the member could continue, because she has brought up a lot of very valid questions about shortcomings in the bill. We need a lot more consultation with constitutional lawyers on this. We need a lot more consultation with the CSC unions and health care professionals. By shutting down debate and muzzling those people, the Liberals are doing a disservice to Canadians, including the inmates they are pretending to be helping and CSC workers.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit5791811CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for this informative debate. It is too bad our friends across the way, and I say “friends” loosely, have once again limited this debate. As I said earlier today in this debate, it has to be 60 times that the government has forced closure on debate on legislation. I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This legislation has been proposed to eliminate the administrative segregation in correctional facilities and to replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, which I will refer to as SIUs during my speech. The bill also introduces body scanners for inmates, sets parameters for access to health care, and formalizes exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues, among a few other things. It also expands on transfers and allows for the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary.I have risen to speak to this legislation a number of times and expressed the Conservatives' concerns. Our number one concern is consultation. No matter how many times our friends across the way say they have consulted thoroughly from coast to coast to coast on this, we know through witness testimony that witness after witness expressed serious concerns with this piece of legislation. Some of the comments were that it is flawed to the core.We always have concerns when we talk about the safety and security of those we entrust and empower to protect Canadians. Imagine that a correctional service guard reports to work and does not have all the tools required to do the job. We need to make sure first responders, and indeed correctional officers are first responders, are provided the tools and resources they need to do their job effectively and securely, but also to return home and remain healthy at all times. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has repeatedly voiced its concerns with this. As a matter of fact, the head of the national prison guards union predicts a bloodbath behind bars as the federal government moves to end solitary confinement in Canadian prisons. In a newspaper interview, the union president went on to explain that segregated inmates are supervised at a 2:1 guard-to-prisoner ratio when they are not in their units. He said, “No thought has been given to what measures we need to take to make sure no one gets hurt.” When he says “no one gets hurt”, he means the correctional officers who are tasked with making sure that Canadians remain safe and secure and that inmates remain safe and secure among the inmate population. He wants to make sure they have the tools to do their jobs.The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers last year wrote a letter to the minister and said that over the last year, over 140 violent attacks on correctional officers had taken place. Let us imagine being a security guard or correctional officer in charge of over 40 inmates. We heard the flowery language from our friends across the way when they said everybody deserves a chance. Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson are the kinds of people housed in solitary confinement.(1555)With this piece of legislation, Bill C-83, not only does the union have some serious concerns that it is not being listened to, but we also know that this program has not been fully costed out. As a matter of fact, Correctional Service Canada managers have been asked to review spending and find some efficiencies. Regardless of whether the Liberals say there is $448 million going to this program over six years, the managers have been asked to find some efficiencies.Every day, these officers go to work and their lives are put in jeopardy. They are there to protect Canadians. They are there to make sure that the worst of the worst stay behind bars. Whether it is Bill C-75 or Bill C-83, what we see with the government is that it is getting softer and softer on crime. Bill C-83 also looks at reclassification of certain crimes, to bring the prison population down from 12,000 to even less.On that point, I want to bring up a case I brought up earlier today to the minister, and that is the case of Cody Legebokoff. He is Canada's youngest serial killer. In Cariboo—Prince George, he is responsible for killing four young women. He killed Loren Leslie, age 15, Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko and Cynthia Maas. To this day, the Montgomerys are still trying to find out through the court system if Cody Legebokoff knows where the remains of their daughter are. He has refused to take any responsibility for this crime. He was sentenced at the end of 2014, yet we found out over the last month that he was transferred from maximum to medium security in early 2019, with very little notice. As a matter of fact, two of the four families did not receive any notification. In sentencing him, Justice Parrett said, “The injuries caused in each case were massive and disfiguring, the object of each attack appearing to be aimed at not simply killing the victims but degrading and destroying them.” Justice Parrett further said, “He lacks any shred of empathy or remorse,” and, “He should never be allowed to walk among us again.”Now we know that Legebokoff has been transferred to a prison here in Ontario from British Columbia, and even Correctional Service Canada's website, where it talks about transfers or the safety and security reclassification of inmates, says that assigning security classifications is “not an exact science”.We should be arming our front-line workers with every tool so that they can make the best decisions, and so they can remain safe and secure at all times. That means physically as well as mentally. How is it that we are now giving more rights to our criminals than to victims and their families, or to those we trust and empower to protect us?It is quite concerning when time after time we see our friends across the way stand up, put their hands on their hearts and say, “Trust us.” They say they have the best intentions to do well and are looking after Canadians, yet we see this type of misstep.Bill C-83 is yet another failed piece of legislation. The victims' families and the victims of crime deserve better, and so do our first responders and our correctional officers. All they are asking for is to be heard, yet the Liberal members continue to turn a blind eye and cover their ears when those concerns are being voiced.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemDangerous offendersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersParliamentary democracyPrivate consultationsPublic consultationReport stageWorkplace health and safety5791812579181357918145791815579181657918175791818579181957918205791821579182257918235791824579182557918265791827KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has risen a number of times today to criticize the government for the lack of time that has been allowed for debate. However, approximately one minute into his speech, he said, “I have risen to speak to this legislation a number of times,” as members can review through the record.The bill has, in fact, been before the House on a number of occasions. It went to first reading in October. The bill then went to second reading on October 23. It then went to committee, where committee members had the opportunity to study it and provide feedback for the House's consideration. It then came back to the House for report stage, and we are now finally at third reading.Why does the member stand up time and time again to make the criticism that there is a lack of opportunity to participate in debate on the bill, even though by his own words he has had the opportunity to speak to the bill on a number of occasions?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersParliamentary democracyReport stage579182857918295791830ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way has monopolized a ton of time on the other side, but I want to get back to this flawed piece of legislation, Bill C-83. There are serious concerns. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has said its members are not being heard.The needle exchange is one area we did not discuss. We talk about providing tools and resources to ensure that we are keeping our correctional officers safe, yet the government is allowing needles to freely enter our correctional system. There are no restrictions in that respect. Inmates can go back to their cells to do drugs, and there is no onus on them to bring the needles back. Let us imagine a correctional officer having to go into a cell to do an administrative check or a security check. The officer does not know whether there is a needle with bodily fluids in it, or whether the sharp end of a needle might be used as a weapon.That is shameful. These are concerns that the correctional service union has brought up time and time again, and the government, including our hon. colleague across the way, refused to listen.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersParliamentary democracyReport stage5791831579183257918335791834MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsKarineTrudelJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88488KarineTrudelKarine-TrudelJonquièreNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/TrudelKarine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Karine Trudel (Jonquière, NDP): (1605)[Translation]Madam Speaker, amendments were made to the bill at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Out of the 22 amendments proposed by the NDP, only two were adopted. It was the same thing for the Conservatives. Out of the 16 amendments they proposed, only one was adopted. However, all 21 Liberal amendments were adopted.I want to know if my colleague thinks that the Liberals were reasonable in their review of the Conservative and NDP amendments.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57918355791836ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I should have mentioned this. When the Liberals stand in the House, they look straight into the camera and tell the Canadians listening in and those in the gallery to trust them, as they have everyone's interests at heart. They always talk about working collaboratively with all parties, telling us we should let committees do the good work they do. However, witness after witness has expressed serious concerns about this, and the bill does not reflect those concerns.Our friends in the NDP and in the official opposition have always attacked the Liberals' pieces of legislation faithfully, trusting our friends across the way. Sadly, time after time, that trust, just like in everything else the government has done, has been broken by their not allowing the amendments through.We are always told that the Liberals know best. While they like to talk a good game, their actions leave us wanting, for sure. It is shameful that Bill C-83 is being rushed through, and that the serious recommendations and requests from the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers are not being heard at all.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579183757918385791839KarineTrudelJonquièreHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This piece of legislation proposes to do the following: eliminate administrative segregation in correctional facilities; replace these facilities with new structured intervention units, or SIUs; introduce body scanners for inmates; set the parameters of access to health care; and formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health issues.On any given day in Canada there are roughly 40,000 prisoners in custody. From coast to coast, there are eight maximum security facilities, 19 medium security facilities, 15 minimum and 10 multidisciplinary facilities. Canada has 18,000 Canadian government employees looking after these prisoners, of which 10,000 are on the front line. These are either correctional officers, parole officers or health care workers.While I do not sit on the committee that reviewed this piece of legislation, I have been made aware of some very striking testimony by the Correctional Service Canada ombudsman, as well as many stakeholders, including these front-line workers who faithfully serve every day.It is clear that the Liberal government, which campaigned on engaging and consulting with Canadians, has thrown all intentions of such actions out the window, as there was clearly very little of it done in this case, if any. Prominent witnesses, such as the CSC ombudsman, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, and civil liberties and indigenous groups, all commented on the lack of consultation and their concern that too much of the legislation is being left to regulation.I just want to touch on that for a few seconds because, as co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee, I can testify to the importance of the fact that any law that is passed in the House has to have an adequate legislative framework so that the regulations are actually authorized by the legislation that is passed. All too often, we have examples from various departments across the Government of Canada where regulatory mechanisms are put in place and actually enacted, in some cases, for many years without the adequate legislative authority for them to do that. It is very important that adequate legislative authority is given here, yet we have had many of our witnesses testify to the fact that this is the case in this situation and there is not adequate legislative authority.Ivan Zinger, the Correctional Investigator of Canada had this to say: All the consultations seem to have been done internally. To my knowledge, there have been no consultations with external stakeholders. I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.The Elizabeth Fry Societies said this was a bad bill. It said that structural intervention units are not needed, that it failed to focus on the programs and that there was a lack of oversight. It is concerned about proposed section 81, due to the workings of indigenous governing bodies.The John Howard Society calls it a bad bill. It wanted to know what the difference was between solitary confinement and structural intervention. It said there was no difference. The bill changed the words but did not change anything. That sounds pretty familiar with the government over the last three and a half years. There are great sounding words but very little action and very little follow-through. This is not the first time that the Liberal Government has ignored consultations with the corrections community while unilaterally implementing its own ideological beliefs. Another time occurred at the Grand Valley Institution for Women, which is close to my riding. This correctional facility was one of two in Canada that was mandated to implement a prisoner needle exchange program, putting both correctional officers, as well as other inmates at risk. On Monday, June 25, a needle exchange program was introduced to the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Kitchener. It is very concerning that the Liberal government commanded Correctional Service Canada to approve this program, which sends the wrong message to prisoners, to victims of crime and to all Canadians. This program will give prisoners who are convicted of violent crimes access to needles in order to inject themselves with substances that are illegal among the general public, as well as in prison.(1610)I agree with the Ontario regional president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Rob Finucan, who raised the concern that this program puts correctional officers in harm's way and is forcing officers to turn a blind eye to illegal activity in the prison system. I realize that illegal drugs make their way into our prison system and that there are nearly 1,500 drug seizures in prisons each year. However, the solution to this is not to turn a blind eye but rather to effectively enforce Correctional Service Canada's zero tolerance policy.The previous Conservative government took action and cracked down on this problem by increasing random drug testing, investing significantly in drug interdiction and creating tough mandatory prison sentences for selling drugs in prisons. My constituents and all Canadians would like to see more of this action, not the normalization of the use of illegal drugs in prisons.We also need to be investing far more in treatment and in prevention programs. I have on my desk a petition from constituents all across Canada who are calling on the government to end this prisoner needle exchange program. I have not had time to table this petition yet, partly because of moving to orders of the day and then closure motions. These petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to end this prisoner needle exchange program. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers was not consulted on this plan, which puts its members and the Canadian public at risk. The previous Conservative government passed the Drug-Free Prisons Act, which revokes parole for those who are caught using drugs behind bars. Under the new regulations, an inmate who is approved for the prisoner needle exchange program is not even required to disclose to the Parole Board that he or she is in the program.The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety to end the prisoner needle exchange program and implement measures that would increase the safety of correctional officers and the surrounding community.The first and most important role of any government is to keep its citizens safe, not focusing on making criminals' lives more comfortable. I will always focus my efforts on giving victims a strong voice in the justice system and ensure that convicted criminals do face the full force of the law.Unfortunately, we have also seen this heavy-handed decision by the Liberal health minister to force communities that do not want them to have so-called safe injection sites. Canadian families expect safe and healthy communities in which to raise their children. The Respect for Communities Act, which was introduced by the previous Conservative government, gave police, residents and municipal leaders a say when it came to opening an injection site within their communities.Dangerous and addictive drugs tear families apart. They promote criminal behaviour and they destroy lives. Instead of making it easier for drug addicts to consume drugs, the Liberal government should support treatment and recovery programs to get addicts off drugs and enact heavy mandatory minimum sentences to crack down on drug traffickers.I do hope that the Liberal government will stop and consider the negative message that this needle exchange program is sending and reverse this policy as quickly as possible for the sake of correctional officers and inmates, as well as citizens of the Region of Waterloo and in fact all Canadians.It is also important to note that since learning of this program, my office has been in contact with Jason Godin, head of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who has been expressing his anger that his members were not consulted on a matter that directly affects their safety. They were not consulted, a common complaint with this legislation in spite of all the flowery language earlier in the 2015 campaign that the Liberals would be a government that would consult Canadians widely.I have also received petitions from inmates at the Grand Valley Institution for Women who are against this program as it increases the risk to them.One of the more profound statements that I have read recently on this was in a newspaper article by Jason Godin. He was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying, “attacks on guards and inmates have been increasing as the use of segregation has decreased ahead of new legislation to change the prison system.”There are many reasons not to support this bad piece of legislation but let me summarize our position this way.We on this side of the House are opposed to the inaction in regard to ensuring that high-risk offenders are not transferred to low-security facilities. The legislation would empower the commissioner to sub-designate parts of prisons, which could lead to more cases where higher security prisoners are kept in a lower security space based on technicalities.It is also concerning that the Liberals are moving away from segregation particularly as a deterrent to bad behaviour, as it strips front-line officers of tools to manage difficult prisoners. The legislation lacks support from every major stakeholder who appeared before committee, from left to right—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programPublic consultationReport stageSafe injection sitesSafetySolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5791840579184157918425791843579184457918455791846579184757918485791849579185057918515791852579185357918545791855579185657918575791858579185957918605791861579186257918635791864579186557918665791867ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, in his speech the member talked about the role of government and how one of the most, if not the most, important role of government is to keep its citizens safe. I could not disagree with him more. On this side of the House, we believe that when people are incarcerated, we as society have a role to properly rehabilitate individuals so they can be reintegrated into society as productive contributing members of society in those communities. The Conservative approach, and what we are hearing from them, is one where they want to lock people up, leave them in there until their sentences have expired and then let them out into the public. How can he possibly suggest that such a plan and such a position on rehabilitation, their lack of interest in doing that, really at the end of the day ensures that citizens are properly protected when those inmates are released years down the road? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57918705791871CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, that is a very naive question, because he is assuming these are mutually exclusive. Keeping Canadians safe and implementing treatment and recovery programs go hand in hand. In fact, I said that in my speech. The Liberal government should support treatment and recovery programs to get addicts off drugs. Of course we want prisoners rehabilitated. Of course we want them to reintegrate into society. However, we want to be sure that before they do that, it is safe to do so. We had an example this summer where a high-risk offender was transferred far prematurely to a low or medium-security facility. We agree that perhaps toward the end of a sentence, at six months or a year before the end of a sentence, there should be some of those programs, but to do it eight years before the sentence ends is foolhardy. I will go back and say that, yes, the responsibility of government is to protect its citizens while at the same time ensuring rehabilitation and recovery treatment programs. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579187257918735791874MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1620)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks of the fact that many of the inmates who are put in administrative segregation for an indeterminate amount of time, sometimes up to 23 hours a day, suffer from mental health problems.In my opinion, it would make more sense to give them access to mental health services and programs to address the root causes of these problems instead of exacerbating them by placing the inmates in administrative segregation. In fact, when they are released, they pose a public health threat. It makes no sense to propose such a solution in our prisons. Should the government not review these measures, which have also been deemed unconstitutional?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement579187557918765791877HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, again, we are assuming they are mutually exclusive. We can have adequate mental health services along with appropriate segregation that keeps a prisoner from harming himself or others. However, at the same point, we need adequate personnel to provide the human contact the prisoner needs, not only to protect the prisoner but to actually engage in rehabilitation and treatment programs. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement5791878Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, a quote from one of the CSC officers says, “We are the ones working the ranges, day in and day out, 24-7, yet we have to wait for a decision from our managers as to whether we're going to act or respond to a specific behaviour”. In the public service survey 77% of correctional service officers said their work suffers because of overly complicated or unnecessary procedures imposed by the government. My colleague talked a lot about the lack of consultation on the bill. I wonder if he could expand on that and how it is hurting such issues at hand. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57918795791880HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, as I said in my comments earlier, I used to represent the riding where Grand Valley prison facility is housed, but the changes to the boundaries in the last election moved that. It is currently not in my riding, but it is next door. I have had the privilege of visiting the Grand Valley institution on a number of occasions and speaking with the front-line workers there. I have also had the privilege of speaking personally with Jason Godin, the chief of the correctional officers union. I know one of their major concerns is their own safety. When we implement these kinds of changes without consultation with them, this is where the big problem lies. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageWorkplace health and safety57918815791882KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on Bill C-83, a bill dealing with some of the rules around incarceration in Canada. I want to make a few general points about the principles that should guide our approach before I move to the particulars of the legislation itself.Our approach to criminal justice should affirm the dignity of the human person, which includes personal responsibility and the capacity to change. Both are key elements. Its primary goal should be rehabilitation and the protection of society, which obviously go together. If people are rehabilitated, then they no longer present a risk to society. If they are not rehabilitated, they can be a risk to those around them, even when they are in prison.It seems to me that both extremes in the criminal justice debate deny in some way the dignity of the person. Some believe individual criminality is necessarily the result of social factors as opposed to bad moral decision-making. Social factors can obviously contribute to a person's situation, but the extreme leftist analysis, which reduces everything to social factors, denies the dignity and agency of persons who are in vulnerable situations.No matter people's circumstances, they do have a choice. They have a choice to try to make the best out of their situation or on the other end, a choice to engage in criminal activity. It seems that this recognition of dignity, and therefore responsibility, is the necessary grounds of rehabilitation. People must recognize their own agency in order to turn their lives around.We also reject the extreme that those who commit crimes cannot turn their lives around. Some would want us to write people off too easily. However, our own life experience should teach us that people can change their patterns of behaviour for the better. Many people who have committed crimes can change, and there is a public interest and moral obligation for us to do all we can to help with the process. This means maximizing incentives and supports to people who are on that journey.A criminal justice policy that fully affirms human dignity, recognizing personal responsibility for crime and the ability to change, would assign sentences that are both tough and variable. Tough and variable sentences is an approach that ensures people who are rehabilitated can get back into society and contribute. However, people who refuse to take the steps necessary to turn their lives around remain in prison until they do. Providing strong incentives and program supports that maximize the chances of turnaround is indeed in everybody's interest.Our approach to sentencing should also take scarce resources into account. If people who are no longer a threat to society remain in prison, they are consuming resources that could be better spent on crime prevention programs, policing and rehabilitation. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown us that the average cost of incarcerating someone is about $115,000 a year. The average cost of segregation is $463,000 for a year.Incarcerating people, or putting them in segregation, should never be done lightly in any event. Even for guilty persons, we should only incarcerate them to the degree that the cost of their incarceration would more effectively advance public safety than any other expenditure of the same funds. Clearly because of the costs, the system should have an interest in avoiding incarceration and segregation whenever effective and less costly options exist.This analysis is not to penny-pinch for its own sake, but it is to recognize that there is an opportunity cost associated with any expenditure. Proactive policing and effective crime prevention is good for victims and public safety, so striking that right balance is indeed of critical importance.Some will point out that we can never know for sure if people will reoffend, which is true. However, when the likelihood to reoffend is very low, perhaps resources would be better used for other kinds of interventions, like more policing, which are more likely to advance public safety than continued incarceration.About a year ago, I had the opportunity to visit a prison in my riding and have some good dialogue with employees and inmates. A few points stuck with me from that visit. One is that there are a variety of programs available to people who are in prison and a variety of not-for-profit organizations, including many churches and other faith-based organizations, involved in connecting with and supporting inmates while in prison.The process of transition from prison to life back outside of prison can be a real challenge. Prison life is structured and regulated in a way that life outside is not. There are far more services inside than outside. The process of transition back to normal life often involves economic challenges and pressures, as well as the temptation to fall back into old social groups and patterns of behaviour. It seems to me that we need to look more at the area of transition and post-prison supports. How can we help people leverage new skills and experiences to find meaningful employment and develop a new peer group? How can we better partner with faith communities and other not-for-profits, recognizing that post-prison ministry is just as important as prison ministry?(1625)Speaking of skills that help with transition, the prison in my riding offers inmates the potential opportunity to seek trade certification. Inmates who get a trade certificate almost never return to prison, according to the staff I spoke to.That made me wonder. What if we built into our criminal justice a system a mechanism by which sentence lengths would be automatically adjusted if an inmate acquired a specific employment-related qualification? Inmates acquiring employment-related qualifications in areas of skill shortages in particular would help the economy. It would give employers a greater incentive to hire former inmates in cases where there would be a skill shortage. Therefore, perhaps there is an opportunity there for a win-win.There should be positive incentives associated with rehabilitation and with making choices to turn one's life around. There also needs to be negative incentives associated with bad and disruptive behaviour that creates problems for the rehabilitation and for creating an environment in a prison setting that is conducive to rehabilitation. That brings us to the question of administrative segregation.Bill C-83 would replace administrative segregation with something called, “structured intervention units”. We know that one of the Liberals' favourite things to do is to change the names of things, be it the universal child care benefit to the Canada child benefit. The workers' tax deduction had its name changed. Many existing programs had their names changed and the process relabelled under the current government. Certainly the critics of administrative segregation do not see a meaningful or sufficient difference between the old and the new forms of segregation. However, there are some specific differences. Whether they are sufficient is a question for us to debate. I will note the differences. The legislation would require that the person in the new Liberal rebranded form segregation to have a minimum of four hours per day out instead of two. It specifically mandates meaningful human contact.What is frustrating for me is that the government does not seem to have a plan associated with it to actually link these objectives with the resources that are required. So often we see the government's desire to brand itself on something. The Liberals are eliminating administrative segregation. However, they are simply making an adjustment with respect to the name, but there are not sufficient resources associated with the commitments they have made to deal with the reality that having four hours instead of two is significantly more costly from a policing and administrative perspective. If they mandate it without having the resources in place to deliver on that commitment, they risk the inmates and the prison itself. They risk creating an environment of much less safety in the prison because they have a requirement for people to be out of a segregated environment when they may be very dangerous, yet they do not have the resources to ensure that is policed in an effective way.It is interesting as well to have legislation that mandates meaningful human contact. It is interesting for the state to even be in the business of trying to define what is meaningful human contact and to mandate it. There are probably many people who are not in prison, who for various reasons with respect to life circumstances would like to have that much meaningful human contact and do not. The goal of rehabilitation should be to get people to a place and disposition where they are able to reconnect with and have meaningful connections with people in their lives. Although it is a laudable objective, I question what the legislation could mean and how the government would propose to operationalize this requirement of meaningful human contact.I will close with this. In the area of criminal justice policy, there might actually have been an opportunity for some cross-party co-operation if the government had listened to the arguments we were making and understood the need for balance; that is a criminal justice policy that affirms human dignity, recognizing personal responsibility as well as the ability for people to change and recognizing the need to properly resource the proposals it is putting forward. Instead, we have an inadequate bill that serves to meet a branding exercise. The Liberals want to say that they have done away with a particular aspect of prison life when they do not have a plan to resource it, they do not have a plan for public safety and they are not interested in the kind of meaningful, substantive reforms that people across the spectrum are looking for, the kinds of sentencing reforms on which we could potentially co-operate on. Again, we are not seeing those ideas proposed by the government.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCostsCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit57918835791884579188557918865791887579188857918895791890579189157918925791893579189457918955791896579189757918985791899579190057919015791902579190357919045791905HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that the courts in both British Columbia and Ontario have struck down the administrative provisions for segregation. If those laws take effect, which they are scheduled to do in the coming months, it would make segregation no longer an option. I find it extremely concerning that the Conservatives continue to support this approach.The member talked about rehabilitation and how much the Conservatives were in favour of that. He even went on to talk about maximizing supports and incentives. That is interesting. If we look back at the last Conservative government and its legislation and policy, it did the exact opposite. The Conservatives removed things like prison farms, which were incredible at building social, valuable life skills. That was the testimony of many inmates who had been in and out of prison. After going through that program, they developed those skills and were able to become positive contributing members of society. I am curious if the member could expand on that and share a little about these maximizing supports and incentives that the previous Conservative was able to bring aboard. If not, maybe he could suggest what some of those could be with his suggested policy.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579190657919075791908GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the member, his question betrays a real lack of understanding of what our role is as members of Parliament and what we are supposed to be doing. We are here to advance our own views about policy issues and to outline ideas and visions for moving us forward. That is exactly what I have done.With respect to the member's criticisms, as well as those of other members of the government, about criminal justice policies that were pursued in the past, most of the policies around mandatory minimum sentences were supported and voted for by the Liberal caucus. It is very interesting to hear those members complain about some of the effects of that. They complain about money allocated to build new prisons and so forth, but then in every case, they voted for the sentencing bills around mandatory minimums that came forward. We unfortunately see a lot of hypocrisy from the government on this issue. I want to comment on what the member said about administrative segregation. The courts have quite rightly criticized cases in which the administration of segregation was not effective. This does mean that it cannot be administered effectively and certainly it would be administered less effectively with a government mandating policies that it does not have a plan to resource.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579190957919105791911MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsKarineTrudelJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88488KarineTrudelKarine-TrudelJonquièreNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/TrudelKarine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Karine Trudel (Jonquière, NDP): (1635)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague's opinion on the follow remarks by Senator Pate.I will read a few excerpts.Bill C-83 also maintains the status quo regarding a lack of effective external oversight of correctional decision making. Under the new legislation, all decision making regarding when and how long prisoners are to be segregated will be made by a CSC administrator without the review of any third party.She adds:This change represents another step away from Justice Louise Arbour's recommendation for judicial oversight of corrections following the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston.I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stage579191257919135791914579191557919165791917GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague is right to say that the government is not moving in a particularly dramatic way, that it wants to say it has eliminated administrative segregation but has rebranded it. The system is relatively similar except the Liberals are mandating a greater number of hours for which the resources are not sufficient to address that.The member's proposal is one that I would want to study further before taking a definitive position on, but it is certainly an interesting idea for exploration. The principle of oversight to some degree makes sense. It is just a question of the logistics around its use in the particular way in which she has discussed it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stage57919185791919KarineTrudelJonquièreDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, it is good to be here this afternoon. It is unfortunate that we do not have a stronger bill with a little better content in it, but we will deal with what we have today. As usual, this is the kind of thing we have had to face with the government. It should be no surprise to us that it is in the chaos it is in, because we see a fairly consistent presentation that leads to bills that are this weak. I will talk about those weaknesses later. The bill is basically a knee-jerk reaction to two Supreme Court decisions. The Liberals decided to play both sides of that game, so they are appealing those decisions at the same time as they are bringing forward whole new legislation. I think the public needs to understand that. Unfortunately, on this bill, they have missed the boat both on content and knowledge. We heard that from witnesses who came forward at committee. Witness after witness said that, first of all, they were not consulted, and second, the bill was not going in the right direction and needed to be reworked or thrown out, set aside or whatever.One of the things the Liberals have done consistently since they have come to power is bring things forward and then actually look at them and decide whether they are worth bringing forward. Then they start to get people's opinions and they find out that they are on the wrong track. Then they start to backtrack and begin to amend their legislation. Once it comes back in here, they start forcing it through. We are here today on a bill with time allocation. The Liberals not only brought in time allocation at report stage but have already brought it in for third reading as well. We have seen this many times before, and we are seeing it here today. Fortunately, on some of these occasions, the Liberals have actually set bills aside and decided that they were not going to see them through. I guess electoral reform would be one of those that was obvious. Bill C-69 is another one that people across this country are begging the Liberals to set aside, because it would basically destroy the energy industry in Canada if they brought it through. Sometimes they can listen, but usually they find it very difficult to do that. It is ironic that we have time allocation today, because had we had petitions today, I wanted to bring one forward. It is an electronic petition, E-1886. I found it fascinating that over 10,000 people signed this petition. It is an electronic petition from people across Canada, and it has to do with this issue. This morning I asked a question of the public safety minister. He has been here for a long time. He was here before I was. One of the things he was part of before I came here was an attack on and actually the jailing of western Canadian farmers. These were farmers who had said that they would like to sell their own grain. One of them had donated one bushel of grain to a 4-H club in Montana. The public safety minister was one of those ministers who led the charge against those farmers. By the time they were done, they had five departments of the government working against individual Canadians. The CRA was involved. Justice was involved. Immigration was involved. The RCMP was firmly involved. Members can read stories of what happened in a couple of books by Don Baron. He writes about raids on people's farms in the middle of the night and their trying to confiscate their equipment, and those kinds of things. The public safety minister was then the agriculture minister. I asked him why it seems that every time we turn around, he is going after regular law-abiding Canadians. We see this again with the initiative coming from the other side on handguns, which have been very restricted since the 1930s. People in Canada use them for sport. Many people across Canada have gone through the process to be licenced. This government seems bound and determined to try to make some sort of criminals out of handgun owners across this country. Again, my question to him was why he continued to come after law-abiding citizens, especially when on the other side, they are not all that interested, it seems, in actually protecting people from criminals.That brings me back to my petition. Everyone is familiar with the case of Terri-Lynne McClintic, who was convicted of first degree murder in the horrific abduction, rape and murder of eight-year-old Tori Stafford. She was moved from a secure facility to a healing lodge without fences, where the government confirmed the presence of children. She is not eligible for parole until 2031. The Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge, which happens to be in my riding, lacks the necessary security measures to ensure the safety of local citizens in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan and surrounding areas. (1640)Over 10,000 people across Canada called on the Government of Canada to exercise its moral and political authority to ensure that this decision was reversed and could not be allowed to happen again in other situations. We all know that it took the government weeks before it would acknowledge that there was a problem with this transfer, and in the end, it semi-reversed that transfer. The interesting thing is that some of the same things are in Bill C-83. Right at the beginning, subclause 2(1) says, “the Service uses the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders”. There is no sense of some sort of disciplinary activity taking place in our prisons. The government says it has to find the least restrictive and most friendly way to treat people being held in our prisons right now.I could go through many of the provisions of this bill. It talks about prisoners receiving the most effective programs, but when the minister was asked if there was a costing for this, he said that the government had not done costing on the bill. We can talk all day long about effective programs and health care, which this bill does, but if it was not costed before it was brought forward, how would the government even know what it would be expected to provide? The bill talks about the criteria for the selection of the penitentiary. It says that it must be the “least restrictive environment” for the person. Correctional Service Canada has to deliberately run around and try to find the least restrictive place to put people. Many of these people are very dangerous individuals. Some of these people are actually bad people. I heard some heckling from the other side basically implying that they are not and that they can all be reformed if we treat them well, and if we ask for their opinions, they will give us good, solid opinions, we will all get along and we can hold hands and sing songs. The reality is that there are some people in these prisons who are very bad people and do not deserve to be running around as they choose.One of the strange changes in this bill would allow the commissioner to designate a penitentiary or any section of a penitentiary as any level of security he or she chooses. That is very strange. The Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge is a minimum security prison on the edge of the Cypress Hills area. It is a beautiful location right at the edge of the trees. There are no fences around it. There is a series of cottages. The women right now spend time in the cottages. They have programming in the main lodge. Does that mean that the commissioner can designate one of those cottages a maximum security unit without changing the security level of the facilities or anything else and just say it is now a maximum-level unit, and someone can be put there who is supposed to be in a maximum security prison? All of us would put our heads in our hands and say that this is a crazy idea. Within prisons there are some people who do not want to be in the general population. They are okay with being segregated. There are a number of reasons that might happen. One is that they may get hurt or injured themselves. The second is that they may hurt or injure someone else. They do not want to be put back into the general population of the prison. This bill basically says that the department has to continually work to do everything it can to put them back into general population.A common theme throughout Bill C-83 and legislation on crime the Liberals keep bringing forward is that they want to try to make life easier for the most difficult prisoners. They should be looking at public safety. They should look at the people who work in the prisons. Why do Liberals not ever seem to focus on them instead of trying to find a way to hug a thug. They seem to really enjoy doing that.This bill contains a lot of rhetoric and very few specifics. We were told that it was not costed. Once again, it is a demonstration of how soft the Liberals are on crime and how willing they are to close their eyes to reality. This is a series of promises that again will not be kept. This bill should be set aside. It is unfortunate that the government has moved time allocation for the 60th or 70th time to force this bill through.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCostsDangerous offendersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinementWorkplace health and safety579192057919215791922579192357919245791925579192657919275791928579192957919305791931579193257919335791934GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, I have heard members of the opposition say that this is a branding exercise, that there are not dramatic changes and that it is just a lot of rhetoric. I have to say that having studied this bill, I could not be more proud of it. I actually believe, firmly in my heart, that years from now, not only federal institutions but provincial institutions and institutions around the world will be looking at Canada for the way we have ended segregation. When the minister appeared at committee, he was asked if it had been costed. That was prior to the fall economic statement, when $448 million was allocated to implement the revised SIUs.I am wondering if any of the members have actually read the bill to see that there is oversight in it. It is actually my amendment. If this is such a terrible plan to end administrative segregation in prisons, what would you propose we do?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit579193557919365791937DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. David Anderson: (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, we understand that you would certainly have the capacity to answer that question, if you chose to.Once again, the Liberals are hiding, as my colleague pointed out a little earlier, by changing the name of something and making it pretty much exactly the same thing. The Liberals are going to change what used to be solitary confinement to structured intervention units. If there is one thing the government is good at, it is finding acronyms and these kinds of things so that it can disguise what is actually going on.The reality is that it is not going to change things a lot. The other reality is that the government is actually appealing the decisions made by the court. Apparently, if it wins, the Liberals will go back to the other system anyhow.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit579193957919405791941CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingSheriBensonSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89090SheriBensonSheri-BensonSaskatoon WestNew Democratic Party CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BensonSheri_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West, NDP): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not believe the member and I would see eye to eye on many things on the issue of public safety and corrections. One thing the member mentioned in his speech on which we could agree is that the changes the government is proposing to solitary confinement are really cosmetic, and they did not get the support of witnesses who came to the committee.I also want to remind the hon. member that many of the issues we are facing around safety in corrections, for both staff and inmates, have come from years of underfunding and from over-incarcerating people, particularly indigenous people from our province of Saskatchewan.I have two questions for my hon. colleague. First, does he support the Supreme Court ruling that solitary confinement, or the euphemistic term, “administrative segregation”, is unconstitutional? Does the member agree with that?Second, does the member agree with the evidence that shows that for those people who have mental health issues, and that group of people in prisons in extremely large, solitary confinement, or administrative segregation, actually exacerbates people's mental health symptoms and causes more harm than good?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement5791942579194357919445791945DavidAndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsDavidAndersonCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1795DavidAndersonDavid-AndersonCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AndersonDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. David Anderson: (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, obviously there are a host of issues involved in that question, but I appreciate my colleague's question.The bill talks about programming. It talks about setting up programs for every single prisoner who is in prison. I think we are probably going to agree that there is a lot of rhetoric in here the Liberals never have any intention of fulfilling. They lay these things out. They make it look like there is going to be some great change, but they are not actually going to see this through.Again, I think this is virtue signalling. The Liberals are basically replacing the names of things, and we are basically going to end up with the same structures and the same prisons we had before. Those same issues my colleague talks about will probably be left unanswered and will not be dealt with.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement579194657919475791948SheriBensonSaskatoon WestCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1787Judy A.SgroHon.JudyA--SgroHumber River—Black CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SgroJudyA_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and add my voice in support of Bill C-83, a piece of legislation that would make a number of changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I am pleased to lend my support, as my colleagues have also done. Bill C-83 proposes a number of important things. It creates the concept of patient advocates, as recommended by the inquest into the tragic death of Ashley Smith. Many of us in the House are very aware of the inquest and what happened to Ms. Smith, and the difficulties. We are very hopeful that Bill C-83 is going to help remedy some of those problems and prevent that from happening to some other young person. The bill is meant to support inmates who need medical care, and ensure that they and their families can understand and exercise their rights. It would enshrine in law the principle that health care professionals working in the corrections system are autonomous and make decisions based on their medical judgment, without undue influence from correctional authorities. It would enshrine in law the requirement that systemic and background factors be considered in all decisions involving indigenous people in custody, and it would expand the section of the law requiring the correctional service to be guided by respect for the diversity of the inmate population. It would allow victims who attend parole hearings to access audio recordings of the proceedings. It would create the legislative authority necessary for the Correctional Service of Canada to use body scanners to interdict drugs and other contraband, something that has been a problem for many years. There are people who have had to endure strip searches and so on. Having the body scanners would make it better for both the correctional service folks as well as for inmates. This technology is both less invasive than methods such as strip searches and less prone to false positives than the ion scanners CSC currently relies on.It would also replace the current system of administrative segregation with structured intervention units, or SIUs, as they are referred to. This new system would ensure that when inmates need to be separated from the rest of the prison population for safety reasons, they would retain access to rehabilitative programming, mental health care and other interventions, something that was not happening before. The bill deals with serious and challenging issues, and it is to be expected that Canadians and members of Parliament will have differences of opinion about them. So far, however, the Conservative contributions to this debate have been incredibly disappointing. At times, the Conservatives have blatantly contradicted themselves. For instance, in his speech, the member for Yellowhead complained that the changes made by the bill to administrative segregation are insignificant and superficial. However, in the very same speech, the very same member said that those very same changes would endanger inmates and staff. Which is it? Do the Conservatives think the bill is insignificant, or do they think it is catastrophic? It cannot be both. At other times, the Conservatives have simply chosen to ignore the facts. They have been complaining over and over again that the government has not allocated resources to implement the bill, when they know that is not the case. On page 103 of the fall economic statement, issued by the finance minister last November, there is $448 million allocated to support amendments to transform federal corrections, including the introduction of a new correctional interventions model to eliminate segregation. Also in November, the government sent the public safety committee a written response that went into more detail about the funding. (1655)That response says that if Bill C-83 is adopted, the government will invest $297 million over six years and $71 million ongoing to implement the structured intervention units. The funding will be dedicated to providing focused interventions, programs and social supports and will include access to resources such as program officers, aboriginal liaison officers, elders, chaplains and others. That is in a document that all members of the public safety committee have had for over three months.The document goes on to say that the remaining amount from the fall economic statement, $150.3 million over six years and $74.3 million ongoing, is for mental health care. That includes assessment and early diagnosis of inmates at intake and throughout incarceration, enhancements to primary and acute mental health care, and support for patient advocacy and 24/7 health care at designated institutions.Again, this is all from a document that the Conservatives also have had since the fall, so when they complain about a lack of resources, they are either being disingenuous or they just have not had time to read the report.The Conservatives' contributions to this debate have also been characterized by an unfortunate amount of self-righteousness. They position themselves as champions of victims, but it was legislation passed by the Harper government in 2015 that prohibited victims who attend a parole hearing from accessing an audio recording of that same hearing. Their bill said that victims who want recordings have to stay away from the hearing itself.Parole hearings are often difficult experiences for many victims of crime, full of emotion, and the law should not expect them to retain every word of the proceedings at a time when they are immensely frightened and nervous and in an unfamiliar environment. The legislation before us today would finally let all victims access those recordings, whether they attend in person or not.The Conservatives also position themselves as champions of correctional employees. Let me remind the House what the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers said in 2014. Kevin Grabowsky was head of the union at that time, and he said, “We have to actively work to rid the Conservatives from power.” He said the Harper government was endangering correctional officers with changes to the labour code, cuts to rehabilitative programming and policies that resulted in overcrowding in federal prisons.The main question raised at committee by both correctional officers and the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, which represents other CSC staff such as parole officers, was whether Bill C-83 would be accompanied by sufficient resources to implement it safely and effectively. As I have already made clear, the answer to that is a resounding yes.Finally, the Conservatives' interventions in this debate have been reminiscent of the very worst of the Harper approach to the legislative process. They have been actually attacking the government for listening to stakeholder feedback and accepting some of those amendments. Under the Harper government, that kind of openness was unheard of, but I am proud to support a government that lets legislators legislate.I thank all members who have engaged in a serious study of the bill and proposed thoughtful amendments, which is exactly what Canadians sent all of us here to do.We have before us legislation that would make correctional institutions more effective and humane, accompanied by the resources needed to implement it safely. It is important that we move forward and pass the bill at this time.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment assistanceGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersReport stageSafetyStructured intervention unitVictims of crime57919515791952579195357919545791955579195657919575791958579195957919605791961579196257919635791964579196557919665791967579196857919695791970CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the things my colleague talked about in her speech was the introduction of full body scanners. While it might seem hard to believe, there are some elements of this legislation that we do support, and that is one of them.The irony of it is that if full body scanners are used on all visitors who enter our prison system, why in the world would the Liberals continue to implement their prisoner needle exchange program? If everyone is body scanned, there is no need to have this prisoner needle exchange program.I am wondering if my colleague, even with the introduction of full body scanners, would continue to support the use of the prisoner needle exchange program, on which our front-line officers, whom she quoted from five years ago, are today saying there has been no consultation. All of us know that there is such a thing as buyer's remorse, and this gentleman is one of them. Many others have approached me about the promises that the Liberal government made and has now backtracked on. Does my colleague still support the introduction of the prisoner needle exchange program?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersNeedle exchange programReport stage5791971579197257919735791974Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1787Judy A.SgroHon.JudyA--SgroHumber River—Black CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SgroJudyA_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Judy A. Sgro: (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, we are trying to solve the many problems that our jails are trying to cope with. We know of HIV and a number of other diseases and infections that continue to be spread. We need to try to offer ways and means for inmates to be treated for drug addiction. There is no sense keeping our head in the sand and not recognizing that it is a serious problem. Many of the people currently in jail and carrying out some of the horrendous crimes we all know about are very serious drug addicts. The safe needle exchange, yes, is an issue, but at the same time, it would provide opportunity for rehabilitation, improve safety overall and reduce the amount of disease as a result of not having safe needles.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programReport stage5791975HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the investments being made to implement these SIUs and rightly noted that members of the opposition seem not to have read the reports that the public safety committee received. The investment of $448 million is significant, part of it going toward infrastructure and a large portion going toward mental health. When I met with the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers and the president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, both indicated that these investments are needed in order to implement this legislation. The previous government made significant cuts to corrections, and we are barely starting to catch up to what was cut.I am wondering if the member could speak to the importance of this $448 million to implement the legislation we have before us today.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment assistanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57919765791977Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1787Judy A.SgroHon.JudyA--SgroHumber River—Black CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SgroJudyA_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Judy A. Sgro: (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on the work that she has done, along with all colleagues on the public safety committee, in attempting to deal with these difficult issues. We all want our country to be safer. We do not want our communities exposed to some of the people out there, unfortunately, and a lot of it boils down to mental health issues.Colleagues on the opposite side have indicated their concern for whether the resources were going to be put there. It is one thing to bring in legislation, but we need to back it up with the funds required. The fact is that this funding has already been committed, and the dollars are going to be there. I am hoping that with all colleagues in the House, we will create a better environment to deal with mental health issues. Sooner or later people leave prison. They do not stay there forever, and if we do not give them the help they need to cure their particular drug addiction or help them with their mental health issues, when they leave they will carry all that negativity into society, and that is not going to help.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment assistanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage579197857919795791980PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, it is great to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-83, an act that amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, transforming administrative segregation.The legislation would do a number of important things, such as creating patient advocates to help ensure inmates get the medical care they need, giving victims of crime enhanced access to recordings of parole hearings and enshrining in law the requirement that Correctional Service Canada considers systemic and background factors when making decisions affecting indigenous people in custody. Of course, the main thing it would do is replace the current system of administrative segregation with structured intervention units, SIUs, for inmates who need to be separated from the rest of the institution for safety reasons, where they would have access to rehabilitative programs, mental health care and other interventions that are generally not available in segregation, which is an improvement. Importantly, inmates in SIUs would be entitled to a minimum of four hours a day out of their cells and at least two hours a day of meaningful human interaction with staff, visitors, volunteers, elders, chaplains or other inmates with whom they are compatible and can interact safely.One of the main questions that was asked in the early days of committee study was whether the bill would be backed up with the funding needed to implement it safely and effectively. The answer is yes. The fall economic statement included a $448-million fund to implement the legislation. It includes about $300 million for staffing and other resources for the SIUs as well as $150 million for mental health care both in the SIUs and throughout the corrections system. These investments build on nearly $80 million for mental health care in corrections in the last two budgets. In short, the Correctional Service would have the resources it needs to turn the intention of the legislation into a practical reality.However, to make sure that these resources are put to good use and that the new structured intervention units really do work as planned, the public safety committee made several amendments to Bill C-83. Yes, the committee system does work and our government committed to that when we were first elected. None of these amendments change the nature of the bill, but they add clarity to the way the new system will work. For instance, Bill C-83 specifies that an inmate's time out of the cell will have to be offered between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Interactions would generally be expected to happen face to face rather than through a door or meal slot. The clause that would allow hours out of cell not to be offered in exceptional circumstances now includes a list of examples, such as fires or natural disasters, to be clear that the circumstances must be truly exceptional. Also, if a warden disagrees with a medical recommendation to remove an inmate from an SIU, the matter will be elevated to a senior panel external to the institution.However, those are the important additions that would strengthen the new system, and now at report stage, the member for Oakville North—Burlington has proposed an additional amendment that would add independent external review of SIU placements, which is something that was called for by several witnesses. The public safety minister told the committee last fall that he was open to the idea. The government has now confirmed that it will support the proposal. Again, the role of committees is near and dear to our democracy, and it is again in Bill C-83 that we see committees doing the good work that Canadians expect them to do and that their members do with pride. External decision-makers would get involved in three scenarios: if an inmate in an SIU has, for whatever reason, not received the minimum hours out of his or her cell or minimum hours of meaningful human contact for five days in a row or 15 out of 30; if the senior panel reviewing a medical recommendation decides to keep the inmate in the SIU; and on the 90th day of placement in SIU, and every 60 days thereafter, for as long as the inmate is there. (1710)In the first scenario, when an inmate has not been getting his or her time out of cell, the external independent decision-maker will consider whether the Correctional Service has taken all reasonable steps to provide the inmate with opportunities for hours out and encourage inmates to avail themselves of those opportunities. If they determine that not to be the case, they can make recommendations to the service, and if, after a week, the independent decision-maker is still not satisfied, they can order the inmate removed from the SIU. The decision-maker's ruling will be appealable to the Federal Court, both by the inmate and the Correctional Service.In the other scenarios, a disagreement about a medical recommendation and regular reviews beginning on the 90th day, the independent decision-maker will consider whether having the inmate in the general population poses a security threat or would interfere with an ongoing investigation. It will take into account the inmate's correctional plan, the appropriateness of the inmate's security classification and confinement in the penitentiary, and any other factor it deems relevant.Bill C-83 provides extensive flexibilities to the authorities to do their jobs. In other words, inmates who currently need to be separated from the rest of the institution for security reasons spend 22 hours a day in their cells, with very little in the way of rehabilitative interventions and no external oversight. Under Bill C-83, those inmates will have twice as much time out of their cells, with a full suite of rehabilitative interventions, including mental health care, and there will be binding external oversight that could kick in after as few as five days or even sooner in the event of a health care professional's recommendation.This is a major step forward and that cannot be over-emphasized. Bill C-83 updates issues with regard to our penitentiaries and commits the appropriate funds to do so. I am proud of the legislation. I do not sit on the committee reviewing and bringing the bill forward, but it is great to see the committee doing its work and also incorporating amendments.Bill C-83 will also enhance rehabilitation while continuing to meet the security imperatives that must always be top of mind when we are dealing with corrections. In fact, we cannot really separate rehabilitation from security. Better, more effective rehabilitation results in better security, both while the inmates are incarcerated and, as importantly, once they have been released.That is why I support Bill C-83, and I hope that the bill will be adopted and enacted as soon as possible by this Parliament.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit579198157919825791983579198457919855791986579198757919885791989579199057919915791992579199357919945791995Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, the bill would end administrative segregation, something that all of us who read the coroner's inquest into Ashley Smith and the horrible things that happened to that young lady, resulting in her dying by suicide, would agree with.I am wondering if the hon. member could speak to the importance of ending the practice of administrative segregation and ensuring we are putting something in place that will put the safety of those who work in corrections, which is always paramount to the government and to all of us, while acknowledging that we need to fix the system that failed so miserably for someone like Ashley Smith.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement57919965791997FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, as many parliamentarians and many Canadians would know, we all watched the images of what Ashley Smith endured on CBC and a number of news programs. We want to ensure that does not happen to any other Canadian.We do know our penitentiaries serve the role in our society of making sure that people are held to account for their actions and are held responsible. Through the bill, we would ensure that individuals who are in penitentiaries do their time, which is one of the aspects we obviously believe in as a government, while receiving proper and humane treatment as individuals. That is something I personally believe in as a Canadian and as a person. We must prevent any other instances, such as what happened to this young girl, from occurring.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement57919985791999PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1715)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am appalled to hear the Liberals say that Bill C-83 will prevent suicides, when we know that many experts oppose administrative segregation. The bill proposes up to 20 hours a day of segregation for an indefinite period of time.Two courts, one in Ontario and another in B.C., ruled that indefinite administrative segregation is unconstitutional. Furthermore, there is no independent oversight to assess the restrictions on freedom. Administrative segregation restricts freedom.It has been proven that more than 48 hours in administrative isolation can cause permanent mental health effects and lead to self-harm, depression, suicide, panic attacks and hypersensitivity to external stimuli. The fact that administrative segregation is still an option is disastrous. The Liberals are just replicating what existed before and claiming to improve the situation. The Liberals say that this could prevent suicides. However, the new measures aggravate mental health problems related to administrative segregation. In my view, it makes no sense to go down this path.Today, the government is muzzling MPs. We should be moving amendments to improve the bill. The government rejected virtually all of the NDP and Conservative Party amendments aimed at improving the bill. That is not very professional, and it is very hypocritical. It harms inmates whose mental health problems will be aggravated and who will eventually be released and reintegrated into society.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement57920005792001579200257920035792004FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. colleague from Quebec for her question. We both attended the new year celebrations in Mississauga for the Vietnamese community. It was great to see her there and to have her in the GTA.With respect to the bill, an amendment was adopted at report stage to add a mechanism for independent oversight. Also, we must consider the fact that we have added a slew of services for individuals who are held in penitentiaries in SIUs or under confinement, including mental health care. For the first time, mental health will be a priority for these individuals and they will be receiving approximately four hours a day outside of their cells. The improvements and amendments that have been adopted in the bill and the funding framework that is allotted to the bill in the budget are two things we can be proud of. We can say it demonstrates to Canadians that we are advocating for and ensuring their safety. However, we are also ensuring that people are treated humanely when they are sent to penitentiaries and that the case we spoke about earlier does not repeat itself.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stage579200557920065792007Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak in support of Bill C-83. The role of our corrections system is to keep Canadians safe by managing people who have received criminal sentences of two years or more. In most cases, that involves preparing them for safe and successful reintegration into our communities, which obviously is a very difficult task.Some of the people in federal custody have done terrible, violent things. Most inmates have some combination of mental illness, a history of physical or sexual abuse, drug or alcohol addiction and a lack of economic or educational opportunity. Getting them to where they can return to a society and live safe, productive, law-abiding lives involves interventions to deal with all of those factors. This includes mental health care, education, skills training, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitative programs and the guidance of elders and chaplains. However, that work can only happen in a safe environment. When inmates pose a security risk, they may have to be temporarily separated from the rest of the institution. On that point, there is agreement from the correctional investigator, the John Howard Society, correctional employees and even former inmates that this needs to be done. The problem is that our existing system for doing that, administrative segregation, separates inmates not only from the rest of the prison population, but also from the interventions that could address the factors that caused them to be a security risk in the first place. Bill C-83 would address this problem. The bill maintains the ability for inmates who pose a risk to be separated when necessary, but it sets out conditions of confinement and intervention that are a major improvement over what is currently in use. In the structured intervention units, or SIUs, created by Bill C-83, inmates would receive a daily opportunity of at least four hours to be out of the cell and at least two hours of meaningful interaction with other people, such as program staff, visitors, volunteers and other compatible inmates. On that last point, some participants in this debate have conjured the spectre of correctional staff just throwing incompatible inmates, such as members of rival gangs, together in the yard and keeping their fingers crossed. Of course, that will not happen, and would not happen, with the professional staff we have at Correctional Service Canada. We are talking about a situation where out of maybe seven or eight inmates in the SIU, two of them get along and might be allowed to have lunch together. To allow for meals or yard time to happen in small groups or for rehabilitative programs to be provided one-on-one or in small groups, the corrections services will need new resources, including hiring new staff and making adjustments to infrastructure. That is why the fall economic statement included $448 million over six years for the implementation of the bill, $300 million going toward staff and infrastructure.As set out in the breakdown the government provided to the public safety committee in November, that includes this funding as well as $150 million toward mental health care. These resources will allow the corrections services to meet the ambitious new standards set by Bill C-83, improving the quality and accessibility of mental health care and rehabilitative interventions. The whole point is to address the issues that led to a person being separated from the mainstream inmate population in the first place, so he or she can safely reintegrate in the community within the institution and eventually the community outside it. I hope that is an objective we all share. Indeed, most of the witnesses at committee, who made critiques of the bill, did not take issue with this objective. They simply wanted greater assurance that the objective would be met. Since their testimony was heard, amendments have been made in an effort to provide that assurance. (1725)In fact, amendments have been accepted from all parties as we have gone through this legislation, which is one of the main purposes of committees and a purpose that our government respects.Witnesses worried that the opportunity for time out of the cell would be provided at unreasonable hours, like in the middle of the night. Therefore, the bill has been amended to specify that it must occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Witnesses also worried that the clause that time out of cell not be provided in exceptional circumstances might be too broad. Therefore, the bill has been amended to provide specific examples of the kinds of exceptional circumstances that we are talking about, like fires and natural disasters.Although the bill would allow for health care providers to recommend that an inmate be removed from the SIU for medical reasons, witnesses worried that wardens might not take these recommendations seriously. The bill has been amended so that any disagreement between the health care provider and the warden could be elevated to a senior committee external to the institution.Witnesses also expressed the view that independent, external oversight would be required to ensure that SIUs would be used appropriately and as a last resort. Therefore, the member for Oakville North—Burlington proposed an amendment to create an independent oversight mechanism, and the government announced its support. Earlier this week, these amendments were read into the record at length and are available for all Canadians to see the great work that was done by the member for Oakville North—Burlington. In other words, this was a strong bill when it was first introduced, and the parliamentary process has been informed by witness testimony and public debate, and that has made it even stronger. I thank all the members of the House who have made thoughtful, informed, constructive contributions throughout the process thus far. I thank the government for being receptive to feedback and open to amendments. It is worth noting that this is not something that could often be said about the previous government.The provisions in the bill, together with the resources allocated by the government, will make our correctional system more effective at its core mandate, which is protecting Canadians through the effective rehabilitation and safe reintegration of people who have broken the law. It deals with people as people. It helps them to progress through difficult situations to get back into society and be productive members. As the public safety minister wrote last summer in the first-ever public mandate letter for a commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, the public is best protected by safe, successful rehabilitation. Bill C-83 would help achieve that goal. I encourage all hon. members in the House to give their support.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5792008579200957920105792011579201257920135792014579201557920165792017579201857920195792020579202157920225792023579202457920255792026FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion in this place today, in particular criticism coming from the other side of the House, with respect to the process by which this legislation has gone through the House and, by design or by default, into the committee. This member took great extent to talk about it exactly and he highlighted how that committee structure worked so well, how concerns were being brought forward and the bill was amended at that time to reflect those concerns.Could the member, given what he has contributed to this debate, comment on how this legislation made its way through the legislative process and whether it was given the due consideration it required along the course of that process.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57920275792028LloydLongfieldGuelphLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield: (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had to check whether I could speak at this stage because I had spoken at other stages. I have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The debate has moved as the committee study went through. The bill came back and we had some amendments this week that we also had the opportunity to discuss. It is a highlight of this Parliament that we do have the opportunity to participate.As a member, I went to the Grand Valley Institution for Women so I could be further aware of what went on inside the walls currently. Back in the early 1980s, I went to the Stony Mountain Institution, looking at what was going on there. There were some concerns about how inmates were getting along. Things have changed a lot over the years. As members, we can also visit institutions and then participate in the debate. That is a great showcase of how our democracy works.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57920295792030MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have repeated many times today, and yet we do not have adequate answers to, is the fact that virtually every group of witnesses that came to committee, other than the government officials themselves, had huge criticisms of the bill, primarily around the issue of lack of consultation. In spite of the fact that in the 2015 campaign, we heard at all candidates debates how this government would be open and transparent and would consult with Canadians, we have a bill that would put the very safety of our front-line officers at risk and they have not been consulted. The CSC ombudsman himself indicated a lack of consultation. Not only was there a lack of consultation, but there is a big concern that the legislative process the bill is at right now could leave far too many issues to be dealt with through the regulatory process. That leads into nothing but trouble. I wonder if my colleague could explain why there was such a lack of consultation and why this big gap is going to leave so much of the actual implementation of the bill to the regulatory process, where it may not in fact have the legislative approval it requires. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationReport stage579203157920325792033LloydLongfieldGuelphLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield: (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way is my neighbour just to the west of Guelph. We share an institution that we both have visited on many occasions. One of the concerns I heard when I was at the institution was that the previous government had cut funding and cut the positions of the officers, who he is saying need to have protection. One of the protections comes through budgets. Instead of cutting $300 million from the budget between 2012 and 2015, we are now adding $300 million, plus $150 million for mental health care. Instead of putting in mandatory minimum sentences, which put two prisoners into each cell and overcrowded our prisons, we have eliminated the mandatory minimum sentences so the process of our whole judicial process is not putting undue burden on the people working within it. We are giving them funding and helping improve the process so they are able to do the professional job we rely on them to do every day. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationReport stage57920345792035HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): (1730)[Translation] Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House and participate in today's debate on Bill C-83, a transformative piece of legislation for our correctional system. Its ultimate goal is to promote safety, both inside and outside our federal institutions, and it prioritizes rehabilitation as an indispensable part of achieving that goal. The core innovation in Bill C-83 is the proposed introduction of structured intervention units, or SIUs. These SIUs would address a reality in any prison, which is that some inmates are, at certain times, simply too dangerous or disruptive to be safely housed in the mainstream inmate population. The current practice is to place those offenders in administrative segregation.Segregated inmates in federal institutions can be in their cells for as many as 22 hours a day, and their interactions with other inmates are highly limited. Bill C-83 offers a more effective way forward for everyone involved. Safety will always be priority number one, but prisons are safer places to live and work when inmates receive the programming, mental health care and other interventions they need. Inmates who receive these interventions are more likely to reintegrate safely into the community when their sentences are over. The solution the government is proposing in Bill C-83 is to eliminate segregation and to replace it with SIUs. These units will be secure and separate from the mainstream inmate population so that the safety imperative will be met. However, they will be designed to ensure that the inmates who are placed there receive the interventions, programming and treatment that they require.Inmates in SIUs will be given the opportunity to leave their cells for at least four hours a day, as opposed to two hours under the current system. It is worth noting that currently, those two hours are set out in policy and not in legislation. Bill C-83 will give the four-hour minimum the full force of law. Inmates in SIUs will also have the opportunity for at least two hours of meaningful human contact. During that time, they could interact with people such as correctional staff, other compatible inmates, visitors, chaplains or elders. The goal of these reforms is for inmates in an SIU to be in a position to reintegrate into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.Bill C-83 has undergone rigorous analysis at every stage of the parliamentary process to date. Members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security went over the bill with a fine-tooth comb.Based on testimony from a wide range of stakeholders, a number of useful amendments were adopted at the end of the committee's study period. Bill C-83 was a solid and worthwhile bill from day one. It is now even better and stronger for having gone through vigorous debate and a robust review process.It is worth noting that the bill that has been reported back to us reflects amendments from all parties that proposed them. I wholeheartedly reject the idea we have heard during this debate that somehow the fact that the bill has been amended in response to public and parliamentary feedback is a bad thing. I am proud to support a government that welcomes informed, constructive feedback and that respects the role of members of Parliament from all parties in the legislative process.Most of the amendments made to Bill C-83 are about ensuring that the new SIUs will function as intended.(1735)For example, some witnesses were worried that the opportunity for time out of the cell would be provided in the middle of the night, when inmates were unlikely to take advantage of it. The member for Montarville therefore added the requirement that it happen between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.Other witnesses wondered whether the mandatory interactions with others might happen through a door or a meal slot. To address that concern, the member for Toronto—Danforth, whom I commend, added a provision requiring that every reasonable effort be made to ensure that interactions are face to face, with a record kept of any and all exceptions.To address concerns that the Correctional Service of Canada might make excessive use of the clause allowing for time out of the cell not to be provided in exceptional circumstances, the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore added a list of specific examples, such as fires or natural disasters, to clarify how this clause should be interpreted.Amendments from the member for Toronto—Danforth at committee and from the member for Oakville North—Burlington at report stage will enhance the review process so that each SIU placement is subject to robust oversight, both internally and externally. All of this will help ensure that the new SIUs operate as intended. Amendments have also been accepted from the members for Brampton North, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Beloeil—Chambly and Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank them for their contributions.We all want safer institutions and safer communities, and we all want Canadians to feel safe. Successful rehabilitation and safe reintegration of people in federal custody are key to achieving our shared objective of enhanced public safety. By allowing inmates who must be separated from the general prison population to receive more time out of their cell and more mental health care and rehabilitative interventions, Bill C-83 represents a major step in the right direction.Again, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues for their contributions throughout the legislative process so far, and I urge them to join me in enthusiastically supporting the bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismReport stageStructured intervention unit579203657920375792038579203957920405792041579204257920435792044579204557920465792047579204857920495792050579205157920525792053LloydLongfieldGuelphAnne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71350Anne Minh-ThuQuachAnneMinh-Thu-QuachSalaberry—SuroîtNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/QuachAnneMinhThu_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): (1740)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, many experts have spoken out against this bill.As the member said, we are talking about structured intervention units, which is just another way of saying “administrative segregation”. The member said this bill reduces the amount of time in administrative segregation from 22 or 23 hours to 20 hours. Wow, what an improvement.Has the member ever tried locking herself in a room for 20 hours a day, for several days in a row, to see what it does to her body? As I have been saying all afternoon, it has been proven that permanent effects on mental health begin to emerge after 48 hours. These are permanent effects that continue to linger afterwards. These individuals have very little time to access programming, only four hours, in fact.As the B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have ruled, indefinite administrative segregation is unconstitutional. The provisions set out in the bill allow for an indefinite period of time, which could be 90 days or 150 days. No one knows.On top of that, there is no independent oversight. The correctional investigator of Canada also criticized the fact that there are no procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. He foresees many possible cases of misuse and predicts that more and more inmates could be segregated in SIUs. The member is so proud of SIUs, but I think they are very cruel.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit57920545792055579205657920575792058LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe: (1740)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and comments.The reality is that the inmates in question, because we are not talking about all inmates here, are too dangerous or disruptive to be safely housed in the mainstream prison population. Right now, they can leave their cells for two hours a day. Once the bill is passed, they will be entitled to spend four hours outside their cell, and that will be enshrined in law. What is more, they will have to have human contact, be it with correctional officers, health care professionals or chaplains, to create ties and move forward.We are also going to ensure that they have better access to mental health care, because that is often necessary. The previous government cut $800 million in funding, which definitely had a negative impact on our correctional facilities. We need to fix that. Bill C-83 will promote inmate rehabilitation and ensure that all Canadians feel safe. That is a critical objective. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageStructured intervention unit5792059579206057920615792062Anne Minh-ThuQuachSalaberry—SuroîtAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1825)[Translation]Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 8, 11, 18 to 21 and 23 to 27 negativedI declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 4 to 8, 11, 18 to 21 and 23 to 27 lost.[English]The question is on Motion No. 9. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 10 and 13 to 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: No.The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.Some hon. members: Yea.The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay.The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. And five or more members having risen:C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions57920775792078AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingMarkHollandHon.Ajax//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25508MarkHollandHon.Mark-HollandAjaxLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HollandMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Mark Holland: (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting in favour.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792088GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Mark Strahl: (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservative members voting no.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792089MarkHollandHon.AjaxMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: (1825)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792090MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Monique Pauzé: (1825)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and will vote in favour of the motion.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792091MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes yes.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792092MoniquePauzéRepentignyMaximeBernierHon.Beauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35309MaximeBernierHon.Maxime-BernierBeaucePeople's Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BernierMaxime_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Maxime Bernier: (1825)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I agree, and the People's Party will vote against the motion.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792093ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31796ErinWeirErin-WeirRegina—LewvanCo-operative Commonwealth Federation CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WeirErin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Erin Weir: (1825)[English]The CCF agrees to apply and will vote yes.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792094MaximeBernierHon.BeauceTonyClementHon.Parry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/15975TonyClementHon.Tony-ClementParry Sound—MuskokaIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClementTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Tony Clement: (1825)[English]I am voting no, Mr. Speaker.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792095ErinWeirRegina—LewvanKarinaGouldHon.Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88715KarinaGouldHon.Karina-GouldBurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GouldKarina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Karina Gould: (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was not here for the first vote but for this vote, I will be voting in favour.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792096TonyClementHon.Parry Sound—MuskokaGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1825JoePeschisolidoJoe-PeschisolidoSteveston—Richmond EastLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/PeschisolidoJoe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Joe Peschisolido: (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I too was not here for the first vote, but I will be voting yes.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792098GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1825)[English]Motion Nos. 9, 10 and 13 to 16 agreed toI declare Motion No. 9 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10 and 13 to 16 carried.[Translation]The next question is on Motion No. 17. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 and 22.Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: No.The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.Some hon. members: Yea.The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay.The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.And five or more members having risen:C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions57921015792102GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarkHollandHon.Ajax//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25508MarkHollandHon.Mark-HollandAjaxLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HollandMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Mark Holland: (1825)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting for the motion.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792112GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Mark Strahl: (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply and will be voting no.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792113MarkHollandHon.AjaxMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: (1830)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792114MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Monique Pauzé: (1830)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour of the motion.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792115MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1830)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes yes.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792116MoniquePauzéRepentignyMaximeBernierHon.Beauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35309MaximeBernierHon.Maxime-BernierBeaucePeople's Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BernierMaxime_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Maxime Bernier: (1830)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the People's Party agrees to apply the vote, and I will vote no.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792117ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsErinWeirRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31796ErinWeirErin-WeirRegina—LewvanCo-operative Commonwealth Federation CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WeirErin_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Erin Weir: (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, the CCF agrees to apply and will vote no.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792118MaximeBernierHon.BeauceTonyClementHon.Parry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/15975TonyClementHon.Tony-ClementParry Sound—MuskokaIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClementTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Tony Clement: (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and I am voting no.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motions5792119ErinWeirRegina—LewvanGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1830)[Translation]Motion Nos. 3, 17 and 22 agreed toI declare Motion No. 17 carried. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 and 22 carried.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions5792121TonyClementHon.Parry Sound—MuskokaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1830)[English]Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5792122GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1835)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5792133GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Notice of time allocation motion]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionSecond readingTime allocation57885735788574BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)(1510)[Translation]Motions Nos. 1 and 2 moved:Motion No. 1That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 2.Motion No. 2That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 3.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions57873265787327578732857873295787330GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.)(1510)[English]Motion No. 3 moved: Motion No. 3That Bill C-83, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 2 with the following:paragraph 37.3(1)(b) or section 37.4 or 37.8 that the offenderC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions5787331578733257873335787334PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)(1510)[Translation]Motions Nos. 4 to 8. moved: Motion No. 4That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 4.Motion No. 5That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 5.Motion No. 6That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 6.Motion No. 7That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 7.Motion No. 8That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 8.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions57873355787336578733757873385787339578734057873415787342578734357873445787345PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1510)[English]Motions Nos. 9 and 10 moved:Motion No. 9That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by(a) deleting lines 25 to 30 on page 8;(b) replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 9 with the following:(3) Before making a determination under this section, the institutional head shall visit the inmate.(4) The institutional head shall maintain a record indicating the circumstances of every instance in which, because of security requirements, a visit was not face to face or took place through a cell door hatch.(5) No later than one working day after the day on which he or she makes a determination under this section, the institution head shall orally notify the inmate of the determination as well as the reasons for it and no later than two working days after the day on which the determination was made, the institutional head shall provide the inmate with those reasons in writing.Motion No. 10That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by(a) replacing lines 11 to 18 on page 9 with the following:registered health care professional shall provide advice to the committee established under subsection (3). (2) The registered health care professional providing the advice is to be a senior registered health care profes-(b) replacing lines 23 to 30 on page 9 with the following:rank than that of institutional head for the purpose of making determination under section 37.32. 37.32 (1) As soon as practicable after the institutional head determines under subsection 37.3(2) that an inmate's conditions of confinement in a structured intervention unit should not be altered in accordance with the recommendations of a registered health care professional, the committee established under subsection(c) replacing lines 34 to 36 on page 9 with the following:(2) As soon as practicable after the institutional head determines under paragraph 37.3(1)(a) that an inmate should remain in aC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage motions578734657873475787348578734957873505787351578735257873535787354578735557873565787357578735857873595787360578736257873635787364PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)(1515)[Translation]Motion No. 11 moved: Motion No. 11That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 10.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions578736557873665787367RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionThe Speaker: (1515)[English]The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is not present to move her motion at report stage. Therefore, Motion No. 12 will not be proceeded with.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMember not present to moveReport stageReport stage motions5787368PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1515)[English]Motions Nos. 13 and 14 moved: Motion No. 13That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 7 on page 6 with the following:in which an inmate is authorized to be transferred into a structured intervention unit indicating the reasons for granting the authorization and any alternative that was considered. (3) No later than one working day after the day on which the transfer of an inmate is authorized, the Service shall, orally, provide the inmate with notice that the authorization was granted as well as the reasons for it and no later than two working days after the day on which the transfer of an inmate is authorized, the Service shall provide the inmate with those reasons in writing.Motion No. 14That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 36 on page 7 with the following: 37.11 If a staff member or a person engaged by the Service believes that the confinement of an inmate in a structured intervention unit is having detrimental impacts on the inmate’s health, the staff member or person shall refer, in the prescribed manner, the inmate’s case to the portion of the Service that administers health care. Grounds for the belief include the inmate(a) refusing to interact with others;(b) engaging in self-injurious behaviour;(c) showing symptoms of a drug overdose; and(d) showing signs of emotional distress or exhibiting behaviour that suggests that they are in urgent need of mental health care.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions578736957873705787371578737257873735787374578737557873765787377578737857873795787380GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.)(1515)[English]Motions Nos. 15 to 17 moved:Motion No. 15That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 23 on page 8 with the following: (c) as soon as practicable in any of the prescribed cir-Motion No. 16That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following: and every 60 days after the Commissioner’s last determi- Motion No. 17That Bill C-83, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 10 on page 11 with the following: 37.6 (1) The Minister shall appoint one or more persons to be independent external decision-makers.(2) To be eligible for appointment as an independent external decision-maker, a person must have knowledge of administrative decision-making processes in general. A person is not eligible for appointment as an independent external decision-maker if the person was, at any time, in the previous five years a staff member or appointed under subsection 6(1).(3) An independent external decision-maker is to be appointed for a renewable term of not more than five years and holds office during good behaviour, but may be removed at any time for cause by the Minister.(4) An independent external decision-maker may be appointed to serve either full-time or part-time.37.61 An independent external decision-maker is to be paid(a) the remuneration that is fixed by the Treasury Board; and(b) in accordance with Treasury Board directives, any travel and living expenses that they incur in the performance of their duties and functions while absent from their ordinary place of work, in the case of a full-time decision-maker, and their ordinary place of residence, in the case of a part-time decision-maker.37.7 (1) The Service shall furnish to an independent external decision-maker all information under the Service’s control that is relevant to the making of a determination in respect of an inmate by the independent external decision-maker.(2) For the purpose of making a determination in respect of an inmate, an independent external decision-maker may require any staff member, or any person whose services are engaged by or on behalf of the Service,(a) to furnish any information that, in the decision-maker’s opinion, the staff member or person may be able to furnish in relation to the inmate’s case; and(b) to produce, for examination by the decision-maker, any document or thing that, in the decision-maker’s opinion, relates to the inmate’s case and that may be in the possession or under the control of the staff member or person.(3) Within 10 days after the day on which an independent external decision-maker makes a determination, the decision-maker shall return to the Service any document or thing furnished under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a) or produced under paragraph (2)(b), as well as any copy of one.37.71 (1) Before making a determination in respect of an inmate, an independent external decision-maker shall provide or cause to be provided to the inmate, in writing, in whichever of the two official languages of Canada is requested by the inmate, the information that is to be considered by the decision-maker or a summary of that information, other than information provided to the independent external decision-maker by the inmate.(2) The independent external decision-maker may withhold from the inmate as much information as is strictly necessary if the independent external decision-maker has reasonable grounds to believe that(a) the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of public interest; or(b) the disclosure of the information would jeopardize the safety of any person, the security of a penitentiary or the conduct of any lawful investigation.37.72 Before making a determination in respect of an inmate, an independent external decision-maker shall ensure that the inmate is given an opportunity to make written representations to the independent external decision-maker.37.73 For the purpose of making a determination in respect of an inmate, an independent external decision-maker may communicate with the inmate.37.74 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an independent external decision-maker shall not disclose any information that comes to their knowledge in the course of the exercise of their powers, or the performance of their duties and functions, under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.(2) An independent external decision-maker may disclose information referred to in subsection (1) in the exercise of their powers or the performance of their duties and functions.37.75 An independent external decision-maker is not a competent or compellable witness in any civil proceedings in respect of any matter coming to their knowledge in the course of the exercise or purported exercise of their powers, or the performance or purported performance of their duties and functions, under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.37.76 No criminal or civil proceedings lie against an independent external decision-maker for anything done, reported or said in good faith in the course of the exercise or purported exercise of any power, or the performance or purported performance of any duty or function, of the independent external decision-maker under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.37.77 An independent external decision-maker may, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g.1), publish or otherwise disseminate information, other than personal information, relating to any determination made by the independent external decision-maker.37.8 Thirty days after each of the Commissioner’s determinations under section 37.4 that an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit, an independent external decision-maker shall, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g.1), determine whether the inmate should remain in the unit.37.81 If a committee established under subsection 37.31(3) determines that an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit or determines that an inmate’s conditions of confinement in the structured intervention unit should not be altered in accordance with a recommendation of a registered health care professional under section 37.2, an independent external decision-maker shall, as soon as practicable, in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(g.1), determine whether the inmate should remain in the unit or whether the inmate’s conditions of confinement in the unit should be altered.37.82 (1) The independent external decision-maker may determine under sections 37.8 and 37.81 that an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit only if the independent external decision-maker believes on reasonable grounds that allowing the inmate’s reintegration into the mainstream inmate population(a) would jeopardize the safety of the inmate or any other person or the security of the penitentiary; or(b) would interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge under subsection 41(2) of a serious disciplinary offence.(2) In making the determination, the independent external decision-maker shall take into account(a) the inmate’s correctional plan;(b) the appropriateness of the inmate’s confinement in the penitentiary;(c) the appropriateness of the inmate’s security classification; and(d) any other consideration that he or she considers relevant.37.83 (1) If, for five consecutive days or for a total of 15 days during any 30-day period, an inmate confined in a structured intervention unit has not spent a minimum of four hours a day outside the inmate’s cell or has not interacted, for a minimum of two hours a day, with others, an independent external decision-maker shall, as soon as practicable, determine whether the Service has taken all reasonable steps to provide the inmate with the opportunities referred to in subsection 36(1) and to encourage the inmate to avail themselves of those opportunities.(2) If the independent external decision-maker determines that the Service has not taken all reasonable steps, he or she may make any recommendation to the Service that he or she considers appropriate to remedy the situation.(3) If the Service, within the period of seven days commencing on the day on which it receives recommendations, fails to satisfy the independent external decision-maker that it has taken all reasonable steps to provide the inmate with the opportunities referred to in subsection 36(1), the independent external decision-maker shall direct the Service to remove the inmate from the structured intervention unit and provide a notice of the direction to the Correctional Investigator as defined in Part III.37.9 An independent external decision-maker may, in the prescribed circumstances, make a prescribed determination or review in the prescribed manner.37.91 (1) The transfer of an inmate to a structured intervention unit must be completed not later than five working days after the day on which the authorization for the transfer is given. Until the transfer is completed, the Service may impose restrictions on the inmate’s movement and sections 33, 35 to 37.4 and 37.81 to 37.83 apply with any necessary modifications in respect of the inmate as though the inmate were in a structured intervention unit. However, the opportunity referred to in paragraph 36(1)(b) is to be provided only if the circumstances permit.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage motions578738157873825787383578738457873855787386578738757873885787389578739057873915787392578739357873945787395578739657873975787398578739957874005787401578740257874035787406578740757874085787409578741057874115787412578741357874145787415578741657874175787418578741957874205787421578742257874235787424578742557874265787427RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)(1530)[Translation]Motions Nos. 18 to 21 moved:Motion No. 18That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 11.Motion No. 19That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 14.Motion No. 20That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 29.Motion No. 21That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 31.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions578742857874295787430578743157874325787433578743457874355787436PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.)(1530)[English]Motion No. 22 moved: Motion No. 22That Bill C-83, in Clause 31, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 36 on page 17 with the following: (g.1) respecting the powers, duties and functions of independent external decision-makers, including respecting the making of a determination as to whether the conditions of confinement of an inmate in a structured intervention unit should be altered or as to whether an inmate should remain in such a unit;(2) Section 96 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (g.1):(g.2) respecting the admission of inmates to and theC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions578743757874385787439578744057874415787442PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)(1530)[Translation]Motions Nos. 23 to 27 moved: Motion No. 23That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 32.1.Motion No. 24That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 33.Motion No. 25That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 36.Motion No. 26That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 39.Motion No. 27That Bill C-83 be amended by deleting Clause 40.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageReport stage motions57874435787444578744557874465787447578744857874495787450578745157874525787453PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionM. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, PCC): (1530)[Translation] He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak at report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.Bill C-83 has several elements, and the first is to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional institutions.During the committee's study, we heard from witnesses from a number of organizations, including the correctional investigator of Canada, who was quite surprised that he was not consulted while Bill C-83 was being drafted. The correctional investigator of Canada told us that eliminating solitary confinement was one thing but that replacing it with a regime that imposes restrictions on retained rights and liberties with little regard for due process and administrative principles is inconsistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as the charter. That is a pretty strong statement. In his testimony, the correctional investigator also said that there had been very little detail provided by the Correctional Service of Canada or the government on how this is going to be implemented. Not for the first time, my colleagues were improvising. Canadian penitentiaries use administrative segregation under two circumstances. The first is when a prisoner behaves in a way that poses a danger to the prison's general population. One example that I think all Canadians will be familiar with is that of Paul Bernardo. He was not sent into the regular system because he was still thought to be too dangerous. Since no rehabilitation was possible in his case, Mr. Bernardo spends most of his time in the segregation area.There are also prisoners who request segregation. They want to be segregated for their own safety, and also to have some mental downtime. This reminds me of someone I met recently at Donnacona Institution. Mr. Dumas has been in prison for over 40 years, for various reasons. He always wants to be in segregation. He says he is just fine there and wants to stay.Considering the amendments in Bill C-83, what will happen to Paul Bernardo? Will he be told that he now has four hours of freedom to meet up with his buddies and pontificate over a nice glass of water? I do not believe this can really apply in his case.As for the inmate I met at Donnacona, when he tells us that he prefers to stay in segregation, we will have to tell him that it is not possible because segregation will be a thing of the past. That will be a serious problem for him. This new approach will create structured intervention units. That is a nice term, but what does it actually mean?We never really got any answers, because it is actually a grander name for the same thing. It is an area of the prison, a wing set aside for segregation, but it might have a room where people can sit around a table and talk, and perhaps another small room where they can meet with caseworkers. When we asked questions, the government did not have any answers. They are basically trying to make us believe that segregation cells are like what we see in the movies. We think of them as bare, windowless cells that are pitch black when the door is closed. That is how it was in the days of Alcatraz. That was a long time ago. Segregation cells are exactly like regular cells. The difference is that they are in a different area of the prison. Prisoners in segregation are even entitled to TVs and many other things. Even the size of the cell is the same. They can see outside. There is no problem. One of the major differences, I admit, is time. Currently, prisoners in segregation stay in their cells for 22 hours a day. That will change. They will now stay in their cells for 20 hours a day instead of 22. However, the concept of structured intervention units is a very philosophical one. I doubt that any amendments will be made in this regard. After all the discussions and checks that happened in committee, there is really nothing left to change, except the name. (1535)At any rate, change costs money. Normally, when a bill that imposes new standards is introduced, the necessary funding needs to be earmarked. Once again, we have no information about funding. We know that more than $400 million was sent to the Correctional Service of Canada last year, but we do not know how much will be allocated to the implementation of Bill C-83.We do agree with the scanners. We do not always disagree. We think body scanners are very important. Right now, Ontario and British Columbia have body scanners in their provincial penitentiaries. They are very effective, detecting more than 95% of what people entering the penitentiary may have on or inside their bodies. They are intrusive but necessary. Some people have very inventive ways of smuggling drugs and other things into prisons.The irony is that prisoners are going to be provided with needles so that they can inject drugs. This is a program that is currently being rolled out in Canada’s penitentiaries. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers is totally opposed to this program, and other stakeholders have also said that it makes no sense. The argument is that it is a public health issue, and we understand that, but from a safety standpoint, it does not make sense. The union says that handing out needles to prisoners could be very dangerous for correctional officers and other prisoners.I know that there is the idea of an exchange and all that, but let us not forget that prisoners have a lot of time to think and make plans. When I visited the Donnacona prison recently, I saw all sort of things going on, things people would not even imagine. People do not realize that prisoners have nothing to do but think. They will find ways to misuse the needles. If we introduce body scanners, which would detect drugs coming into prisons and therefore greatly reduce drug use, there would be no need to supply inmates with needles. We need to be consistent. The Conservatives think the important thing is to stop drugs from entering prisons by using scanners as much as possible. We also cannot forget the drones that are used to get drugs into prisons. If prisoners no longer have drugs to inject, they will not need taxpayer-funded needles.There was some talk of other health parameters, and we made some suggestions. I could read out our proposed amendments, which were based on conversations with representatives from the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society. For example, we proposed that: ...correctional policies, programs and practices provide, regardless of gender, access to activities and to training for future employment but provide inmates who are soon to be released with priority access to the activities that prepare them for release, including counselling and help with mental health issues.This amendment was rejected by our friends on the other side. Here is another one: A staff member may recommend to a registered health care professional employed...by the Service that the professional assess the mental health of an inmate, if the inmate:(a) refuses to interact with others for a prescribed period;(b) exhibits a tendency to self-harm;(c) is showing signs of an adverse drug reaction;In short, we thought our health-related amendments were quite relevant, but they were rejected.In closing, we know that the B.C. Supreme Court and the Superior Court have ruled on administrative segregation, but Bill C-83 was introduced in response to those rulings, even though the government appealed the rulings. We are currently at report stage, and the House is being asked to force prisons to do things in a certain way that will have direct repercussions on the safety of prison guards and prisoners themselves. We think that is unacceptable.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersNeedle exchange programReport stageSolitary confinement57874545787455578745657874575787458578745957874605787461578746257874635787464578746557874665787467578746857874695787470578747157874725787473578747457874755787476578747757874785787479PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, as well as for his work at committee. While we did not necessarily agree on all aspects of the bill, we did work extremely well together on something that could have been quite divisive. Let us be clear that there is nothing in the bill with respect to syringes and needles. However, there is a provision in the bill that deals with victims and their ability to receive transcripts of the parole hearings when they are unable to attend. I wonder if the hon. member could speak to this. If the Conservatives do not support the bill, do they not support the ability of victims to be able to avail themselves of this service?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConditional releaseCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageVictims of crime57874805787481PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.Just because I did not mention something does not mean I oppose it. I gave a summary of Bill C-83 and our concerns.There is nothing in Bill C-83 about the needle exchange program. However, we believe that the prison needle exchange program administered by CSC that is currently being rolled out across Canada undercuts the use of body scanners to prevent drugs from entering prisons.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage578748257874835787484PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The improvisation he is talking about is real. We have seen many examples of it.In all my time as an MP, this is the first time I have seen a bill get rejected by every witness except for departmental officials. That speaks volumes about how effective these measures are.One of the main reasons the witnesses rejected this bill is that it does not go far enough to eliminate the scourge of solitary confinement in penitentiaries. Solitary confinement has an impact on inmates' mental health. Two courts, one in British Columbia and the other in Ontario, found that it violates the charter. There have also been high-profile cases of deaths, suicides, of people whose mental health suffered as a result of being placed in solitary confinement, both in prisons and in penitentiaries.I have two questions for my colleague.Does he subscribe to the social consensus that the use of solitary confinement must be reduced?Does he agree that our prisons need to be given more resources to deal with serious mental health problems, in terms of both rehabilitation and the safety of inmates, our communities, and guards working in prisons?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement5787485578748657874875787488578748957874905787491PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two excellent questions.My answer to the first question is no. As I said in my speech, I believe that administrative segregation is necessary. Can we change how it is done? Yes, possibly, but do we absolutely need to do so?We are talking about safety and security. Criminals who must be placed in administrative segregation, like Paul Bernardo and many others, are often beyond redemption. The others need administrative segregation for their own mental health.I do not think that eliminating administrative segregation is the right thing to do, especially in terms of safety and security. As for prevention and additional resources, we obviously always need to add resources. This costs money, but the fact remains that we can always review how things are done and how health care professionals work with inmates. I have no objection to that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement57874925787493578749457874955787496MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, I stand here today with a great deal of pride to speak for a second time in support of Bill C-83, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.Bill C-83 would strengthen our federal corrections system, making the rehabilitation of offenders safer and more effective. Crucially, the bill would end the practice of administrative segregation and establish structured intervention units, or SIUs.I am extremely proud to have had the opportunity to work on this legislation at committee stage and I commend the government for introducing this important piece of legislation.This legislation will be transformative for our federal corrections system. My friend Stan Stapleton, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, said when asked by the media about this bill, thatThere is evidence that shows that strong rehabilitative programs make communities safer and create a safer environment for both employees and offenders inside institutions. ... And so if we simply lock them up and throw away the key, we're not providing them with the tools that they require in order to safely reintegrate back into society. I could not agree more.The new measures introduced in Bill C-83 will create safer institutions and safer communities. By creating SIUs as a new approach to replace administrative segregation, introducing provisions for spending more time outside the cell, empowering health professionals and providing enhanced programming to offenders in these units, we will better equip offenders for safe reintegration, reduce their likelihood for recidivism and ultimately make our communities safer.I am incredibly proud of our work at the public safety committee on the bill. We listened to feedback from witnesses and experts and worked across party lines to bring back to the House a strengthened Bill C-83. We listened to testimony from a diverse range of stakeholders and took their feedback to heart.In addition, every party that submitted amendments to the bill saw some of theirs accepted. I would like to highlight some of those changes now.The most significant amendment is the one I have introduced today at report stage, which would provide independent oversight of the new structured intervention units. I will not ever forget hearing the Speaker read that amendment into the record today.My amendment would create an independent external decision-maker who will monitor a number of factors for inmates in SIUs, including whether inmates avail themselves of the time out of their cells or if there is a disagreement with a health care provider's recommendation to transfer an inmate out of an SIU. With this amendment, if an inmate does not receive the required minimum hours outside of the cell or the required minimum hours of human contact for five straight days or 15 days out of 30, the independent external decision-maker can investigate whether the Correctional Service has taken reasonable steps to provide opportunities for those hours, make recommendations to the Correctional Service to remedy the situation, and if the Correctional Service has not acted accordingly after seven days, the decision-maker can direct it to remove the inmate from the SIU and give notice to the Correctional Investigator.In addition, the independent external decision-maker will also have the power to review cases and provide direction in the event that the senior Correctional Service health care committee disagrees with the recommendation of a health care provider to transfer an inmate out of an SIU or alter conditions of confinement.Finally, the independent external decision-maker will conduct a review of each offender's case after 90 days spent in an SIU and every 60 days thereafter.The creation of an external oversight mechanism was supported by the majority of witnesses we heard at committee. I am so pleased that we were able to respond to their input and move forward with this vital independent oversight mechanism.I applaud the government for listening and agreeing to the amendment, which would provide more confidence in SIUs and how they will function.In addition to this report stage amendment, the committee made other amendments to the bill. We heard from indigenous groups who called for changes to the definition of “indigenous organization” to ensure that it properly captured the diverse range of those working on these issues across Canada. While the parties had some variations as to how best to do this, with the assistance of departmental officials the committee was able to unanimously approve an amendment that calls for indigenous organizations to have predominantly indigenous leadership. We also heard about the need for the Correctional Service to seek advice from indigenous spiritual leaders or elders, particularly in matters of mental health and behaviour. I was pleased that my amendment to that effect was adopted at committee.(1550)The bill would also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve the consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. However, our committee heard testimony that these reports can be misused in corrections to impact risk assessments. My amendment to ensure that these reports would not be misused was also adopted by the committee.The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands introduced several amendments that would return the threshold of “least restrictive” measures, while maintaining the protection of society, staff and offenders, to the corrections legislation, a provision that had been removed by the Harper Conservatives. I promised the hon. member that I would work with her on amendments to Bill C-83, and I was extremely happy that the committee was able to include her amendments in the legislation.We supported the amendment of my NDP colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, which specified that corrections must take note of any reasons given as to why inmates did not avail themselves of time out of their cells. We heard from corrections officers that they did not always have the skills or training to deal with mental health issues, so an amendment by the Conservative Party that would explicitly allow staff to refer a matter to health care professionals was a welcome addition to the legislation.Indigenous offenders are the fastest-growing prison population. However, the member for Whitby highlighted to me that black offenders are the second-highest prison population, and their unique needs must also be addressed.In addition, during my visit to a number of corrections facilities in Edmonton, a year ago January, I had the opportunity to meet a trans inmate and learned about their experience navigating the corrections system. I was pleased to introduce an amendment that would expand the guiding principles of CSC to respect sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and ensure that the service would be responsive, in particular, to the special needs of visible minorities. My colleague from Toronto—Danforth introduced an amendment that would further define meaningful contact so that it would not be limited to physical barriers, an amendment that would enhance record-keeping, and an important amendment that would strengthen the role of health care professionals. Finally, we amended the bill to include a five-year review by Parliament.There are two areas that were beyond the scope of the legislation but that the committee wanted to highlight for corrections. One is the fact that there are only 10 women in all of Canada currently in segregation, while there are 340 men. Therefore, we have asked Corrections Canada to review a proposal for a pilot program in women's institutes. We also used this opportunity to draw attention to the challenge offenders face when placements or transfers mean that they are located long distances from critical support systems. We heard from many witnesses that significant investments in corrections would be required if SIUs were to work. The entire concept rests on the premise that there are adequate staff to ensure that offenders receive time outside their cells and the health care services and programming they need. With the $448-million investment in the fall economic statement to support this new approach, we have both the legislative framework and the financial means to transform how corrections functions. This is a case of the parliamentary process working at its very best. We had government legislation that was transformative in its approach, witnesses who passionately shared their concerns and suggestions, committee members who worked diligently as a team, a minister who listened and responded, and a Prime Minister and government that were not afraid to let committees do the good work they are meant to in this place and amend the bill. I also feel incredibly privileged, as the member for Oakville North—Burlington, to be able to introduce a major amendment to the bill, here at report stage, that would enshrine independent oversight in Bill C-83.I know there are those who are skeptical about whether this system will work. However, I believe in my heart that under the leadership of our Minister of Public Safety and the new head of corrections, Anne Kelly, along with the fine men and women working in corrections, we will see transformative change in our correctional system.I want to finish by thanking all the witnesses who appeared before committee; my fellow committee members; our chair, clerk and analysts; our staff, and in particular, Hilary Lawson, from my office; the Minister of Public Safety and his staff, in particular, Michael Milech; and everyone else involved who worked tirelessly on this legislation. I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-83.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinementStatutory review5787497578749857874995787500578750157875025787503578750457875055787506578750757875085787509578751057875115787512578751357875145787515578751657875175787518578751957875205787521578752257875235787524578752557875265787527PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, as a member of the public safety committee, I was quite surprised by the number of problems we had with this bill initially. Witnesses appearing at committee regarding the bill said that they had not been consulted. Even the correctional investigator of Canada told the public safety committee that all the consultations seemed to have been done internally. To his knowledge, there had been no consultation with external stakeholders. He said, “I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.” If members were to look at all the amendments put forward, they would understand what he said. For the Liberal Party, which purported to put consultation on a pedestal, this seems very strange. The Liberals did not consult with the unions, the victims, the prisoners or the prisoner advocates. Could the member opposite tell me exactly who they consulted?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationReport stage57875285787529PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, we received comments from many stakeholders regarding the proposed legislation we have before us today. I know that not all stakeholders are happy with the bill. I recognize that they are skeptical about whether it will work. However, the bill is a testament to how extremely hard the committee worked to listen to the witnesses who came before it to alter the bill, where needed, to make it better.As I said, with the investments we have made, I am confident that once corrections starts working on the bill, we are going to see transformative change in how these units are used and in how the rehabilitation of offenders within our prison system takes place.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationReport stage57875305787531JimEglinskiYellowheadMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1600)[English]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?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5787532578753357875345787535PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his passion on this issue. I too met with the Native Women's Association. If I recall the amendment correctly, there were words in the amendment proposed by the Native Women's Association that do not actually exist in current legislation. It would have caused problems in interpretation. If I remember correctly, the word was “community”, although I could be wrong. That is why departmental officials were asked to come up with wording that would reflect what is currently in legislation so that there would be no conflict.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57875365787537MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1600)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-83.While we were studying this bill in committee, I saw something that I have rarely seen, if ever, since I became an MP.All of the witnesses spoke out against the bill to varying degrees, with the exception of departmental officials, of course. This is very worrisome. Context is very important with Bill C-83. This bill is a response to two legal rulings, one from the Supreme Court of British Columbia and another from an Ontario court. Both courts noted cases of abuse in the use of segregation, and they declared it unconstitutional. In response, the government appealed the decision and then introduced Bill C-56 three years ago in 2016, if memory serves. Now, it has introduced Bill C-83, which is completely different.[English]A question needs to be posed before we even get into the substance of the bill and the amendments. Why is the government, on the one hand, appealing a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, and on the other hand, presenting legislation that it claims will be a remedy for the court's findings of practices, and certain abuses of said practices, that are unconstitutional? It is a little confusing and extremely concerning when we hear the government continue to say that it has eliminated what is called, in law, administrative segregation, but what most Canadians understand to be solitary confinement. To that end, I want to quote Senator Kim Pate, who has worked extensively on many issues related to justice and public safety, in particular issues relating to the situation in our penitentiaries. One quote stands out. She wrote, “Ottawa cannot declare that segregation has been eliminated, while failing to address the horrors associated with this practice and gutting what minimal restrictions courts have placed on its use.”(1605)[Translation]The problem is that the new practice replacing segregation will eliminate a number of legal protections.I will admit that several members from various parties sought to resolve the issue in committee.The most striking example is that an amendment is usually about 2,000 words long. There was a lot of havoc in the House back in December. Several members raised a point of order because we did not have access to an acceptable French translation. The amendment was literally written moments before debate was scheduled to start. Not to mention that several witnesses in committee spoke out against the lack of consultation on the bill.[English] I want to come back to what Dr. Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator, who is essentially the watchdog for the correctional system, said when speaking to the bill. Given that my time is limited, I will stick to the one quote that sums up the issue of improvisation. He said, “I think that's why you end up with something that is perhaps not fully thought out.” I apologize to Dr. Zinger for not using the full quote. As I said, my time is limited. When we have an expert such as Dr. Zinger saying that something is not fully thought out, that says a lot, unfortunately, about the lack of consultation and the kind of patchwork we are dealing with here.These are report stage amendments the Liberal members are proposing, let us be clear, after the minister came to committee with the knowledge there would be the requirement of a royal recommendation and having clearly worked with specific members so that they could propose specific amendments to fix a bill that is so unfixable. We end up with a patchwork that in some cases would leave us looking at a period of up to 90 days, potentially, before a case of abusive use of solitary confinement would actually get properly reviewed.[Translation]When we consider the work that was done in committee and the statements made by several Liberal members, including the minister, we need to understand that this was already in the mandate letters of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice when the government was sworn in. Regrettably, the objectives of the bill before us today have not been achieved.I will give a few examples of the direction we would like to take. The hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington was right to mention the situation of women. Very few women are placed in segregation, but those who are placed in segregation are often far more vulnerable. Consider serious mental health issues, for example.After hearing several witnesses in committee, I proposed an amendment eliminating the use of segregation in women’s prisons. It was rejected.Another example is the possibility of judicial review.(1610)[English]The opportunity for judicial review is one that is really important. It is something that goes back a number of years to a recommendation that was made by Justice Louise Arbour, after the situation that unfolded in the Kingston Penitentiary. She put it much more eloquently than I could when she explained that the abusive use of solitary confinement in Canada undermines our judicial system, because it comes to a point where administrators within the corrections system are playing a role in sentencing. When we get to a point where certain offenders are being treated in a certain way, and in a way that undermines their pathway to rehabilitation and any objectives the court might have set for them in sentencing, then we have come to a situation where the only remedy could be considering a judicial review.I know others have proposed other tools, rather than just judicial review. I know in committee we heard that judicial review could undermine public safety. That is not so. To go back to the comment my Conservative colleague made that I did not have a chance to respond to, he talked about preventative segregation. That is fine. We understand that there can be a need for it in situations where riots ensue and where safety is in jeopardy, and that there should be an examination of the good use of preventative isolation.However, that does not need to take place over a prolonged period of time. We are talking about a situation that could be resolved, arguably, in 24 hours. Those were some of the examples that were given to us by, among others, folks from the John Howard Society.[Translation]The last aspect I can think of, as I can see that my time is running out, concerns duration.We have heard a lot about review and accountability mechanisms for prison administrators. Of course, there are the issues of appropriate mechanisms and accountability in the case of mental illness to avoid hindering rehabilitation and improving the mental health of prisoners in segregation.That said, we missed a great opportunity given that Bill C-56—which was introduced by the same minister but never debated—was already firmly headed in the same direction. We missed the opportunity to enforce the standards established by the United Nations, the Nelson Mandela rules, which limit the duration of administrative segregation to 15 days. We missed the opportunity to directly address the greatest abuses of the system. In conclusion, despite the good intentions behind the amendments, they are just attempts at fixing a bill that is so bad that it was unanimously condemned in committee. We cannot support this bill.I hope that the government will seize this opportunity to go back to square one and to drop its appeals of two court decisions stating what we have known for far too long, which is that these abuses of segregation are unconstitutional.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement57875385787539578754057875415787542578754357875445787545578754657875475787548578754957875505787551578755257875535787554578755557875565787557578755857875595787560PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his intervention and his work on the justice committee.He mentioned mental health when winding up his comments. Improving mental health in Canada is one of the most important goals we have as a government. Our efforts should not neglect the criminal justice system when it comes to mental health. The Union of Safety and Justice Employees has said it is very supportive of this legislation, provided new investments increase staffing levels. In fact, the fall economic statement included $448 million over six years, of which $300 million would go toward human resource and infrastructure updates. More importantly, $150 million would go toward much-needed improvements in mental health care in the correctional system.How will Bill C-83 improve the mental wellness and well-being of correctional officers and inmates within our criminal justice system?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stage578756157875625787563MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, ultimately, that is the big issue we have here. We have raised this issue several times. One of the reasons we see the abusive use of solitary confinement in our federal corrections system is the lack of resources. That is one of the things that came back repeatedly during the study of the bill, because we are looking at completely reformatting how our prison system operates but are bringing administrative segregation back under a different name. After repeated questioning, both the minister and the officials were unable to explain to us how much funding would be available or how all of this would be implemented. That is problematic as there is enough fine print in this legislation that, in the event there is a lack of resources to deal with offenders who have serious mental health issues, the only recourse would be to put them in solitary confinement. The government is going to respond, through the amendments it has brought at report stage, by saying not to worry and that it is dealing with it because there is a review mechanism. However, the problem with that review mechanism is that we are looking at 30 days after an initial decision has been made; 30 days again, after which it goes to another committee; and another 30 days after that. Therefore, it is nowhere near respecting the United Nations' norms and the Mandela rules. Rather, it is going to deal with all of this bureaucracy that ultimately is undermining mental health outcomes and the rights of these individuals.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement578756457875655787566LloydLongfieldGuelphJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and his work with us at committee. Could the member tell us his concerns for the safety of correctional officers and other inmates because of the removal of disciplinary segregation and the introduction of a needle exchange program in many institutions?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programReport stageSolitary confinement57875675787568MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am also pleased to be able to work with him in committee.That is exactly the problem. Correctional officers have to make do with the resources they are given. They say that they want to abide by higher standards when it comes to the mental health of inmates. If the government allocates more financial resources to help inmates with mental health issues, it would inevitably improve prison security.As my colleague suggested, correctional officers have to improvise in order to follow the directives they are given because they do not have sufficient resources. When Jason Godin, the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, appeared before the committee, he said that they would like to apply the new directives, but that it will be extremely problematic if they are unable to do so.As my colleague said, there is a difference between short-term segregation for security reasons and long-term segregation because the resources are not available to deal with serious mental health problems. Many organizations working in the field raised that issue. Bill C-83 does nothing to address that issue.We need to go back to square one because the government's bill is worse than a draft. It is unacceptable.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programReport stageSolitary confinement57875695787570578757157875725787573JimEglinskiYellowheadKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1615)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate at report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.This legislation strengthens the act in several ways, including by eliminating administrative segregation in favour of a new system designed to achieve two objectives: ensuring the safety of staff and inmates, and offering inmates the rehabilitation programs they need. It goes without saying that our communities are safer when rehabilitation is more successful.[English]First off, I would like to thank all of the witnesses who appeared before the public safety committee, as well as the members of the committee who engaged in thoughtful and productive analysis of the bill. In fact, there were amendments accepted from all parties. There were some amendments proposed by a member of one party, with a subamendment by a member of another party, that were ultimately supported by both. This is what it looks like when parliamentarians work across party lines, when ideas are seriously considered on their merits, regardless of what party they came from, and when the government listens to Canadians and welcomes constructive feedback.The initial version of Bill C-83, introduced in October, was immediately a major step forward for the Canadian correctional system. The committee amendments made the bill even stronger and there are amendments that have now been introduced at report stage, especially the proposal to create an external oversight mechanism that will make it stronger still. The main feature of the bill is the creation of structured intervention units. These SIUs will allow for the separation of inmates from the general population when that is necessary for security reasons. However, unlike the current system of segregation, SIUs will be designed and resourced to provide interventions including mental health care and inmates will get a minimum of four hours out of their cell daily, with at least two hours of meaningful human contact. At committee, certain witnesses asked for greater clarity regarding when the hours out would be offered and what the nature of the meaningful contact would be. Thanks to amendments by the members for Montarville and Toronto—Danforth, the bill now specifies that the hours out must be offered between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and that the meaningful contact should, as a rule, be face to face. There were also committee amendments related to oversight. In the original draft of the bill, the decision to place someone in an SIU would be reviewed by the warden after five days and after another 30 days, and by the commissioner every 30 days thereafter, for as long as the person remained in the unit. The warden would also conduct a review if the inmate did not get their minimum hours out for five days in a row or 15 out of 30, and a health care provider could, at any time, recommend changes to the conditions of confinement or removal from the SIU. That was already a solid internal review system but an amendment from the member for Toronto—Danforth strengthened the health care review process even further so that, in the event the warden disagrees with the health care provider's recommendations, the matter gets elevated to a senior committee within the correctional service.The amendment that has been proposed by the member for Oakville North—Burlington would add external oversight in the form of independent external decision-makers. These individuals would examine cases where an inmate has, for one reason or another, not received their minimum hours out of the cell or minimum hours of meaningful contact for five straight days or 15 out of 30. They would also examine situations where the senior health care review committee disagrees with the recommendations of the health care provider and they would examine all SIU placements after 90 days and every 60 days thereafter. (1620)[Translation]These independent external decision-makers will have real decision-making power, and not just the ability to make a recommendation. Both parties, the Correctional Service and the inmate, could apply to the Federal Court for judicial review.The strength of this review system, which would include internal and external reviews, as well as the involvement of health care professionals, is unprecedented. I thank the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington for her proposal. The government will be happy to support it.[English]One of the other points that was raised at committee was the question of whether the new SIUs would be appropriately resourced. For instance, the head of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Jason Godin, said that the bill was ambitious, but required significant new resources to implement safely and effectively.Stan Stapleton, president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees said that the bill was a step in the right direction, but new resources were needed to ensure its success. We could not agree more. That is why the fall economic statement included $448 million over the next six years to support the implementation of Bill C-83. That includes about $300 million specifically for the SIUs as well as $150 million to strengthen mental health care, both within SIUs and throughout the corrections system. That is on top of almost $80 million in the last two budgets for mental health care in the corrections system.In other words, we are putting our money where our mouth is. This new approach will have the resources it needs to be successful. I know I am nearing the end of my time and I cannot go into detail about all the aspects of the bill, from better support to victims at parole hearings to the creation of patient advocates to strengthened health care governance or even the consideration of systemic and background factors in decision-making involving indigenous inmates. I have not even been able to touch on all of the amendments made at committee or on all of the amendments proposed at report stage. However, it is clear that this legislation, bolstered by a vigorous and constructive legislative process, would help achieve our objective of having a better corrections system, one that would provide employees with a safe work environment, that would provide victims of crime with information and support, that would hold offenders to account and that would offer the programs, mental health care, substance abuse treatment, skills training and other interventions necessary for safe and effective rehabilitation.Our communities are better protected when people end their sentences prepared to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives and the bill would help make that happen.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement5787574578757557875765787577578757857875795787580578758157875825787583578758457875855787586578758757875885787589578759057875915787592MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, the comments I hear from the prison guards in the penitentiary in Prince Albert are about their lack of consultation in the process, their lack of ability to have input in how this is going to happen, how this is going to work. There are many examples, and I will use one very simple example of the electronic screening of inmates. It sounds really good, but this penitentiary was built in the sixties. It does not have the electrical requirements to do this, yet no budget has been set aside for it to put in the appropriate electrical facilities. How are they going to implement things like this, based on Bill C-83, when there is no budget, no more resources or anything else to help them do that?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage578759357875945787595KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his commitment to making improvements in this area, especially in corrections.I attended a stakeholder meeting and I heard concerns about whether there would be enough resources to make the changes that were required in so many different prisons. The experts from the correctional services said that they would be implemented incrementally and that they were committed to ensuring that the individual facilities would have the resources they needed to implement this safely.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57875965787597RandyHobackPrince AlbertLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member down the way for bringing up the improvements that we are looking at in our correctional facilities. It is in contrast to previous governments wanting to build large jails and locking everybody up versus investing in the system and the people operating within our correctional services. We are investing over $300 million over six years on infrastructure and personnel improvements and $150 million on mental health care for inmates and the people working within the facilities.Could the hon. member talk about the strategic purpose of investing in this way to improve our system versus building bigger jails and locking everybody up?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage578759857875995787600KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, we want effective rehabilitation. We want a system in which offenders are held to account for whatever their actions are, but are put into a system that will help them address any issues that may have led to their behaviour. Whether it is abject poverty, substance abuse or mental health issues, we want a system that helps them come out of the correctional system ready to play a role in society. We believe we can reduce the reoffend rate by ensuring the inmates we are in charge of have the opportunity to create a better life so they do not feel they need to go back to the criminal world in order to survive. We want safer communities, and this is a major part of that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57876015787602LloydLongfieldGuelphBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/53569BrigitteSansoucyBrigitte-SansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SansoucyBrigitte_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): (1630)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I hear the parliamentary secretary when she speaks to the importance of caring for those with mental health issues.That is something I have come to understand through decades of work with troubled youth. That kind of support requires resources, however, and the witnesses that appeared before the committee clearly spoke of a lack of resources. To support these people with mental health problems, saying it is important is not enough. The necessary resources need to be there.I would like to hear what she thinks about the resources the government is prepared to put in place to achieve the objectives she has set for us.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stage578760357876045787605KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the fall economic update, it was $448 million over the next six years. That includes $300 million specifically for the SIUs, in addition to $150 million to strengthen mental health care within the SIUs and the corrections system. That is almost $80 million in the last two budgets for mental health care in the corrections system. We know this needs to get done, and we are making the investments necessary.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stage57876065787607BrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. A lot of people do not realize that on any given day in Canada we have roughly 40,000 plus prisoners in custody. They are in eight maximum-security facilities, 19 medium-security facilities, 15 minimum and 10 multidisciplinary type facilities. We have 18,000 Canadian government employees looking after these prisoners, of which 10,000 are on the front line. They are either correctional officers, parole officers or health care workers. I want to personally thank them here today for the service they do in our correctional services from coast to coast to coast. I have a facility in my community, as does the gentleman beside me. We know the problems they go through on a day-to-day basis and the great service they give our country.This was and is a bad bill. Even worse, this is ill-thought-out legislation. It is a lot worse than the cannabis bill. Simply, Bill C-83 was a knee-jerk reaction to two Supreme Court rulings in February of 2018, regarding the clarity on indefinite solitary confinement. Bill C-83 does not correct this; it just rewords it and disguises it in flowery words. No longer is it called solitary confinement. It has been renamed “structural intervention unit”. It sounds nice. The heads of the institutions will be allowed to designate any area of a jail to be that. Why do we need that? Structural intervention units are needed for unmanageable prisoners and those who are dangerous to staff, inmates or themselves. Perhaps they are being held for an investigation. Perhaps it is an attempted murder within the facility and he or she has to be segregated. There is a need, and there are reasons why people are held in these types of lock-ups in these facilities. A 19-year prisoner appeared before the public safety committee. He was pretty intimidating when he first came in there, but the man talked with a lot of sense. He was originally sentenced for 14 years, but he was so bad he got an additional five years, of which a lot was in solitary confinement. He said that they were a must, that we should not get rid of them. Many more witnesses came before the public safety committee, even the Minister of Public Safety. Again, I am going to say this is a bad bill. Every group of witnesses or individuals who appeared said that it was a bad bill. These are not my words. It was the witnesses who said that, except for the minister and his ministerial staff who said that it was such a great bill. How many amendments were read by the Speaker today? The Elizabeth Fry Society said it was a bad bill. It said that structural intervention units were not needed, that it failed to focus on the programs and that there was lack of oversight. It is concerned about section 81, due to the workings of indigenous governing bodies. The John Howard Society calls it a bad bill. It wanted to know what was the difference between solitary confinement and structural intervention. It said there was no difference, that the bill changed the words, but it did little to change anything. Those are their words, not mine. Increasing two hours outside the prison cells to four hours does little to help the prisons. There is a lack of infrastructure, physical and human resources. The bill does not address the need. I will go back to the 19-year prisoner. He admitted to being a bad boy. He spent a very long time in solitary confinement. He said that he needed to be there, as he was dangerous. He felt these units were needed to protect guards, prisoners and even people like himself. However, he stated that prisoners must be helped with programs, counselling, etc., and that this was not happening within the institution. What he really stressed was that there was no one looking after the prisoners once they were released. They are just dumped out into society. He said that continued help needed to be there to rehabilitate the prisoners. (1635)The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association says that it is a bad bill and it cannot support it. It said the bill lacks external oversight, lacks programs that are needed to assist prisoners to reform, and lacks sufficient resources and manpower for social and educational needs, health professionals, etc.The Native Women's Association of Canada says it is a bad bill. The association was not consulted. It says the bill does not address traditions, protocol, or cultural practices, and does not clarify indigenous communities.The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers also says it is a bad bill, that it is not feasible and leaves prisoners and guards vulnerable. That is where my concern is, with prisoners and guards, especially the guards, being vulnerable.The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it is a bad bill. It says it is not a meaningful reform and should be repealed. It said there was no consultation, and we have heard that many times here.Aboriginal Legal Services says it is a bad bill, and that there is a big gap between the rhetoric and reality.When we were gathering evidence on some of the costs related to prisoners, the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, who is also on committee with me, was told by a witness that the cost of keeping a female prisoner in a structured living condition was $533,000 a year. He was shocked. Then he was told that the cost for males in structured living conditions was between $300,000 and $600,000 a year. When he heard that, he asked me for an aspirin. I did not have one; I just told him he would have to cope.I am just about done. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said in the 2016-17 report that the cost of an average prisoner is $314 a day or $115,000 a year. If a prisoner is segregated, the average cost is $463,000 plus per year. That is $1,260 a day to keep a person in segregation.Bill C-83 will cost way more than the Liberals are talking about. When the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness what the cost would be to implement this bill, the minister replied that he had no idea. He said he had no clue, but we should trust the Liberals because they would work it out. He wanted us to just pass the bill as it was.I have heard from a number of speakers opposite today that $400-some million is being thrown at this program to make structural modifications at our prisons and to improve the health care facilities, but I have not heard anyone from across this great room say there was any money going to hire additional staff, or to improve staff resources or staff training. Nothing. There was nothing that came from the parliamentary secretary; nothing came from anybody.We heard the Liberals were going to fix the buildings, but I have talked to a number of the prisons around Alberta, and they have not even been asked about what needs to be done. The guards and unions have not been spoken to.We are supposed to trust the Liberals. I think they said they are putting $448 million into this, but what about increasing staff? We know it is going to cost more to do it. We know it is going to cost more in manpower to operate these new units, especially if we are going to move them around to different spots in the prisons.There is nothing in the Liberal plan or budget to account for that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCostsGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement5787610578761157876125787613578761457876155787616578761757876185787619578762057876215787622578762357876245787625578762657876275787628578762957876305787631578763257876335787634AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, when I used to be the health care critic in the province of Manitoba, and members will see the link here, it was a fairly significant budget. What happened was the government would often make a decision in terms of what direction a hospital facility would take. The hard numbers were not necessarily known.One of the reasons those hard numbers may not always be known is that we have a great reliance on our civil servants. A lot of that is the shuffling around effect, where maybe one cost factor will decrease because of a change, yet another cost factor will increase because of that change. It is very difficult, at the best of times, to give the type of numbers the member across the way is proposing.Generally speaking, and I emphasize that, it is an envelope of money that is assigned. Through that, there will be some changes. Ultimately it will be determined whether or not there is a need for an increase.Would the member provide his thoughts about what I am saying, and apply the same basic principle for other divisions of government?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5787635578763657876375787638JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, it all boils down to consultation. Every witness other than the minister and his staff said there was no external consultation. We cannot be expected to know what it is going to cost to renovate the institution in my area unless we talk to people on the ground. We can even look at this building. I do not know if it is the same on the other side of the House, but on this side there is a closet where I can hang my coat. On either side of that closet, there are three feet in which I cannot put anything because I cannot get to it. Consulting and working with people on the ground makes a big difference. I still have not heard anything mentioned by anyone on the other side about any money going for labour resources or training or education, which is what they are asking for. They are begging for that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage578763957876405787641KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, many cases of inmates who are placed into segregation are related to mental health. Do Conservatives believe that segregation is the way to treat these individuals instead of mental health programming that may help to address the root cause of their behaviour? Does he believe this despite the overwhelming evidence that segregation will likely cause further damage to the mental health of an inmate?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement5787642JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Is segregation going to help them? No. We need to look at this medically. We need to look at training our staff members to understand what the inmates are going through. They need to know. To put an inmate into a locked cell and let the guy walk an eight-by-eleven foot cell all day long does not help his mentality. He needs to be taken to a medical facility, or we need to have fully trained medical people on site. We do not have that at the present time.No, it will not help them. We need to address their concerns.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement57876435787644GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit on a few topics. One thing I find very concerning is the safety aspect for the prison guards. The reality is that they were not properly consulted, and they have told me that over and over again. There are lots of things in Bill C-83 that sound good on paper but would not be practical in practice. Many examples were given about whether the guards feel they are more at risk now than before because of Bill C-83, and there are no resources to offset that risk.The committee talked to different people, and I am just curious as to how extensive the consultations were. What was the guards' reaction to Bill C-83 when the member and the committee talked to them?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57876455787646578764757876485787649JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, based on my conversations with prison guards who work in my area and in other parts of Alberta, they were not consulted. They are frustrated, because they want to have the tools to provide a great service for this country and for the prisoners they are looking after.The guards are concerned about their own safety and about the safety of the prisoners. They are concerned about their health care, but they are not getting enough training. I talked to a young guard who said he was there two weeks and was put on the segregation unit because it was short-staffed. He said he was very uncomfortable, and I think he was right to be. We need resources to help train these people if we are going to add a whole new set of burdens to the prison reform system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage578765057876515787652RandyHobackPrince AlbertMajidJowhariRichmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88929MajidJowhariMajid-JowhariRichmond HillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JowhariMajid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise at the report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This bill has been extensively debated and scrutinized since its introduction. I have been watching with great interest as it proceeded through the House and the committee. At the outset, I would like to thank all hon. colleagues, witnesses and members who shared their thoughts and offered constructive suggestions throughout the process, both in the chamber and at committee. As a legislator, the debate gave me and the House as a whole much to think about, and resulted in a stronger and more comprehensive bill.Bill C-83 proposes the elimination of segregation and the creation of innovative new structured intervention units, or SIUs, for offenders who must be separated from their fellow inmates for safety and security reasons. SIUs would allow offenders who pose particularly difficult challenges to be separated from the mainstream inmate population when and if required. However, they would continue to receive the programming, intervention and health care that are essential to their rehabilitation.Segregation is an immoral and ineffective practice. It does not deliver the results we are looking for in our correctional system, for our prisoners or for our correctional officers. As a member, I considered incorporating similar principles in my private member's legislation, Bill C-375, which would similarly legislate the nexus between mental health and our judicial system. However, as we saw with measures previously proposed in Bill C-56, the transformation of our penitentiaries is a profound undertaking that would require measures far beyond those made possible through private members' legislation.Bill C-83 had a series of amendments adopted during its time in committee. In fact, every party that put forward amendments had at least one amendment ultimately adopted. Specifically, I will use my time to home in on amendments that strengthen the capacity of Bill C-83 to improve the mental well-being of prisoners. I will specifically address five areas that piqued my interest.First, when Bill C-83 passed at second reading, it had, in principle, legislation that would guarantee inmates held within SIUs four hours outside of their cells. One of the proposed amendments to the bill specified that those hours be between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. Those are normal waking hours for most people. This responds to the concerns raised in committee that time out of cells could be offered, say, in the middle of the night, when inmates would be unlikely to avail themselves of them.The CMHA has connected lack of daylight to dips in mood and depression. There is also research that shows maintaining a regular sleep cycle, connected to the natural ebb and flow of the day, is important for maintaining mental health. This amendment would ensure that the four hours of time outside SIUs are not outside of the bounds of the natural day. It would prevent officials from providing these hours as an obligatory or dismissive exercise and ensure that they serve their intended purpose. Second, human beings are built to seek out interaction with others, particularly in times of stress. Isolation can reduce cognition and even compromise the immune system. Extensive time in an unchanging environment can alter the way we process external stimuli. It can literally warp the way we experience the world around us. This is why Bill C-83 includes provisions that would guarantee inmates the opportunity for two hours of meaningful human contact each and every day.Thanks to amendments put forward in the committee, this principle has been strengthened practically. By looking to ensure that this interaction is not hindered by physical barriers such as bars or security glass, the proposed amendment would ensure that those two hours are not just perfunctory but meaningful human contact.(1650)Third, socializing with peers and participating in rehabilitative programming outside their cells would also go a long way toward improving the mental health and well-being of inmates in an SIU. It would put them on the right track to reintegrating into the mainstream inmate population. Beyond that, it would help their chances of successfully reintegrating into society as law-abiding members of society at the end of their sentences.Fourth, the proposed reforms in Bill C-83 would also strengthen health care, including mental health services, in corrections in several ways. It would mandate the Correctional Service to support the autonomy and clinical independence of health care professionals working within a correctional facility. As well, it would allow for the use of patient advocates, as was recommended by the inquiry into the death of Ashley Smith.Within SIUs, inmates would receive daily visits from health care professionals, who could recommend at any time that an inmate's conditions of confinement be altered or that they be transferred out of the SIU. These recommendations could stem from a professional mental health assessment. In turn, these recommendations could pre-empt mental health crises or imminent self-harm.Fifth, an amendment adopted at committee would strengthen this aspect of the bill by requiring an additional review at a more senior level external to the institution if the warden does not accept medical recommendations.It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these measures. Mental health is an extremely serious problem in our prisons. Some 70% of male offenders have a mental health issue. At 80%, the percentage is even higher for women offenders. The ministers of public safety and justice have been mandated to address gaps in services to people with mental illnesses in the criminal justice system. The proposed reforms in Bill C-83 support that commitment. They also build on recent investments in this area. The last two budgets included nearly $80 million for mental health care in corrections, and more recently, in the fall economic statement the Minister of Finance announced substantial funding of $448 million for corrections. This funding will help support the transformational changes to the correctional system proposed in this bill, and it will allow for comprehensive improvements to mental health care in corrections within SIUs and across the board.It also directly addresses calls for increased resources made at committee by Jason Godin, the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, and by Stanley Stapleton, the national president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees. In other words, should this bill pass into law, the appropriate resources will be in place to ensure it successfully fulfills its objectives. I know this was a concern raised at committee, and it was also raised during this debate. I am reassured there is already an effort on behalf of the government to allocate appropriate resources.In conclusion, the number one objective of this bill is safety. Correctional staff and other inmates need to be protected from certain offenders who cannot be safely managed in the mainstream population. By ensuring inmates separated from the mainstream population get the interventions they need to increase their chances of successful rehabilitation, the bill would lead to greater safety inside correctional institutions, and greater safety in our communities when those inmates are eventually released. We started this process with a very good bill. What we have before us today is an even stronger version of the legislation, bolstered by the productive contributions of witnesses at committee and the serious work of committee members.In closing, I fully support Bill C-83 and I urge all hon. members to do the same thing.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement57876535787654578765557876565787657578765857876595787660578766157876625787663578766457876655787666578766757876685787669578767057876715787672JimEglinskiYellowheadRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the four hours the prisoners now get out of solitary confinement, when they have two hours to mingle with other prisoners. When I toured the Prince Albert penitentiary, one of the concerns the guards had was about all the different gangs inside that prison and how they have to manage all these different populations in order to keep everybody safe. If they do not have the resources to manage this scenario, two different gang members could possibly be out together, beat up on each other and force the guards to be in an unsafe situation. This is another example of something that sounds good on paper and needs to be thought about, but there have been no resources given to the guards to prevent a situation like this from erupting. What does he suggest the guards do to prevent this type of violence from happening? It is going to happen unless there are more solutions given to the guards to prevent it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57876735787674MajidJowhariRichmond HillMajidJowhariRichmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88929MajidJowhariMajid-JowhariRichmond HillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JowhariMajid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Majid Jowhari: (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, officers are there to maintain peace and maintain the safety of the inmates. This bill would provide for four hours of activities outside of the cell. Out of that time, two hours of meaningful interaction are designed to make sure that a relationship is maintained not only with inmates' family members, but also with individuals who can help in the rehabilitation process. We can hypothesize that four hours or two hours is going to be used to connect with other gang members, but that is not the intention. That is why we have the officers there. Also, that is why we have invested $448 million, out of which $200 million is to support the training and the services that are needed to deal with the situation. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57876755787676RandyHobackPrince AlbertJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, the bill itself, Bill C-83, will effectively make some tweaks to existing legislation, one of which is to rebrand solitary confinement as administrative segregation in what are called “structured integration units”. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court have ruled that administrative segregation is unconstitutional. This bill in and of itself does not fix that issue. In fact, as the member identified, one area of concern that he has centres around mental health. The bill still allows for indefinite isolation and segregation of up to 20 hours instead of the current 22 to 23 hours This segregation can cause permanent mental health damage to inmates, who need to be integrated into society. I would like to have the member comment with respect to the mental health aspect of this action being taken, as is allowed under this bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement57876775787678MajidJowhariRichmond HillMajidJowhariRichmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88929MajidJowhariMajid-JowhariRichmond HillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JowhariMajid_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Majid Jowhari: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her passion about mental health. I share the same passion, as I am sure she is aware.The way I look at it is that without this bill and this amendment, we have not started on the journey of making sure that we make meaningful impact. It may not be the best and it might not be the be-all and end-all, but it is the right step in the right direction. The right step is that it would provide inmates with four hours outside of their cells. During those hours there will be interaction with a mental health professional, who can determine if the inmate needs to be maintained in the SIU or if the method of rehabilitation needs to be altered or if the inmate should be removed from the SIU. On that note, I would say that we are taking the first step. There is lot of work to be done, but this is the right first step. As with any other legislation, this is a journey. Hopefully, in five years we are going to have the opportunity to review it and make it much stronger.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement578767957876805787681JennyKwanVancouver EastLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-83, I would just like to comment on what I have been hearing since this debate began.We live in a world where we appear to want to rely on the goodwill of others. We think that everything will be fine, that nothing bad will happen and that everything will go smoothly just because we amend a bill. We think inmates and guards will magically change their behaviour.Unfortunately, that is not how it works in real life. There is a group of people we have not talked about enough since this report stage debate began. I am referring to correctional officers. They are the ones responsible for security in prisons, for the safety of inmates and colleagues, and for the inmates' well-being. We do not talk about them enough.For some time now, I have had the pleasure of being the official opposition critic for agriculture and agri-food. This reminds me of some people's perception of farmers. Farmers take excellent care of their livestock, but many people think they do not care about the animals' health at all. People think farmers do not care about making sure their livestock are treated properly. The truth is that farmers care deeply about the well-being and safety of their livestock.I think that is also what correctional officers want. They have a role to play with regard to inmates. They are there to guard individuals who are in prison and keep them away from the community. Many people think guards are only there to rap inmates' knuckles and maintain law and order. Since I know a few correctional officers, I know that they care about taking care of the inmates and ensuring their well-being. They also care about their rehabilitation. I think that is important to mention, before getting into the substance of Bill C-83.Why am I talking about correctional officers? Because, from everything I have seen and everything I have read about Bill C-83, correctional officers have unfortunately not been consulted about the impact the bill will have on their daily reality.No correctional officer would wilfully and maliciously deprive a prisoner of his or her rights. There are rules to follow. Some situations require correctional officers to take action. Unfortunately, the government missed a good opportunity to listen to them, to consult them and to ensure that the bill would enabled them to act and do their job to the best of their ability.Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate administrative segregation in correctional institutions and replace it with structured intervention units. It also proposes the use of body scanners for inmates. It proposes to establish parameters for access to health care. It also proposes to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women and offenders with diagnosed mental health disorders.The legislation also applies to transfers and allows the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary. We will have an opportunity to come back to that.Unfortunately, Bill C-83 does not address the safety of inmates and correctional officers as a priority. As I mentioned, all those who participated in the study of the bill criticized the lack of consultation. The only people who were consulted were the people around the minister and the minister himself. Members of civil society working for inmates' rights and the inmates themselves have found that the bill does not at all meet its objectives.(1705)It is obvious that the Liberals did not do their homework for Bill C-83. Before beginning report stage discussions, several motions were moved, including Motion No. 17.The motion contains seven pages of amendments to the bill. The reality is that the Liberals realized that they had not done a good job. One does not move a seven-page motion if the work is done properly. They moved this motion because they realized that they had not consulted and listened to other people. They made mistakes because they improvised. That is what happened. Once again, the government improvised because two rulings were handed down.Instead of doing things properly, the government chose to improvise, move quickly, not consult anyone, bulldoze ahead and then clean up the mess. The main problem with this bill is that it will not in any way solve the problems we sought to address. It is not a coincidence that most people disagree with the bill and that everyone opposes it.I will quote some of the comments heard in committee. The president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Workers, Mr. Godin, said that this bill is probably dangerous for others because “[s]ometimes the safety and security take precedence over mental health treatment because of the safety and security of other inmates.” That means that we wanted to give priority to something without considering the reality of the prison environment.Mr. Godin also said:...by eliminating segregation and replacing it with structured intervention units, CSC will further struggle to achieve its mandate of exercising safe, secure and humane control over its inmate populations. We are concerned about policy revisions that appear to be reducing the ability to isolate an inmate, either for their safety or for that of staff...Sometimes using segregation is an entirely legitimate way to protect staff and the other inmates. That is what Mr. Godin said. Unfortunately, this bill does not take that into account.The correctional investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger, said that: Eliminating solitary confinement is one thing, but replacing it with a regime that imposes restrictions on retained rights and liberties with little regard for due process and administrative principles is inconsistent with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as well as the charter. As you can see, people on both sides disagree.Today, at the last minute, the government tried to somehow save the day. Why did it not do what had to be done, namely start all over, consult and come back with a good bill that would be acceptable to stakeholders? The government must amend the bill in order to meet expectations. In other words, it must improve security, ensure respect for the rights of inmates and support the rehabilitation of inmates when possible. If the bill's provisions support these objectives, the Canadian prison system will be cited as an example instead of being challenged in the courts again.This government's main problem is its failure to consult. The Liberals consult one another and talk at cabinet meetings behind closed doors. Afterwards they cannot justify why they made these decisions because they cannot talk about what was discussed in cabinet. This means that we cannot get the actual rationale for the changes even though Canadians have the right to be given all the answers on this issue.In closing, I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his excellent work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement57876825787683578768457876855787686578768757876885787689578769057876915787692578769357876945787695578769657876975787698578769957877005787701578770257877035787704578770557877065787707MajidJowhariRichmond HillKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is important to say that we have had a number of Conservative members stand up and imply something that is just not true. In the fall economic statement, it was made very clear that there are additional resources, into the millions of dollars, being put into the system for new hires. That would include correctional officers. It would include health care professionals. Would the member not at the very least recognize the reality that monies have in fact been allocated to deal with some of the issues that the Conservatives have been raising this afternoon?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57877085787709LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1710)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I heard several of my colleagues talk about funding. Unfortunately, the announcements that were made said nothing about funding for Bill C-83.What is unfortunate is that I did not even have time to talk about the allocation of resources in my speech. I did not even talk about the budget. I only talked about the lack of consultation and the Liberal government's failure to listen. That is what is missing. It is clear that my colleague did not bother to listen to me, because I did not talk about that at all.When people have something to say, we should listen to them and ask them questions about the content of their speech, not about other subjects that were addressed by others.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage578771057877115787712KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very valid point about the lack of consultation, which we have heard from a number of stakeholders who raised concerns with respect to the bill and why they do not support it. That was also indicative of the number of amendments that the Speaker read at the beginning of this debate, where he spent at least half an hour talking about them. I do not think, as a new member since 2015, that I have gone through a bill where the Speaker spent half an hour outlining the amendments to the bill we were debating. That is also indicative of the lack of foresight from the government side and the lack of homework with respect to the bill. Having said that, one of the issues the government did not address, which is also central with respect to the bill, is the constitutionality of solitary confinement. The B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court have ruled that it is unconstitutional to have this kind of administrative segregation take place. Would the member agree with the court decision?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stageSolitary confinement578771357877145787715LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles mentioned, I think that solitary confinement is sometimes necessary. However, we also have to ensure security and safety as well as the mental and physical health of inmates and correctional officers. The outcome would likely have been different, had the government properly consulted legal experts, correctional officers and all of the other stakeholders it should have consulted before drafting this bill.I think I agree with my colleague. I am convinced that this bill will end up before the courts because, at first glance, it clearly does not respond to the British Columbia and Ontario court decisions. I am convinced that the House will have to re-examine this bill in a future Parliament because the courts will not be satisfied with the recommendations and changes made in Bill C-83.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stageSolitary confinement578771657877175787718JennyKwanVancouver EastJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have heard from prison guards who work at the Grande Cache Institution in my area about the lack of training and the need for more training, especially in health care and dealing with people with mental health situations. I wonder if the member would like to comment on that need.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stage5787719LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1715)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that is a very big question, a tough one to answer in 30 seconds.If we want things to go smoothly in prisons and we want to provide the best services and the best security to inmates and correctional officers, then we obviously need to provide those officers with adequate training.Problems change over time. We now have mental health problems we did not have 30 years ago. If we want these prison reforms to make things better for inmates and correctional officers, the only way to ensure that is to provide the necessary training, education, staff and resources. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthReport stage578772057877215787722JimEglinskiYellowheadRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues for being here this Thursday evening to discuss this very serious bill and the implications it will have on employees in the penitentiary system across Canada. When the bill came about I reached out to the correctional workers in my riding and had a chance to actually tour the facility with them. I had a chance to see first-hand what they deal with. These are some of the most courageous people I know. With their mental ruggedness and physical stamina, their work is something I definitely could not do. I really appreciate the work they do, and how they are there to protect Canadians and deal with some of the worst of the worst in our society. One of the things they brought to my attention right off the bat was the lack of consultation. They were not involved in the process, in the creation of what the requirements were to improve the facilities. We have to understand that these facilities are very old. They have been around for generations, built in the 1960s and 1970s. They have processes in place based on experience and knowing what they are dealing with. I will give a good example of that. When I first started the tour in the facility they took me into one of the rooms and gave me an overview briefing. They talked about the different types of gangs and groups of criminals they have within their facility. They talked about how they worked with the RCMP and special crimes units to identify these people so that when these people are in the facility they know exactly where they are and who they are mingling with at all times. They know one group cannot mix with the other group. They also know that group three cannot mix with group four, but maybe with group two on certain days. They are aware of not only what is happening within the penitentiary among these different groups, but of what is going on outside the penitentiary with these different groups, which has implications for how they treat them within the facility.One of the things that came to light in Bill C-83 was the change to get rid of voluntary solitary confinement. One of the safety issues they brought up right away was that there were some prisoners in their facility who have fallen out with their gang who really want this and need this. However, not having the ability to get it now will put them in a predicament. What they are concerned about, and I think it is a very real concern, is that they are still going to get it. They will just assault an officer or a guard to get it, because they know they need to do it for their own safety. By taking this away, it sounds good on paper, but in practice it will create a situation that is even more unsafe for our officers and guards. There has to be some consultation when doing this so that we can see things like this brought to light. Then we can think of a different way to treat it and handle it. However, the Liberal government does not like to consult. No matter what the Liberals said when they were elected, they do not do it, especially when the consultation does not give them the answer they want. They want to take the suggestions and solutions from Ottawa and shove them down on people who actually have to work with them. It is those people who will pay for these guys' mistakes. They will pay through financial costs, physical harm and their safety. That is not right. That is why I am so disappointed in the government for not actually recognizing and understanding that, taking a step back and asking what it has to do to make sure it does it right. The Liberals want to ram it through because they know best: “We are Liberals. We know best.” With 30 years' experience what does one know? They have been elected for two years. “We know best” is the Liberal mindset, and it is wrong and they need to change it. One of the other things that cropped up on the tour was that they are going to put body scanners in the facilities, which were built in the 1960s and 1970s. That sounds great. They are happy to have that. However, the first problem is where to put them. These are cement structures. They have solid walls. They cannot just take a sledgehammer and knock out a wall and away we go. This is a major construction problem.The second problem is that they do not have the power requirements. These are older facilities. They do not have the wiring or infrastructure to handle something as simple as a body scanner. We look at that and say that obviously the government is going to put money aside to do that. However, there is nothing in the budget for that, so how are they going to do that? We do not know. There has been no game plan.We heard the members across the aisle saying, “Just trust us”. We have heard that once too often from the government. Usually that means it does not know, it is not sure, it will do it anyway and Canadian taxpayers will pick up the bill no matter what it costs. If the Liberals would have just taken a step back and asked, “What do you guys think would be the best way to implement this?”, they probably would have gotten a reasonable, logical solution that would have had the same results, saved the taxpayers a lot of money and made it safer for our guards. (1720)Here is one example of what the Liberals have not done. They talk about solitary confinement and the four hours these prisoners are going to be allowed outside the facilities mingling with each other. These facilities were not made that way. They were not made to handle that situation. If I go back to my original comments about how careful planning is done as to who is out in the yard mingling with who, for the safety of the guards and the prisoners, that is all structured and very carefully managed. However, the Liberals are now regulating the fact that they have to break those groups up. All of a sudden, they could have the members of two gangs out in the yard together, who look at each other and just beat the crap out of each other. What would also happen is that two or three guards would intercept that, try to break it up and get hurt in the process. It is crazy. The lack of practicality from the current government is scary, yet it is going to ram the bill through because they are Liberals and they know best.It is really disheartening when one goes to these facilities. I would never want to be in one. We joked about a cell for the current Prime Minister of Canada, because that is where he is going to end up after the SNC-Lavalin stuff. Nobody ever wants to be there, that is for sure, and the people who are there are bad people.The other thing I have to mention is the fact that these guards go to work every day and a lot of them have not been paid or have not received their bonuses or increases in pay when changing shifts. They do not even get the shift differential when they go from one part of the penitentiary to the other. Instead of the Liberals looking for solutions and trying to find a way to fix that for these guards, they put their heads in the sand and just say, “Take it.” It is amazing. The disrespect they have for our public employees is phenomenal. It shows up in this piece of legislation, in the Phoenix pay system and in so many other ways the government has treated our employees and Canadian citizens. It has to change.The good news is that on October 20 it will change. Then the guards will understand that there will be a Conservative government in power that will have their backs.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersPublic consultationReport stage5787723578772457877255787726578772757877285787729578773057877315787732578773357877345787735578773657877375787738LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not know where to start with a speech like that. I thank the hon. member for providing some fiction and entertainment this afternoon. However, when we look at what the previous government did between 2012 and 2015, it cut $300 million from Correctional Service Canada. Now he is saying our prisons are in terrible shape. Why would that be? How could that happen when we are jamming two inmates into a cell designed for one, cutting 30% from the pay of inmates while canteen costs are skyrocketing, introducing a tough-on-crime agenda, mandatory minimum sentences, and flooding 1,500 prisoners into cells that were not designed for 1,500 cellmates?Could the hon. member at least acknowledge that the investments we are making today, the $448 million going into our correctional facilities, might help undo some of the disastrous cuts from the previous government?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57877395787740RandyHobackPrince AlbertRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, in reality, Bill C-83 is going to generate more costs than the $448 million will even touch. The Liberals know that but are going to do it anyway. They do not care. They know best. They are from Ottawa. They can tell everybody else in Canada what to do. We see it in their attitude and the arrogance in their faces.The reality is that the Liberals have to make some structural changes to buildings that were built in the 1960s and 1970s. Those buildings will not allow them to safely do what they want to do under Bill C-83. What will happen? The safety of the guards will come into play because they will be put into a facility that was not created to do what the Liberals want it to do. Who will pay? The guards will pay, not these members, and that is not right.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57877415787742LloydLongfieldGuelphJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has a prison facility in his area. He mentioned during his speech that he has toured the facility, has seen the good and bad parts of it and has talked to the guards and the prisoners, just as I did with the institution in Grande Cache. That institution is quite a beautiful one. It is located on top of a mountain. It has about 350 employees and 300 prisoners. However, these are older facilities and I do not believe the government of the day has taken into consideration that some of the changes that will be required regarding health care, scanning facilities and the like just cannot be done with some of the older buildings. It was tried with that one and it required a lot of modification. I do not believe the Liberals have put enough money into the budget. Does the member care to provide his thoughts on that?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57877435787744RandyHobackPrince AlbertRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work and practicality at committee, which was ignored as it went through the committee, obviously.Again, it comes back to the reality here. These are older facilities that are designed based on processes that have been developed over years and years of experience of guards. That is way they work. If we want to change this, that is fine, but do the proper consultations, do the proper analysis, actually talk to the guards, talk to those who are impacted and some of the prisoners.We have to remember that some of the prisoners are the worst of the worst, but some are in there for things like drunk driving or petty theft, and hopefully they will be rehabilitated and will leave the facilities.The way the Liberals are handling this is putting the guards at risk, and that is not right. The guards are being ignored. The Liberals have not talked to them. That is just wrong. Safety is at stake. I do not understand that.The government came into power saying that it was going to consult. It only consults when people say what it wants to hear. In this situation, people have not said what the government wants to hear so it is just ramming it through anyways. That is really unfortunate.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57877455787746578774757877485787749JimEglinskiYellowheadKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, where was the compassion for correctional officers when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the former Conservative government did absolutely nothing to reform and try to improve the quality of living, both for the security and other professionals working in our fine institutions?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage5787750RandyHobackPrince AlbertRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, that is rich, coming from the government that has totally ignored them. It is basically saying that it knows best.The reality is that the Liberals have ignored those people. They are doing a worse job and are putting our guards in harm's way. Guards were never in harm's way under the Harper government, but they are now. The guards are speaking out and they are upset. The Liberals are not listening, and that is unfortunate. The Liberals should be listening.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReport stage57877515787752KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNeedle Exchange ProgramInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians who are calling on the government to end the needle exchange program. They are calling on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety to end the prison needle exchange program and implement measures that would increase the safety of correctional officers in the surrounding community.Correctional servicesDrug use and abuseImprisonment and prisonersPetition 421-032205783529MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 2030--Ms. Elizabeth May: With respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline purchased by the government on August 31, 2018: (a) did the Minister of Natural Resources seek a cost-benefit analysis of acquiring the existing pipeline and of building an expansion; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) when was the analysis sought, (ii) when was the finalized analysis received, (iii) in what format was the finalized analysis received, for instance as a briefing note, a memo, a report, etc.; and (c) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, what are the details of the analysis, including (i) name and credentials of the author or authors, (ii) date of publication, (iii) the WTI/WCS differential used in the calculations, (iv) the range in years from which data on Canada’s oil industry was captured and analyzed for the study, (v) the impact of an expanded pipeline on jobs in the Parkland refinery, (vi) the estimated number of construction jobs and of permanent jobs created by the expansion project, (vii) the projected construction costs of the pipeline expansion project, (viii) an assessment of the impacts of a tanker spill or pipeline leak on British Columbia’s tourism and fisheries industries, (ix) the government’s liability in the event of a spill or leak, broken down by recovery costs for marine, alluvial, and land-based ecologies (including but not limited to remediation, rehabilitation and restoration of sites and species, especially endangered species) and financial compensation for loss of livelihood and involuntary resettlement of human populations?(Return tabled)Question No. 2031--Mr. Matt Jeneroux: With regard to infrastructure projects which were approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all such projects, including (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including name of municipality or local government, (vii) status of project, (viii) start date, (ix) completion date, or expected completion date?(Return tabled)Question No. 2032--Mr. Guy Lauzon: With regard to cyberattacks on government departments and agencies since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many attempted cyberattacks on government websites or servers were successfully blocked; (b) how many cyberattacks on government websites or servers were not successfully blocked; and (c) for each cyberattack in (b), what are the details, including (i) date, (ii) departments or agencies targeted, (iii) summary of incident, (iv) whether or not police were informed or charges were laid?(Return tabled)Question No. 2033--Mr. Richard Cannings: With regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education Program offered by Indigenous Services Canada, broken down by province and territory: (a) how much funding was budgeted for the program for each fiscal year since 2014-15 to date; and (b) how much has been spent on the program for each fiscal year since 2014-15 to date?(Return tabled)Question No. 2034--Mr. Richard Cannings: With regard to communication between the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and persons employed by or on the board of directors of Waterfront Toronto: what are all instances of communication from November 5, 2015, to date, broken down by (i) date, (ii) person in the Office of the Prime Minister or of the Minister, (iii) subject matter, (iv) persons with whom communication occurred and their titles, (v) method of communication?(Return tabled)Question No. 2036--Mr. Harold Albrecht: With regard to the Canada Child Benefit: (a) how many recipients of the benefit (i) are permanent residents of Canada, (ii) are temporary residents of Canada, (iii) have received refugee status, (iv) have made asylum claims that have not yet been adjudicated; (b) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iii); and (c) what is the total amount of money that has been paid out to the recipients in (a)(iv)?(Return tabled)Question No. 2042--Ms. Michelle Rempel: With respect to border crossings occurring at unofficial Canadian ports of entry between January 1, 2017, and October 30, 2018: (a) how many border crossers have had family members later present themselves at an official point of entry to claim asylum using the exemption in the Safe Third Country Agreement for family members; and (b) how many of the cases described in (a) are currently at the Immigration and Refugee Board?(Return tabled)Question No. 2043--Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault: With regard to applications for cannabis licences approved by Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency under the Cannabis Act and the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations: (a) how many licensed producers are structured within family trusts; (b) how many licensed producers have a criminal history; (c) what measures were taken to ensure there was no criminal history; (d) were the criminal histories of the parent companies of licensed producers analyzed; (e) how many licensed producers are associated with individuals with a criminal history; (f) how many parent companies of licensed producers are directly or indirectly associated with individuals and businesses with a criminal history; (g) how many licensed producers were reported by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (h) are the parent companies of licensed producers required to obtain a security clearance, and if so, how many parent companies of licensed producers are there; (i) what are the sources of financing of licensed producers, broken down by jurisdiction; (j) what is the detailed ownership structure of each licensed producer; and (k) what specific measures did Health Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency take to identify the true beneficiaries of licensed producers?(Return tabled)Question No. 2045--Mr. François Choquette: With respect to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: (a) to which branch of the government does the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages belong, according to the Official Languages Act; (b) before the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages, had the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ever covered the expenses of the appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (c) if the answer to (b) is negative, why did the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages agree to pay the expenses for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (d) who precisely approached the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to have it sign and pay for a contract with Boyden for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (e) has Parliament ever authorized the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to pay for expenses incurred by the government; (f) if the answer to (e) is affirmative, what are the authorizations in question; (g) did Parliament have access to the services from Boyden for which the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages paid in relation to the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages; (h) if the answer to (g) is negative, why; (i) how, in detail, did the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ensure that the money that it spent for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages was used for the appropriate purposes; (j) does the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages have all the details of how the money that it paid for the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages was spent; (k) has the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ever authorized Boyden to subcontract services; and (l) what was the total amount that the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages was prepared to pay to cover expenses related to the most recent appointment process for the Commissioner of Official Languages?(Return tabled)Question No. 2046--Mr. Harold Albrecht: With regard to the Correctional Service of Canada's Prison Needle Exchange Program: (a) what consultations were done with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers prior to the pilot program launching; (b) on what dates did the consultations in (a) take place; (c) who was in attendance for the consultations in (a); (d) how many inmates are registered for the program; (e) how many needles have been given to inmates in the program; (f) what are the index offences of inmates registered for the program; (g) what plans, if any, exist to begin the program at other penitentiaries; (h) is an inmate's participation in the program noted in their correctional plan; (i) is an inmate's participation in the program disclosed to the Parole Board of Canada; (j) what safety measures, if any, have been put in place to protect correctional officers from needles that are now in circulation; (k) how many cases have been found of inmates not in the program being in possession of needles sourced to the program; (l) how many needles have been returned to administrators of the program; (m) how many needles have gone missing as a result of inmates losing or not returning them; (n) where does the government suspect that the remaining or missing needles are located; (o) how many inmates have been subject to disciplinary measures for either failing to return a prison exchange needle or being in violation of the program's regulations; and (p) what is the rate of inmate assaults on correctional officers since the program began?(Return tabled)Question No. 2047--Mr. Harold Albrecht: With regard to infrastructure projects approved for funding by Infrastructure Canada since November 4, 2015, in the Waterloo region (defined as the ridings of Kitchener—Conestoga, Kitchener South—Hespeler, Kitchener Center, Waterloo, and Cambridge): what are the details of all such projects, including (i) location, (ii) project title and description, (iii) amount of federal funding commitment, (iv) amount of federal funding delivered to date, (v) amount of provincial funding commitment, (vi) amount of local funding commitment, including name of municipality or local government, (vii) status of project, (viii) start date, (ix) completion date or expected completion date?(Return tabled)Question No. 2048--Mrs. Alice Wong: With regard to funding allocated in the Main Estimates 2018-19 under the Department of Employment and Social Development: (a) what are the details of funding for programs targeted at seniors, including (i) amount of funding allocated per program, (ii) name of program, (iii) summary of program; and (b) what are the details of all organizations which received funding to date through the allocations referenced in (a), including (i) name of organization, (ii) start and end date of funding, (iii) amount, (iv) description of programs or services for which funding is intended, (v) location (i.e. riding name)?(Return tabled)Question No. 2049--Ms. Tracey Ramsey: With regard to federal spending in the riding of Essex, for each fiscal year since 2015-16, inclusively: what are the details of all grants, contributions and loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose of the funding?(Return tabled)Question No. 2050--Ms. Tracey Ramsey: With respect to the federal agency Invest in Canada and its board of directors: (a) what is, to date, the total amount of expenses of the Chair of the board and the members of the board, broken down by type of expenditure; (b) what are the details of implementing a national strategy to attract foreign direct investment to Canada; (c) how many new partnerships have been created, to date, with the departments or agencies of any government in Canada, the private sector in Canada, or other Canadian stakeholders interested in foreign direct investment; (d) how many activities, events, conferences and programs to promote Canada as a destination for investors have so far been created; (e) how much information has so far been collected, prepared and disseminated to assist foreign investors in supporting their foreign direct investment decisions in Canada; (f) how many services have been provided to foreign investors, to date, in respect of their current or potential investments in Canada; (g) who are the foreign investors that the agency has met, to date; (h) what are the suppliers outside of the federal public administration which the agency has used to date; (i) what, to date, are the providers of legal services outside the federal public administration on which the agency has relied; and (j) what are the filters and anti-conflict-of-interest requirements to which the members of the board are subject?(Return tabled)Question No. 2051--Ms. Tracey Ramsey: With respect to the appointment process of the Chair and the members of the board of directors of the federal agency Invest in Canada: (a) did the President and any other member of the board disclose to the Deputy Minister any advice that, if adopted and executed by Invest in Canada, would provide them with a personal or professional financial gain, or bring one to a member of their immediate families or to any organization to which they are affiliated; (b) are the Chair or any other member of the board authorized to disclose to the members of other boards of directors (i) documentation, (ii) deliberations, (iii) records, (iv) advice obtained, (v) updates, (vi) commission data; (c) did the President or any other member of the board report an apparent conflict of interest; (d) did the Chair and any other member of the board object to a discussion or formulation of a recommendation that would conflict with their other interests; and (e) to what regulations, laws or policies relating to conflicts of interest and ethics are the President and any other member of the board subject?(Return tabled)Question No. 2052--Ms. Karine Trudel: With regard to problematic issues related to the Phoenix pay system and the implementation of mixed pay teams in the 13 departments in June 2018: (a) what is the evolution of the cumulative backlog, broken down by department; (b) how many people were underpaid by the Phoenix pay system, in total and broken down by department; (c) how many employees experienced a total pay disruption, broken down by department; (d) of those employees in (c), broken down by department and sex, (i) how many did not receive any pay, (ii) how many had other errors related to pay; (e) what is the average error processing time, broken down by individual complaint; and (f) how many hours of overtime were required to address these issues, broken down by hours of work and costs incurred per pay period?(Return tabled)Question No. 2053--Mr. Pat Kelly: With respect to applications for the disability tax credit (DTC) by persons with type one diabetes which were rejected after the changes in wording to the letter to physicians in 2017 and were reviewed after the same changes in wording were reversed: (a) how many applications were reviewed; (b) how many of the applications in (a) were approved upon review; (c) how many of the applications in (a) were rejected again upon review; (d) how many of the applicants in (b) were notified of the approval; (e) how many of the applicants in (c) were notified of the rejection; (f) how many of the applicants in (c) were not notified of the rejection; (g) how many of the applicants in (c) appealed the rejection; (h) how many of the applicants in (f) were eligible to appeal the rejection; (i) how many of the applicants in (h) passed the due date for appeals without knowing about the rejection of their applications; and (j) had all applicants in (b) successfully appealed the rejection of their applications, how much would the aggregate disability tax credit claims cost on an annual basis?(Return tabled)Question No. 2054--Mr. Jim Eglinski: With regard to Canadian National Railway’s (CN) potential discontinuance of a portion of the Foothills Subdivision and Mountain Spur in Alberta: (a) what analysis has the government undertaken of the potential impacts of this discontinuance; (b) what plans does the government have in place to address and mitigate the impacts; (c) what is the government’s position with regard to accepting the line at a cost not higher than the net salvage value of the rail line; (d) what is the government’s estimate of the current net salvage value of this rail line; (e) is the government aware of any other plans by CN to discontinue any other portions of the rail line, and if so, what are these plans; and (f) does the government plan to include funding for the Foothills Subdivision and Mountain Spur and other similar cases in Budget 2019?(Return tabled)Question No. 2056--Mr. Charlie Angus: With regard to federal contracts with SNC-Lavalin: (a) are there any contingency plans in place for the 148 existing contracts in the event that SNC-Lavalin becomes ineligible to receive government contracts; (b) has the government sent tenders, letters of intent, or requests for quotation to SNC-Lavalin since April 27, 2013; (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, on what occasions was this done and what were the projects in question; (d) for all contracts awarded to SNC-Lavalin since 2013, what were the successful bid amounts; (e) for all completed contracts awarded to SNC-Lavalin since 2013, what amount of money was actually disbursed for each contract; (f) for any contracts that were amended after being awarded since 2013, (i) what contracts were amended, (ii) for what reason were they amended; (g) in general, what is the process for approving amendments to contracts; (h) which buildings owned by the federal government does SNC-Lavalin currently maintain or manage; and (i) what incidents, broken down by category (e.g. critical, health and safety, security) and date, have occurred in government facilities maintained or operated by SNC-Lavalin, or in SNC-Lavalin facilities occupied by government departments?(Return tabled)Question No. 2057--Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With regards to the Statutes of Canada, 2018, Chapter 16 (Cannabis Act), where Part 6, Section 93(2) of the Regulations state that "...cannabis may contain residues of a pest control product, its components or derivatives, if they do not exceed any maximum residue limit, in relation to cannabis, specified for the pest control product, its components or derivatives under section 9 or 10 of the Pest Control Products Act...": (a) has Health Canada defined a maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis as a commodity; (b) if the answer to (a) is positive (i) what is the maximum residue limit, (ii) have the public databases on maximum residue limits been updated to reflect the maximum residue limit for recreational cannabis; (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, does Health Canada intend to define a maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis; (d) if the answer to (c) is positive, when does Health Canada intend to publish the maximum residue limit for residual chemicals in recreational cannabis; and (e) if the answer to (c) is negative, will Part 6, Section 93(2) of the Regulations apply to recreational cannabis as a commodity?(Return tabled)Question No. 2058--Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With regards to applications for visitor visas since January 1, 2016, broken down by calendar year: (a) what number of people from Pakistan have applied for a visitor visa; (b) for each applicant in (a), what number were identified as Christian on their passports; (c) for each applicant in (b), what number were granted visitor visas; (d) for each applicant in (c), what number of adult applicants had annual incomes of 252,000 Pakistani rupees (PKR), or 3,000 Canadian dollars, or less; (e) for each applicant in (d), what number of people claimed asylum in Canada; (f) for each applicant in (e), what number were granted asylum; and (g) for each response provided in (a) through (f), what is the breakdown by gender?(Return tabled)Question No. 2059--Mr. Bernard Généreux: With regard to expenditures related to the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: (a) what is the total cost of all expenditures to date; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) description of goods or services, (iii) quantity, (iv) amount, (v) file number?(Return tabled)Question No. 2060--Mr. Earl Dreeshen: With regard to the “capability gap” in relation to military aircraft and fighter jets: what are the details of all briefing documents related to the matter since November 4, 2015, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) summary, (vi) file number?(Return tabled)Question No. 2061--Mr. Alexander Nuttall: With regard to Statistics Canada’s plan to harvest data from Canadians’ bank accounts: for each of the next five years, what is the projected revenue that the agency will receive as a result of selling information or statistics obtained as a result of the project?(Return tabled)Question No. 2062--Mr. Scott Duvall: With regard to public consultations planned in Budget 2018 concerning retirement income security following the "Sears" case, between February 2018 and November 2, 2018, broken down by month: (a) did the Minister of Seniors conduct public consultations; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, which individuals and organizations did the Minister of Seniors consult; (c) what are the recommendations or conclusions of the persons and organizations consulted, broken down by person and organization consulted; (d) in which municipalities did these meetings take place; (e) in which electoral districts did these meetings take place; and (f) were the Members of Parliament representing the constituencies referred to in (e) invited to these meetings?(Return tabled)Question No. 2063--Mr. Don Davies: With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's May 14, 2018, decision to suspend the processing of permanent resident visas for adoptive children from Japan: (a) who made the decision; (b) what was the rationale for the decision; (c) what evidence was provided to support the decision; (d) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the State Department of the United States with respect to the decision; (e) have officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada communicated with the British Columbia Director of Adoption with respect to the decision; (f) why did Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada approve visas for the Japan-born adoptive children of five families from British Columbia in June 2018 despite the suspension on adoptions from Japan; (g) what are the specific questions on which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is seeking clarification from the government of Japan; (h) what were the responses, if any, that the government received from Japan; (i) what concerns, if any, does the government have with the Japan adoption program; and (j) has there been a change in policy with regard to adoption from non-Hague countries?(Return tabled)Question No. 2064--Mr. Don Davies: With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS), broken down by fiscal year 2016-17 and 2017-18: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much was spent on each component of the FTCS, specifically, (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Indigenous Canadians; (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities; and (e) was part of the budget reallocated for purposes other than tobacco control and, if so, how much was reallocated?(Return tabled)Question No. 2066--Mr. Charlie Angus: With regard to the federal agency Invest in Canada: (a) what is the remuneration range for its Board of Directors; (b) what are the details of all travel expenses incurred by Invest in Canada since its inception, including for each expenditure the (i) traveller, (ii) purpose, (iii) dates, (iv) air fare, (v) other transportation, (vi) accommodation, (vii) meals and incidentals, (viii) other, (ix) total; (c) what are the details of all hospitality expenses incurred by Invest in Canada, including for each expenditure the (i) individual, (ii) location and vendor, (iii) total, (iv) description, (v) date, (vi) number of attendees, including government employees and guests; (d) will the agency’s travel and hospitality expenditures be subject to proactive disclosure and, if not, why; and (e) since Invest in Canada’s inception, what are the details of the contracts awarded, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided?(Return tabled)Question No. 2067--Mr. Kelly McCauley: With regard to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s YouTube channel since November 4, 2015: (a) how many full-time equivalents manage the channel; (b) what are the titles and corresponding pay scales of the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (c) how much has been spent on overtime pay for the full-time equivalents who manage the channel; (d) how much has been spent on developing content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2018-19 fiscal year; (e) how much has been spent on promoting content for the channel, and how much is earmarked to be spent for the remainder of the 2018-19 fiscal year; (f) is there a cross-platform promotion plan to share content from the channel to other digital media platforms; (g) are the costs associated with the plan described in (f) included in the YouTube budget, or do they fall within the budget of the other platforms; (h) what are the digital media platforms used to promote or share the Minister’s YouTube content; (i) what is the monthly expenditure on the channel, broken down by month; (j) what is the cost associated with each video on the channel; and (k) what is the annual expenditure on the channel, broken down by year?(Return tabled)Question No. 2068--Mr. Kelly McCauley: With regard to Government of Canada electric vehicles: (a) how many electric vehicles does the government have in the greater Ottawa area; (b) of the vehicles in (a) what are the makes, models, and years for each of those vehicles; (c) when were these vehicles purchased, broken down by amount purchased per month; (d) how many charging stations does the government have in the Ottawa area; (e) of the charging stations in (d), when were they installed; (f) to date, what is the cost of the installation of charging stations; and (g) what is the kw/h used at the charging stations by month since they have been installed?(Return tabled)Question No. 2069--Mr. Kelly McCauley: With regard to the government's Mandate Letter Tracker tool: (a) what is the methodology in determining the current status of a commitment; (b) what metrics are used to differentiate between a commitment which has “made progress” and those that have “made progress toward ongoing goal”; (c) what metrics are used to determine if a commitment is “facing challenges”; (d) which department is responsible for the mandate letter tracker; (e) how many full-time equivalents monitor and maintain the mandate letter tracker; and (f) of the FTE’s in (e) what are their employment classifications?(Return tabled)Question No. 2073--Mr. Tom Kmiec: With regard to the business activities of the Royal Canadian Mint (the Mint) for the fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017: (a) what was the total revenue received from the Mint's numismatic business activities for each year; (b) what was the total revenue received from the Mint's bullion products and services function for each year; (c) what were the total profits earned from the Mint's numismatic business activities for each year; (d) what were the total profits earned from the Mint's bullion products and services function for each year; (e) what countries did the Mint provide numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the percentage of business activity in each country; (f) what countries did the Mint provide bullion products to in each year, broken down by percentage of business activity in each country; (g) what was the total value of bullion products sold by the Mint to Canadian customers for each year; (h) what are the names of the Canadian distributors and customers that the Mint sold bullion products to in each year, broken down by the value of bullion products sold to them; (i) what was the total value of numismatic products sold to Canadian distributors and customers for each year; (j) what are the names of the Canadian distributors and customers that the Mint sold numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the value of numismatic products sold to them; (k) what was the total value of bullion products sold by the Mint to American distributors and customers for each year; (l) what are the names of the American distributors and customers that the Mint sold bullion products to in each year, broken down by the value of bullions product sold to them; (m) what was the total value of numismatic products sold to American distributors and customers for each year; (n) what are the names of the American distributors and customers that the Mint sold numismatic products to in each year, broken down by the value of numismatic products sold to them; and (o) what is the alphabetical list of all approved bullion and numismatic distributors and customers that the Mint sells to for each year?(Return tabled)Question No. 2074--Mr. Peter Julian: With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since its creation: (a) what is the number of meetings held with Canadian and foreign investors, broken down by (i) month, (ii) country, (iii) investor class; (b) what is the complete list of investors met with; and (c) what are the details of the contracts awarded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided?(Return tabled)Question No. 2077--Mr. Alupa A. Clarke: With regard to all Government of Canada communications (meetings, emails, letters, telephone calls, teleconferences, etc.) regarding (i) the emission of red dust in Limoilou and Québec, (ii) all other possible emissions from the Port of Québec’s industrial and port activities, including various dusts and noxious odours in Limoilou and Québec, (iii) public health, (iv) all forms of emissions under the responsibility of the Ministère des Transports du Québec, in particular from nearby highways, (v) all forms of emissions from the Québec incinerator, (vi) all other forms of dust and emissions that may come from other areas, broken down by subject: what are the details of each communication, including (i) the date, (ii) the sender, (iii) the recipient, (iv) the title and subject, (v) the type of communication, (vi) the file number, (vii) the content surrounding each subject since November 4, 2015, between the government and (a) Port of Québec authorities; (b) the office of the Mayor of Québec; (c) the Government of Quebec; (d) the MNA for Jean-Lesage; (e) the MNA for Taschereau; (f) Quebec Stevedoring Company Ltd. (QSL), formerly Arrimage du Saint-Laurent; (g) companies operating on Port of Québec lands?(Return tabled)Question No. 2078--Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With regard to government spending and charges laid pertaining to matters of national security: (a) how much has been spent annually since 2015 by each department investigating and prosecuting Vice Admiral Mark Norman, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) the Privy Council Office (PCO), (iv) the Department of National Defence (DND), (v) the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), (vi) any other department or agency; (b) how much has been spent by each department investigating the 1,366 incidences of actionable financial intelligence on money laundering identified by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) in 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Service, (iii) PCO, (iv) any other department; (c) how much has been spent by each department investigating and prosecuting the 462 terrorism financing and threats to the security of Canada identified by FINTRAC in 2016 and 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) PCO, (iv) DND, (v) the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), (vi) any other department or agency; (d) how much has been spent by each department investigating and prosecuting the 187 actionable financial transactions related to money laundering, terrorism, terrorism financing and threats to the security of Canada identified by FINTRAC in 2016 and 2017, specifically (i) the RCMP, (ii) the Public Prosecution Services, (iii) PCO, (iv) DND, (v) CSIS, (vi) any other department or agency; (e) how many charges related to specific incidences of terrorism financing reported by FINTRAC were laid in (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018; and (f) how many of the cases in (e) have resulted in successful prosecutions?(Return tabled)Question No. 2079--Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault: With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Liechtenstein leaks, the Panama Papers and the Bahamas Leaks: (a) how many Canadian taxpayers were identified in the documents obtained, broken down by information leak and type of taxpayer, that is (i) an individual, (ii) a corporation, (iii) a partnership or trust; (b) how many audits did the CRA launch following the identification of taxpayers in (a), broken down by information leak; (c) of the audits in (b), how many were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program, broken down by information leak; (d) how many of the investigations in (c) were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, broken down by information leak; (e) how many of the investigations in (d) resulted in a conviction, broken down by information leak; and (f) what was the sentence imposed for each conviction in (e), broken down by information leak?(Return tabled)Question No. 2080--Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault: With regard to real estate and office space leased by the government from private sector businesses since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all the contracts, including (i) vendor; (ii) amount; (iii) start and end date of the contract?(Return tabled)Question No. 2081--Mrs. Kelly Block: With regard to Transport Canada’s Community Participation Funding Program: (a) what are the details of all recipients of funding under the program since November 4, 2015, including the (i) recipient, (ii) amount, (iii) start date of the related activity or event, (iv) description and title of the activity or event, (v) purpose of funding; and (b) what are the details of all applicants who were denied funding under the program, including the (i) name, (ii) date of application, (iii) summary or description of the event related to the proposal, (iv) reason why the funding request was denied?(Return tabled)Question No. 2082--Mr. John Nater: With regard to the $6 million budget for the Leader’s Debates Commission: what is the breakdown of how the $6 million is projected to be spent by standard object and line item?(Return tabled)Question No. 2084--Mr. Ziad Aboultaif: With regard to government contracts with Cossette Communication Inc., especially the decision to pay $499,800 to come up with a brand, logo, name and website for FinDev Canada: (a) on what date was the FinDev Canada contract signed; (b) on what date was the Minister of International Development or the Minister’s office informed that the contract in (a) existed; (c) who authorized the amount of the contract in (a) to be increased from the original value to $499,800; (d) what was the rationale or justification for increasing the original value of the contract in (a); (e) what are the details of all other contracts any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity has entered into with Cossette Communication Inc. since November 4, 2015, including the (i) date and duration (ii) amount, (iii) final contract value, (iv) original contract value, if different than the final, (v) justification for increasing the original contract value, if applicable, (vi) detailed description of goods or services provided, (vii) name of advertising or other campaign relevant to the contract; and (f) what is the total value of contracts entered into with Cossette Communication Inc. since November 4, 2015?(Return tabled)Question No. 2086--Ms. Rachel Blaney: With regard to Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) in Canada for the three most recent tax years available: (a) what is the total number of TFSAs, broken down by age groups (i) 15 to 24, (ii) 25 to 34, (iii) 35 to 54, (iv) 55 to 64, (v) 65 and above; (b) what is the total value of TFSAs, broken down by amounts (i) under $100,000, (ii) $100,000 to $250,000, (iii) $250,000 to $500,000, (iv) $500,000 to $1,000,000, (v) over $1,000,000; (c) how many individuals have a TFSA; and (d) how many individuals have multiple TFSAs?(Return tabled)Question No. 2087--Mr. Chris Warkentin: With regard to the leaking of information from Cabinet meetings or Cabinet committee meetings, since November 4, 2015: (a) of how many instances of leaked information is the government aware; (b) how many individuals have been, or are, under investigation for leaking such information; (c) have any ministers been investigated for leaking such information and, if so, which ones; and (d) have any former ministers been investigated for leaking such information and, if so, which ones?(Return tabled)Question No. 2088--Ms. Lisa Raitt: With regard to communication sent or received by Statistics Canada since January 1, 2017: (a) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Office of the Minister or the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.); (b) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and banks or other financial institutions, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.); and (c) what are the details of all communication between Statistics Canada and the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title, (v) subject matter, (vi) summary of contents, (vii) format (email, letter, teleconference, etc.)?(Return tabled)Question No. 2089--Mr. Guy Lauzon: With regard to the government’s “price on pollution” or carbon tax: what was the “price on pollution” or carbon tax revenue that the federal government received as a result of the 2018 dump of 162 million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River in or around Longueuil, Quebec?(Return tabled)Question No. 2090--Mr. Deepak Obhrai: With regard to expenditures related to the Fall Economic Statement in November 2018: (a) what is the total of all expenditures related to the statement; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) detailed description of goods or services, (v) location of vendor, (vi) file number?(Return tabled)Question No. 2091--Mr. Tom Lukiwski: With regard to the government’s policies and protocols in relation to spider sightings and sending government employees home: (a) how many employees from Shared Services Canada were sent home as a result of the alleged spider sightings at the building located at 2300 St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, in 2018; (b) on what dates were employees sent home; (c) what is the breakdown of how many employees were sent home on each date in (b); (d) were any dangerous spiders discovered as a result of the sightings and, if so, which ones; (e) how much did the government spend on fumigation, investigations or other activities resulting from the sightings and what is the detailed breakdown of such expenditures; and (f) what are the government’s policies and protocols for when spiders are allegedly sighted on government property and when to send employees home?(Return tabled)Question No. 2092--Mr. Peter Julian: With regards to the three proposed tax provisions in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement to accelerate business investment and their impact on provincial revenue: (a) has the Department of Finance calculated the forgone revenue estimates for provinces and, if not, why; (b) what are the calculated forgone revenue estimates, broken down for each fiscal year until 2023-24, (i) for each province, (ii) by provision; (c) how many times has this topic been discussed with the government and has the question been raised with the Minister or Deputy Minister and, if so, has the Minister provided a response and, if so, what was it; (d) has there been any briefing with detailed information on the matter and for every briefing document or docket prepared, what is (i) the date, (ii) the title and subject matter, (iii) the department's internal tracking number; (e) were provincial officials notified of the government's intent to change these provisions and their fiscal implication and, if not, why; (f) which provincial officials were contacted; (g) which provinces shared concerns about revenues loss stemming from these provisions; and (h) what was the nature of these concerns?(Return tabled)Question No. 2093--Mr. Steven Blaney: With regard to the August 2018 letter sent by the Minister of Health to the then Quebec Health Minister warning that the government would cut health care transfer payments to the province if it continued to allow patients to pay out of pocket for medical exams: (a) which other provinces or territories have received similar warning letters from the Minister since November 4, 2015; and (b) what are the details of each letter, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) nature and summary of the warning?(Return tabled)Question No. 2094--Mr. Dan Albas: With regard Statistics Canada’s plan to harvest financial transaction data and the claim by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development that he found out about the plan through the media: (a) on what date did Statistics Canada begin developing the plan; (b) on what date did Statistics Canada notify banks or financial institutions about the plan; (c) on what date did Statistics Canada notify the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development about the plan; and (d) on what date did Statistics Canada notify the Privacy Commissioner about the plan?(Return tabled)Question No. 2095--Mr. Arnold Viersen: With regard to expenditures on cellular services by the Privy Council Office (PCO) and the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO): (a) what is the total of all such expenditures since December 1, 2015, broken down by month; (b) what is the total number of devices in use, broken down by month and type of device; (c) what is the average expenditure for cellular services per device, per month; (d) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by (i) PCO, excluding exempt staff, (ii) exempt staff in the PMO, (iii) exempt staff in other ministers offices under the PCO (Government House Leader, Minister of Democratic Institutions and Minister of lntergovernmental Affairs); and (e) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by vendor or service provider?(Return tabled)Question No. 2096--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to France in November 2018: (a) who took part in the trip, broken down by (i) exempt staff of the Office of the Prime Minister, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) employees of the Privy Council Office, (v) other guests; (b) for each of the participants identified in (a), what were the costs of the trip, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what were the details for all of the hospitality activities and events during the trip, including (i) the dates, (ii) the cities, (iii) the number of attendees, (iv) the total costs; and (d) what agreements or arrangements were signed?(Return tabled)Question No. 2097--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the Minister of Finance’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who went on the trip, broken down by (i) Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other guests; (b) for each person identified in (a), what were the travel costs, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details of all events and representation activities during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) cities, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total costs; and (d) what agreements were signed?(Return tabled)Question No. 2098--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to the speech made by the Minister of Finance to the Canada China Business Council in November 2018: (a) did the Minister know that journalists had been denied access before making his speech; (b) if the answer in (a) is affirmative, why did the Minister agree to make his speech if journalists were excluded; (c) what are the government’s guidelines regarding journalists’ access to events involving ministers; (d) did the Minister follow the guidelines in (c); and (e) what is the government’s position on the prohibition on journalists during the Minister’s speech?(Return tabled)Question No. 2099--Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: With regard to land owned by the Department of National Defence on the slopes of Mont-Saint-Bruno: (a) what are the department’s plans for this 441-hectare wooded area adjacent to the national park; (b) will it respond favourably to the request by the executive committee of the Communauté métropolitiane de Montréal, Mouvement Ceinture Verte, Fondation du Mont-Saint-Bruno and the Municipality of Saint-Bruno-de-Mantarville to incorporate the area in its entirety into Mont-Saint-Bruno provincial park; and (c) when will the Department of National Defence make a decision on the sale, transfer or retention of the area?(Return tabled)Question No. 2100--Mr. Blaine Calkins: With regard to the consultations and roundtables with stakeholders launched in October 2018 by the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction in relation to firearms: (a) what are the details of each consultation or roundtable discussion, including (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) stakeholders in attendance, (iv) Ministers or Members of Parliament in attendance; (b) who decided which stakeholders would be invited to the discussions, and what criteria was used; and (c) what is the complete list of stakeholders who were (i) invited, (ii) attended the consultations or roundtables?(Return tabled)Question No. 2103--Mr. Pierre Poilievre: With regards to Budget 2016 Growing the Middle Class and the median wage income: (a) what are the details of all documents, including spreadsheets, used to create Chart 1 Real median wage income of Canadians, 1975-2015, in the Budget, broken down by (i) median wage income of women, (ii) median wage income of men, (iii) median wage income; (b) is the data regarding the median wage income of Canadians available for the most recent years after 2015 and, if so, which years; and (c) if the answer to (b) is affirmative, what are the details of all documents, including spreadsheets, regarding the median wage income of Canadians for each of the most recent years available after 2015, broken down annually by (i) median wage income of women, (ii) median wage income of men, (iii) median wage income?(Return tabled)Question No. 2104--Mr. David Tilson: With regard to the process for renewing expiring permanent residency cards: (a) what is the average processing time for a card renewal; (b) what is the average time between when an application for renewal is received by the government and when the replacement card is ready; (c) what is the specific process the government undertakes for card renewals; (d) what specific options are available to residents who wish to travel abroad and have submitted their expiring card to the government as part of the renewal application, but who are still waiting for the government to provide them with a replacement card; and (e) what specific changes will the government make in order to make it easier for permanent residents to travel aboard during the renewal period?(Return tabled)Question No. 2107--Mr. Larry Miller: With regard to the Prime Minister’s tweet on December 2, 2018, pledging $50 million to Education Cannot Wait: was this funding approved by the Treasury Board before or after the Prime Minister posted the tweet?(Return tabled)Question No. 2108--Mr. Dan Albas: With regard to government policies and procedures: what are the government's policies and procedures when a sitting Cabinet minister is being investigated by the RCMP?(Return tabled)Question No. 2109--Mr. Glen Motz: With regard to the Safe Third Country Agreement: how many individuals have been exempted from the Safe Third Country Agreement due to the presence of a relative in Canada who crossed the border “irregularly” since January 1, 2016?(Return tabled)Question No. 2110--Mr. Larry Maguire: With regard to the government's prompt payment consultation process, since consultations started: (a) how many meetings have taken place and where did they take place; (b) how many individuals or companies have participated; (c) how many responses have been received; (d) what are the total costs to undertake the consultations; (e) when are the consultations ending; and (f) when will the consultations and information collected be provided to the Minister's office?(Return tabled)Question No. 2111--Mr. Matt Jeneroux: With regard to the government’s Connect to Innovate Program first announced in the 2016 Budget: (a) what is the total of all expenditures to date under the program; and (b) what are the details of all projects funded to date under the program, including (i) recipient of funding, (ii) name of the project, (iii) location, (iv) project start date, (v) amount of funding pledged, (vi) amount of funding actually provided to date, (vii) description of the project?(Return tabled)Question No. 2112--Ms. Rachael Harder: With regard to the Prime Minister’s recent comment that “There are impacts when you bring construction workers into a rural area”: to what specific impacts was the Prime Minister referring?(Return tabled)Question No. 2113--Mr. Dave MacKenzie: With regard to expenditures on furniture rentals by the government since January 1, 2016, broken down by department or agency: (a) what is the total of all expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) delivery date of the furniture, (v) duration of the rental, (vi) itemized description, including the quantity of rentals, (vii) file number?(Return tabled)Question No. 2114--Mr. Bev Shipley: With regard to projects funded since May 1, 2018, under the Atlantic Fisheries Fund: what are the details of all such projects, including (i) project name, (ii) description, (iii) location, (iv) recipient, (v) amount of federal contribution, (vi) date of announcement?(Return tabled)Question No. 2116--Mr. Dane Lloyd: With regard to flights taken on chartered or government aircraft by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of all flights, including (i) date, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers; and (b) what are the details of any contract related to the flights in (a), including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date and duration of contract, (iv) description of goods or services?(Return tabled)Question No. 2118--Mr. James Bezan: With regard to Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake and the revelation at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on December 3, 2018, that certain programs at the base were either being moved to Ottawa or are under consideration to be moved to Ottawa: (a) what is the complete list of programs which are either being moved or are under consideration for being moved out of Cold Lake, and to where are each of those programs possibly being moved; and (b) what are the government’s projections regarding the number of individuals subject to transfer away from Cold Lake as a result of each move in (a), broken down by program?(Return tabled)Question No. 2119--Ms. Karine Trudel: With regard to the Minister of International Trade’s trip to China in November 2018: (a) who went on the trip, broken down by (i) Minister’s staff, (ii) Members of Parliament, (iii) Senators, (iv) departmental employees, (v) other guests; (b) for each person identified in (a), what were the travel costs, broken down by (i) total cost, (ii) accommodation, (iii) travel, (iv) meals, (v) all other expenses; (c) what are the details of all events and representation activities during the trip, including (i) dates, (ii) cities, (iii) number of participants, (iv) total costs; and (d) what agreements were signed?(Return tabled)Question No. 2120--Mr. Arnold Viersen: With regard to ministerial permits: (a) how many Temporary Resident Visas issued under ministerial permit have been granted, broken down by month between November 2015 and December 2018; and (b) how many Temporary Resident Permits issued under ministerial permit have been granted, broken down by month between November 2015 and December 2018?(Return tabled)Question No. 2121--Mr. Arnold Viersen: With regard to requests from Members of Parliament for Temporary Resident Visas: (a) what is the number of requests received from Members since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (b) what is the number of requests received, broken down by individual Member; and (c) what is the number of requests granted, broken down by individual Member?(Return tabled)Question No. 2122--Mr. Arnold Viersen: With regard to requests from Members of Parliament for Temporary Resident Permits: (a) what is the number of requests received from Members since January 1, 2016, broken down by year; (b) what is the number of requests received, broken down by individual Member; and (c) what is the number of requests granted, broken down by individual Member?(Return tabled)Question No. 2123--Mr. Mark Warawa: With regard to the Canadian delegation to the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24) in Katowice, Poland: (a) what is the total number of members of the delegation, including any accompanying staff, broken down by organization; (b) what is the title of each member of the delegation, broken down by organization; (c) what is the total allocated budget for the delegation; and (d) what is projected or estimated travel and hospitality expenses for the delegation, broken down by type of expense?(Return tabled)Question No. 2124--Mr. Jim Eglinski: With regard to the lack of enforcement actions by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA): (a) what is the budget of the CTA for the calendar years (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, (v) 2017, (vi) 2018; (b) what is the number of complaints received by the CTA between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (c) what is the number of cases where the CTA representatives turned away any complaints by passengers between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (d) what is the number of enforcement actions taken between 2013 and 2018, broken down by year; (e) why has the number of complaints received by the CTA quadrupled between 2013 and 2017, while enforcement actions have seen a near four-fold decrease during the same period; (f) for what reason has the CTA taken no enforcement action against Air Canada for defying Decision No. 12-C-A-2018; (g) why did the Minister of Transport not investigate the allegations of fabrication and fraud levelled against CTA staff who turned away valid complaints by passengers; and (h) what steps has the Minister of Transport taken against the airlines and crew involved in defrauding consumers and authorities in what was referred to as the "Mexican Game", where airlines misled aviation authorities and its passengers about unscheduled stops on flights from Mexico?(Return tabled)Question No. 2125--Mr. Ben Lobb: With regard to government expenditures on Canada Goose products since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) description of the product, including the volume, (iv) rationale for the purchase, (v) file number?(Return tabled)Question No. 2126--Mr. Tom Lukiwski: With regard to expenditures on hospitality by Environment and Climate Change Canada from December 2, 2018, through December 6, 2018: what are the details of each such expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) location, (iv) vendor name, (v) number of individuals in attendance, (vi) description of the event, if applicable?(Return tabled)Question No. 2127--Mr. Matthew Dubé: With regard to applications for grants and contributions to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, the Northern Ontario Economic Development Initiative and Western Economic Diversification Canada, since November 2015: (a) what applications were first approved by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then rejected by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization; and (b) what applications were first refused by officials within the agencies and organizations listed above, but then approved by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by agency and organization?(Return tabled)Question No. 2128--Mr. Matthew Dubé: With regard to the pensions of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of federal agencies or other federal organizations, since November 2015: (a) how many CEOs are deemed not to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act; (b) how many times did a minister or any other public office holder order that a CEO be deemed to be part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act, broken down by (i) name of CEO, (ii) federal organization, (iii) minister or public office holder responsible for the order, (vi) the rationale behind the order; and (c) what is the estimated total pension income, broken down for each case where a CEO has been deemed part of the public service for the purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act further to an order?(Return tabled)Question No. 2129--Mr. Matthew Dubé: With regard to Health Canada’s re-evaluation decisions, including RVD2017-01, Glyphosate, and the “Monsanto Papers”: (a) how many and which studies are currently being re-evaluated by Health Canada; (b) for each of the studies in (a), when did Health Canada make the decision to re-evaluate it; (c) has Health Canada verified the independence of the studies in (a); (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, what was the detailed process for verifying the independence of the studies; and (e) does Health Canada have information that approved independent studies were written by Monsanto and, if so, since what date, broken down by study?(Return tabled)Question No. 2130--Mr. Matthew Dubé: With regard to the taxation of businesses, since November 2015: (a) how many Canadian businesses have not paid tax for each of the following fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018; and (b) how much tax was deferred by the businesses in (a) in fiscal years (i) 2015, (ii) 2016, (iii) 2017, (iv) 2018?(Return tabled)Question No. 2131--Mr. Tom Lukiwski: With regard to reports of a $355,950 sole-sourced contract to pay Torstar Corporation, which was cancelled following a complaint to the Procurement Ombudsman: (a) what was the original purpose of the contract; (b) which minister initially approved the contract; (c) does the government have enough employees to monitor parliamentary committees without hiring the Toronto Star; and (d) what is the total number of government employees whose job involved, in whole or in part, monitoring parliamentary committees?(Return tabled)Question No. 2132--Mr. Dave MacKenzie: With regard to classified and protected documents, since January 1, 2017, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many instances have occurred where it was discovered that classified or protected documents were left or stored in a manner which did not meet the requirements of the security level of the documents; (b) how many of the infractions in (a) occurred in the offices of ministerial exempt staff, including the staff of the Prime Minister, broken down by ministerial office; and (c) how many employees have lost their security clearance as a result of such infractions?(Return tabled)Question No. 2133--Mr. Dave MacKenzie: With regard to funding on infrastructure and the Prime Minister’s comment that “there are impacts when you bring construction workers into a rural area”: (a) does the Prime Minister’s comment represent the position of the government; (b) how many cities, towns, villages and rural municipalities have declined funding for infrastructure projects because such projects would involve bringing in construction workers; and (c) have any mayors or elected officials of rural towns or cities requested that the government not provide infrastructure funding for projects which would lead to more construction workers and, if so, which ones and what towns or cities do they represent?(Return tabled)Question No. 2134--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to the MV Polar Prince and the Canada C3 expedition: (a) since the ship was certified to carry an aggregate of 60 individuals, including passengers, crew and special expedition personnel, why was the vessel over capacity for 6 of the 15 legs of the journey; (b) since the ship was certified to carry 12 passengers, why were more passengers onboard for all 15 legs of the journey; (c) was the Minister of Transport aware that the ship was carrying more individuals, and passengers in particular, than that for which it was certified; (d) if the answer to (c) is affirmative, when was the Minister made aware; and (e) did the Minister approve the vessel to be over capacity and, if so, why?(Return tabled)Question No. 2135--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs: what are the details of all lawsuits settled by the Department between January 2016 and December 2018, including (i) title of case, (ii) reason for lawsuit, (iii) litigants, (iv) legal fees, (v) fiscal total of the settlement?(Return tabled)Question No. 2136--Mrs. Cathy McLeod: With regard to the government’s response to Q-1982 regarding the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada office located at 365 Hargrave Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba: (a) why was the government’s rationale for no longer allowing access to the general public without an appointment not provided in the response to Q-1982; (b) what is the government’s rationale for not allowing access to the general public without an appointment; (c) how many clients were served at this location between January 2015 and September 2018, broken down by month; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by purpose of visit (Employment Insurance, obtaining a status card, etc.)?(Return tabled)Question No. 2137--Mr. Todd Doherty: With regard to the government’s response to Q-2006 that the Global Affairs Summit Management Office did not incur any expenses for yoga teachers for the Prime Minister during the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix: (a) did any other departments or agencies incur yoga-related expenses during the G7 Summit in Charlevoix and, if so, what are the details of such expenses, including amounts; and (b) who paid for the Prime Minister’s yoga instructor in Charlevoix during the time of the G7 Summit?(Return tabled)Question No. 2138--Mr. John Nater: With regard to government and Canadian Armed Forces policies for the Vimy Officers’ Mess in Kingston, Ontario: (a) on what date was the booking accepted by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces for the December 19, 2018, Liberal Party fundraising event with the Prime Minister, which was subsequently cancelled; (b) what is the title of the individual who initially accepted the booking; (c) did the Privy Council Office advise the Office of the Prime Minister that attending a partisan event on Canadian Armed Forces property violated government policy and, if so, when was such advice given; and (d) why did the Prime Minister initially agree to attend an event which was in violation of government policy?(Return tabled)Question No. 2139--Mr. Blaine Calkins: With regard to Hillside Cottage (1915), the oldest structure in Banff National Park: (a) what measures are being undertaken to preserve and restore the structure; (b) what measures are in place to prevent the decay, vandalism or incidental destruction of the structure; and (c) what is being done to promote and recognize the history and significance of the structure?(Return tabled)Question No. 2140--Mrs. Shannon Stubbs: With regard to the proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor project for a pipeline between Fort McMurray, Alberta, and Grassy Point, British Columbia: (a) has the government conducted an analysis of the impact of Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, on the proposed project and, if so, what are the details of such an analysis, including the findings; and (b) will the government exempt vessels transporting oil in relation to the project from the moratorium proposed in Bill C-48?(Return tabled)Question No. 2141--Mr. Steven Blaney: With regard to the number of RCMP officers: (a) what is the total number of active RCMP officers as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2017, (iii) January 1, 2018, (iv) December 1, 2018; (b) what are the names and locations of each RCMP detachment; and (c) what is the breakdown of the number of RCMP officers assigned to each detachment as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2017, (iii) January 1, 2018, (iv) December 1, 2018?(Return tabled)Question No. 2142--Mr. Steven Blaney: With regard to government resources used to handle the situation involving illegal or irregular border crossers and asylum seekers, since January 1, 2016: what is the number of RCMP and CBSA personnel whose duties were, in whole or in part, assigned to handle the illegal or irregular border crossers, broken down by (i) province, (ii) month?(Return tabled)Question No. 2143--Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: With regard to the Minister of Youth, the Prime Minister’s Youth Council, the Youth Secretariat and the Youth Policy for Canada: (a) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Prime Minister’s Youth Council; (b) what is the total amount spent and the total budget for the Youth Council since it was established, broken down by year; (c) what amounts in the Youth Council budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture, etc.) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (c)(ii); (d) what are the dates, locations and number of participants for each of the meetings held by the Youth Council since June 2017, broken down by (i) in-person meetings, (ii) virtual meetings; (e) how much did the government spend to hold each of the Youth Council meetings mentioned in (d), broken down by (i) costs associated with renting a room, (ii) costs associated with food and drinks, (iii) costs associated with security, (iv) costs associated with transportation and the nature of this transportation, (v) costs associated with telecommunications; (f) what is the decision-making flow chart for the Privy Council’s Youth Secretariat, including each of the positions associated with the Youth Secretariat; (g) what is the total amount spent and the total budget of the Youth Secretariat since it was established, broken down by year; (h) what amounts in the Youth Secretariat budget are allocated for salaries, broken down by (i) year, (ii) position, (iii) per diem or any other reimbursement or expense (telecommunications, transportation, office supplies, furniture, etc.) offered or attributed to each of the positions mentioned in (h)(ii); (i) what is the official mandate of the Youth Secretariat; (j) what is the relationship between the Prime Minister’s Youth Council and the Youth Secretariat (organizational ties, financial ties, logistical support, etc.); (k) is the Youth Secretariat responsible for youth bursaries, services or programs; (l) if the answer to (k) is affirmative, what amounts were allocated to these bursaries, services or programs since they were established, broken down by (i) the nature of the bursary, service or program funded, (ii) the location of the program, (iii) the start and end date of the bursary, service or program; (m) who are all the people who are working or have worked on the Youth Policy for Canada as part of the Office of the Prime Minister or the Office of the Minister of Youth, broken down by role and by start and end date; (n) what consultations were carried out in connection with the youth policy, and what are the dates, locations and number of participants for each consultation held, as well as a description of the topics discussed, broken down by (i) in-person meetings, (ii) virtual meetings; and (o) how much did the government spend to hold each of the consultations mentioned in (n), broken down by (i) costs associated with renting a room, (ii) costs associated with food and drinks, (iii) costs associated with security, (iv) costs associated with transportation and the nature of this transportation, (v) costs associated with telecommunications?(Return tabled)Question No. 2145-- Mr. Kevin Sorenson: With regard to the $19,682,232.17 spent by Environment and Climate Change Canada on payments to other international organizations (object code 2319) during the 2017-2018 fiscal year: what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) recipient, (ii) location of the recipient, (iii) purpose, (iv) date of the expenditure, (v) amount?(Return tabled)Question No. 2146--Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: With regard to the pipelines passing through the region of Vaudreuil-Soulanges: (a) since 2008, how many hydrostatic tests and any other safety tests (integrity, corrosion, etc.) have been conducted on all the pipelines over their entire length from Ontario to Quebec, broken down by (i) pipeline, (ii) type of test, (iii) date, (iv) federal entity or contractor, (v) test location and province, (vi) test result; (b) when requesting flow reversal for the 9B and Trans-Northern pipelines, did the government or any other entity calculate the greenhouse gas emissions upstream and downstream of the project; (c) if the answer in (b) is affirmative, what are the upstream and downstream emissions for each of the projects; (d) since 2008, how many leaks have there been on all the pipelines, in either Ontario or Quebec, broken down by (i) pipeline, (ii) location and province; (e) for each of the leaks in (d), what is (i) the quantity of the spill in litres, (ii) the company responsible for the pipeline, (iii) the direct or indirect cost to the federal government, (iv) the date of the spill, (v) the date on which the government or one of its regulatory agencies became aware of the spill; (f) since 2008, have the official emergency response plans been sent to the municipal public safety authorities and the regional county municipality for each of these pipelines; (g) if the answer in (f) is affirmative, for each plan sent, what is (i) the date it was sent, (ii) the date of confirmation of receipt, (iii) the names of the sender and the recipient; (h) since 2008, what are the details of all the cases of non-compliance, deficiencies and violations of federal laws and regulations found by the National Energy Board with respect to the pipelines, including (i) the date, (ii) a description of the deficiency found and the corrective action requested, (iii) the location of the deficiency, (iv) the pipeline and the name of the company that owns the pipeline, (v) the amount of the fine paid; (i) for each case of non-compliance, deficiency or violation in (h), on what exact date did the National Energy Board or a federal government department follow up with the respective companies and verify that the corrective action had been carried out; (j) for each follow-up in (i), what actions were taken; (k) since 2008, how many detection system failures have been identified by the National Energy Board on the pipelines and what are the details of each failure, including (i) the date, (ii) the pipeline, (iii) the location, (iv) the reason for the failure; (l) for each pipeline, in the event of a spill in the Soulanges area, what is the expected time (i) to detect it, (ii) to stop the flow of oil, (iii) for emergency services to arrive on site; and (m) where are the companies that have been hired to respond to a spill in the Soulanges area and how long will it take them to arrive on site?(Return tabled)Question No. 2147--Mr. Daniel Blaikie: With respect to the Energy Services Acquisition Program and the modernization plan for the five heating and cooling plants and the associated infrastructure, including pipes and tunnels, in the National Capital Region: (a) has the government conducted any studies or evaluations of the plan, including but not limited to (i) a cost-benefit analysis of proceeding with the plan as a public-private partnership as opposed to a fully public implementation, (ii) an estimate of the plan’s impact on the heating and cooling plants’ greenhouse gas emissions; (b) for each study in (a), what are the details, including (i) dates, (ii) titles, (iii) file numbers, (iv) value for money analysis, (v) metrics developed to assess the benefits of using the public private contract; (c) what are the consequences of this privatization with respect to (i) the number of public service jobs required for the maintenance and operation of the heating and cooling plants, (ii) the reliability of the heating and cooling plants, in particular, during extended power outages and when emergency repairs are required, (iii) site security and the security impact for any buildings served by the heating and cooling plants; (d) in what way were the relevant public sector unions informed of the plan, including (i) dates, (ii) process for consultation, (iii) timeline for participation; (e) in what ways was the input from the relevant public sector unions considered in the decision to move forward with the plan; (f) in what ways were the associated public unions informed of the ultimate decision; and (g) what are the projected impacts and planned changes on (i) the municipal infrastructure, (ii) the rest of the system outside of the heating and cooling plants themselves?(Return tabled)Question No. 2148--Mr. Daniel Blaikie: With respect to the document “Allocations from Treasury Board Central Votes for Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19”, published online: (a) for each allocation from “Vote 25--Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35--Capital Budget Carry Forward” to a given “Organization”, what is the corresponding “Authority”; and (b) why are authorities listed proactively for each allocation under “Vote 5 – Government Contingencies” and “Vote 40 – Budget Implementation”, but not those under “Vote 25 – Operating Budget Carry Forward” and “Vote 35 – Capital Budget Carry Forward”?(Return tabled)8555-421-2030 Trans Mountain pipeline8555-421-2031 Infrastructure projects8555-421-2032 Cyberattacks8555-421-2033 Communications with the board of directors of Waterfront Toronto8555-421-2034 Elementary and Secondary Education Program offered by Indigenous Services Canada8555-421-2036 Recipients of the Canada Child Benefit8555-421-2042 Unofficial ports of entry at the border8555-421-2043 Cannabis licences8555-421-2045 Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages8555-421-2046 Prison Needle Exchange Program8555-421-2047 Infrastructure projects in the Waterloo region8555-421-2048 Funding for the Department of Employment and Social Development8555-421-2049 Federal spending in the riding of Essex8555-421-2050 Invest in Canada8555-421-2051 Invest in Canada Board of Directors8555-421-2052 Phoenix pay system8555-421-2053 Disability tax credit8555-421-2054 Canadian National Railway8555-421-2056 Federal contracts with SNC-Lavalin8555-421-2057 Recreational cannabis8555-421-2058 Visitor visa applications for citizens from Pakistan8555-421-2059 G7 Summit in Charlevoix8555-421-2060 Military aircraft8555-421-2061 Statistics Canada8555-421-2062 Retirement income security8555-421-2063 Permanent resident visas for adoptive children from Japan8555-421-2064 Federal Tobacco Control Strategy8555-421-2066 Invest in Canada8555-421-2067 Environment and Climate Change Canada's YouTube channel8555-421-2068 Government electric vehicles8555-421-2069 Mandate Letter Tracker8555-421-2073 Business activities of the Royal Canadian Mint8555-421-2074 Canada Infrastructure Bank8555-421-2077 Government communications8555-421-2078 Government spending and charges laid pertaining to matters of national security8555-421-2079 Canada Revenue Agency8555-421-2080 Real estate and office space leased by the government8555-421-2081 Transport Canada's Community Participation Funding Program8555-421-2082 Budget for the Leader's Debates Commission8555-421-2084 Government contracts with Cossette Communication Inc.8555-421-2086 Tax-Free Savings Accounts8555-421-2087 Leaking of information from Cabinet meetings or Cabinet committee meetings8555-421-2088 Communication sent or received by Statistics Canada8555-421-2089 Price on pollution or carbon tax8555-421-2090 Expenditures related to the Fall Economic Statement8555-421-2091 Government's policies and protocols in relation to spider sightings8555-421-2092 Three proposed tax provisions in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement8555-421-2093 Letter by the Minister of Health8555-421-2094 Statistics Canada's plan to harvest financial transaction data8555-421-2095 Expenditures on cellular services by the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister8555-421-2096 Prime Minister's trip to France8555-421-2097 Minister of Finance's trip to China8555-421-2098 Minister of Finance speech to the Canada China Business Council8555-421-2099 Department of National Defence land on the slopes of Mont-Saint-Bruno8555-421-2100 Consultations and roundtables in relation to firearms8555-421-2103 Budget 2016 and median wage income8555-421-2104 Process for renewing expiring permanent residency cards8555-421-2107 Tweet by the Prime Minister on December 2, 20188555-421-2108 Government policies and procedures8555-421-2109 Safe Third Country Agreement8555-421-2110 Prompt payment consultation process8555-421-2111 Connect to Innovate Program8555-421-2112 Comments made by the Prime Minister8555-421-2113 Expenditures on furniture rentals8555-421-2114 Atlantic Fisheries Fund8555-421-2116 Flights taken by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change8555-421-2118 Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake8555-421-2119 Minister of International Trade's trip to China8555-421-2120 Ministerial permits8555-421-2121 Requests for Temporary Resident Visas8555-421-2122 Requests for Temporary Resident Permits8555-421-2123 Canadian delegation to the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change8555-421-2124 Canadian Transportation Agency8555-421-2125 Government expenditures on Canada Goose products8555-421-2126 Expenditures on hospitality by Environment and Climate Change Canada8555-421-2127 Applications for grants and contributions8555-421-2128 Pensions of Chief Executive Officers8555-421-2129 Health Canada's re-evaluation decisions8555-421-2130 Taxation of businesses8555-421-2131 Contract with Torstar Corporation8555-421-2132 Classified and protected documents8555-421-2133 Infrastructure funding8555-421-2134 MV Polar Prince and Canada C3 expedition8555-421-2135 Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs8555-421-2136 Response to question Q-19828555-421-2137 Response to question Q-20068555-421-2138 Government and Canadian Armed Forces policies8555-421-2139 Hillside Cottage8555-421-2140 Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor project8555-421-2141 RCMP officers8555-421-2142 Illegal border crossings8555-421-2143 Prime Minister's Youth Council, Youth Secretariat and Youth Policy for Canada8555-421-2145 Environment and Climate Change Canada8555-421-2146 Pipelines in the region of Vaudreuil-Soulanges8555-421-2147 Energy Services Acquisition Program and modernization plan8555-421-2148 Allocations from Treasury Board Central Votes for Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19Aboriginal peoplesAboultaif, ZiadAccommodation and hospitality servicesAgreements and contractsAir forceAir qualityAir transportationAirline passengersAlbas, DanAlbertaAlbrecht, HaroldAllegations of fraud and fraudAngus, CharlieAsylumAtlantic fisheriesAtlantic Fisheries FundAudits and auditorsBacklogsBanff National Park of CanadaBank accountsBanks and bankingBenefits for childrenBezan, JamesBlaikie, DanielBlaney, RachelBlaney, StevenBlock, KellyBoard of directorsBorder officialsBordersBoulerice, AlexandreBoyden CanadaBrandingBriefing materialsBritish ColumbiaBroadband Internet servicesBudget 2016 (March 22, 2016)Budget 2018 (February 27, 2018)Building and construction industryBuilding and construction workersCabinet and committees of cabinet meetingsCabinet ministersCabinet ministers' staffCalkins, BlaineCambridgeCanada Border Services AgencyCanada C3Canada Goose Inc.Canada Infrastructure BankCanada Revenue AgencyCanada–U.S. Safe Third Country AgreementCanadian companiesCanadian ForcesCanadian Forces Base Cold LakeCanadian National Railway CompanyCanadian Transportation AgencyCannabisCannabis ActCannings, RichardCarbon pricingCarbon taxCarr, JimCellphonesCentres of excellenceCharging stationsCharlevoixChief Executive OfficerChinaChoquette, FrançoisChristianity and ChristiansCities and townsClarke, Alupa A.Classified documentsClimate change and global warmingCoastal areasCoins and banknotesCommissioner of Official LanguagesCommitteesCommunity Participation Funding ProgramComplianceComputer systemsConflict of interestConnect to InnovateConservative CaucusConstituenciesConsumer complaintsCorporate income taxCorrectional Service of CanadaCorrectional servicesCossetteCost-benefit analysisCriminal investigations and hearingsCriminal recordsCyber attacksDavies, DonDebates CommissionerDepartment of Citizenship and ImmigrationDepartment of Employment and Social DevelopmentDepartment of HealthDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDepartment of Indigenous ServicesDepartment of the EnvironmentDevelopment Finance Institute Canada (DFIC) Inc.DiabetesDisability tax creditDoherty, ToddDreeshen, EarlDubé, MatthewDusseault, Pierre-LucDuvall, ScottEagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd.Economic statement 2018 (November 21, 2018)Education and trainingEglinski, JimElection debatesElectric powerElectric vehiclesElementary and Secondary Education Program of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development CanadaEmergency preparednessEnergy Services Acquisition ProgramEnvironmental protectionEssexFederal institutionsFederal Tobacco Control StrategyFighter aircraftFirearmsForeign investments in CanadaFranceFreedom of movementFundraising and fundraisersFurnishingsG-7 SummitGallant, CherylGarments and apparelGénéreux, BernardGovernment accountabilityGovernment assistanceGovernment contractsGovernment expendituresGovernment facilitiesGovernment landsGovernment leasesGovernment revenuesGovernment servicesGovernment vehiclesGreen Party CaucusHealthHeritage sites and buildingsIllegal migrantsImmigration and immigrantsImprisonment and prisonersIncome and wagesIncome securityInformation and communicationInformation collectionInformation leaksInfrastructureInquiries and public inquiriesInsectsInternational adoptionInternational development and aidInternational meetingsInternational organizationsInvest in Canada HubInvestmentJapanJeneroux, MattJulian, PeterKelly, PatKitchener CentreKitchener South—HespelerKitchener—ConestogaKmiec, TomLabour relationsLand useLauzon, GuyLawsuitsLeaders' Debates CommissionLeave from workLegal proceedingsLiberal Party of CanadaLloyd, DaneLobb, BenLukiwski, TomMacKenzie, DaveMaguire, LarryMain estimates 2018-2019Maintenance, repair and renovation servicesMaritime transportationMay, ElizabethMcCauley, KellyMcKenna, CatherineMcLeod, CathyMedia and the pressMedical examinationsMembers of ParliamentMembers' remarksMilitary personnelMiller, LarryMinister of Environment and Climate ChangeMinister of FinanceMinister of Infrastructure and CommunitiesMinister of International Trade DiversificationMinisterial permitsMoney launderingMonsanto Canada Inc.Mont-Saint-Bruno National ParkMoratoriumMorneau, BillMotz, GlenMV Polar PrinceNater, JohnNational Capital RegionNational, provincial and territorial parks and reservesNationalizationNew Democratic Party CaucusNorman, MarkNuttall, AlexanderObhrai, DeepakOffice of Infrastructure of CanadaOffice of the Commissioner of Official LanguagesOffice of the Prime MinisterOffice spaceOil and gasOil tankersOrders for return to written questionsOttawaOversight mechanismPakistanPassports and visasPensions and pensionersPermanent resident statusPersons with disabilitiesPest and weed controlPesticidesPhoenixPipeline transportationPoilievre, PierrePolice detachmentsPolice officersPolitical appointmentsPort of QuébecPower plantsPrecious metalsPrime MinisterPrime Minister's Youth CouncilPrioritiesPrivacy and data protectionPrivacy of personal recordsPrivate health carePrivy Council OfficeProvincial governmentPublic consultationPublic healthPublic Service and public servantsPublic-private partnershipsQ-2030Q-2031Q-2032Q-2033Q-2034Q-2036Q-2042Q-2043Q-2045Q-2046Q-2047Q-2048Q-2049Q-2050Q-2051Q-2052Q-2053Q-2054Q-2056Q-2057Q-2058Q-2059Q-2060Q-2061Q-2062Q-2063Q-2064Q-2066Q-2067Q-2068Q-2069Q-2073Q-2074Q-2077Q-2078Q-2079Q-2080Q-2081Q-2082Q-2084Q-2086Q-2087Q-2088Q-2089Q-2090Q-2091Q-2092Q-2093Q-2094Q-2095Q-2096Q-2097Q-2098Q-2099Q-2100Q-2103Q-2104Q-2107Q-2108Q-2109Q-2110Q-2111Q-2112Q-2113Q-2114Q-2116Q-2118Q-2119Q-2120Q-2121Q-2122Q-2123Q-2124Q-2125Q-2126Q-2127Q-2128Q-2129Q-2130Q-2131Q-2132Q-2133Q-2134Q-2135Q-2136Q-2137Q-2138Q-2139Q-2140Q-2141Q-2142Q-2143Q-2145Q-2146Q-2147Q-2148Quach, Anne Minh-ThuRail transportation and railwaysRaitt, LisaRamsey, TraceyReferences to membersRegional development agenciesRegional officesRempel Garner, MichelleRoyal Canadian MintRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceRural communitiesSafe injection sitesSales licenceScientific research and scientistsSenior citizensSewage treatment and disposalShared Services CanadaShip passengersShipley, BevSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSNC-Lavalin Group Inc.Social networking sitesSorenson, KevinSt. Lawrence RiverStatisticsStatistics CanadaStubbs, ShannonSupplementary estimates (A) 2018-2019Supporters of terrorismTax deferralTax evasionTax Free Savings AccountTax havensTax reliefTemporary resident statusThird countryThomas, RachaelTilson, DavidTorontoToronto StarTrans Mountain pipelineTransfers to provinces and territoriesTravelTreasury Board SecretariatTrudeau, JustinTrudel, KarineUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeVaudreuil—SoulangesVideo recordingsViersen, ArnoldVimy Officers' MessWarawa, MarkWarkentin, ChrisWaterfrontWaterfront TorontoWaterlooWeb sitesWinnipegWireless communicationWong, AliceWorkplace health and safetyYogaYoung peopleYouTube57529745752975KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security regarding Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.8510-421-499 "Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act"C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesImprisonment and prisonersStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5730385KenMcDonaldAvalonMaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 2012--Mr. Peter Kent: With regard to meetings between the RCMP and ministers, exempt staff members, or other government employees in relation to leaks of Cabinet confidences: what are the details of all such meetings, including (i) name and title of minister, exempt staff member or other government employee, (ii) location, (iii) date, (iv) subject matter discussed?Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given its mandate and operational requirements, the RCMP does not disclose details related to operational activities.Question No. 2013--Mr. Peter Kent: With regard to the government’s response to Q-1503 where it indicated that it was aware of six incidents of leaked information, but that only one individual had been under investigation for leaking information: broken down by each of the five instances where information was leaked but an investigation did not take place or no one was placed under investigation, what is the rationale for not pursuing an investigation into each of the instances?Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s response to Q-1503, in the five other incidents, following initial fact-finding work, it was determined that there was insufficient data and evidence to determine the source of compromise and no further action was warranted.Question No. 2014--Mr. Peter Kent: With regard to instructions or directives provided by the Office of the Prime Minister to the Privy Council Office (PCO) since November 4, 2015: what instructions or directives were given to PCO in relation to the release of documents as requested by lawyers in the Mark Norman case, or in relation to the alleged leak of information from a November 2015 Cabinet committee meeting, and on what date was each instruction or directive given?Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an outstanding legal proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice and the parties to that proceeding have sought disclosure of documents. The Government of Canada is collecting documents in its possession that are potentially responsive to the request, to provide to the court. It is up to the court to decide which documents should be released to defence counsel. It is accepted practice for the House of Commons to respect the sub judice convention and, as such, it would be inappropriate to comment.Question No. 2019--Mr. Tom Lukiwski: With regard to the terms used in Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act: (a) what is the government’s definition of “meaningful human contact” and what are examples of contacts that would or would not satisfy the Bill's requirements related to that term; and (b) what is the government’s definition of “leisure time” and what would be examples of activities that would or would not satisfy the Bill's requirements related to that term?Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), in Bill C-83, the term “meaningful human contact” is intended to refer generally to social interaction and psychological stimulation conducive to mental health and rehabilitation. It is drawn from rule 44 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the “Nelson Mandela rules”.With regard to (b), in Bill C-83, the term “leisure time” is intended to refer to interactions with other individuals outside the context of formal CSC programs and interventions. Examples include sharing meals or engaging in physical activity with compatible inmates in a manner consistent with the secure environment of a structured intervention unit.Question No. 2020--Mr. Luc Berthold: With regard to changes or concessions made by the government to supply management in the United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement (USMCA): (a) what are the details of any studies the government has conducted on the impact of the changes to supply management in the USMCA, including the findings to any such studies; and (b) what projections does the government have on the impact of the supply management changes in the USMCA to each of the supply managed industries?Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, including the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, information on the economic impact of recent trade agreements that can be made public is available on Government of Canada’s websites.With regard to CPTPP, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=engWith regard to CETA, please see www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/europe/canada-european-union-comprehensive-economic-and-trade-agreement-ceta-for-agri-food-exporters/ceta-a-competitive-advantage-for-the-canadian-agri-food-industry/?id=1505510292539With regard to CIFTA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/israel/benefits-avantages.aspx?lang=engWith regard to USMCA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/usmca-aeumc/agri.aspx?lang=engThe Canadian Grain Commission did not conduct any studies on the impact of the changes to supply management under the USMCA and does not have any projections on the impact of the supply management changes under the USMCA. The Canadian Grain Commission does not have any role or responsibility with respect to supply-managed industries.The Farm Products Council of Canada has not conducted any studies on the impact of the changes to supply management in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, USMCA.With regard to the Canadian Dairy Commission, information on the economic impact of recent trade agreements that can be made public is available on Government of Canada’s websites.With regard to CPTPP, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/cptpp-ptpgp/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=engWith regard to CETA, please see www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/europe/canada-european-union-comprehensive-economic-and-trade-agreement-ceta-for-agri-food-exporters/ceta-a-competitive-advantage-for-the-canadian-agri-food-industry/?id=1505510292539With regard to CIFTA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/israel/benefits-avantages.aspx?lang=engWith regard to USMCA, please see http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/usmca-aeumc/agri.aspx?lang=engFarm Credit Canada has not conducted any studies on the impact of the changes to supply management in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, USMCA.Question No. 2021--Mr. Todd Doherty: With regard to instructions or advice provided by the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO) or the Privy Council Office (PCO) to departments and agencies regarding requests for the release of documents by a legal counsel to a party with matters before the courts: what are the details of any instructions which the PMO or PCO provided to any department or agency since November 4, 2015, including (i) sender, (ii) recipients, (iii) date, (iv) contents of the instructions or advice?Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is bound by the Privacy Act and makes efforts to apply the principles of the Access to Information Act. In relation to matters before the courts, if such records exist, any instructions or directives would generally be subject to litigation privilege and potentially, to solicitor-client privilege.Question No. 2023--Mr. Bob Benzen: With regard to the government’s Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance: why are there no panel members from any province or territory outside of Ontario and Quebec, as of October 24, 2018?Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ministers of Environment and Climate Change and Finance selected panel members based on their experience in diverse segments of the financial sector, their ability to engage financial sector executives and their understanding of both private sector and regulatory perspectives.The Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance is consulting broadly with industries and stakeholders across Canada.Access to information requestsBenzen, BobBerthold, LucCabinet and committees of cabinet meetingsCanada-United States-Mexico AgreementCanadian ForcesConservative CaucusCorrectional servicesCriminal investigations and hearingsDoherty, ToddEnvironmental protectionExpert panel on sustainable financeExpert panelsGoodale, RalphImpact studiesImprisonment and prisonersInformation leaksInvestmentKent, PeterLegal proceedingsLiberal CaucusLukiwski, TomMacAulay, LawrenceMcKenna, CatherineMinister of Agriculture and Agri-FoodMinister of Environment and Climate ChangeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency PreparednessNorman, MarkOffice of the Prime MinisterParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime ReductionPrivy CouncilPrivy Council OfficeQ-2012Q-2013Q-2014Q-2019Q-2020Q-2021Q-2023Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceSchiefke, PeterSupply managementTerminologyTrade agreementsWritten questions573043657304375730438KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1005)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the notices of motion that were tabled for the report stage amendments. They are government amendments, since royal recommendations were made.More specifically, I would like to draw your attention to Motion No. 17. I want to begin by saying that my intention here is not to point the finger at the Journals staff or the translators. We know that last night, at ten to midnight, they were very quietly given some government amendments to a bill that was criticized by all of the witnesses who appeared in committee.With regard to Motion No. 17, we see that, contrary to usual practice, the French and English versions of the motion do not match up at all. That makes members' work more complicated, particularly the work of members who are bilingual like me, because we want to ensure that the French and English versions match and that everything is consistent. The fact that the two versions are not the same interferes with the work that needs to be done. Once again, I am saying this with the utmost respect for the translators. It is particularly shameful that the government did not submit these notices until last night at 10 p.m., knowing that the debate was taking place today.I would therefore like to draw the Chair's attention to the government's amateurism since it prevents me, as a bilingual francophone MP, from properly examining the amendments tabled. I would like the Chair to consider this matter and issue a ruling to prevent this type of thing from happening again. I would also like the Chair to verify the admissibility of what is being presented today, of course.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722325572232657223275722328KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to thank my colleague for raising the issue. The government is, in fact, aware of it and is working to make sure that we can resolve it in a satisfactory fashion. I just want to emphasize that.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722329MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1005)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am not suggesting the government acted in bad faith, but we are debating these motions today, so when we are told not to worry and that the government is aware of the situation, that is hardly satisfactory. This is what we are debating today, so the whole situation is utterly deplorable.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722330KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up an important point. When we get improper text and are expected to debate it within a couple of hours, it is probably not a point of order. It is almost a point of privilege. Therefore, I want to share my concerns about the sloppiness of what the government has done, whether it was intentional or not, and the significant challenges it places on a member to ensure proper debate when there are only a couple of hours.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223315722332MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, just to further expand, there is nothing mischievous being planned. We have a subamendment to address the issue that has been raised. If we continue, we will see that the subamendment brought forward will address the concerns of the House. Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722333CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I am very torn. I would say that normally, I would want to accept what the hon. parliamentary secretary said. I have an amendment at report stage. I am prepared to speak to it. However, I do not think the rules of this House would allow us to proceed with an imperfect amendment placed before us at report stage. I do not think we can say that we will proceed and hope it all turns out all right, as much as I would like to. I think it would violate our rules to proceed in such a fashion.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722334KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, Bill C-83 has been problematic from the start. Committee members even moved a motion to stop this bill. The witnesses were unanimous in their assessment that it does not work. We wanted the government to take the bill back and re-evaluate it, but the government refused.This morning we were provided with a very sloppy French version that was all wrong, and this in the context of a conversation about how profoundly important official languages are in Canada. The government goes on and on about how it is fighting for this, and it keeps accusing the Conservatives of not being pro-French, but that is totally false.I am the public safety critic. I am a francophone and a Quebecker. When the government hands us a document like this, as my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly said, we do not blame public servants. We blame the government for forcing everyone to do things too fast because it cannot get its own act together.I do not think we should debate this today. It does not work.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722336572233757223385722339CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/9137BrianMasseBrian-MasseWindsor WestNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MasseBrian_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, we are at a crossroads right now with regard to making the situation better or worse, and by continuing, we will make it worse. I would like to point out that this was predictable in the sense that the government is making these amendments and changes at the last minute. This was entirely brought on by its own course of action. This was not the responsible action of the people behind the scenes that make this place work. This was brought about because the Liberals did so at such a late time that it caught up to them. At this point, are we going to make things worse or better? I would suggest that we make them better by deferring. Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722340PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, if I decide to read a bill or some amendments in French only, and my anglophone colleagues are not reading the same thing, that is completely unacceptable. It infringes upon my rights. It infringes upon my colleagues' rights.What exactly will we be debating? For that reason, I think it is totally unacceptable that we continue debating these amendments, since we will be talking about two completely different things, depending on whether a member is anglophone or francophone. That is unacceptable in the House.The government has a duty and a responsibility to protect our official language rights. In proceeding this way, the government essentially wants us to trample on the rights of Canada's two official language communities.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation572234157223425722343BrianMasseWindsor WestMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would also like a review of the comments made by the parliamentary secretary who tried to reassure us by saying that a subamendment is coming and will likely be presented by my colleague in her speech on the amendments.We have not seen those subamendments. That in itself is also problematic, since the government is announcing this to us without us having seen them, saying that this will fix an issue that has nothing to do with today's debate.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223445722345LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, where is the fire? Under the Standing Orders, we are scheduled to sit until Friday of next week. Therefore we still have lots of time to organize our parliamentary business to ensure that the work is done properly. Right now we are seized with amendments. When we look at amendments we get into the details. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”. If we want to do serious, thorough work, if we want to ensure that Canadians have confidence in our democracy, our parliamentary system and our work as elected members, then we have to do things properly.Since we are nearing the final stage and getting to the end, we have to make sure that everything is done properly because once this bill is passed, once we move ahead with this, there is no turning back, or there will be delays.The House is sitting until next Friday, so let's take the time to do things properly.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722346572234757223485722349MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1010)[Translation]After hearing all the points of order, I will take a few minutes to look at all this. I will come back quickly on these points of order.I now have to move on to debate. I will come back with my ruling shortly.(1015)[English]There are 27 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-83. Motions Nos. 1 to 27 will be regrouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [Translation]I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 27 to the House. [English]The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan is rising on a point of order.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223525722353GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentTomLukiwskiMoose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiMoose Jaw—Lake Centre—LaniganConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to your most recent ruling, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that since we are in orders of the day, the correct procedure would be to continue with the bill before the House rather than with a point of order. I would certainly take your guidance on this matter, but I would suggest that we consult with our clerks and procedural experts to ensure that we are going down the right path this morning.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722355CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25501DianeFinleyHon.Diane-FinleyHaldimand—NorfolkConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/FinleyDiane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionHon. Diane Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I am. As I understand it, there is a protocol and procedure that would affect this. If the amendments are to be debated subject to a point of order, then the point of order needs to be discussed and decided upon before proceeding with the amendments. I am sure the experts at the table would be able to verify that for you.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722357CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am seeking clarification about the precedents you just mentioned.As I understand it, once you have finished reading the amendments at report stage, we will begin debating those amendments. I do not see how we can backtrack if the Chair deems that the points raised by members are valid.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223615722362CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I suggest that we suspend until we can resolve this, or we can move the opposition motion, but the government motion should be dropped.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722365CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1015)[English]The motion the member has just proposed is really challenging the Chair. I have made my decision, and we are going to proceed. I will be back shortly with the decision.[Translation]The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly on a point of order for the last time.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223665722367MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1015)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like you to clarify the clarification.The amendment in question is about 3,000 words long. If we move on to debate at report stage when the amendment is a problem, the government will not be able to move it again.I would like clarification about the procedure.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation572236857223695722370CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1015)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would point out that the government says that it is all about protecting the language rights of minorities. In putting forward duelling motions that say different things and expecting us to proceed with them in proper order, the government is kidding itself. I think you should immediately say that this is not in order and that we should not be discussing this until the government can figure out what it wants us to discuss.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722372CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it cannot be put back in. That principle applies to parliamentary work, especially to the fact that if we start our work immediately, that is, if we begin debating proposals, and then we realize that they are not properly coordinated, we cannot backtrack.A very simple solution is to suspend the business of the House until you make your decision. Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223755722376CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, I have looked carefully at this amendment from the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington. As we debate this legitimate procedural point, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is very important that the substance of this matter not be overlooked. This is an important amendment that should be included at report stage.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722379CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and we must never receive a text that is not exactly the same in both languages.That is exactly what we are talking about in this debate. The two texts do not match and do not mean the same thing in the two languages.Although I respect your role, I do not understand why we are continuing a debate on texts that are not identical and that we cannot debate in the House, in French or in English.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation572238157223825722383CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/9137BrianMasseBrian-MasseWindsor WestNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MasseBrian_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate your patience with this; it is important.At committee, members have the right to refuse and ask for translation. I would ask for some consistency in this place as well, especially when notice is to provide it. That is the tradition and tenure of the House, and this would be out of order with that procedure.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223845722385SylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. With all due respect, and I have a lot of respect for the institutions, I think we had a worthwhile suggestion earlier.As parliamentarians, we want to do our jobs well and to have the tools to do so. We are lacking information here. As a francophone from Quebec, I think it is important to have accurate information in both of Canada's official languages.I humbly suggest that you suspend the sitting, which would recognize the work we do as parliamentarians and prevent us from wasting time with back and forth, so that we can then proceed more effectively.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation572238757223885722389CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think you can see that the House is almost unanimous on the importance of having documents in both official languages.I am certain that if you seek it from all my colleagues in the House, you will find unanimous consent to suspend the sitting so that you can look into this matter.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation57223925722393CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): (1020)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I also believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent of the House.If we start working before you come back with your ruling, that means we will have to rely on the English version.To the Bloc Québécois, that would be completely unacceptable. It would mean that the House is relegating French to second place, which would be an intolerable outrage.You are the guarantor of our rights. Personally, as a Bloc Québécois member and a Quebecker, I will never agree to let the English version take precedence, even temporarily.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation5722395572239657223975722398CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersPoints of Order [Bill C-83—Motion No. 17<Sup />]InterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1020)[Translation]I thank all members for their input.I direct that all motions except Motion No. 17 be read.I will come back with my decision on Motion No. 17.Admissibility of a motionC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionOrder Paper and Notice PaperPoints of orderReport stageReport stage motionsTranslation572239957224005722401GabrielSte-MarieJolietteGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Public Safety and National Security]InterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1000)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act.[English]The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back, under very constrained timelines, with extensive amendments. I want to take this opportunity to thank staff, officials and members for their extensive co-operation in presenting this report to the House today.8510-421-491 "Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act"C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesImprisonment and prisonersStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security570866557086665708667RobertNaultHon.KenoraMarkWarawaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 1988--Mr. Bev Shipley:With regard to forensic toxicology tests and the National Forensic Laboratory Services (NFLS) section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: (a) how many blood tests were conducted by the NFLS from 2015 to date, broken down by year; (b) how many blood tests are projected to be conducted by the NFLS in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020, (iii) 2021; (c) what is the projected yearly budgetary increase required for the NFLS as a result of the legalization of cannabis; and (d) what is the projected increase in turnaround time for test results as a result of the legalization of cannabis?Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the RCMP's National Forensic Laboratory Services, NFLS, receives requests for different types of forensic services from across Canada, excluding Ontario and Quebec, who manage and operate their own public forensic laboratories. NFLS tracks the number of service requests, not "blood tests", it receives for forensic analysis.With regard to (c), at this time, the projected yearly budgetary increase required for the NFLS as a result of the legalization of cannabis is not available.The government will ensure that the resources are in place to deliver the programs and services that accompany this important transformation.With regard to (d), the NFLS currently has established target diary dates for its toxicology services program. Included in the above-mentioned proposal to confirm funding is a plan to build NFLS capacity to meet any increase in demand for services. The NFLS service model already includes a monitoring function that assists in prioritization of urgent service requests.Question No. 1994--Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus:With regard to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act: what are the projected implementation costs of the legislation, broken down by each policy measure contained in the Bill?Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, eliminating the use of administrative segregation within Canada's correctional system and replacing it with structured intervention units, SIUs, will require both the enactment of new legislation, Bill C-83, and the investment of new resources.The objective is to ensure that the system can properly separate certain offenders as necessary for safety and security reasons, while still providing them with on-going meaningful human contact and the interventions, programs and social supports that their circumstances require, including access to program officers, indigenous liaison officers, elders, chaplains and others. If the new legislation is enacted, the Government of Canada will invest close to $300 million over six years, and then some $70 million annually thereafter, to implement the new SIU approach.For this approach to be successful, the correctional system must also strengthen its mental health programming. This will include the enhanced assessment and early diagnosis of inmates at intake and throughout incarceration at all levels, plus enhanced primary and acute mental health care, support for patient advocacy services and 24-7 health care at designated institutions. If this new legislation is enacted, the Government of Canada will invest more than $150 million over six years, and then more than $70 million annually thereafter, to implement these mental health care improvements.More specific financial details will become available through the on-going budgetary process, including the usual estimates presented for approval to the House of Commons.Question No. 1996--Mr. John Brassard:With regard to the government’s announcement that it will be waiving the record suspension application fee for individuals who have criminal records related to the possession of cannabis: (a) how many individuals have criminal records solely from possession of cannabis convictions; (b) how many individuals have criminal records from possession of cannabis convictions in addition to convictions on other charges; and (c) what is the projected cost to the government of waiving the record suspension application fee for those convicted of cannabis possession?Mr. Peter Schiefke (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a) and (b), the Canadian Criminal Real Time Identification Services, CCRTIS, maintains the RCMP national repository of criminal records. The repository is a record database and was not designed to provide statistical analysis. As a result, the content of the repository cannot be aggregated and disaggregated in a way that would accurately depict answers as they relate to these questions.With regard to (c), at this time, the implementation costs of the proposal are not available.The government will ensure that the resources are in place to deliver the programs and services that accompany this important transformation.Administrative feesBloodBrassard, JohnCannabisConservative CaucusCorrectional servicesCriminal record suspensionGoodale, RalphImprisonment and prisonersLiberal CaucusNational Forensic Laboratory ServicesPaul-Hus, PierrePossession of a controlled substanceQ-1988Q-1994Q-1996Schiefke, PeterShipley, BevSobriety testWritten questions57080015708002570800357080045708005KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 1933--Mr. Phil McColeman:With regard to the Veterans Affairs Canada service standard of 16 weeks in regards to decisions for disability benefit applicants for the 2017-18 fiscal year, or the last year in which statistics are available: how many and what percentage of applications received a decision within (i) the 16-week standard, (ii) between 16 and 26 weeks, (iii) greater than 26 weeks (6 months), (iv) greater than a year?(Return tabled)Question No. 1936--Mrs. Salma Zahid:With regard to the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, which reimburses federal employees when relocating for work, for the calendar years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015: (a) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government made claims for relocation funding each year, broken down by government department or agency; (b) how many employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government were provided with reimbursement for relocation each year, broken down by government department or agency; (c) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employer-requested relocation in each year; (d) in the instances where relocation funding was provided, how many instances arose from employee-requested relocation in each year; (e) what was the annual aggregate amount in Canadian dollars spent by each government agency or department in remitting relocation funding, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive; (f) which employees, agents, or contractors of the federal government received relocation funding in each year, itemized to include their agency or department, their job title, the amount of relocation funding remitted, broken down by the benefit categories outlined in appendix B of the National Joint Council’s Relocation Directive, and where the individual was relocated from and to; (g) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to real estate commission and realtor fees; (h) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to home equity loss; and (i) what is the aggregate amount of funding, across all government departments and agencies, remitted in each year under the Relocation Directive’s benefit categories that pertain to mortgages, mortgage default insurance, and mortgage paydown penalties?(Return tabled)Question No. 1937--Mr. Bob Saroya:With regard to the online application system run by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: (a) how many hours has the online system been down in total since January 1, 2017; and (b) what is the number of hours the online system has been down, broken down by week, since January 1, 2017?(Return tabled)Question No. 1938--Mr. Blaine Calkins:With regard to the comments made by the Prime Minister on September 25, 2018, in relation to the 2015 election that Canada did not have “much direct interference” by Russia: in what specific ways did Russia interfere in the 2015 election?(Return tabled)Question No. 1939--Mr. Arnold Viersen:With regard to the Churchill Rail Line: (a) what are the details of all correspondence, including electronic, that the government has sent or received, since November 4, 2015, including (i) sender, (ii) recipient, (iii) date, (iv) title and subject matter, (v) description or summary of contents, (vi) file number; and (b) what are the details of all memorandums about the Churchill Rail Line, including (i) date, (ii) sender, (iii) recipient, (iv) title and subject matter, (v) file number?(Return tabled)Question No. 1940--Mr. Kelly McCauley:With regard to the Joint Support Ship (JSS) project: (a) how many extensions have occurred since the project’s inception; (b) what are the costs associated with the extensions to date; (c) how many amendments have occurred since the project’s inception; (d) what are the costs associated with the amendments to date; (e) how many full-time equivalents work on the project; (f) are there any anticipated lay-offs occurring from project extensions and amendments and, if so, how many; and (g) what are the rationales for each instance of an extension and amendment to date?(Return tabled)Question No. 1941--Mr. Kelly McCauley:With regard to the Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi, since December 1, 2015, broken down by year: (a) how much has been spent on employee overtime for those working at the Centre; and (b) of the employees in (a), how many hours have been logged, broken down by amount paid out per person and job title?(Return tabled)Question No. 1942--Mr. Kelly McCauley:With regard to the air travellers security surcharge since January 1, 2016: (a) how much is collected from passengers, broken down into averages for (i) day, (ii) month, (iii) year; (b) how much is used to pay for security services; (c) what other programs or services are funded with the security surcharge; and (d) of the programs in (c), how much funding did each program receive?(Return tabled)Question No. 1943--Mr. Kelly McCauley:With regard to the Senate Advisory Board within the Privy Council Office, since January 1, 2018: (a) what are the full job descriptions as they are written for each job posting within the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board; (b) what is the pay scale and occupational group and level of the positions being filled in the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board; (c) what is the budget for the occupational group assigned to the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board; (d) how much has been spent by the secretariat to the Senate Advisory Board, broken down by (i) accommodation, (ii) travel, (iii) per diems, (iv) incidentals, (v) office renovation, (vi) office set-up; (e) how much has been budgeted for the support group to the Senate selection group; (f) how many openings were posted in this time period, broken down by province; (g) how many resumes were received for each opening; and (h) how many interviews were facilitated for each opening?(Return tabled)Question No. 1945--Mr. Pat Kelly:With regard to the requirement for dissolving corporations to apply for and receive tax clearance certificates from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) before disbursing remaining capital to investors: (a) how many applications for tax clearance certificates are in process at the CRA at this time; (b) what is the CRA’s target for processing tax clearance certificate applications; (c) for each year between 2014 and 2018, what percentage of applications for tax clearance certificates did the CRA process within its target timeline; (d) for each year in (c), what was the average processing time for tax clearance certificate applications; (e) for each year in (c), what was the average value of capital awaiting disbursal while a tax clearance certificate application was in process; (f) for each year in (c), what was the aggregate value of capital awaiting disbursal further to processed tax clearance certificates; (g) what is the aggregate value of capital awaiting disbursal further to applications for tax clearance certificates at this time; and (h) what is the average value of capital awaiting disbursal further to applications for tax clearance certificates at this time?(Return tabled)Question No. 1946--Mr. Gord Johns:With regard to the Department of Veterans Affairs, what was the total allotments, expenditures and amount and percentage of all “lapsed spending“ for the 2017-18 fiscal year?(Return tabled)Question No. 1947--Mr. David Anderson:With regard to the Prime Minister’s trip to the United Nations in September 2018: (a) what is the complete list of world leaders with whom the Prime Minister had official meetings; (b) what topics were discussed at each of the meetings in (a); (c) what was the government’s objective or reason for each meeting in (a); and (d) what was the date of each meeting in (a)?(Return tabled)Question No. 1948--Mr. David Anderson:With regard to the Prime Minister’s comments on September 26, 2018, that “Conversations I've had with Cuban leadership over the course of my tenure have always included human rights and a push for better respect for democracy”: (a) what are the details of all such conversations, including (i) date, (ii) with whom the conversation was held, (iii) specific topics raised; and (b) what are the details of any specific commitments which the Prime Minister received from the Cuban leadership related to human rights or democracy, including (i) date of commitment, (ii) who gave the commitment, (iii) summary or contents of commitment?(Return tabled)Question No. 1951--Mr. Charlie Angus:With regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education and the High-Cost Special Education Programs: (a) how much money has been granted, awarded or transferred to Grassy Narrows First Nation and their education authority under the Elementary and Secondary Education Program’s special education services each year for the last ten years, with direct and indirect support reported separately; and (b) how much money has been granted, awarded or transferred to Grassy Narrows First Nation and their education authority under the High-Cost Special Education Program each year for the last ten years?(Return tabled)Question No. 1952--Mr. Charlie Angus:With regard to the Department of Indigenous Services and the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs: (a) do the departments collect data about incidence and impacts (health, social, etc.) of mold in on-reserve housing; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, (i) which First Nations communities, listed by region, reported incidents of mold in housing, (ii) how many such incidents did they report, (iii) what were the reported or assessed impacts; and (c) if the answer to (a) is negative, why do the departments not collect this information and do they plan to do so in the future?(Return tabled)Question No. 1955--Mr. David Anderson:With regard to Correctional Service Canada: (a) how many individuals convicted of first-degree murder are in a minimum-security institution; (b) how many individuals convicted of second-degree murder are in a minimum-security institution; (c) how many individuals convicted of manslaughter are in a minimum-security institution; (d) of those individuals referred to in (a) through (c), how many of these convictions involved a child as a victim; (e) of those individuals referred to in (a) through (c), how many individuals are located in an Aboriginal healing lodge; (f) how many individuals are currently serving time in Aboriginal healing lodges; and (g) of the individuals in (f) how many are non-Aboriginal?(Return tabled)Question No. 1957--Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:With regard to crude oil transportation by rail cars in Canada since November 2015: what are the government’s statistics or estimates on how much oil has been transported by rail each month?(Return tabled)Question No. 1958--Mr. Glen Motz:With regard to inmates in facilities operated by Correctional Service Canada who have escaped custody or have been unlawfully at large: (a) how many individuals were unlawfully at large in (i) 2016, (ii) 2017, (iii) 2018 to date; (b) how many individuals are currently at large, as of the date of this question; and (c) what is the breakdown of (a) by correctional facility and by security classification?(Return tabled)Question No. 1959--Mr. James Bezan:With regard to Operation IMPACT, the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) support to the Global Coalition to degrade and defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria: (a) for what length of time will Operation IMPACT be extended beyond March of 2019; (b) will the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen, airwomen, and highly-skilled CAF members deployed on Operation IMPACT increase, decrease, or remain the same between September 2018 and March 31, 2019; (c) what are the projected total expenditures related to an extension of Operation IMPACT, broken down by type of expenditure; (d) what amount of funding has been allocated to date in relation to the projected expenditures under (c); and (e) what are the reasons for the shift in nature of Operation IMPACT, announced on June 7, 2018, by the Chief of Defence Staff?(Return tabled)Question No. 1960--Mr. James Bezan:With regard to the potential adoption of a new standard camouflage pattern for the Canadian Armed Forces, and the subsequent replacement of the Canadian Disruptive Pattern (CADPAT) military equipment: (a) what is the deficiency being addressed by acquiring the MultiCam camouflage pattern over CADPAT; (b) does Defence Research and Development Canada endorse the deficiency used to justify buying a foreign camouflage pattern; (c) what consultations were done prior to adopting this policy; (d) what evidence is there that the transition to MultiCam over CADPAT will or will not increase survivability for Canadian Armed Forces members; (e) are there environments identified in which this camouflage is believed to be more effective or less effective in terms of concealment and survivability; (f) have there been concerns expressed about Canadian military personnel appearing very similar in the field to Russian, U.S. or other foreign militaries due to this camouflage transition; (g) has the benefit of replacing this perceived deficiency been weighed against the cost of Canadian factories losing business, or going out of business entirely; (h) have factories and manufacturers expressed to the Department of National Defence that they will be forced to go out of business if CADPAT is cancelled; (i) has the potential effects of adopting a U.S. camouflage pattern been considered in terms of effects to national identity and esprit de corps; and (j) has the fact that “1947 LLC” manufactures fabrics for military use in China been considered?(Return tabled)Question No. 1961--Mr. James Bezan:With regard to the Canadian weapons originally intended for distribution to the Kurdish Peshmerga: (a) what plans are currently in place or being considered regarding the future of weapons originally intended for the Kurdish Peshmerga; (b) in which locations and storage facilities are these weapons currently being stored, either domestic and international; and (c) what are the specific types, quantities, and commercial values of these weapons?(Return tabled)Question No. 1962--Ms. Marilyn Gladu:With regard to reports that Health Canada is considering shutting down or cutting funding to certain organizations, and that a gag order has been issued to the affected organizations not to discuss the matter, namely Mental Health Commission of Canada, Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement, Canada Health Infoway, Canadian Patient Safety Institute, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: (a) why is the government reviewing the funding that these organizations receive; (b) why have each of the organizations been given a gag order; (c) was the Minister of Health’s office made aware of the gag order and, if so, on what date; (d) was the Office of the Prime Minister informed that a gag order was being issued and if so, on what date; (e) what is the complete list of organizations which were subject to the External Review of the Federally Funded Pan-Canadian Health Organizations; (f) has anyone from Health Canada, the Minister of Health’s office, or Deloitte instructed or advised any of the organizations subject to the review not to publicly discuss the review; (g) if the answer to (f) is affirmative, what are the details of any such non-disclosure clause or gag order including (i) who issued the order, (ii) date of the order, (iii) scope of the gag order; (h) have any of the organizations in (e) been told that they will lose their funding, in whole or in part, and if so, which organizations have been notified of this decision; and (i) for each organization whose funding is being eliminated or reduced, what is the rationale being used by the Minister of Health for the funding reduction?(Return tabled)Question No. 1963--Mr. Dave MacKenzie:With regard to the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic from the Grand Valley Institution for Women to the Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge: (a) on what date did the transfer occur; (b) on what date did the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness become aware of the transfer; (c) did the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness approve the transfer; (d) on what date did the Office of the Prime Minister become aware of the transfer; and (e) did the Prime Minister or anyone in his office approve the transfer?(Return tabled)Question No. 1964--Mr. Ron Liepert:With regard to the Asian Infrastructure Bank, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many Canadian businesses are investing in projects in the Asian Infrastructure Bank broken down by year; (b) how much Canadian money is spent on projects in the Asian Infrastructure Bank broken down by year; and (c) of the projects listed in (a), how many of these businesses are operating through, either directly or indirectly, the Canadian Government?(Return tabled)Question No. 1967--Ms. Candice Bergen:With regard to government procedures in relation to accusations of harassment or misconduct: (a) what is the procedure when there is an accusation against the Prime Minister, including (i) who decides if a complaint has merit and warrants an investigation, (ii) who conducts the investigation, (iii) does the individual conducting the investigation have the ability to recommend sanctions, (iv) are the recommended sanctions binding, (v) what is the policy regarding whether or not the reports and findings are released to the public, (vi) what mechanism, if any, exists for the temporary suspension of certain duties of the Prime Minister pending the outcome of an investigation; and (b) does the procedure in (a) apply to incidents which occurred prior to the individual becoming Prime Minister?(Return tabled)Question No. 1968--Ms. Candice Bergen:With regard to government procedures in relation to accusations of harassment or misconduct: (a) what is the procedure when there is an accusation against a cabinet minister, including (i) who decides if a complaint has merit and warrants an investigation, (ii) who conducts the investigation, (iii) does the individual conducting the investigation have the ability to recommend sanctions, (iv) are the recommended sanctions binding, (v) what is the policy regarding whether or not the reports and findings are released to the public, (vi) what is the criteria for deciding if a Member is to be removed from Cabinet pending the outcome of an investigation; and (b) does the procedure in (a) apply to incidents which occurred prior to the individual becoming a cabinet minister?(Return tabled)Question No. 1969--Mr. Kerry Diotte:With regard to International Mobility Program work permit holders under the Canada-International Agreements section, and broken down by each of the four rows (NAFTA, FTA, GATS and non-trade): for each of the past ten years, what is the number of permit holders for each row who came from (i) the United States, (ii) Mexico?(Return tabled)Question No. 1970--Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:With regard to all government contracts awarded for public relations services, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of these contracts including (i) date of contract, (ii) value of contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided, (vi) title of public relations campaign related to contract (vii) start and end dates of services provided?(Return tabled)Question No. 1971--Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:With regard to the new round of consultations announced on October 3, 2018, in relation to the Trans Mountain Pipeline by the government: what is the complete list of individuals, First Nations and organizations which the government is planning on consulting?(Return tabled)Question No. 1972--Mrs. Rosemarie Falk:With regard to all expenditures on hospitality since June 11, 2018, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all expenditures, including (i) vendor, (ii) amount, (iii) date of expenditure, (iv) start and end date of contract, (v) description of goods or services provided, (vi) file number, (vii) number of government employees in attendance, (viii) number of other attendees, (ix) location?(Return tabled)Question No. 1973--Mr. Matt Jeneroux:With regard to the Champlain Bridge project: (a) what are the details of all expenditures since November 4, 2015, related to the project, including (i) vendor, (ii) date, (iii) amount, (iv) description of goods or services; (b) what is the total of all expenditures in (a); (c) what is the total projected cost of the project, including a breakdown by type of expense; and (d) what are the details of any projected costs not yet incurred, broken down by type of expense?(Return tabled)Question No. 1974--Mr. Dan Albas:With regard to the bike and walking trail that connects Tofino and Ucluelet in the Pacific Rim National Park: (a) what was the original projected cost of completing the trail; (b) what is the current estimated cost of completing the trail; (c) how was the current route chosen and what was the rationale for choosing the route; (d) what are the details of any environmental impact studies completed related to the construction of the trail, including (i) findings, (ii) who conducted the studies, (iii) date the studies were completed, (iv) website address where the findings can be found, if applicable; (e) what are the details of all consultations conducted in relation to the trail with (i) local governments, (ii) local residents, (iii) other organizations or individuals; and (f) what are the details of all work completed to date, including how much of the trail is currently completed?(Return tabled)8555-421-1933 Department of Veterans Affairs' service standard8555-421-1936 National Joint Council's Relocation Directive8555-421-1937 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada online application system8555-421-1938 Comments made by the Prime Minister8555-421-1939 Churchill Rail Line8555-421-1940 Joint Support Ship8555-421-1941 Public Service Pay Centre in Miramichi8555-421-1942 Air travellers security surcharge8555-421-1943 Senate Advisory Board8555-421-1945 Tax clearance certificates8555-421-1946 Department of Veterans Affairs spending8555-421-1947 Prime Minister's trip to the United Nations8555-421-1948 Comments made by the Prime Minister8555-421-1951 First Nations education programs8555-421-1952 Mold in on-reserve housing8555-421-1955 Aboriginal Healing Lodges8555-421-1957 Crude oil transportation by rail cars8555-421-1958 Inmates in facilities operated by Correctional Service Canada8555-421-1959 Operation IMPACT8555-421-1960 New standard camouflage pattern for the Canadian Armed Forces8555-421-1961 Canadian weapons intended to the Kurdish Peshmerga8555-421-1962 External Review of the Federally Funded Pan-Canadian Health Organizations8555-421-1963 Transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic8555-421-1964 Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank8555-421-1967 Procedures on accusations of harassment or misconduct against the Prime Minister8555-421-1968 Procedures on accusations of harassment or misconduct against a Cabinet Minister8555-421-1969 International Mobility Program8555-421-1970 Government contracts for public relation services8555-421-1971 Consultations on Trans Mountain Pipeline8555-421-1972 Expenditures on hospitality8555-421-1973 Champlain Bridge8555-421-1974 Tofino to Ucluelet bike and walking trailAboriginal peoplesAboriginal reservesAccommodation and hospitality servicesAirportsAlbas, DanAnderson, DavidAngus, CharlieApplication processAsiaAsian Infrastructure Investment BankBacklogsBergen, CandiceBezan, JamesBudget cutsCabinet ministersCalkins, BlaineCanada Revenue AgencyCanadian ForcesCanadian investments abroadCensorshipChamplain BridgeChurchillCivil and human rightsCompaniesComputer systemsConservative CaucusCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional Service of CanadaCorrectional servicesCubaDemocracyDepartment of Citizenship and ImmigrationDepartment of HealthDepartment of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentDepartment of Indigenous ServicesDepartment of Veterans AffairsDiotte, KerryDisability benefitsElection of 2015Falk, RosemarieFeesForeign influenced activitiesGladu, MarilynGovernment contractsGovernment expendituresGrassy Narrows First NationHarassmentHealing lodgesHomicideImmigration and immigrantsImprisonment and prisonersIncome and wagesIncome taxIndependent Advisory Board for Senate AppointmentsInformation collectionInfrastructureInquiries and public inquiriesInternational meetingsInternational Mobility ProgramsIraqJeneroux, MattJohns, GordJoint Support ShipsKelly, PatKurdish Peshmerga forcesKurdsLabour force mobilityLapsed fundsLiberal CaucusLiepert, RonMacKenzie, DaveMcCauley, KellyMcClintic, Terri-LynneMcColeman, PhilMexicoMilitary equipment and facilitiesMilitary weaponsMotz, GlenMould in housingMoving and storage servicesNew Democratic Party CaucusOil and gasOkimaw Ochi Healing LodgeOperation ImpactOrders for return to written questionsOvertimePacific Rim National Park Reserve of CanadaPetroleumPhoenixPolitical leadership and leadersPrime MinisterPrivy CouncilPublic consultationPublic relationsPublic Service and public servantsQ-1933Q-1936Q-1937Q-1938Q-1939Q-1940Q-1941Q-1942Q-1943Q-1945Q-1946Q-1947Q-1948Q-1951Q-1952Q-1955Q-1957Q-1958Q-1959Q-1960Q-1961Q-1962Q-1963Q-1964Q-1967Q-1968Q-1969Q-1970Q-1971Q-1972Q-1973Q-1974Rail transportation and railwaysRecreational pathsReferences to membersReimbursementRussiaSaroya, BobSecuritySocial housingSpecial educationStandards in public lifeStubbs, ShannonSyriaTofinoTown of UclueletTrans Mountain pipelineTrudeau, JustinUniformsUnited Nations General AssemblyUnited States of AmericaVeterans benefitsViersen, ArnoldWeb sitesWork permitsZahid, Salma56746225674623KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC) (1215)[Translation]Motion moved:That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, the Committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the Bill in order to forbid those convicted of the murder of a child from serving any portion of their sentence in a healing lodge.He said: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Durham.This morning, we moved a motion that we consider to be very important. I would like to give a brief overview of Bill C-83, which seeks to change inmates' conditions, since the motion is very closely related to the bill. Bill C-83 seeks to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities and replace it with structured intervention units, to use prescribed body scanners, to establish parameters for access to health care, and to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders.This bill obviously contains some reasonable measures that are worth considering. We should all consider how we can change and improve the overall prison program. However, we have a problem in that regard.Everyone agrees that a criminal has to serve their lawful sentence, but we cannot allow penitentiaries to become five-star Hilton hotels. Otherwise, there will be no incentive for individuals to give up their life of crime. After our initial reading of the bill, we are not only disappointed, but also discouraged to see that this government is still working to help criminals instead of thinking of the victims.Three weeks ago, we asked the Prime Minister and his team why they transferred a child murderer to a healing lodge instead of keeping her behind bars at a maximum-security penitentiary. The Prime Minister was either incapable of answering the question or unwilling to do so. On this lovely, rainy Friday on Parliament Hill, hundreds of people are outside asking the same question. They do not understand why this child murderer is at a healing lodge in Saskatchewan. I gave notice of this motion at the beginning of the week, and it just so happens that, on Wednesday, October 31, Global News published an article by Abigail Bimman about the brother of murderer Terri-Lynne McClintic. Her own brother is disgusted by what is going on. He says his sister is not indigenous, that she manipulated the system, and that she should be sent back to a maximum-security penitentiary to serve her sentence. Her brother says his sister “is no more indigenous than I am green from the planet Mars”. This case has been the subject of much debate here in the House of Commons. The government accused us of raising a sensitive issue and said we should not take advantage of the death of a police officer, but I believe Canadians understand that the Liberal government's position was untenable. It is unacceptable for a child killer who claims to be indigenous to be sent to an indigenous healing lodge. To be clear, healing lodges are minimum-security facilities. There is no security, so people can come and go and do as they please, even if they do not have that right. A child killer should not be in a place like that.I believe that what our motion is calling for is very reasonable because Canadians believe that child killers should not be held in healing centres or minimum-security prisons. They should serve their sentence in maximum-security penitentiaries.Furthermore, we just learned that the Minister of Public Safety received a report from Correctional Service Canada regarding its investigation of the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Ms. McClintic from a maximum-security prison to a healing centre. I am therefore asking the minister to table this report at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security so we can consult it, read the recommendations concerning Bill C-83 and ensure they are implemented.At some point, there must be some common sense in this country. Unacceptable things are happening. I know it is not that easy to govern a country. We will be in that position next year, but in the meantime it is the Liberals' job. All we are doing is proposing a few things to help keep the country running smoothly and ensure that Canadians continue to trust our justice system and believe that criminals will have to face consequences. Giving criminals a chance to live a good life while leaving victims to cope with sadness and sorrow is simply unacceptable.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMotion of instructionSplitting speaking timeStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56316415631642563164356316445631645563164656316475631648563164956316505631651563165256316535631654MurrayRankinVictoriaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, it is really encouraging that we have the report now from the commissioner. I understand that individuals will be going over the report. In time, we will get some sort of an official response. However, I wanted to raise the issue. This is the reason why it was important that we actually had the study. To go back to the days when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, for example, we saw literally dozens of murderers who had gone through the system and went to healing lodges. Sadly, over a dozen victims of those murderers were children. To me this should not be a political issue. It is indeed a process, and the Minister of Public Safety has now asked the commissioner to provide a report. That report is coming and we need to have that report. Would the member not agree that with the sorts of tragedies we have seen, not just one but many, it is time to finally review it and wait to hear what we have coming in the future from the minister on this very important issue?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5631655563165656316575631658PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1225)[Translation]Madam Speaker, if this situation happened under a Conservative government, it is equally deplorable. At the time, we were not able to correct the situation, but now there is new legislation and we do have the opportunity to amend it in order to ensure that this never happens again and that child murderers cannot be transferred to healing centres. The Liberals need to stop looking back at the previous government. We must look forward. We are in a position to fix the situation today, and we need to do so immediately.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5631659KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, the term “healing lodge” is being used by the hon. member opposite when, really, we are looking at a medium-security prison facility. We are transferring from one medium-security facility to another medium-security facility.The question is whether the medium-security facility currently being used for cases like this is sufficient. That is what we will be hearing back from the minister when he reports to the House.Would the member acknowledge that this is a medium-security facility and not a lodge or a place where people would go for vacations?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security563166056316615631662PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1225)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is not true at all. Ms. McClintic is currently housed at Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge in Saskatchewan. It is not a medium or minimum-security facility. It is a healing lodge. There is a minimum-security prison in my riding. It has guards, and the inmates cannot get out. A healing lodge like the one where Ms. McClintic is staying is totally different. It does not even have security at the doors.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5631663LloydLongfieldGuelphErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join my friend, the hon. MP for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, in this important debate with respect to Bill C-83 and sentencing in Canada. It concerns me that the government, like on many things, has a communications plan rather than a plan to actually lead, and this is an example. In fact, the deputy House leader for the Liberals is referring to a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada that was provided to the government just mere minutes before a protest on Parliament Hill, which was organized by people from the community of Tori Stafford, the young woman who was killed by Terri-Lynne McClintic and her partner. We have seen the comments from Rodney Stafford, her father, and the outrage with the transfer of Ms. McClintic to a healing lodge in Saskatchewan. However, just in time for this protest, the Liberals have the report. Members will recall that they defended this decision and in fact their recently appointed commissioner defended the decision herself. Her decision was wrong, and it is up to ministers of the government to recognize that. I am hoping the commissioner is listening to my remarks, because I will inform her why I think the decision was wrong. I have not read her report today. I am working off her comments after defending the decision to sort of support the government's inaction. I will use the government's own material to prove my point.I learned a lot about restorative justice principles in law school at Dalhousie and restorative justice can be used in certain circumstances. However, the case of Ms. McClintic is not one of those. In fact, her own family has questioned whether she is of indigenous background. However, leaving that aside, on the website of the Department of Justice, it says that the first principle of restorative justice recognizes “Crime is Fundamentally a Violation of People and Interpersonal Relationships...Victims and the community have been harmed and are in need of restoration.” It starts with a reflection on the victim. In this case, the victim, Tori Stafford, a child, was lured away by Ms. McClintic and horribly killed. I do not want to get into the details. They have been recounted several times. However, restorative justice starts with an examination of the victim and the crime. This is the worst crime. The victim and her family have suffered the most horrendous circumstances imaginable under our Criminal Code. This is not a crime of poverty or circumstance. This was a premeditated act. The vision of Ms. McClintic luring young Tori Stafford away was caught on videotape. It is seared in the minds of people from that part of Ontario. The ministers involved here should review that tape and the file. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada should review it as well.As a primer, they can look at the Department of Justice's own materials on restorative justice. They should also look to section 718 of the Criminal Code, which outlines sentencing and the sentencing principles and purpose. I invite all Canadians to read it. This is the underpinning of our justice system, particularly when it comes to a crime committed against one Canadian by another, and in this case, a child. The purpose of sentencing is found in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Some of my Liberal friends in the House are lawyers. They may think back to criminal law at law school. I refer them back there. I refer the commissioner there as well. What are the purposes of sentencing? First is denunciation of conduct. The killing of a child deserves the highest denunciation possible. Second is deterrence, deterrence for the worst of crimes, violence against other people in our civilized society. Separation of offenders is the third purpose, which is for the protection of the public, when someone involved with the worst of crimes should be a high priority. The fourth is rehabilitation. That is where we want to not give up on anyone. The fifth is reparation, which is to make amends to the victims and the people impacted. The final purpose of sentencing is promotion of responsibility.(1230)Ms. McClintic is responsible for her role in the death of Tori Stafford. She should be making reparations, both on a restorative level and on a Criminal Code level, for that crime. She must be separated from the public for her involvement in the worst of crimes. We must have deterrence and we must have denunciation. In the worst of crimes, those take precedence over rehabilitation. Those take precedence over transferring someone to a healing lodge. A healing lodge is really designed for restorative justice principles for people who have committed crimes because of their circumstance in life, because of poverty, or because of higher instances of incarceration of indigenous peoples. I support healing lodges, but not for child murderers.Let us continue from section 718 of the Criminal Code to sections 718.1 and 718.2. It begins with the principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the nature of the offence. I remind everyone, and the commissioner of corrections, that this is the worst crime our society faces. There is no need for a balancing test. In my view, the proportionate nature of the offence means that Ms. McClintic should serve her entire sentence in a maximum-security prison. Certainly the restorative healing lodge approach, generally saved for indigenous offenders, should not be available for first and second degree murder cases. This should be a policy that is brought to the chamber immediately. That is what Canadians expect.There is no way under the Criminal Code, under Justice Canada's principles of restorative justice that could defend the transfer of Ms. McClintic to a healing lodge. There is no way to defend it. What is more troubling than the decision itself, and the Liberals' shell game of having a report from the commissioner show up on the day that people are protesting on Parliament Hill, is that this is another example of a government that is actually impotent to act. There is an organization chart. The minister is at the top of that department. The Prime Minister is responsible for each minister. We see countless cases where there is an inability to take action and acknowledge errors made by departments. The Statistics Canada stats grab that is going on right now, which Canadians find obscene, is when the minister responsible should say “Statistics Canada, hands off.” When Veterans Affairs finds out that a convicted murderer who developed PTSD from killing a police officer in Nova Scotia, a murderer who never served, is receiving funding that is for our veterans, that is a mistake and it should be rectified. Ms. McClintic is probably the best example of a mistake that should be rectified. There is no excuse for it.I would like the commissioner of corrections to go through the same analysis I just did, Section 718 of the Criminal Code and the principles of restorative justice, and give me one reason why Ms. McClintic should be transferred to a healing lodge. It is time for the Liberals to step up and show some leadership. Our job in the House as the loyal opposition is to bring the concerns of Canadians to this Parliament. In fact, I applaud the Canadians who were braving the rain and cold today to bring their outrage in the transfer of Ms. McClintic to the steps of Parliament Hill.The trouble is that we have Liberal government ministers who are impotent to act. They act like they are powerless. It is because the job, the image and the car mean more to them than the actual responsibility they have. In this case, it is undermining confidence in our judicial system, in our corrections system. I have yet to see one iota of a response to why this should happen. The Liberals should take ownership, remove Ms. McClintic and ban any further transfers of anyone who took a life to a healing lodge like this.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMotion of instructionRestorative justiceSentencingStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security563166456316655631666563166756316685631669563167056316715631672563167356316745631675563167656316775631678563167956316805631681PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in my colleague and friend across the way and the stand he is trying to position this in terms of politics. Sadly, this case tears at the hearts of all Canadians.Even when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, dozens of murderers were transferred over to these healing lodges. They were child killers also. That is true. This is the reason why the minister is doing the responsible thing. We understand the heartbreak and the horror of family members and Canadians on this. That was why we asked the commissioner to do the review. The minister has that review today. Would the member not, at the very least, recognize that the government needs to do the review? We are doing the review and now we will wait to see what actions are taken.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security563168256316835631684ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I do consider my colleague across the way a friend, and I will believe him in this circumstance if he tables any name or case where someone convicted of first or second degree murder was transferred to a healing lodge. I do not think there are such names. If there are, I will stand corrected. If it happened under the Conservative government, it was wrong then. That is ownership of something. I do not believe the member's facts are right. There might be a manslaughter case, where the circumstances are of someone in a drinking situation getting into a fight. If that person was from circumstances of impoverished means or was an indigenous offender, that is when restorative justice could be explored. I do not think there was a case, certainly not of someone who killed a child. I will correct myself on the record if the member tables any of those names.However, as I said, it is beside the point. When Canadians, especially family members of someone impacted, bring this to the attention of the chamber, it is our priority to fix it. It happened when Stephen Harper found out that child killer Clifford Olson was receiving old age security, OAS. The Conservative government took the time to pass a bill to change the law to stop that. When something happened under our watch that was inappropriate and that was undermining public confidence, we stood up, agreed and changed it. That is what I want the Liberals to do. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security563168556316865631687KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, it seems that the opposition is bent on making this as political as possible when in fact Correctional Service Canada has this under consideration.My previous question about healing lodges was answered in a way that was not accurate. Of the nine healing lodges that we have in Canada, two of them accept medium-security inmates. What we are discussing today is one of those two. Correctional Service Canada worked within the guidelines it was given. Our minister has asked, first, how the decisions were made; and second, whether the process was correct. The minister now has that report, which he will consider and bring back to the House.Apart from the grandstanding that going on, I was hoping to discuss the budget today. I have a speech on the budget. The budget is a very important document before our House. Instead of doing that, we are interrupting our discussions on the budget to get into something that is being considered and will be coming back to the House in due time.We are looking at a transfer between two medium-security facilities. Maybe the hon. member could comment on that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5631689563169056316915631692MaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—KawarthaErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I am sorry to inform the member for Guelph that some politics happen in this chamber. I get a kick out of the fact that whenever we say something that is uncomfortable for the Liberals, we are being partisan. That is indeed our role. The member wants to speak not on the budget, but on the 850-page budget implementation act that his party screamed about if we ever had budget bills that big. He will get his time. I will come to Guelph in the week after next and ask people in the coffee shops what they think about the McClintic case. I was very clear in my remarks that the policy should be no first or second degree murderers at a healing lodge.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56316935631694LloydLongfieldGuelphPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the member's motion regarding Bill C-83, which the House has already voted on and passed at second reading. The hon. member for Durham just mentioned that sometimes politics gets done in this place, and I would argue that the only thing being done by the Conservative Party right now is playing politics.I cannot imagine what the family of Tori Stafford has gone through or any family that has lost a child in this manner. My heart goes out to all families who have lost children to crime.I will start by discussing Bill C-83 and some concerns that have been raised about the working conditions of those working in corrections. It is challenging work. From guards to parole officers, program staff to medical professionals, corrections employees work hard, around the clock and in challenging environments to keep our institutions safe and in support of effective rehabilitation, which ultimately protects Canadian communities. They represent a professional workforce of nearly 18,000 employees, all engaged in the success of the corrections system and the fulfilment of Correctional Service Canada's mandate. That is complemented by some 6,000 volunteers in institutions and communities, not to mention elders, chaplains and the many other unsung heroes working in corrections. I want to assure all of those individuals that as we study Bill C-83 at committee, their voices will be heard and we will be listening to them.Regarding the transfer referred to in this motion, when it came to the attention of the Minister of Public Safety, he asked the commissioner of corrections to review the transfer decision and the long-standing policies in place, which existed prior to our becoming government, that led to the decision, to ensure that they remain appropriate or to recommend if they need updating. As the Minister of Public Safety indicated in the House, he received the report from the commissioner of corrections late yesterday, a report that came with several policy options for him to consider. The minister is studying the report carefully and has said that if there are any changes that need to be made to these long-standing policies, they will be made in the near future. In the meantime, the public safety committee is expected to begin its study of Bill C-83 next week. This transformational piece of legislation will eliminate segregation in Canadian corrections facilities, but is unrelated to the issue of this particular transfer. Through Bill C-83, the government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that we not only have the tools to make guilty parties accountable for breaking the law, but also create an environment that fosters rehabilitation so there are fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities.Virtually everyone in federal custody is eventually going to be released. It is in the best interests of public safety to ensure that when offenders are released, they are well prepared to participate meaningfully in society and that they are unlikely to reoffend. That is why we are strengthening the federal corrections system and aligning it with the latest evidence and best practices so that offenders are rehabilitated and better prepared to eventually re-enter our communities.Bill C-83 would replace the long-standing practice of using segregation and replace it with the use of structured intervention units, or SIUs. This is a bold new approach to federal corrections. An offender may be placed in an SIU when there are reasonable grounds to believe that they pose a risk to the safety of any person, including themselves, or the security of the institution. It will protect the safety of staff and those in their custody by allowing offenders to be separated as required, while ensuring that those offenders receive effective rehabilitative programming, as well as interventions and mental health support. These things are not in place right now but we would put them in place with Bill C-83. Currently, placement in segregation basically suspends all interventions and programming for an offender. The offender is essentially kept isolated from everyone. In a structured intervention unit, on the other hand, the offender will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell and a minimum of two hours of meaningful interactions with other people, including staff, volunteers, visitors, elders, chaplains and other compatible inmates. They will have access to structured interventions to address the underlying behaviour that led to their placement in the SIU. These will include programs and mental health care tailored to their needs. It is a system that will allow for the protection of inmates, staff and the institution while ensuring that the time an inmate spends there does not interrupt his or her rehabilitative programming. Make no mistake, rehabilitative programming is essential to ensure that when the person is released from corrections, they will be able to live a life free of crime.(1245)We will ensure that the correctional service has the resources it needs to ensure the safe and secure management of offenders within the SIU while delivering all of the important programming and allowing for visitations.In addition, the new system will be subject to a robust internal review process. By the fifth working day after movement to an SIU, the warden will determine if the inmate should remain there, taking into account factors such as the inmate's correctional plan and medical condition. If the inmate remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews will happen after 30 days by the warden and every 30 days thereafter by the commissioner of corrections.Reviews can be triggered by a medical professional at any time, and will be strengthened by the fact that Bill C-83 also enshrines in law for the first time the principle that health care professionals within the corrections system must have the autonomy to exercise their own medical judgment. As recommended by the Ashley Smith inquest, it would create a system of patient advocates who will help ensure that people get the medical treatment they need.Bill C-83 would also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. These amendments are based on the 1999 Gladue case and reflect what the Supreme Court has found to be the constitutional right of an indigenous offender.The bill would also improve support for victims. Currently, victims may attend a parole hearing of the perpetrator of the crime. Alternatively, victims can request audio recordings of the parole hearing if they are unable to attend. Unfortunately, due to a glitch in the existing act, if a victim attends in person, he or she is not able to receive an audio recording. We have heard from victims that parole hearings can be such an emotional time that afterward the victim often cannot remember the full details of what transpired. Bill C-83 would ensure that even if the victim attends in person, he or she will be able to get a copy of the recording.The legislation would also allow CSC to use body scanners for the first time. These scanners are a less invasive way of searching inmates and visitors to a penitentiary while ensuring that correctional staff have the tools they need to detect and prevent contraband.During Stephen Harper's time in office there were many inmates in healing lodges who had committed very serious crimes. In fact, dozens were convicted of murder and at least 14 were convicted in cases in which the victims were children. They were sent to healing lodges under the Harper government because, apparently, the Harper government understood that healing lodges were in the interest of rehabilitation and public safety. I would like to read a quote from the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, who said, “Healing lodges developed in collaboration with aboriginal communities provide supportive healing and reintegration environments.”In our country, we rely on our courts to deliver sentences and the corrections system to supervise offenders, to uphold public safety and to rehabilitate those in their care. We do not have a vigilante system in Canada. We do not allow public opinion or political rhetoric to determine the penalties dealt to individual offenders. Yet the opposition has been playing political games with this case and our entire justice system during the past weeks.Let us be clear. There is no doubt that this offender should be in prison. There is no doubt that she remains in prison. The facts of the case are well known and they shake us to the core. She was tried and sentenced to life without eligibility for parole for 25 years. She has been in the custody of Correctional Services Canada since sentencing. Let me reiterate that she is still in prison and continues to be supervised while incarcerated and will remain under supervision for the rest of her life.(1250) Neither the Minister of Public Safety nor the House has the ability to overturn the decision on where that individual offender should be serving her sentence. To make the public believe that we do is irresponsible for the opposition, and I, for one, do not want to live in a country where our justice and corrections systems rely on political rhetoric and public opinion in their decision-making processes.Recently, we had the new commissioner of corrections at the public safety committee. She stated several times, just as the Minister of Public Safety has done here as well, that she was asked to review the circumstances surrounding this transfer decision, as well as the long-standing policies regarding transfers in general. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Public Safety received the commissioner's report late yesterday and is in the process of reviewing it.Both of committees that I sit on, the status of women and public safety committees, tabled reports in June on the corrections system and, in particular, on indigenous people in corrections. The public safety committee's report was unanimous in calling for additional funding for healing lodges. Members from all parties heard from witnesses and agreed that healing lodges were doing excellent work and should be expanded and supported. The Conservative members of the committee agreed with us that they play an integral role in our corrections system. The status of women committee also recommended additional funding for healing lodges and heard extensive testimony on their benefits.I wonder how many on the opposition benches have actually visited a women's medium-security institute or healing lodge. I have visited both. I suspect most people, including those in the House, expect prison to look more like what they see on television and in movies. They might be surprised to see what a medium-security institute like Grand Valley actually looks like.Let me be clear. A healing lodge is still a secure corrections facility. Perhaps if it were called a women's indigenous corrections facility, we would not even be debating this issue, nor having the motion before us today. It is not a spa. It is not a summer camp. There are no luxury linens. Prisoners must follow the rules if they want to stay there.A healing lodge is different from what Canadians might expect a prison to look like, but these institutions are also very different in their outcomes for prisoners, and in turn, better for Canadians and public safety in the long run. In fact, I would argue that is why the Harper Conservatives sent individuals who had been convicted of murder to healing lodges, because they recognized the benefits for offenders when they spend time in these institutions.Claire Carefoot, executive director of the Buffalo Sage Wellness House, an Edmonton healing lodge, has 29 years of experience in corrections. She appeared before the public safety committee during our study, and stated:It's not a get-out-of-jail-free [card].... We have the same kind of supervision and restrictions they have in a prison. Only we're doing it in a healing way.... they have to accept responsibility for their offences, for their victims, and they have to accept responsibility for their own behaviour.Our government knows that a corrections system focused on accountability rather than simple retribution is better for corrections outcomes and, therefore, better for the public safety of all Canadians. We know that taking a rehabilitative approach is the best way to protect the public safety of Canadians. I think Canadians would agree that when people leave prison, we do not want them to commit a violent crime. It is not in the interests of public safety.As we know, regardless of the length of their sentence, the vast majority of those incarcerated in our system will be released from prison at some point. They may very well move into our neighbourhoods. What kind of person do we want released from prison at the end of his or her sentence living next door to us? I feel strongly that, regardless of our feelings, public safety is best served when we take steps to prevent violent recidivism.I mentioned the fact that the previous government sent individuals who had committed murder and individuals who had committed crimes against children to healing lodges. (1255)I would argue that is the problem with the Conservative Party today. It has no moral centre. It has no principles around which to build policies. Conservatives simply swing from one issue to the next, with no sense of cohesion or principles to guide them. Almost every issue or policy that the Conservatives supported in government is one that they have a knee-jerk reaction to while in opposition.It is the reason the member for Beauce has left the Conservative Party and founded a new Conservative movement. He says that today's Conservative Party of Canada has become “morally corrupt”, and that Canadians need a new coherent Conservative—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMillimetre wave scannersMotion of instructionSolitary confinementStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityStructured intervention unitVictims of crime56316955631696563169756316985631699563170056317015631702563170356317045631705563170656317075631708563170956317105631711563171256317135631714563171556317165631717563171856317195631720563172156317225631723563172456317255631726ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the member for Beauce has called the Conservative Party of Canada “morally corrupt” and has said that Canadians need a new coherent Conservative option to vote for.As just one recent example, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recently completed a committee report that recommended:That the Government of Canada ensure access to healing lodges for Indigenous female offenders with a medium security classification.It also called for expanding the number of healing lodges.The Conservative members of the committee did issue a dissenting report, however they made no mention of this recommendation, and in fact solely focused on social impact bonds. I would take from the dissenting report that the Conservatives tabled in the House that they agreed with our recommendation on access to healing lodges.Meanwhile, other Conservative MPs, including members of the status of women committee, have spent the past month demonizing the use of healing lodges. The ability for Conservatives to speak out of both sides of their mouth on any given issue may make them feel nimble while debating in the Ottawa bubble, but it is very confusing to everyday Canadians who cannot tell if the Conservative Party actually stands for anything anymore.While the Conservative Party continues to play games, trying to slow down any piece of legislation that would be good for Canada, good for Canadians and good for public safety, as Bill C-83 is, we on this side of the House remain focused squarely on governing this great country. That is why I will not be supporting the member's motion.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5631729563173056317315631732563173356317345631735CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, the member across from me said a few things that I would like to seek some clarification on.One of the things that she said is that the Conservatives lack a moral compass, a “moral centre” was her term. This is interesting to me because I have had the opportunity to work with this member for a number of years now on the Standing Committee for the Status of Women.There, I brought forward a motion in the spring with regard to ISIS militants being brought into Canada. There is proof that these individuals are being brought here by the Liberal government, that they are being moved into Toronto and that they have access to public transportation systems. These are men who have committed atrocious crimes overseas. They have kidnapped women, they have raped women and they have likely murdered women. Now they are here in Canada, engaging with the Canadian public.I brought forward a motion at this committee, asking for a study to be done with regard to the impact that this decision might have on Yazidi women who are being brought over from northern Iraq in order to find a safe haven here in Canada.Now, what did the committee say to this? The member opposite, when I brought forward the motion, said that she did not think this was a real issue. It does not deserve to be studied. Only weeks later, a Yazidi woman was on a bus in Toronto, and came face to face with her ISIS perpetrator. I would like the hon. member across from me to do the hon. thing, and actually admit that it is them, it is the government—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionRefugeesStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityTerrorism and terroristsYazidis56317365631737563173856317395631740PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I have no idea what that question has to do with the motion before us today on Bill C-83, but I am happy to respond to it.Our government has brought over more than 1,200 Yazidi refugees. How many did the Conservatives bring over? Three. This side of the House is providing mental health services for those Yazidi refugees. What did the other side of the House do? It removed health services for refugees in Canada. Not only that—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionRefugeesStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityTerrorism and terroristsYazidis56317425631743CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The member across the way yelled across the floor to stop yelling, which is definitely out of order. Also, I am sitting right in front of the member and I am finding it very difficult to hear her because of the heckling by my colleagues across the way.I would ask that the member who made the accusation be asked to apologize and that the Conservative members contain themselves so that we can hear what members have to say inside this House.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMembers' remarksMotion of instructionNoise/conversations/heckling, interrupting Member speakingPoints of orderStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56317445631745PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, instead of focusing on political rhetoric and gamesmanship, I am going to focus on what the government is doing to protect the safety of Canadians. I am extremely proud of what our government has done at the public safety committee. I look forward to working with opposition members from the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party as we study this bill. However, this motion is not in order. It is far beyond the scope of the bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionRefugeesStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityTerrorism and terroristsYazidis56317485631749CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1305)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was going well until she indirectly called the Conservatives corrupt. Who got reprimanded by the Ethics Commissioner? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Who was behind the sponsorship scandal? The Liberals. Before my colleague accuses the Conservatives of being corrupt, I would advise her to tread carefully because her own party is not above reproach.My colleague also said that we have not visited healing lodges. The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had a trip planned, but the Liberals decided that we would not go visit the healing lodges. Maybe it was because they did not want us to see how those places really operate. Maybe they did not want us to see the conditions in which these people are “incarcerated”.I wonder if we could stop playing petty politics and look at the real issues. It does not matter if there were cases during the time of the Harper government where people may have ended up in healing lodges. The ministers in office at the time may not have been aware. On both our side and theirs, we still do not have the information. If they do become aware, does my colleague believe that child murderers should be allowed to go there, instead of a federal penitentiary like Donnacona?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5631750563175156317525631753PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that any member of Parliament can visit a prison or a healing lodge. That is what I have done. I took a trip to Edmonton to visit healing lodges and the Edmonton Institute for Women and Edmonton maximum-security. I also went to Saskatoon and visited a healing lodge there and the Regional Psychiatric Centre. I have been to Stony Mountain. None of those were with the public safety committee.Therefore, if the hon. member wishes to visit those facilities, he is more than welcome to, as is any member of this House at any time.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56317545631755PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I did visit a correctional facility, the Grand Valley Institution for Women. I saw the professionalism of the care that Correctional Services Canada provides as well as the goals around rehabilitation and education within the facility. I saw various levels of security within that institute of high-security, medium-security and lower-security areas. There were complex treatments being done by professionals and now we are being asked to intervene on their behalf, as if a member of Parliament has more skill in determining what the best care is for prisoners.Could the hon. member comment on the role of members of Parliament in providing policy and guidance and the role of our Correctional Services Canada professionals in providing care? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56317565631757PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I was saying in my speech. I think it is important to recognize that the commissioner of corrections has prepared a report. She has reviewed these decisions. It is with the Minister of Public Safety now. If there are changes to be made, it will be done in a reasoned and reasonable way, based on the information that the minister has received from the commissioner of corrections. That is the right way to do things, rather than playing politics with a particular case.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security563175856317595631760LloydLongfieldGuelphElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, to my friend for Oakville North—Burlington, I think it is really important to distinguish between how individuals in this place act and their own moral compass, and the lack of morality that is found in every group of spin doctors to any political party in this country, where the goal is always to try to find divisions and try to score points.In the 41st Parliament, when we debated mandatory minimums, I was always making the point to government members that there was absolutely no single empirical study that justified mandatory minimums. The response was always that it was a shame that member cares more about criminals than innocent victims. That is a narrative designed for fundraising and it has less to do with a lack of a moral compass than with the reality of too much power in the hands of political parties in this chamber, where we should be about our constituents and not about the next election.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMandatory sentencingMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56317615631762PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there. I think it was a comment. I have the utmost respect for the hon. member across the way. I appreciate what she says, and she is absolutely right. I know I have been outspoken on some of these issues, including on mandatory minimums, because there is no evidence whatsoever that they reduce crime or make Canadians safer. I take her comments with all due respect and appreciate her intervention.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMandatory sentencingMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56317635631764ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, the member began her speech by suggesting that the opposition just brings unnecessary partisanship into all of its speeches, and then went on to castigate the motives of members and to talk about how the Conservatives have no moral compass and all of these kinds of things. The purpose of this motion is to ensure that ministers take responsibility for their departments. That is what we are here to do, and if that is partisanship maybe we need a little more of it, not less. We need the government to start taking responsibility for its departments. Does she not see the sense of irony in merely criticizing anyone who does not just lie down and agree with them that they are being unnecessarily partisan?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security563176556317665631767PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister has taken responsibility. That is why he has asked for a report from the commissioner of corrections. What the hon. member is suggesting would be like the minister of fisheries going out to build wharves. The Minister of Public Safety has absolutely taken responsibility. Corrections Canada has prepared a report. The minister is reviewing it. That is the right way we should be doing things, not a knee-jerk reaction because it is going to be able to raise fundraising dollars. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56317685631769PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I will pick up on the last question. The member tries to give the impression that the government has not done a good job on this file. I would like to make it very clear to those who might be following the debate just what the government has done. In order to appreciate what the government has done, one needs to have a better sense of what has been happening over the last 10 years.I would emphasize what I believe is uniformly felt across all regions of our country. No one this country could every imagine how horrific the actions against little Tori were. I think I speak on behalf of anyone who has a heart and understands what a parent or family members have to go through mentally and physically when something horrific takes place against a child. I cannot imagine the pain and agony. In my heart, and I know I am not unique, all of us in the chamber extend our sympathies and empathy to the family. Having said that, sadly, it is not the first time that has happened in Canada. I had the opportunity to ask a question, trying to provide a little history. A past Conservative administration decided that we should move from correctional facilities to healing centres, which would be part of the medium-security correctional facilities. I believe these healing centres were brought in a Conservative administration. Indeed, let us fast forward to when Stephen Harper was prime minister. If we listen to the Conservatives, we would think this situation were truly unique, as if children have not been murdered in the past and murderers have not been put into healing centres in the past. We know that is not true. Even when Stephen Harper was prime minister, we know there were murderers in medium-security facilities who were transferred to healing centres, dozens of them. Not one, two or three, but literally dozens of murderers have gone into these healing centres. This was when Stephen Harper was prime minister.We often hear about some of the worst crimes in society, such as terrorist acts, but what ranks very high for me are child murders. These as horrific and I want there to be consequences for that crime. So do my constituents and a vast majority, 90%-plus, of Canadians. (1315)Do members know that child killers were sent to healing lodges while Stephen Harper was prime minister? If we follow the debate on this issue, we would never believe that to be the case, but that is the reality. Child murderers, even under Stephen Harper, went to healing lodges. We did not hear any Conservatives jump up at that time asking why it was happening. No one condemned Stephen Harper and the minister responsible. It was implied earlier that maybe they did not know about it. That excuse does not cut it.I listen to many members of the opposition yell from their seats how horrific it is and how irresponsible we were by not taking action, as they point fingers at the member for Regina—Wascana, the Minister of Public Safety, for not taking action. Here is a reality check: Even though Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did not take any action, this minister and this government have taken the most appropriate action of all. We created a dialogue with the commissioner of corrections and asked the commissioner to review the policy and to come back to the government with some recommendations. That is the responsible approach to dealing with this issue.I understand that yesterday the commissioner brought forward that report. I suspect that the minister, knowing he is one of the hardest working members in the chamber, will go through that report in great detail. I know this government as a whole understands and appreciates the very important role that our civil servants play in providing the services that we receive from Correctional Service Canada. We will factor in what those professionals have to say, because good government does that. Good government respects the fine work that our civil servants do for Canadians as a whole.Knowing the Minister of Public Safety, his primary concern is the safety of Canadians. I believe that is the priority of this government. We have seen that in the legislation we debated, namely Bill C-83, which I will soon get to. For now, let us realize that unlike the former government under which we know that child murderers went to healing centres, we are looking at ways to improve government policy. This is one of the files that no doubt will be taken into great consideration as we try to ensure that we have the confidence of Canadians as we move forward on this.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security563177056317715631772563177356317745631775563177656317775631778PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, my friend rose on a point of order. He wants to hear the names of other murderers. Well, it was not that long ago when member after member of the Conservative caucus stood in the chamber, and in great detail, talked about Tori Stafford and that horrific incident, which revolted many Canadians. One of the reasons many members on this side of the House were so upset with members of the official opposition was because of the way they were dealing with this issue. For the sake of argument, let us say that the Conservatives had a change of mind on policy. When in government, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, there were child murderers going to healing lodges, and they did not oppose it then. However, let us say that they had a road to Damascus experience. Now they are in opposition, and now we want to cut them some slack, and they want to see a change in policy. Even with that, I do not believe it justifies the graphic descriptions that were being given day in and day out by the official opposition.Now those members want more names of these child killers tabled. Is it so they can again look at these cases and reveal the graphic details? Is that what they want?At the end of the day, this is about good governance and policy that addresses the issues Canadians truly care about. That is why the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada was asked to do the job she did. As I have indicated, that report has now been brought to the attention of the minister responsible. I can assure members of this House that the report will be gone through and we will see something that can provide assurance to Canadians that we do have the victims in our hearts and that we are respectful of our civil servants. We believe that we need to have a policy that delivers on what the public expectations are of the government of the day.I made reference to Bill C-83, and my colleague made reference to it in her speech. The reason I want to bring this up is that often, the Conservatives try to give the impression that they are about the victims, as if they are the ones who protect the interests of the victims. Well, we have seen legislation brought in by this government that enshrines victims' rights in legislation. We have seen other aspects that are important. For example, my colleague made reference to audio tapes. There are many crimes that are so horrific that when a perpetrator in jail goes before a parole board, and the victim wants to attend the hearing, we would allow the victim to be provided an audio tape of what takes place, because one can only imagine what a victim goes through when sitting in that Parole Board hearing. There is a different mentality between the Stephen Harper Conservatives and this government when it comes to justice. I will give the Conservatives that. We truly believe that there are certain actions the government can take that will ensure that we have fewer victims in the future. That is a reality that often escapes my Conservative friends across the way.(1325)Bill C-83 is a good example of that. Within the bill are reforms to the legislation that would enable programming, such as mental health care services and others, to be made available to individuals leaving our prison system. That is important. Unlike the image the Conservatives try to give Canadians, that once people go to jail, each and every one of them is so bad that they should stay in jail forever, the reality is that a vast majority will come out and they will be in our communities. We need to ensure—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesHomicideImprisonment and prisonersMcClintic, Terri-LynneMotion of instructionStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityVictims of crime563178456317855631786563178756317885631789563179056317915631792CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25501DianeFinleyHon.Diane-FinleyHaldimand—NorfolkConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/FinleyDiane_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityInterventionHon. Diane Finley: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the unfortunate adjournment of the debate on the motion to authorize the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to expand the scope of Bill C-83 in order to forbid those convicted of the murder of a child from serving any portion of their sentence in a healing lodge, given that the minister just announced in question period that he had received recommendations from the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada relating to the transfer of Terri-Lynne McClintic from prison to a healing lodge in Saskatchewan and given that members in this place did not have the opportunity to vote on this very important motion, I believe it is incumbent to allow the House the opportunity to take a position on the motion and to give the public safety committee the required authority to consider any recommendations that the commissioner has to offer and to amend Bill C-83 accordingly.To this effect, there have been consultations and I hope that should you seek it, Madam Speaker, you would find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That Motion No. 1082, listed on the Order Paper today under the rubric “Motions”, in the name of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, proposing to authorize the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to expand the scope of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act in order to forbid those convicted of the murder of a child from serving any portion of his or her sentence in a healing lodge be deemed adopted. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment Business No. 24Healing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersLeave to propose a motionMotion of instructionMotionsStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security56317945631795CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I move:MotionThat, in relation to Bill C-83, An Act to Amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559225155922525592253KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is indicative of what the Liberals have been doing overall on this bill, which is very disturbing to see. This is a bill that would have a direct effect on the men and women who put their lives on the line every day dealing with the most dangerous, horrific criminals in Canada. Corrections officers do not like this bill. The government has not talked with them about this bill. It has not talked or consulted with them on the very dangerous and very real implications for the men and women who serve as corrections officers.This bill would be taking away the ability of corrections officers to put individuals in solitary confinement for the protection of other inmates, the protection of themselves or the protection of guards. We are again seeing the Liberals focusing on protecting criminals, focusing on worrying about the comfort of criminals who are serving their time in federal penitentiaries, and shutting down any discussion or debate. It is shameful to see.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592256559225755922585592259GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise or shock anyone that I disagree with most, if not all, of those comments. First, what we are seeking to do is to send this legislation to committee. This legislation will have been before the House for three days. My hon. colleague referred to the importance of hearing from correctional officers. I personally have a large federal correctional institution in my riding. In fact, there are three institutions. I have had a chance to meet with the union representatives for correctional officers on a number of occasions. I think it is always important to listen to those men and women who work in the system. Having the legislation at committee would allow us to do exactly that.As my hon. colleague noted, this legislation has been before the House for some time. If we fail to enact legislation by December of this year or January of next year, because of court decisions in two jurisdictions, we could very well find ourselves in a situation where the institutions would have no recourse to the proper tools to ensure safety.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559226055922615592262CandiceBergenHon.Portage—LisgarMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1015)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, this is the 48th time this government has moved time allocation. With the election only a year away, I imagine the Liberals are trying to step up the pace in order to match the record set by the previous government. In terms of the bill's substance, it basically changes a term; it makes a minor change to administrative segregation. Ultimately, it solves nothing. Ontario and British Columbia courts have ruled that administrative segregation is unconstitutional.The minister just mentioned the two decisions in question and the fact that measures need to be taken quickly. However, I wonder if the minister can explain to me why his party is rushing a bill that completely fails to address those court decisions. On top of that, we had a bill on the Order Paper, and the government is appealing the B.C. Supreme Court ruling. I do not quite understand where the government is going with that.Why did it not simply respect the courts' decisions and introduce a bill that really reflects those decisions? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559226355922645592265DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1015)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for his comments. Let me reassure him. I know he must be very worried about the use of time allocation. I can assure him that we are nowhere near the historical record set by the former Conservative government. I think he will agree that it is likely to remain a record for a long time.However, we agree that this bill needs to be studied by a parliamentary committee, which is precisely where this kind of issue could be examined. I do not agree with my colleague, because not passing a bill in the next few months could in fact take away the appropriate tools available to the management of correctional institutions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is extremely important to our government. We believe that this bill is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the court decisions. That is why we are asking members to send it to committee quickly.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation55922665592267MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1015)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the minister wants us to send the bill to committee quickly. Naturally, we on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will study it and propose the necessary amendments, but the majority will probably vote down our amendments.That is why debates in the House are so crucial. Many opposition members have important speeches to give, because they also have concerns about the correctional system. Yes, there are some important judgments, and certain things need to be taken into consideration in that regard. However, the correctional officers' unions have been largely ignored, although it is vital that they be heard. My colleague said that he met with union representatives from three correctional institutions in his riding. However, I myself met with people from Donnacona Institution two weeks ago, and they made it clear that the government was not listening to them.This week, even union president Jason Godin said there would be a blood bath in the penitentiaries if Bill C-83 were passed. Those are his words. This government does not want to listen to what we have to say and just wants to rush things through. Many concerns remained unaddressed and the answers we have been given so far are incomprehensible.I would like the minister to tell us why he does not want to listen to what we have to say.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParliamentary democracySecond readingTime allocation55922685592269559227055922715592272DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1015)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his intervention.I agree with him in part. It is indeed important to listen and consider the experience, judgment and suggestions of correctional services professionals. As I told him, as the member for Beauséjour, I have had many opportunities to meet extraordinary women and men who work for the Correctional Service of Canada. We know that their working conditions are often extremely difficult and we have a lot of respect for them. That is partly why we believe that CSC needs to have the right tools for ensuring safety in the institutions, including the safety of the inmates and the staff who work there.That is why, in the wake of the court rulings, that apply not just in one jurisdiction, but in many jurisdictions in Canada, including rulings based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we think that it is the right time to renew the tools available to the Correctional Service of Canada to uphold the rights of prisoners and, most importantly, to ensure safety and security in the institutions, including the safety of employees and visitors. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559227355922745592275PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (1020)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the government that I am deeply disappointed that it is imposing a time allocation motion on Bill C-83 because this bill was introduced in response to court rulings.This bill does not call into question administrative segregation by proposing other solutions. All it does is call administrative segregation by a different name and make slight changes to a few measures. I am very concerned because this bill does not seem to respond to the courts' decisions. I would like the House to come up with a solution that truly addresses the courts' decisions so that we do not end up back at square one in a few months when the bill is once again challenged because it did not respond to the court rulings.Why rush the study of this bill when we know why it was introduced?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559227655922775592278DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1020)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for her comments.We are trying to do exactly what my colleague talked about. We are in the process of responding purposefully and appropriately to the courts' decisions. What we are proposing in the bill is very different from the current system. There will be structured intervention units. We are doubling the number of hours inmates spend outside their cells and guaranteeing them a minimum of two hours a day of human interaction, whether it is with staff, volunteers, health care providers, chaplains or visitors with whom the inmates interact well. We are therefore responding specifically to the courts' concerns and have been for some time.I am from New Brunswick, and I clearly remember the tragic case of Ashley Smith, a young woman from Moncton, near where I live. We are very aware of the need to have appropriate tools that comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that enable those responsible to keep everyone in these institutions safe, particularly staff and visitors. That is clearly our government's priority.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559227955922805592281ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs makes reference time and time again to responding to the courts and yet whether we look at the Ontario Superior Court decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court decision, the Mandela rules or the 1996 Arbour commission, none of those commissions, neither of the two decisions at hand call upon the government to take away, in all circumstances, administrative and disciplinary segregation. It is the Liberal government moving ahead with that unilaterally to take away a vital tool for correctional officers to use to protect the security of other inmates, the security of correctional officers, the integrity of criminal investigations and the security of inmates themselves. Why would the government do that?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592282DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1020)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton asks why the government would do that. Actually, the government would not do that and that is not what we are doing. My hon. colleague knows very well that this government takes the safety and security of correctional institutions extremely seriously. We agree that correctional institutions must always have a way of separating inmates who pose a risk to the safety of other inmates, staff and visitors in these facilities and in some cases their own safety as well.The new secure intervention units will allow for those offenders to be removed from the general population. That way, we are ensuring that even while they are separated, unlike the previous system, they retain access to rehabilitative programs, health programs and mental health treatment as well. Our main priority is to ensure, as I said, the safety of these correctional institutions. With all the respect I have for my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, he arrives at a conclusion that is not entirely accurate. The government would never proceed in the way that he described in his comments.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559228355922845592285MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, could the minister highlight what he sees as the key benefits of getting this to committee, where people involved in the correctional system can testify at committee, tell their stories and let the committee make any amendments deemed necessary from those witnesses giving information?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParliamentary democracySecond readingTime allocation5592286DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, in spite of my colleague from Avalon having only been elected to Parliament three years ago, he is a very insightful parliamentarian who understands, deliberately and profoundly, our parliamentary system and the procedures of the House of Commons. It is certainly my hope that he will continue to serve in this place for many decades to come. I cannot imagine the people of Avalon could find a better representative for their constituency than the member who is serving here now.He highlights exactly the importance of allowing a committee of parliamentarians representing all parties in the House to scrutinize this legislation, to hear from experts and witnesses. Some in the House may choose to only be interested in listening to one particular perspective. I would urge members on that committee to listen to all perspectives and help us craft the best legislation possible to ensure the safety of correctional institutions, the remarkable women and men who work in those institutions, but also comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I cannot imagine any member of Parliament would want otherwise.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation55922875592288KenMcDonaldAvalonCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that what we are debating today is time allocation. I want to go back to 2015 when the Liberals made a number of commitments. They promised electoral reform, and what happened? They ditched it. They promised to get back to a balanced budget and the budget would balance itself, and what happened? They blew through $20 billion, so there is no plan to get back to a balanced budget. On ethics, they promised an open and transparent government, and what happened? There has been a rotating door to the Ethics Commissioner, with the Prime Minister, for the first time ever, being found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act. They also promised to respect Parliament.How is not coming to an agreement with the opposition on the time that is required to debate, which is a simple thing to do if it is broached in good faith, respecting Parliament?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParliamentary democracySecond readingTime allocation559228955922905592291DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not sure all members will agree with me, but perhaps some might. It is somewhat ironic for a member of the Conservative Party to be feigning indignation with respect to a parliamentary process that was not allowed to run its course over and over again. My colleague from the NDP I think highlighted the historic record of time allocation and closure used by the Conservative member's party when it was in power some short three years ago. Therefore, I think we can discount that comment.What we can retain from my hon. colleague's intervention is our government's concern for public safety. When people are incarcerated in federal correctional institutions, it is incumbent on any government to ensure that they receive the mental health and rehabilitative services and what is needed for them, because the vast majority of people who are incarcerated in federal institutions also return to society. All of us want those people to return to society healthier and in a position where they will not reoffend. That is what makes communities safer. We believe that with the significant financial investments that our government is prepared to make and these new measures, we are going to strike exactly that balance and keep those in the institutions safe and also focus on the safety of communities and Canadians. That is our priority.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation55922925592293CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because the minister used the justification of the court decisions that have come out as a reason for rushing through this legislation, cutting short debate and using time allocation. The question I have for him is this. The B.C. Supreme Court found that the abusive use of solitary confinement in federal penitentiaries is unconstitutional. Now he is saying that this legislation will respond to the court's decision and make this practice constitutional. The reality is the federal government is appealing that decision. Can the minister tell me why on the one hand it is rushing through legislation that it said addresses the court's concerns and on the other hand it is appealing the court decision, saying it is wrong and that everything is fine and dandy? It does not make sense. Moreover, it looks even sillier when we consider there is a piece of legislation that actually made Correctional Services more accountable and probably came closer, while not being good enough, that was already on the Order Paper from June of 2017, which has not even been debated. This is a new piece of legislation. The government is all over the map on this. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me a bit.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592294DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to enlighten my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly. He asked a number of important questions. He is correct that the practice of administrative segregation both in provincial institutions and, what obviously is of concern to us, in federal institutions has been the subject of a number of court cases. He referred to the court case in British Columbia. It has been before superior and appeal courts in other jurisdictions. My hon. colleague will also know that this matter is also subject to a number of potential class action lawsuits. While the court rulings in British Columbia and Ontario, as my colleague properly noted, are under appeal, one is under appeal by our government and one is under appeal by another party, as we sit here today, those rulings declaring segregation as currently practised to be unconstitutional will take effect at the end of this year and we have to be ready for that. Our position is that it would be irresponsible to leave the correctional authorities without the appropriate tools that respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our position would also allow them to ensure the safety of the institutions in which they serve and of course ensure the public safety of all Canadians.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592295MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, as we are debating time allocation, we have heard the argument, which seems to come up virtually every time, this tired piece of “would it not be better to just get this bill to committee”, as if that is an excuse or a substitution for a fulsome debate in this House. Therefore, I would ask the member this. Why is it so important that we rush this to committee amid this seemingly contradictory agenda of the government that was brought up in the previous intervention and not allow all members of Parliament to represent their constituents and speak on this bill if they have something they want to contribute to the debate on it in the House?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592296DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would not purport to take the member's comments as disingenuous. The hon. member wants to represent his constituents and serve in this House, but I would urge him to think carefully about the parliamentary process. By allowing this proposed legislation to go to committee, we can hear from colleagues on the public safety committee, and we can hear from Canadians who have real and significant experience in these matters.The Conservative Party moved a reasoned amendment on the first day of debate. People at home may not understand what this is, and one could argue that it was not very reasoned anyway, but there is a parliamentary tool called a “reasoned amendment”, which is designed to ensure that the legislation never passes. Therefore, on the first day of debate in this House, the Conservative Party moved an amendment designed to jam the legislation. Those members should not now be standing and saying, “Oh my God, we need to hear from every member in the House on this important bill.” That is a fundamental contradiction.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParliamentary democracySecond readingTime allocation559229755922985592299PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister will know that there are no contradictions in this corner. I opposed the anti-democratic use of time allocation time and time again in the 41st Parliament, and I am deeply distressed to see that it is the go-to place for the current government. It restricts the ability to fully debate an important piece of proposed legislation before the committee stage. Members of Parliament in the same situation I am in have no access to those committees. Therefore, full debate at second reading before going to committee is really an important aspect of parliamentary democracy. It grieves me that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is carrying the can for the Minister of Public Safety, who is not at this point arguing this offensive use of time allocation yet again before we get to fully debate the bill. I would urge my hon. friend, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is indeed a friend, to reconsider and let this bill have full debate.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsOpposition partiesParliamentary democracySecond readingTime allocation559230055923015592302DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the comment. If we are looking to find contradictory statements and behaviour, I would not start in that corner. The member is right. She has the virtue of being able to be consistent in all these matters, and for that she has my respect and affection.The member is correct in that members who serve in this House representing their constituents from non-recognized parties, in some cases, are not able to access the committee proceedings as other members might. Therefore, I want to assure the hon. member that we would be happy to welcome her at the public safety committee. My colleagues from the Liberal side on that committee will obviously ensure that she is able to participate and ask questions, because we think it is important to hear her voice on a committee like that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsParliamentary democracySecond readingTime allocation55923035592304ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1035)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I think everyone recognizes that this is a sensitive topic that warrants due consideration and that every parliamentarian who wants to speak should have the opportunity to do so. My hon. colleague is an influential minister in the current government, an 18-year veteran parliamentarian who was first elected in 2000. Not to mention that through his father, he was quite aware of what was going on here. His father was a credit to our country, having served as governor general and in other roles.I remind my distinguished colleague that he was elected three years and two days ago on a specific platform. The following is a header from the Liberal Party platform on page 30: “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.” In fact, the Liberals have done this 44 times in the past three years.Is this member proud of this record?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592305559230655923075592308DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1035)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his comments. Even though he does not have much experience as a parliamentarian here in the House, we are all familiar with his career in the Quebec National Assembly. He was a top-notch parliamentarian when he served there.I am very pleased that my colleague took the time to read the Liberal election platform. I suggest he read it again. Some of the ideas will soothe his soul and he will understand why Canadians chose a progressive government that respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.This is why we think it is important to get this bill to committee to ensure that our institutions have the tools they need to be safe and to keep Canadians safe.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559230955923105592311GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentNickWhalenSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88296NickWhalenNick-WhalenSt. John's EastLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WhalenNick_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Nick Whalen (St. John's East, Lib.): (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects of the legislation that I find particularly interesting. I have some questions about it and would like to see the committee expand further on them. The first is with respect to body scanners. The second is with respect to secure intervention units.Can the minister explain how these additional costs are expected to be funded? Of course, without the appropriate funding, as we have learned from previous governments, the change is not going to be effective.How has the government ensured that in this bill there will be appropriate funding for the changes for body scanners and for the secure intervention units?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559231255923135592314DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for St. John's East focused on two very important aspects of this legislation.One aspect is the increased use of body scanners to help keep drugs and other contraband out of the institutions. This legislation specifically authorizes the use of these body scanners, which are comparable to the technology currently used at airports. Our government has indicated that all of these important technological investments will be available for institutions, so that the men and women who are responsible for those institutions may access that technology. Also, the secure intervention units are a model that we think offers the best chance of ensuring the safety of the institution while continuing to ensure the rehabilitation of these offenders and giving them access to increased mental health services. It is something again that our government has announced considerable investments in, because we think that it is part of ensuring public safety and the safety of the men and women who work in these institutions. My colleague has identified two very important pieces of this legislation. I know all members of this House thank him for that important insight.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592315559231655923175592318NickWhalenSt. John's EastPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1040)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the government wants to implement the use of body scanners in penitentiaries, which is a good idea that I hope will be applied to all visitors, inmates and even staff. Can the minister tell us today if his government will immediately stop the implementation of the needle exchange program in penitentiaries? That program is really a very bad idea. Since body scanners will identify 95% or more of the objects and drugs that enter penitentiaries, the use of needles will no longer be necessary.Will the government end the program?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation559231955923205592321DominicLeBlancHon.BeauséjourDominicLeBlancHon.Beauséjour//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1813DominicLeBlancHon.Dominic-LeBlancBeauséjourLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeblancDominic_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83--Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Dominic LeBlanc: (1040)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank our colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.I am pleased that he agrees with us that the appropriate use of body scanners will play a major role in preventing the entry of drugs and other substances that could jeopardize institutional security.In our view, it is important to listen to the professional men and women working inside correctional institutions. They are extraordinary people who are dedicated to the safety of the public and the institutions and to the treatment of those incarcerated.As a government, every decision we make concerning the Correctional Service of Canada will be based on science, evidence and the importance of ensuring the safety of all Canadians and of correctional institutions, which are an integral part of our security across the country. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592322559232355923245592325PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsInterventionThe Speaker: (1120)[Translation]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMotionsSecond readingTime allocation5592338BruceStantonSimcoe NorthJohnNaterPerth—Wellington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1130)[English]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.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55923585592359559236055923615592362GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1130)[English]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?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55923635592364MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1135)[English]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.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592365PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1135)[English]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?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55923665592367MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1135)[English]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.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55923685592369KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (1135)[English]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?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5592370MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1135)[English]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.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55923715592372CathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint Vital//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89045DanVandalDan-VandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandalDan_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dan Vandal (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1140)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise on behalf of the citizens I represent in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.[Translation]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.[English]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.[Translation]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.[English]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.(1145)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.[Translation]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.[English]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.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersRecidivistsSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unit55923735592374559237555923765592377559237855923795592380559238155923825592383559238455923855592386559238755923885592389559239055923915592392MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1145)[English]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?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55923935592394DanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint Vital//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89045DanVandalDan-VandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandalDan_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dan Vandal: (1145)[English]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.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559239555923965592397MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonRachaelHarderLethbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89200RachaelHarderRachael-HarderLethbridgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThomasRachael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Rachael Harder (Lethbridge, CPC): (1150)[English]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.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety5592398DanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint Vital//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89045DanVandalDan-VandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandalDan_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dan Vandal: (1150)[English]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.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55923995592400RachaelHarderLethbridgeKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): (1150)[English]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.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592401DanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalDanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint Vital//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89045DanVandalDan-VandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandalDan_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dan Vandal: (1150)[English]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.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592402KenMcDonaldAvalonNickWhalenSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88296NickWhalenNick-WhalenSt. John's EastLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WhalenNick_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Nick Whalen (St. John's East, Lib.): (1150)[English]Mr. Speaker, while Bill C-83 proposes to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in half a dozen ways, the centrepiece of the legislation is really ending the use of segregation in our penitentiaries and the launching of what would be called “structured intervention units”, or SIUs. I will get into the details of what SIUs are in a bit, but first I recognize that many stakeholder groups have spent years advocating for a limit to the length of time in administrative segregation. The correctional investigator has recommended a 30-day cap. The UN Mandela rules call for one at 15 days. We asked ourselves, though, if that did not just leave people without meaningful contact for 15 or 30 days. Did that not just keep people from their needed interventions and training for 15 or 30 days and from the mental health treatment that they might need? Therefore, what if we were able to create a system where, when people need to be placed in a separate secure facility within the penitentiary, they could continue to have access to all those things? What if we could ensure the safety of inmates, correctional staff and the security of facilities without having to segregate inmates from all those important points of contact and their treatment regimes? What if there were zero days without meaningful human contact in our penitentiaries? That is what is at the heart of Bill C-83. It is legislation that balances the need for security in our penitentiaries with the need to ensure that we end segregation and create a system that is better able to rehabilitate inmates. Inside an SIU, inmates will have double the time outside of their cells compared to the current administrative segregation regime. However, it is not unsupervised, as was suggested previously by the member for Lethbridge. Correctional Service will be provided with funding to staff up on guards to help ensure the safe and secure movement of the inmates inside the SIUs, whether that is to a classroom-type setting, or to attend part of their programming or to interact with another compatible inmate. In short, this is a complete revamping of Correctional Service in a way that will be better for staff, better for inmates and ultimately better for society.The reason this is so important is that the vast majority of federal inmates will eventually be released into our communities. It is safer for our communities when those offenders with mental health issues have been treated and diagnosed properly. It is safer for our communities when they have successfully undergone Correctional Service rehabilitation programming and had the training they need to help find employment when they finish their sentence, so they can support themselves and are less likely to reoffend. I have seen some commentary that while this legislation looks promising, there is some skepticism about its implementation. I can assure the House that we intend to ensure the implementation fulfills the promise of the legislation, with all the resources required to make this work. I even asked the minister earlier in the debate about that fact.Let us be clear that the status quo may not be an option any longer. Courts in both Ontario and British Columbia have struck down large portions of the Correctional and Conditional Release Act that legally allow for an inmate to be placed in administrative segregation. While both of those cases are being appealed, one by the appellant and one by the government, come December and January, administrative segregation may not exist as an option in those provinces. Without a system to replace it, that will be a dangerous situation for Correctional Service staff and it will also be dangerous for offenders. As well, effective rehabilitation cannot happen in a dangerous environment, so it will be dangerous for all of us. Now let me turn to some of the other parts of Bill C-83. We have heard from victims that Parole Board hearings are often such a highly emotional blur that once they are finished, they are often unable to remember many of the important details of what went on. The proposed legislation will allow victims who have attended a Parole Board hearing to receive an audio copy of the hearing. Currently, registered victims who are unable to attend can request and receive such a copy. However, if the individual was there in person, the legislation does not allow for that. That simply is not right, which is why Bill C-83 would amend the law to ensure that all registered victims, whether they attend a parole hearing or not, would be able to receive that audio copy. The proposed bill will also allow for Correctional Service to acquire and use body scanners on those entering the prisons. From drugs to cellphones, the phenomenon of contraband inside prison systems is a problem worldwide. New technologies now allow for better and easier searches of those entering correctional facilities, which are less invasive than traditional methods such as strip searches.I am sure we all remember the tragic death of Ashley Smith who took her own life while under suicide watch in 2007. Her death, and the subsequent coroner's inquest, was a wake-up call that tremendous improvements were needed in our women's correctional facilities. Bill C-83 would deliver on one of the most important recommendations from that inquest.(1155)The legislation would require Correctional Service to provide patient advocacy services to inmates to help them better understand their health care rights and responsibilities. It would also create a statutory obligation for Correctional Service to support health care professionals in maintaining their professional autonomy and clinical independence, a founding principle of the medical profession.The bill would also enshrine in law the principles of the landmark 1999 Gladue Supreme Court decision that would ensure, from intake, that indigenous offenders' programming and treatment incorporates the systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders.Ultimately, all of this will advance the cause of public safety in all of our communities.When our corrections system works effectively to rehabilitate offenders within a secure custodial environment, we all benefit.I am proud of Bill C-83, and I encourage all members to vote in support of it.Since I have a few more moments left, I will talk a bit about Newfoundland and Labrador.Newfoundland and Labrador's primary penitentiary is not a federal facility, so it will not be governed under the rules of the proposed legislation. However, we can see from media reports and in the damning history of Her Majesty's Royal Penitentiary in St. John's what can happen in penitentiaries where the right supports and services are not put in place to protect both inmates and the people who work in the prisons.PTSD is a huge problem for people who work in the correctional system, as well as for people incarcerated in these facilities. We need to find a better way to manage inmates through their periods of trouble while they are incarcerated so they can continue to receive the supports they need.Once the federal government's new higher standard can be met federally, that will put additional pressure on provinces, where people are serving two years or less, to have similar supports and standards in place, so the system is better able to manage not only the distress being caused to other inmates in the facility by the person who is going into the SIU, but also to provide additional funding and support for additional Correctional Service staff to maintain and manage the supervision of those inmates. That is key.We have seen throughout our first three years in office that many of the proposed changes that were brought in by the previous government, whether it be Phoenix, or in IT transportation or in Correctional Service, that unless we fund the transition, unless we fund the additional requirements of legislation, we are doomed to fail.The minister mentioned that $80 million would be available for additional mental health supports within prisons over the next two budgets. That is extremely important. Funding will be available for additional corrections staff and for the very body scanner technology that will help reduce, if not eliminate, the problem of contraband in our prisons, which is so pervasive.We have heard a lot in the debate by opposition members today about their concern that we are not giving sufficient time to debate this topic. However, it seems to me that many of the points that have been circulating in the room today are starting to retread similar ground. We have not heard a lot of new arguments even in the short amount of debate that we have had. It will be great to see the legislation go to committee, where any of the legitimate concerns that were raised by the opposition regarding sufficient feedback from stakeholder groups can be addressed and their comments can be incorporated. If there are constructive ways in which the legislation can be amended, committee is the best place to do it. In light of the fact that December and January present real significant deadlines for ensuring there is a replacement in place to administrative segregation in our prisons, it is important that we get the legislation finalized and passed through the House and the Senate in order to avoid a type of Doomsday scenario that could arise without the ability to properly manage and maintain security in prisons in British Columbia and Ontario in the next year.For all of these reasons, I encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of sending the legislation to committee.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety5592403559240455924055592406559240755924085592409559241055924115592412559241355924145592415559241655924175592418559241955924205592421559242255924235592424559242555924265592427559242855924295592430DanVandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member just made reference to the importance of the bill getting to committee for the purpose of consultation. Where was the government up until now? Should there not have been consultation in drafting the bill in the first place instead of drafting a ramshackle bill that will be criticized at committee and will require amendment at committee?The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers on one key aspect of the bill, which is to eliminate segregation in all circumstances, stated, “the new Bill C-83 must not sacrifice disciplinary segregation as a tool to deter violent behaviour.”Why would the government not have consulted the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers before it introduced Bill C-83? Why is the government waiting for it to get to committee to hear from the union?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559243155924325592433NickWhalenSt. John's EastNickWhalenSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88296NickWhalenNick-WhalenSt. John's EastLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WhalenNick_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Nick Whalen: (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the views of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, which represents parole officers and program staff, have been consulted on the legislation, and the union is very supportive. As mentioned by my hon. colleague, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers would have preferred to use administrative segregation, notwithstanding the fact that it has been struck. The union viewed it as an important safety tool, but is nevertheless supportive of the introduction of body scanners. The unions' views are taken into account, at least in part.The legislation is important. There are different stakeholder groups that agree with some aspects and do not agree with other aspects, but all have been consulted on the legislation. As with all things, it is an iterative process to make sure the legislation is right. The committee is the best place to take the next step in this iterative process.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55924345592435MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador is, himself, a lawyer. I know over the past five to 10 years, a lot of jurisdictions in the United States have been gung-ho on a lot of tough-on-crime penalties. They were harsh penalties in many jurisdictions, and in many cases deserving. Public servants and politicians on either side of the ideological scale in the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, would say that the rehabilitative services provided were insufficient in many jurisdictions. Even Republicans would say that.I was wondering if the member would comment on the fact that, in places where they are tried and true, rehabilitative services work for society as a whole.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55924365592437NickWhalenSt. John's EastNickWhalenSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88296NickWhalenNick-WhalenSt. John's EastLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/WhalenNick_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Nick Whalen: (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame raised an important point. That is the fact that, throughout North America, jurisdictions are moving away from being only tough on crime to being smart on crime. It is important to realize, in the confines of a penitentiary system, that there are lots of mental stresses, including acute and chronic, long term and short term, that impact not only the inmates themselves in terms of stress that they bring or acquire while incarcerated, but also the staff. In the context of segregation and enforcing punishment, it is important that everyone has access to all the tools they need to make sure that in the case of inmates, rehabilitation is possible; in the case of inmates who are not segregated, they are kept safe; and in the case of people who are working in the corrections system, they have the supports that are needed. That is why our government is committed, over the next two budgets, to adding $80 million toward mental health services within prisons. That is one way we are trying to be smart on crime, and not simply tough on it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592438559243955924405592441ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we rise in the House today to debate Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.This is a very serious matter that requires appropriate analysis and study. Above all, we must not move too quickly on this bill. Unfortunately, just a few moments ago, the government forced a vote that will minimize the time spent debating this bill. Canadians run the risk of being on the losing end.The bill deals with what happens inside our penitentiaries. To put it bluntly, we want to know what happens in these segregation units that the inmates call “the hole”, where people are isolated from other inmates.Let us co-operate and try to see the positive elements of the bill. We are delighted to see that one measure included in the bill is the body scanning of inmates, which is a very good thing.Unfortunately, even though, in theory, nothing should enter Canadian detention centres or prisons without authorization, this is not always the case. The Canadians working in our detention centres or correctional institutions must have the necessary tools to keep themselves safe and to make life better within these institutions.We think that body scanners are a good idea, but that is the only positive in this bill. With Bill C-83, the government wants to change administrative segregation into structured intervention units.I remind members that inmates in prison or, for example, at the Donnacona institution in the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, are sadly not society's finest. These are the most hardened criminals. They are murderers. I could list off all of the people in this prison, the crimes they committed and the reasons they were arrested and found guilty, but that would be infinitely sad. These people are serving their sentence in prison.Everyone knows those inmates are not exactly nice guys. Severe disciplinary measures are sometimes called for. People with experience in corrections say that the administrative segregation unit serves not only to isolate criminals who may be a danger to other inmates, but also to protect individuals from other inmates. I will come back to that later.The impression we get is that the government is in a hurry to take action. As the public safety critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, said, there is a disconnect in the government's approach. A little while ago, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a very clear ruling with respect to administrative segregation. The court questioned the legality of indefinite administrative segregation as a severe detention measure.The Liberal government decided to appeal the ruling. How interesting, as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles astutely pointed out, that the government would appeal the ruling then turn around and introduce a bill having to do with none other than the matter raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.Beyond these philosophical considerations, we are also concerned with the fact that the government has no plan to pay for these measures. We have no idea where the measures proposed in the bill are heading.Stating the goal and backing it up with dollars to make those changes happen is pretty basic, but the government has done neither.The proposed changes would allow people in administrative segregation to leave their cells for four hours a day to spend time with their fellow inmates.(1210)I do not want to scare anyone, but the staff and unions of our detention centres are sounding the alarm about this proposal, which they do not think this is a good idea. Sadly, the government has not listened to them. One of them even said that this Liberal approach to administrative segregation could lead to bloodshed.I will remind members of a certain cruel and persistent statistic: 100 assaults have occurred in our detention centres over the past 12 months. That is 100 too many, of course, because even one assault is one too many. As I was saying earlier, these are some of the most hardened criminals in the Canadian correctional system, and letting them out to spend four hours with their fellow inmates can create highly undesirable situations.I want to mention that body scanning, which is one element of this bill that we agree with, is not a bad idea. However, we think it might be worth considering the possibility of extending it to include people visiting inmates at a detention centre.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSolitary confinementWorkplace health and safety559244255924435592444559244555924465592447559244855924495592450559245155924525592453559245455924555592456559245755924585592459NickWhalenSt. John's EastAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as we have said, allowing inmate body scanning and assessment is a decent idea, but it would not be a bad idea to also consider the possibility of putting visitors through the same process. If the visitors have nothing to hide, they should have no problem with it. Sometimes passengers at the airport have to go through a body scanner. They are randomly selected to be taken aside and assessed in order to completely rule out any issues. Everyone knows that it is not the most pleasant experience. It has happened to me several times. However, if the passenger has a clean conscience, it does not bother them. If a visitor is going into a detention centre and has a clean conscience, they should have no problem going through a body scanner.Speaking of visits, my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles visited the Donnacona Institution with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, since that is the riding in which the institution is located. I am very proud of the work of my colleagues, who get right into the thick of things and go where things are really happening. As my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles mentioned in his speech last week, he met a person who was in administrative segregation. My colleague's testimony reminded me that some people want to be placed in administrative segregation to avoid contact with other inmates. We do not know why, but it is easy to imagine the worst-case scenario. That is often the reality. Although administrative segregation may not seem like the best approach, when we stop and think about it, we see that it is sometimes required in order to protect inmates from each other. The Liberal approach does not take that into account.In closing, I cannot help but notice that the spirit of this bill reflects the mindset guiding the Prime Minister, the Liberal mindset that we believe puts far too much focus on criminals and inmates, rather than putting victims first.Is this not the government that dragged its feet for 10 months before appointing an ombudsman for victims of crime?Should it come as any surprise that this same Prime Minister refused to use his authority in the sorry case of Terri-Lynne McClintic, who committed the heinous crime of murdering a child and is now in a healing lodge, when we believe she should be behind bars?Was it not this Prime Minister, who, back in the good old days when he was leader of an opposition party, in 2013, told the CBC's Peter Mansbridge in response to the attack in Boston that we should look at the root causes? That is the Liberal mentality of the Prime Minister: think about the attackers, the criminals, the guilty parties instead of thinking of the victims first and foremost.That is why we are not happy with this bill in its current form and we strongly condemn the time allocation that has been put on this bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSolitary confinementVictims of crime5592462559246355924645592465559246655924675592468AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of points in the legislation. First, my colleague referenced victims. One aspect of the legislation would allow victims to have audio tapes, whether they attend parole hearings or not. That is a change to support victims.Second, the member across the way referenced body scans. In this legislation, body scans, which are a good idea, would be applicable to whoever correctional officers warranted had to be scanned. That would include individuals who might be visiting correctional facilities or correctional officers themselves. The Conservatives are providing misinformation on that point.With regard to segregation, when the vast majority of people going into prisons will someday leave prison, programming is really important. Brian Mulroney even recognized that. Why would the Conservatives oppose any form of programming, whether it is for mental health or whatever it might be, for individuals who might be segregated, as referred to by the member opposite? Why would they oppose that?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSolitary confinementVictims of crime559246955924705592471GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, maybe I was not very clear when I spoke, or perhaps the member could not hear me because other members were having some fun.To be clear, in the case of la fouille corporelle, Conservatives agree with the government. That is one of the few elements we support in the bill. What the government wants to do when people enter a jail is correct. It is not fun to have that kind of stuff, but we need that kind of intervention when people go into jails.(1220)[Translation]As far as rehabilitation is concerned, there are programs already in place. The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned a prime minister from the 1980s, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. The rehabilitation programs have been in place for decades to help inmates get back on the right track. We are not against the idea of getting back on track. However, those who committed crimes, who are in prison and who deserve to be in administrative segregation are meant to be there.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSolitary confinement559247255924735592474KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out in his speech, administrative segregation is used for several reasons. Court rulings have found that the current practice violates prisoners' rights.Does my colleague think the Liberals did a comprehensive analysis of the use of administrative segregation to determine under what circumstances that practice should be replaced?What I am asking is whether every case and all possibilities were properly studied in order to find a solution tailored to each situation, or whether the Liberals simply modified the term and changed the rules slightly without taking into account the various circumstances in which administrative segregation is used, as this could justify a different approach, depending on the case.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement559247555924765592477GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her pertinent question. As the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles pointed out in his speech last week, this bill reeks of improvisation. A court decision found that we need to be a little more moderate with regard to certain measures pertaining to administrative segregation. The government appealed that decision but, at the same time, introduced a bill that we see as ill-conceived and full of serious errors.On top of that, the Conservatives think this bill is driven by the Prime Minister's Liberal way of thinking, which puts criminals ahead of victims.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement559247855924795592480ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88316SeanFraserSean-FraserCentral NovaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FraserSean_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-83. This bill would do a number of things. At its core, what it seeks to do is abolish the use of administrative segregation in Canada and replace it with structured intervention units. However, it would do more than that.The bill would also make a serious change in the way we deal with the right of victims to obtain audio recordings of parole hearings. It would take certain steps to consider, in particular, the unique circumstances that pertain to indigenous inmates. It would include serious changes to the way we deal with patient care in the inmate population. As well, it would introduce certain changes to the use of body scanners in institutions run by the Correctional Service Canada.This bill is ultimately about enhancing our justice system to make sure that our system holds guilty parties to account and that it respects the ability of victims to obtain information about offenders who may be released into society.Importantly, it would also deal with certain measures that would help make our communities safer by ensuring that during a period of incarceration, individuals would have access to services that would actually help them reintegrate more effectively into society on the back end. This is not about being soft on crime. This is about being smart on crime to ensure that in the long term, Canadian communities are safer on the whole.What have perhaps been the most controversial pieces in this legislation are the changes to administrative segregation in Canada contained within Bill C-83. Administrative segregation, in common parlance, can be roughly equated to solitary confinement. Today, for a lot of good reasons, the good public servants who work on behalf of Correctional Service Canada want to maintain institutional safety. When they are dealing with particularly difficult inmates who might pose a threat of violence to either the staff who work at CSC or the inmate population, the practice has been to segregate them entirely from the prison population. They essentially confine them as individuals, separate from meaningful human contact and separate from different services.While this may address the short-term problem of preventing harm to the prison population and to the staff who work at Correctional Service Canada, there is a greater social problem it also contributes to. The inmates who have been subjected to solitary confinement or administrative segregation are subjected to treatment that leaves them worse off and puts them in a position where they are more likely to reoffend upon their release into the community, which is not something we want. We aim to reduce recidivism to ensure that our communities are safer when inmates are inevitably released back into society. We all know that there are certain incredibly heinous crimes that will result in people potentially being in the custody of Correctional Service Canada for their entire lives, but there are many circumstances, in fact the vast majority of circumstances, in which a person who commits a crime is eventually going to be released back into society. We have to make sure that we are not putting our communities in danger by denying services to those people who are incarcerated that would help them become whole and become functioning members of society upon their release.Most members of this House would be familiar with the details of the Ashley Smith case. To me, it illustrated, tragically, the problems that exist within our current system. We have young people who may be suffering from certain mental illnesses who, to solve a short-term problem, are completely separated from meaningful human contact. They are separated from the population in which they live while incarcerated. The damage this can cause to a person who is living with mental illness can cause them to harm themselves, and potentially, in the long term, to harm others upon their release.In light of this case and others, the need to take action is apparent. In fact, the need to take action is frankly not a choice. We have now had two cases, at least, that I am aware of, one in Ontario and one in British Columbia, that have indicated that the practice of administrative segregation, at least going beyond a certain period of time, is unconstitutional. It violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, it is a responsibility of Parliament to enact a new regime that is in compliance with our charter. If we cannot respect the values that are enshrined in our charter, then we are not worth much in this House. (1225)I would suggest that the measures implemented in Bill C-83 would strike a balance that would allow Correctional Service Canada to maintain order within an institution and maintain the safety of the prison population. Introducing structured intervention units would help ensure that the person who was causing a problem for the prison population and the staff at CSC could maintain some sort of meaningful human contact and be provided with the services that would help communities be safer in the long term. At the same time, these would maintain order within our institutions.In particular, I want to point to the fact that inmates in the structured intervention units would have a minimum of four hours out of their cells daily, including at least two hours of meaningful human contact with staff. This is not a lot of time, but it could make a difference to a person who had actually pulled away from society and had been denied meaningful human contact, particularly those in incarceration who were living with mental illness. It would allow them to become better off in the long term and would reduce the threat posed to society, which is what this bill is really all about. Currently, there is a very limited amount of time a person who is subjected to solitary confinement is allowed out of a cell to have any kind of contact with anyone within the greater population. The harm that impacts the individual also has long-term consequences for our communities and needs to be addressed. In light of the court cases I have mentioned previously, we have to take some kind of meaningful action to allow us to maintain order in our institutions and do better in protecting our communities. This bill would not just deal with the issue of administrative segregation. In particular, we would make a change in the way victims were able to access information about parole hearings when they were threatened with the circumstance that an individual who had committed a crime against them was up for parole. Currently, if victims do not attend a parole hearing in person, they are not entitled to the recordings that are part and parcel of those hearings. Members can imagine the trauma victims might go through if they had to see in person the hearing for an individual who had committed a crime against them or a family member. To force them to go through that experience, when they may not be mentally prepared, seems like a step too far, in my opinion. I think the sensible thing to do, which is embedded in Bill C-83, is to allow recordings to be given to the victims of crime, whether or not their personal circumstances allow them to attend in person. I think this would be an important change.Bill C-83 would also embed the principles from the Gladue decision in the legislation, which require the Crown to take into account the unique circumstances of an indigenous person's background when making decisions of this nature.When it comes to health care, there is an important change built into Bill C-83 that would ensure that there were new patient advocates. They would have the opportunity to work with CSC to ensure that order could be maintained in institutions while they also, for inmates who had certain health care concerns, ensured that those concerns were met. Again, this is not about doing favours for people who have committed crimes against other individuals or communities. This is about protecting Canadians in the long term by ensuring that our communities are made more secure. If we deny basic mental health care to people who are separated from society not only because they are in prison but because they are completely segregated and left on their own, the damage they may cause to our communities in the long term, upon release, when their sentences come to an end, is something incredibly important that we need to address.The final element I would like to turn our attention to today is the use of body scanners. This is similar to the technology we pass through when we go to an airport to come to Ottawa every week to advocate on behalf of our constituents. The introduction of contraband drugs, weapons and the like into prison communities can be a very serious problem. The use of body scanners, which I understand certain members on different sides of the aisles may actually support, would be an important step, because it would not be invasive but would still protect prison populations.The suite of changes included in Bill C-83 are important ones. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the essential point that changes to the administrative segregation regime that exists in Canada today are coming with or without Parliament's action, because a court has deemed them unconstitutional. We need to take steps that not only protect the rights of the individuals who are incarcerated but respect the rights of victims, keep our communities safe, and in the long term, ensure that people who are released from prisons into our society do not cause greater harm to our communities than they already have.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unit559248155924825592483559248455924855592486559248755924885592489559249055924915592492559249355924945592495559249655924975592498559249955925005592501GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment for his thoughtful speech, but I have to say that I disagree with where he is coming at. If we listen to his speech and some of the other speeches across the way on the segregation system, we would be led to believe that inmates are left on their own with no access to mental health support and meaningful human contact. However, when I read from directive 709, inmates who are subject to administrative segregation receive a daily visit by a health care professional, a daily visit by the institutional head, a visit by a correctional manager once per shift, visits by legal counsel, access to elected inmate representatives, visits by family, telephone calls to families and friends, and appointments with health care professionals, including mental health care professionals. That hardly sounds like a lack of meaningful human contact. It seems that the bill is not about that issue but really about taking away a tool that is only used as a last resort, and only when three grounds can be established: first, that an inmate or another person in that facility could be put at risk; second, where it is necessary to protect the integrity of an investigation; or third, when it is necessary to protect the inmate from themself. Why would the government take away that important tool that can only be used as a last resort? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5592502559250355925045592505SeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88316SeanFraserSean-FraserCentral NovaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FraserSean_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Sean Fraser: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important question. I expect that over the long term we would realize that the outcome we are seeking to achieve on this side is probably in accordance with what a lot of members of different parties might come to expect should be the case. The difference in position is not necessarily a difference in principle. We need to empower Correctional Service Canada to maintain order within institutions, and this should only be used as a last resort. Although a person subject to administrative segregation might be eligible to access the elements of society the member listed, in many cases those individuals in solitary confinement are not receiving some of the access to people or the world at large that the member suggests might be the case. Under the new regime, they would be entitled to at least four hours outside of their cell daily, with two hours of meaningful human contact. This is based on evidence from medical professionals who suggest that real harm could befall a person there and cause them to be worse off upon their release. If I could use a personal anecdote, I have been the victim of a violent crime. I was attacked in the street by a person wielding a piece of lumber who took my knee out. I could not walk for months as a result. What troubled me most greatly was that the individual was not incarcerated, was not given the mental health support he needed, despite the fact I knew he had a severe addiction problem. Within a matter of a few months later, he was incarcerated for harming someone else. When somebody commits a wrong in our society, I would like to see them given the care they need to be well so that upon their re-integration, they do not repeat the offence and harm other individuals.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5592506559250755925085592509MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned indigenous people when it comes to correctional facilities. We often hear about the rate of incarceration of indigenous people compared with others. Could the member expand on what the bill would do to recognize that issue of indigenous people being incarcerated and the services available to them?Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592510SeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88316SeanFraserSean-FraserCentral NovaLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FraserSean_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Sean Fraser: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think most people across Canada understand that indigenous Canadians are incarcerated at a disproportionally high rate compared with the general population. There are a number of reasons this might be the case, but we know from the court's Gladue decision in 1999 that there are certain factors we have to consider to determine whether there are alternatives to incarceration that would leave an indigenous offender better off not only for themselves but also in terms of how they would pose a reduced danger to the community. This decision enshrined into law a principle that has been used subsequently that requires CSC to consider the historical and cultural factors that may be involved with an offender's life circumstances that led them to commit an offence, although there has to be individual responsibility as well, recognizing that their treatment inside the prison system may actually be detrimental to society on the back-end if they are released. Bill C-83 requires us to consider similar principles that were outlined in the Gladue decision to ensure that we are giving a person the tools they need to be successfully reintegrated into the community on the back-end of their sentence.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55925115592512KenMcDonaldAvalonWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/43WayneEasterHon.Wayne-EasterMalpequeLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/EasterWayne_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. The key point in this legislation relates to Correctional Service Canada's policies, especially the practice of administrative segregation. I should point out at the beginning that the bill would do four key things. One, it proposes to eliminate segregation, based on recent court decisions, and it introduces more effective structured intervention units. Two, it would better support victims during Parole Board hearings by, as my previous colleague mentioned, providing audio recordings of those hearings. Three, it would increase staff and inmate safety with new body scanner technology. Four, it would update Correctional Service Canada's approach on critical matters like mental health supports and indigenous offenders' needs. There are fairly extensive policies in this bill on both those latter points: mental health and indigenous offenders' needs.There has been much criticism of the policy on administrative segregation within the Correctional Service of Canada, and rightly so. I have listened to the debate on the other side, and some have said it is a necessary tool. I do not necessarily agree with that, but something certainly has to be done. In the previous Parliament, I was a critic for public safety and at one time served as solicitor general and was in charge of the Correctional Service of Canada, so I have read a lot of the criticism related to administrative segregation. We have to understand in this place that administrative segregation was there for very legitimate reasons: to protect the inmates themselves from the general population if they were causing trouble; to protect others in the general population from things that those people put in administrative segregation might otherwise have done; and to protect correctional officers from possible harm by moving these inmates to segregation. I understand those key points.I do not know if many people in this place have seen those segregation units in many of our federal penitentiaries and prisons. I have, and it would not be a great place to spend days on end without mental health services. In fact, as my colleague from Central Nova mentioned earlier, we have to understand that our correctional system in this country is not just about throwing somebody in a cell and throwing away the key. Our system is based on the premise of rehabilitation, and that is the ultimate objective. Yes, there have to be penalties, and severe penalties, for crimes done and, yes, some people stay in the system their whole life after they have committed a crime. However, we must keep in mind that many people, the great majority we hope, will come out and be productive citizens in society. That is what we have to attempt to do.Therefore, what this particular bill proposes is basically to try to put a new system in place, called a “structured intervention unit”, where people who have to be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for reasons of safety, will be assigned to a secure intervention unit but not in the same style as in the past.(1240)In addition to being assigned to that secure intervention unit, or cell, Correctional Service Canada would be mandated to provide them with rehabilitative programming, mental health care, and other interventions and services that respond to the inmate's specific needs. That especially relates to those with mental health problems, for whatever reason, and especially applies to the indigenous population, which has different customs and patterns. I have heard a lot of talk in this place about healing centres. The fact of the matter is they work, and we need to keep that in mind too.Beyond meeting those specific needs of an inmate, keep in mind that we want to protect the individual, the rest of the prison population and the corrections officers working in the system. Under this approach, it would be done in a different way from what is currently in place, as we would address the mental health care needs of inmates and could intervene with other services where appropriate.Beyond all of that, there are a number of reviews that have to take place. I have talked to a lot of corrections officers, and I can understand that when an inmate challenges them within the prison system, it is really hard not lose one's temper and to want to be vindictive. This is supposed to work at preventing that from happening as well. However, for the inmate, there are several reviews that would take place. There would be a review by the warden within five days, and there a couple of other reviews in place as well. This bill tries to move away from a system that we know has been challenged in the courts. Yes, we have appealed the decision in question, because we want to keep all options open. It is a system that has been strongly criticized by the correctional investigator, and this bill tries to come up with a better system that would work. In part, that is what this bill is about.In closing, as my colleague mentioned earlier, there is a real attempt to provide better services to victims in this bill. For example, the recordings of the Parole Board hearings would be provided so they could be reviewed in a quieter place at another time to see what was said. This legislation would add a guiding principle to the law to affirm the need for Correctional Service Canada to consider systematic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all the decision-making done within the system.This bill does not change the world. Keep in mind that we have a system of penalties in this country that, overall, is designed to try to make individuals who have committed a crime, for whatever reason, better citizens when they come out of prison, not better criminals. Our objective is to make them better citizens so they can contribute to their family, their own life's work and to the Canadian economy. This bill does not change the world, but it is a fairly major step forward in how we would handle inmates, how we would work with them within the prison system and how we would try to give victims better services. At the end of the day, this is a bill that members should support.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit55925135592514559251555925165592517559251855925195592520559252155925225592523SeanFraserCentral NovaMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from the member for Malpeque, who did remind us that four prime ministers ago he was the solicitor general, I believe. He would have had some occasion to understand administrative segregation, more intimately perhaps, than some of us.I have been to the Kent maximum-security prison which used to be in my riding. It is now in the neighbouring riding. I can tell my colleagues that, having been through those segregation units, every single offender who is in that segregation unit is not there because a prison guard or the administration is being vindictive, as the member indicated. Rather it is because a person has committed acts inside the prison that make that person unacceptable and too great a risk for the general prison population.I guess my question is this. We have to legislate for the exceptions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment talked about rehabilitation. Certainly, for those cases where that is possible, we support that. Where we do not support it is for people like Robert Willy Pickton, who is in a maximum-security facility, segregated for his own safety, I would argue. He is there. He is never getting out. He is never going to set foot as a free man in a community in Canada again. What tools would a prison guard have to deal with someone like that? We have to legislate for those exceptional cases where these people are not going to be cascaded down through the system and released.Why does someone like Willy Pickton, Canada's worst serial killer, deserve four or two hours of meaningful human contact? What benefit does that have for him, other than to put people in the prison system who have to deal with him at significant risk?I just do not see how this legislation addresses those exceptional situations.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingViolent crime55925245592525559252655925275592528WayneEasterHon.MalpequeWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/43WayneEasterHon.Wayne-EasterMalpequeLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/EasterWayne_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Wayne Easter: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the difference in approach that we take on this side versus the opposite side of the House. We do not make laws based on one or two exceptions. We make laws on the population as a whole. I think that is what we have to do.There are exceptional cases. There is no question about that. The member made a point on the Pickton case and it is a valid point. However, this particular bill does not give Pickton more rights. He is still in the system and, yes, he may be provided more mental health services.I do agree with the member opposite that this is for protection. In most cases, it is for protection of the inmate themselves and also for protection of the correctional officers. I did not say that offenders are put in there because of the vindictiveness of correctional officers. Rather, they are put in there because they broke the rules within the system of Correctional Services Canada.However, we do have to recognize that the old system of solitary confinement, which I think is a better description, is not working. It is challenged in the courts. It does nothing in most cases for better mental heath and better rehabilitation and it has to be changed. What is put forward in this bill does it in a realistic way for all matters intended.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingViolent crime5592529559253055925315592532MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Malpeque, my question is this. Why is there no independent oversight of the commissioner's decision-making on putting people into administrative segregation in this bill, as Justice Leask in the B.C. Supreme Court and others have so strongly suggested?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592533WayneEasterHon.MalpequeWayneEasterHon.Malpeque//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/43WayneEasterHon.Wayne-EasterMalpequeLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/EasterWayne_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Wayne Easter: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is one bill and one step forward. I think it is certainly a step in the right direction that will improve the lot of inmates who are in the prison system. As I said, in the bill we will also improve victims rights by getting the recordings. It may not go as far as the member opposite wants to go, but I think it is a fairly major step forward.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55925345592535MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this important debate today on Bill C-83, that would deal with the abolition of early parole and the issues on conditional release and corrections. I say at the outset that I will speak in opposition to the bill at second reading. I do so for a number of reasons I will try to describe.I will first talk about the nature of what the bill has tried to respond to, the difficulties, the dilemmas, the torture, as some people have called it, that is involved in solitary confinement. Perhaps one can call it by other words, but that is what it is. Then I will talk about what a couple of our superior courts have said about this practice and the constitutionality of it, the fact that the government has continued with the appeals of those judgments and yet brought in a bill which by all measure is a very modest response to the very strong language of our courts in addressing the issue of solitary confinement.I would say that this is a modest improvement. I do not want to be misunderstood. There are some things that are in the right direction in this legislation, but it is a pity that, in light of the long and thoughtful decisions in both the Ontario Superior Court and Mr. Justice Peter Leask's decision in the B.C. Supreme Court, this is the result. It is a very modest, to use a neutral word, response to their very strong language.Let me talk initially about what they said. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association and others brought a constitutional case to the B.C. Supreme Court. In a landmark decision that was handed down in January this year, Mr. Justice Leask in his last judgment before leaving the bench provided what can only be described as a blockbuster decision. Among the things that he talked about, to build on what I asked my friend a moment ago, is the need for an independent review of segregation placements and that is entirely lacking in this decision.He decided that the practice of solitary confinement, as it was practised at that point in time, breached the security of the person. He said: "I find as a fact that administrative segregation as enacted by [the statute] is a form of solitary confinement that places all Canadian federal inmates subject to it at significant risk of serious psychological harm, including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of self-harm and suicide." He wrote a 54,000-word judgment after hearing days and days of testimony, a very carefully reasoned decision and he held that it violated the security of the person that is guaranteed in our charter.He also said that it discriminated against first nations, disabled and mentally ill individuals. The findings for that again are based on a thorough analysis of the situation at hand. He said thousands of prisoners have been subjected to solitary segregation over the years, isolated for up to 23 hours a day, sometimes for months and sometimes for years. Indeed, we know the sad story of Mr. Edward Snowshoe, an indigenous prisoner who died by suicide after languishing in solitary for 162 days without any meaningful attention from staff.This is akin to a form of torture. This is not unlike the harm we have heard about in other contexts in this place of post-traumatic stress disorder that leads to the serious risks of suicide and self-harm as has happened so many times. Thousands of prisoners have been subjected to that isolation for so long and for so many hours a day and for so many days in a year.There are about 14,000 inmates in federal institutions, 679 of them women. One in four of the incarcerated men spend some time in segregation. To my surprise, more than 40% of women do. This is a prevalent problem across our institutions and it is not just limited to some prisoners and some institutions, but is endemic across the country.(1255)Those who believe that prisons are there to provide punishment but also for rehabilitation purposes should listen to what the judge concluded after days and days of testimony. He stated, “I have no hesitation in concluding that rather than prepare inmates for their return to the general population, prolonged placements in segregation have the opposite effect of making them more dangerous both within the institutions’ walls and in the community outside.” This is not serving the community and it is certainly not serving the people who have been in institutions for that long. The kinds of concerns he talked about include anxiety, withdrawal, hypersensitivity, hallucinations, aggression, rage, paranoia, hopelessness, self-mutilation and suicide ideation behaviour.There is no question that we have dealt with a serious problem. It is not only the judge who said this. The correctional investigator of Canada and the United Nations Committee Against Torture have looked at that and concluded that there were serious issues that had to be addressed. Indeed, Justice Leask said there should be time limits of 15 days in solitary, longer periods are considered torture by the United Nations and the government indicated it could implement that standard. That is what led to the legislation before us today.As I said at the outset, there are some tweaks in here that are helpful. The administrative segregation or solitary confinement has been rebranded as structured integration units, sort of an Orwellian term I suppose, but maybe the language will change things to some degree. Importantly, instead of spending up to 22 or 23 hours in segregation, the new scheme proposes up to 20 hours a day, but for an indefinite period of time. The Ontario Superior Court found that harmful effects can manifest in as little as 48 hours, so I ask whether that is likely to change anything in a significant fashion. I think not.One of the things Justice Leask spent pages on in his decision was the need, as so many have said, to have an independent check on the discretion of the prison head or the Correctional Service of Canada's top official. That is lacking entirely in this bill. Senator Pate put a press release out and referred to this legislation, saying it is “only merely a rebranding of the same damaging practice”, now called structured intervention unit. She said that this bill “also virtually eliminates existing, already inadequate limitations on its use”, it “maintains the status quo regarding a lack of effective external oversight of correctional decision making”, it does nothing to deal with what Justice Louise Arbour concluded when she studied the prison for women in Kingston and she acknowledges, as the courts have, that the way segregation or solitary confinement is applied is disproportionately affecting “indigenous and racialized prisoners and those with mental health issues”. This bill needs improvements on the checking of the discretion that is available to officials by way of appeals. The involvement of counsel on disciplinary hearings is a step forward, but there is so much that needs to be done to address the horrific practices that have been castigated by our courts in thoughtful decisions. This bill does not go far enough to address their disturbing conclusions.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthOversight mechanismSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5592536559253755925385592539559254055925415592542559254355925445592545559254655925475592548WayneEasterHon.MalpequeMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with all that the member for Victoria said, he certainly put forward a compelling case for some of the arguments he put forward. The member for Victoria alluded to the British Columbia Supreme Court decision. We also have, as he alluded to, the Ontario Superior Court decision. He noted that in the British Columbia Supreme Court decision, there was a fair bit of elaboration on the part of the judge about the lack of an independent review. Going through the Ontario decision, what seems to be one of the key elements of that decision was the lack of an independent review. Meanwhile, we have a government that says it is introducing this legislation to respond to these court decisions, but if that is true, it seems that one of the key elements of both of those decisions is lacking in Bill C-83. Would the hon. member agree?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismSecond reading559254955925505592551MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton is absolutely right, and I would go further. Both judgments talked about the lack of external review. There is no independent third party to review the discretion of the CSC administrator, and that is shocking. That was one of the key elements of both decisions, as the member correctly pointed out.What is also shocking is that despite losing both of these decisions so dramatically, the government sees fit to bring in a halfway measure in Bill C-83, and to continue the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. These appeals cost lots of money, and for what purpose? Why can the government not accept what the courts have said so dramatically, improve the bill, and save people having to go all the way to the Supreme Court for the government to be told external oversight is required?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismSecond reading559255255925535592554MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the position the NDP has taken on this piece of legislation. Looking at this legislation, as I know my colleague has, there is absolutely no doubt it improves the current system. It deals with the issue of segregation. It deals with audio recordings for victims. It includes body scans. I would ultimately argue that Bill C-83 is a progressive piece of legislation. Why would the NDP not support this legislation? Maybe that party could attempt to get some amendments made at committee, or something of that nature. Would those members not at least acknowledge that the bill would improve what we currently have in place, even by NDP standards?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559255555925565592557MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in NDP standards. I am interested in constitutional standards.Two courts have told us that the government needs to go well beyond what it has done in this legislation. I acknowledge that this was not explicit, but none of the key elements that the courts have referred to are dealt with here.My friend from St. Albert—Edmonton has pointed out that the government has decided not to have any third party review the administrator's discretion, which is a key element of this, the constitutionality or the disproportionate impact on indigenous people, blacks and people with mental disabilities. How is the bill going to address that? Yes, there would be less time in solitary. Yes, the government has a new name to describe the practice. Yes, there have been some changes, as my friend referred to.It is not NDP versus Conservative versus Liberal. It is about the Constitution of Canada. I ask any fair-minded person to read this legislation, read the two judgments at issue, and see whether the government has gone far enough.Why would the government continue an appeal in the face of this?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592558559255955925605592561559256255925635592564KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthChristineMooreAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (1305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in the British Columbia Supreme Court decision my colleague alluded to, I get the sense that the judge was, in essence, calling on the government to re-examine the whole concept of administrative segregation. Unfortunately, I do not see the government doing that.Does the member agree that the government has not re-examined the use of administrative segregation thoroughly and in detail?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55925655592566MurrayRankinVictoriaMurrayRankinVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/60078MurrayRankinMurray-RankinVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/RankinMurray_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Murray Rankin: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, my friend from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is absolutely right. The broad review that the judge was calling for is simply not to be found in this legislation. There has been some tinkering, and there have been some modest improvements. The Liberals have referred to them in those terms. It is unclear whether or not higher courts are going to confirm the unconstitutionality of the past system. It is unclear to me whether Bill C-83 goes the distance in achieving the justice that the courts require for those in solitary confinement.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55925675592568ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueMaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89037MaryAnnMihychukHon.MaryAnn-MihychukKildonan—St. PaulLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MihychukMaryAnn_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Kildonan—St. Paul, Lib.): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and speak to Bill C-83 and the impacts of the corrections facilities and our justice system on real people. In particular, my interest is on indigenous people, and how they are treated by the justice system and in our correctional facilities.We are looking at a bill that will actually do what it promises and what it needs to do, which is eliminate solitary confinement. That was the major goal, and that is what this bill will do. It is also going to hold guilty parties accountable for breaking the law. Each and every Canadian wants to ensure that we have a justice system and a corrections system that are going to hold offenders to task, that they are receiving the proper penalty, and hopefully that they receive rehabilitation services to make them meaningful and active participants in our society.Ultimately, we want fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and safer communities. That is why our government is strengthening the federal corrections system, aligning it to the latest evidence and best practices so that inmates are rehabilitated and better prepared to re-enter our society safely.This bill will eliminate solitary confinement, following recent court decisions and introducing a more effective system that will be called the structured intervention unit system. It will also provide better supports for victims during Parole Board hearings. It will increase staff and inmate safety with the new body scanner technology. It will also update our approach on critical matters like mental health supports and becoming more sensitive to indigenous offenders' needs.There is no stronger case to reflect on than the Ashley Smith case, where a young girl was throwing crabapples at a mailman. She ended up in a youth facility, and her experience was then compounded with various acts of aggression and hostility because she felt she was not being treated fairly. Young people who are faced with a situation of hopelessness reach out in any way they can. Ultimately, Ashley hanged herself in a correctional facility operated by the Government of Canada.It is hard to understand how a young woman would feel so hopeless in a facility that is supposed to be providing rehabilitative services. Ashley Smith's story is one that we should all reflect on. We would reflect on the fact that here was a young girl who was placed in a youth facility for a month in 2003, at the age of 14, after throwing crabapples at the mailman.I am sorry, but this hardly seems like a reason to end up in confinement, whether it is in a youth facility or not. I have three children. I do not believe any one of them has ever actually thrown a crabapple at a mailman, but I am sure they have done things that might even be worse. The point is that this young girl was thrown into jail, a youth facility, and that experience was compounded. Instead of getting out and rejoining society, she might have had another small infraction, and then it was extended and extended to the point where her life held no hope that she could see, and where she would rather commit suicide than go on living in her condition in solitary confinement. It was a tragic situation and one that this bill is addressing.(1310)We know more can be done, and more needs to be done. We know from the statistics that many of the people in our correctional facilities come from an indigenous heritage. Indigenous people far outnumber those from other communities. We must address the root causes, and that is a much more complicated and longer journey. However, I am proud to say that this is a government that is finally taking steps forward. We have a Prime Minister who has made a commitment to the indigenous people of this country, and to all of us, that this is an issue that we are finally going to address. Progress is being made.When we go back to look at the bill itself, there is a need to make changes. This is a government that has taken steps forward, and there is no doubt that there are those in our community who will be concerned that some prisoners may be dangerous to the guards, to other inmates and to themselves, and that solitary confinement plays an important role in our correctional facilities. However, they need to understand that this was not the best way to help people. In fact, people in solitary confinement do not receive the supports they need to become stronger and healthier: the mental supports, the health supports and the supports they need to function in a very stressful circumstance. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that we are eliminating solitary confinement and looking for new alternatives that would keep those offenders from the general population while allowing them to retain access to rehabilitation programs, mental health care and other interventions. Ultimately, effective rehabilitation and safe reintegration are always the best way to protect Canadian communities.This is an issue that we are looking at federally, but it has also been addressed provincially. I note that in May, Ontario passed Bill 6, the Correctional Services Transformation Act. On May 7, the province implemented a hard cap on days spent in segregation. The number of inmates who are in segregation has been dropping, and we are glad to see it. In 2011, there were 700 inmates in solitary confinement, and now that has dropped to 340. I am pleased to say I am a member of a government that is finding a way to eliminate solitary confinement. While the correctional investigator has looked at the situation and acknowledged that the reduction in the use of solitary confinement is an improvement, he has also raised concerns that this decline may be related to increased violence among inmates. There is more to do, as we know, and we must continue to move with society to make appropriate amendments.The structured intervention units would replace solitary confinement. Individuals would be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for safety reasons, and they would be assigned to a secure intervention unit. This would separate inmates when necessary, while continuing to provide them with rehabilitative programming, mental health care, and other interventions and services that respond to their specific needs.This bill does several other things, including providing supports to victims. The bill would allow audio recordings of parole hearings. At this point, these are only available to victims who do not attend. The recordings would now be available to any victims, even if they attend, and would be an important record for them to review for the future.(1315)The proposed bill also puts in law the guiding principles to affirm the need for CSC to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders. This is an important and positive step for all Canadians, in particular our indigenous members of our society.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unit5592569559257055925715592572559257355925745592575559257655925775592578559257955925805592581559258255925835592584MurrayRankinVictoriaMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the news on the radio, for example, we hear about how the Liberals want to scrap administrative segregation. I heard that three times during the member for Kildonan—St. Paul's speech too. That says to me that nobody will ever again be isolated in a cell for several hours a day or several days in a row.However, that is not what Bill C-83 says. All it says is that the term “administrative segregation” will be replaced by “structured intervention units”, that the number of hours will be reduced from 22 or 23 to a maximum of 20 hours, and that the inmates will have contact with other people. They can still be segregated for 20 hours a day for an indefinite period of time. There is no limit on the number of days an inmate can spend in a structured intervention unit.How can the government tell people it is doing one thing even as it is doing another? How can it mislead people like that?To me, that is outrageous. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5592585559258655925875592588MaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. PaulMaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89037MaryAnnMihychukHon.MaryAnn-MihychukKildonan—St. PaulLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MihychukMaryAnn_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. MaryAnn Mihychuk: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, there will be a fundamental change in the way people who are in an isolated cell are treated. That includes a minimum of four hours out of their cell daily and at least two hours of meaningful human contact with staff, volunteers, visitors or other compatible inmates. There will also be a daily visit by a medical professional. By contrast, people currently in solitary confinement are only entitled two hours daily out of their cell, with minimal human contact and access to programming. This does not go as far as what the NDP advocates but goes much further than what the Conservatives advocate. The Liberals have made a positive step in the right direction.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit55925895592590MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, could my hon. colleague please comment on the importance of getting the debate finished in this place and get it to committee where experts can present testimony that may see some amendments come forward before the bill returns to the House?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592591MaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. PaulMaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89037MaryAnnMihychukHon.MaryAnn-MihychukKildonan—St. PaulLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MihychukMaryAnn_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. MaryAnn Mihychuk: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, we know that when we work well together, our committees can be extremely effective. We will hear from those who have worked in the system, who have studied the system and who can provide expert advice. Also, committees have the ability to bring forward amendments that can better a bill for all of us. I look forward to seeing whether the committee looks at amending it, but committees have an extremely important role. I urge all members in the House to conclude the first debates on the bill and move it forward to committee, where there are active representatives from the Conservative and NDP sides and where we often allow those who are independent to participate. Therefore, I look forward to the results of the committee. I urge members to move forward.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559259255925935592594KenMcDonaldAvalonMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, the last question and comment give me an opportunity to talk about something I was going to talk about anyway. We just had the spectacle of two Liberal members of Parliament bragging about the fact that they were cutting off the debate in the House of Commons. They say that there has just been too much debate and that it has gone on too long.The bill has not even been printed for a week. It has been before the House for less than three days. After the second day, it was enough. The Liberals had heard enough from members of Parliament and the Canadians we represent. It was just too much and members needed to get it out of the House as quickly as possible. This is from a party and a government which cried every time the previous government allocated the time for debate. It said that it would never do it if it was ever in government.The hypocrisy of the member for Avalon is a spectacle we can all see today. He campaigned on it, and today he is cheerleading for the fact. He is heckling me during my speech while I try to talk about the concerns of my constituents. Two days in the House before the Liberals cut-off debate. The bill has not even been available to be studied for an entire week and we are under time allocation.Why should we be surprised that the Liberals do not want to consult with members of Parliament on this? They have not consulted with the representatives of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers who will be directly impacted by the bill. They have not consulted with the guards.An hon. member: Not true.Mr. Mark Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I continue to get heckled from the other side. Apparently, the Liberals do not want to hear any debate, let alone cut it off after just three days debate.The members of UCCO have been very clear that Liberal politicians in Ottawa are not the ones who have to go in and breakup a fight. Inmates of a what the Liberals now call a “structured intervention unit” inevitably have conflicts. These are people who cannot manage themselves in the general population of a prison. They are typically people who are the worst of the worst. In the debate, I mentioned people like Willie Picton. Clifford Olson also spent his life in segregation, where he should have been. That is where Willie Picton should be. Instead of talking about that, the Liberals are saying we should be talking about reintegrating these people into society. Some people can be reintegrated, and we support that. Some people need to stay in segregation for the rest of their natural lives. Legislation is being proposed which will not allow for that. The Liberals blame it on the courts that this has to come forward, while they the decision is being appealed. They have not even said that this court ruling will stand. They are trying to have it overturned at higher levels, yet here we are with legislation jammed down our throats, legislation about which the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers is very concerned. It is its members who will be put at risk. Its members are the ones who have to deal with the most prolific offenders, offenders who have committed additional crimes inside the prison and who are often placed in segregation for their own protection.The member for St. Albert—Edmonton laid out very clearly the substantial supports that were available for people in segregation. They receive mental health visits, visits from the institutional head, from the guards and health visits as well. This idea that they are locked in a dark cell and are cut-off from human contact is simply not true.The bill now calls for meaningful human contact for two hours a day. I would like to know what that looks like for Robert Picton. What does that look like for Terri-Lynne McClintic? What is meaningful human contact when she is already receiving mental health services? She is already receiving phone calls to her family and is allowed to have visitors. Now it will be legislated meaningful human contact. This is very interesting.(1325)The Liberals have not consulted with UCCO or victims of crime, which is par for the course. They did not consult with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers when they brought forward their ridiculous prison needle exchange program idea. Prisoners in maximum-security facilities, prisoners who often spend much of their day trying to fashion weapons to use against other inmates or against guards when necessary, would be given needles in their cells as a right of an inmate. The Liberals are now forcing that on our prisons and our prisons guards. Also, they would be given spoons so they could heat up their drugs and inject them intravenously, spoons that no doubt are part of a kit that has to stay in the cell but can be used as a weapon. All of these things are clear to anyone who has been in a prison, who has had a tour of a prison or who has talked to a single prison guard. They know this is a ridiculous proposition, but the Liberals do not care. They do not consult with the actual front-line workers. Instead, they come up with these pie-in-the-sky ideas in their ivory towers in Ottawa and tell the workers on the ground, the people who deal with sharks in the prison, that they will have deal with this now. Never mind that it is the mandate of a prison guard to ensure there are no illegal drugs in the prison. We will have a situation where there will be illegal drugs in a cell, guards will have to search the cell, but will have to set aside the government-mandated safe injection kit to look for the illegal drugs, which they then will take away. What a ridiculous proposal. That is what the government is defending. The government does not talk to the people who are actually impacted by these decisions.Again, we have many concerns with the bill. The member for Malpeque said that we should not legislate based on the exceptional cases. If the legislation does not capture the exceptional cases, what good is it? If we do not allow for prison guards and prison officials to have the ability to have disciplinary segregation when people are endangering guards, other inmates or themselves, what is the point? We simply put people at additional risk. We support a few parts of the bill. We support giving the audio to victims. We support body scanners and think that should be expanded to ensure there is no contraband in prison. The minister said in his speech on the bill, “Keeping contraband out of correctional facilities would help make institutions as safe and secure as possible.” Therefore, we will have body scanners to keep those bad drugs out of those prisons, but we will give needles and spoons to the prisoners to ensure they can inject those life-altering drugs as soon as possible and as safely as possible. How about we just keep the drugs out of the prison? How about we double down on that effort? I am glad the heckling continues from the Liberals who love debate in this place. The government once again thinks it knows best. It is not going to take any guidance from the people who work in these prisons. One of the highest populations of corrections officials and prison guards live in my riding and work in the many institutions around it. In the Pacific region, there is the Pacific Institution, Kent Institution, Matsqui Institution, Mountain Institution, Mission Institution, the Kwìkwèxwelhp Healing Village and the Fraser Valley Institute for Women. I have these people in my office all the time talking about this failed approach from the government. However, this is a government that thinks it knows best. It is a government that is ignoring their concerns and is not dealing with the actual concerns of Canadians. When we saw that there was a bill on notice to deal with corrections, we hoped it would deal with the ridiculous situation where Tori Stafford's murderer could be transferred down to a minimum-security facility. We hoped it would give the tools, which we believe it has already, and clarify, with this proposed legislation, that someone like Terri-Lynne McClintic would not be in a minimum-security prison. Instead, the government modified it in the bill to allow the minister to allow corrections officials to designate a single cell in a minimum-security facility as a maximum-security cell. Therefore, there would be no fences, locks, segregation, nothing, but room 102 would be declared as a maximum-security cell in a minimum-security prison. The government has failed to consult with victims, failed to consult with corrections officers and for that reason we should reject the legislation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersNeedle exchange programSecond readingSmugglingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety559259555925965592597559259855925995592600559260155926025592603559260455926055592606559260755926085592609559261055926115592612559261355926145592615MaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. PaulMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I regret that it is unlikely that we will find a compromise on this issue given the fact that Liberals do not believe in the Conservative ideology around prisons and locking offenders up and throwing away the key, as if that somehow were going to resolve the problems we have. The truth of the matter is, whether on this issue or prison farms, the Conservatives have always had that ideology. Where does that lead? It leads toward the system we see in the United States where we end up with super prisons and four times as many people locked up as we did decades ago.The member specifically asked, how about it if we just kept the drugs out of the hands of inmates? It seems simple enough, but over 10 years the Conservatives were not able to do that. As a matter of fact, if they had been able to do that, we would not be having this conversation right now. Why was the former government not able to keep the drugs out of the hands of the inmates, if it is so simple and he suggests that we should be doing it? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSmuggling55926165592617MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Strahl: (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the fearmongering question by the member opposite when he talked about locking them up and throwing away the key. I am surprised he did not say “three strikes, you're out“. As to super prisons, we were used to that kind of rhetoric from the Liberals when they were in opposition, when they would say that because of our criminal justice reforms we would have to build new prisons, that there would be double-bunking otherwise, and all the rest of that nonsense.What we actually found during our time in office is that people were deterred from committing crimes because they did not want to go to prison. Our agenda was to provide deterrence. I do not understand the Liberal mentality of wanting to wish away the types of people who are in prison. Yes, there are some who can be rehabilitated, but the Liberals want to gloss over the fact that there are serial killers, serial rapists, people who will never set foot in public again in the prison system. They want to wish that system away. Yes, our government had no tolerance for drugs in prison policy. We think it is the right policy and the Liberals should stop sending mixed messages by making our guards keep prisons drug-free while handing out drug paraphernalia at the same time.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSmuggling55926185592619MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent speech magnifies this soft on crime approach by the Liberals, but he brought something up that is very concerning to me. I live in a community with a lot of unions and workers and there seems to be a pattern here. The Liberals did it with marijuana, and with this bill they have not consulted the workers to make sure they would have a safe workplace.Could the member elaborate on the lack of consultation for this bill, because it seems the government wants to throw a blind eye to the fact that people are working in extremely dangerous environments? Could he comment on how important it is to consult with the people on the ground, because it could be somebody's life that is being affected here?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55926205592621MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeMarkStrahlChilliwack—Hope//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71986MarkStrahlMark-StrahlChilliwack—HopeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StrahlMark_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Strahl: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not consult on these things because they think they know best. They think they have all the solutions and they have come up with these things in a boardroom and a bull pit session and think they know how they can make this better for someone who might be in segregation. However, what they have not done is talked to the actual union officials. Many of us met with UCCO last week about the prison needle exchange program. Correctional officers do not even have protective gloves that can stop needle stick injuries. They are not protected from inmates who would weaponize a contaminated needle to use against them or someone else, but this is being forced on correctional facilities. It is being jammed down their throats because the Ottawa Liberals know best. They have come up with these policies in a vacuum. They should talk to the people who are actually going to be impacted and put at risk before they come up with these cockamamie schemes.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55926225592623ColinCarrieOshawaScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. I will bring some perspective to this debate dating back to October 2004, when I first came to the House. At the time, it was the tail end of a minority government.We did not deal too much with legislation that addressed crime and other matters as such. I remember when the Conservatives came to power in 2006. They came in on a wave of their getting tough on crime and criminals. Over the years, to say it has been a mixed bag of success is to be somewhat generous. I do not mean that in a harsh or partisan way, but in a way that reflects that it is somewhat disappointing that we never had a decent conversation about crime, and certainly not about rehabilitation. Crime had become a superficial way of trying to gain popularity and votes. I say this not against the Conservatives specifically, but the debate has drifted in that direction. I think the tag line was “Do the crime, do the time.”The problem is that we had seen what happens in jurisdictions around the world, and especially in the United States, where they truly used it, amping it up to the point where it became absolutely deafening, to the point where it was a matter of “Lock them up and throw away the key.” I mean nothing specific by that.I will say, however, that tag line was used quite a bit. Unfortunately, we now find that so many people in the United States who originally used that as a way of gaining popularity and a way of pushing forward a very good public policy are now winding back some, but not all, of that. I am sure some of it worked out in the end. In many cases, there were a lot of people in the system who deserved to be in the system and should continue to be in the system, and that worked.However, we realized over the years that a lot of people should not be in the system that long and were not given the tools to go back into society. There are people in society who do not belong in society. I get it. I think we all get that. However, there are people in the system administered by CSC who will go back into society. Who will that person be coming back into society, as opposed to who they were when they left society and went to prison for the first time? It is us who make the decisions to be there for the people who help rehabilitate the criminals.I understand, on this particular legislation, that there are opinions on both sides of it, people who like what we say, and others who say that we need to look at furthering this debate about rehabilitating a person who has been incarcerated and is now going back into society. It takes several steps to get to that point. There are many examples around the world that we could use to get back to that point.We also have the court system, which has pointed out that the old system has discrepancies that we need to fix, like solitary confinement. Let us look at the concept of solitary confinement for just a moment, the separation of someone from others for the safety of everyone involved. To a great extent, that has to happen within the system.I have never worked in the prison system. I have never been in prison myself. However, I certainly know enough about the situation. Over the past 14 years, I have certainly heard enough about those who feel that rehabilitation in the prison service is deficient in many ways, federally and provincially in many cases. In my opinion, Bill C-83 is a way to take a step, so that when people go back into society, they will not be the same people who went into the prison. It is incumbent upon us to have that wide debate. Now, we want to do several things in this particular bill, which I will point out.(1340)This legislation proposes to eliminate segregation, following recent court decisions, as I pointed out. It introduces more effective structured intervention units. It proposes better support for victims during Parole Board hearings and it proposes increasing staff and inmate safety with new body scanner technology. Bill C-83 proposes to update our approach to critical matters like mental health supports and indigenous offenders' needs, as well as the needs of the general population.What CSC really needs is the authority to separate offenders from the general population for the sake of institutional safety. While someone is segregated in solitary confinement, there is still a way that we can reach that person to effect a major change. Therefore, there is a minimum. Yes, we do segregate that person from the general population for the safety of the institution, but we also need to provide the structure so that we can tackle the problem in a responsible and mature manner. This is what the SIUs this legislation introduces are about. Four hours of human contact could alleviate the problem.The problem may have started with a particular person. I am not blaming anyone else. However we must look for the reason why that person needs to be segregated. Why is the individual like that? We need to make sure that it does not happen again. In order to do that, as the courts have pointed out, human contact is needed, which would make the situation it that much better for the institution itself and for the prison population in general. For many years CSC has been criticized for the practice of administrative segregation, better known as solitary confinement. The case of Ashley Smith is a good example. Ashley died in custody in 2007. Her case highlighted issues related to segregation and mental health care in the Canadian correctional system.In 2013, a coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith resulted in recommendations, one of which was instituting a cap on the amount of time an inmate can spend in segregation. We realized from that case alone in 2007 that there was a problem and that we needed to go further. We need to protect institutions and instill institutional safety by taking an inmate from the general population. But then what? What is the right answer? The right answer involves our listening to the experts who have to deal with these people every day. I know they are on different sides in this particular step that we want to take, but it is our responsibility to have this debate and send the bill to committee so that opposition members who have some concerns can make the proper amendments.We must remember that key here is the fact that a lot of these people will face society once again. We want to make sure that an individual who goes back into society is not the same person who went into prison. We know these people through families, through friends, through contacts who have been in prison and had a rough time. We hear about them all the time. That is one of the major things that happened in 2007 with the case of Ashley Smith.The number of inmates in segregation on any given day in 2011 was over 700. It is now about 340. Why is that the case? We need to explore the reason why.As we look for answers to this particular situation, I realize that these units, these SIUs, are not the perfect answer for everyone involved in the system, including the guards. My support for Bill C-83 comes from my understanding of the need to take that step of providing human contact to protect society at large. Of course, there are people here on both sides of the issue. We need to have a debate here and the bill sent to committee so that we can look at any amendments that might be brought forward.I thank everyone involved in this debate. I also thank the superior courts of both British Columbia and Ontario for helping us guide the way.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitViolent crime55926245592625559262655926275592628559262955926305592631559263255926335592634559263555926365592637559263855926395592640559264155926425592643559264455926455592646MarkStrahlChilliwack—HopeHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, many times throughout this debate we have asked the governing party why it did not consult with correctional officers, who have some serious concerns about their own safety while providing the kind of services they do for all Canadians.My question this time is more related to the member's inference that a committee will study this legislation and that amendments will be presented at committee. The member inferred that the committee would be open to considering amendments. However the track record of the Liberal government is not that great when it comes to being open to accepting good amendments put forward by opposition members.I want assurance from my colleague that when these amendments are brought forward, amendments that are backed by correctional officers who are concerned about their safety, the committee will in fact give them due consideration.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559264755926485592649ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Scott Simms: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592650HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging to hear a straightforward answer, a rare thing in this place, and that the answer is “yes”.I will be presenting amendments. I certainly want to be listening carefully to the evidence before committee because we have already heard some very strong concerns from people who have given their lives in dedication to this field. I have mentioned, for instance, Senator Kim Pate, who used to run the Elizabeth Fry Society in Canada before becoming a senator. I will just quote what she said in her statement, “Changing the Name of the Unit Is Not Enough”. She suggests that this new structured intervention unit appears to be “rebranding” of what is currently done, but with fewer limitations on how frequently it can be used. I would like to hope that that is not the government's intent. Therefore, I will ask my friend again if, in openness to amendments, we can be absolutely certain that this ends the kinds of torturous ordeals that particularly discriminate against racialized, marginalized and indigenous women in prison. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5592651559265255926535592654ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Scott Simms: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this up, especially with regard to the indigenous dimension of this. I did not bring it up in my speech and I apologize. However, certainly there is a higher proportion of the population who find themselves in that situation.I hear what she is saying about the amendments she is bringing forward. I know her situation within the context of a committee and her position itself. I am assuming she will be there. I have no doubt it will be debated thoroughly whether I am there or not, not that I have any domain over it but members get the idea. Nevertheless, the unit that the hon member brought up to me right now, and the flexibility within it, provides that human contact. The certain situations that other people have spoken about, I cannot speak to as I did not see their comments. However, I will say this. The human contact aspect of this to me is very essential. It is a central part of a system that is backed up, of course, by court decisions. In this particular case where are we looking at an institution that does not provide any human contact whatsoever, which is really incumbent upon solitary confinement, really, we should put ourselves into the 21st century when it comes to dealing with rehabilitation and human contact to benefit society as a whole.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5592655559265655926575592658ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for our hon. colleague. I just want to know, first, if the changes in Bill C-83 have been fully costed. As well, how is the government going to measure the deliverables outlined in Bill C-83?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55926595592660ScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25456ScottSimmsScott-SimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SimmsScott_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Scott Simms: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, the process is the process, as the hon. member knows. I was the former chair of the committee he was involved with.Certainly, he can bring forward whatever he wishes to do. That is his domain. That is his priority as a member. The debate and acceptance of it, time will tell as we get through it. However, I will say this. I implore the member to look at it as a positive step that can benefit society because of what has been talked about throughout this particular debate and others about rehabilitation. We have been talking about crime for the past 12 to 14 years in a credible way. It has constituted weeks upon weeks of debate in this House. Now is the time that we can have a mature conversation about a positive step to getting back to human contact and rehabilitation for those who are in the system. We know these people will be coming back to society. Separate them for the sake of institutional safety? Yes, and provide them supports by which they can contribute to society.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592661559266255926635592664ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/232ChristineMooreChristine-MooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MooreChristine_NPD.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-83, I will focus mainly on administrative segregation because it is one of the key measures that should have been greatly improved. Unfortunately, we are not seeing this improvement.There are two rulings on the use of administrative segregation that, in essence, have profoundly challenged the use of this technique because of the psychological and psychiatric effects it can have on people. For example, a number of studies show that administrative segregation could trigger or aggravate certain psychiatric symptoms such as hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, depression, impulsiveness, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, self-harm, insomnia and problems with thinking, concentration and memory. The use of administrative segregation increases the risk of suicidal thoughts and suicide.In light of all that, the government should have engaged in a profound re-evaluation of the circumstances justifying the use of administrative segregation as well as the guidelines for the duration and supervision of this practice, among other things. Unfortunately, there are no options.Segregation is also used in the health system. It is one measure used to restrain patients. Clearly, I am not referring to the same clients. Nevertheless, there are many linkages that can be drawn. The health system previously used many restraint measures on a regular basis. For example, a lap belt was used for seniors with dementia and the bed rails were raised so they would not fall out of bed. That was how things were done.Quebec's health system has seriously questioned the circumstances that justify the use of restraints. There have been questions about how health institutions should determine whether their protocols for the use of restraints are effective.Several documents were written about this, and I will be referring to a document put out by the Government of Quebec called Cadre de référence pour l'élaboration des protocoles d'application des mesures de contrôle, which deals with restraint, isolation and chemical substances. Chapter 4 is extremely interesting and so I hope that members will look into it, especially at committee. It talks about the ethical and clinical principles that health institutions should use to establish their protocols for the use of restraint. The first principle is this: Control measures are only used as safety measures when immediate threats are identifiedThe protocol should state that control measures must be used in a therapeutic context only and must under no circumstances be used to punish, intimidate or correct a person, to modify a behaviour, or to deal with organizational constraints. If a control measure is used, it must be used with the sole object of preventing the person from imminently causing harm to themselves or others.These ethical principles make many interesting points, especially where they say that restraint measures, such as segregation, must never be used to deal with organizational constraints. In other words, if segregation can be avoided by doubling staff numbers, that would be the ethical thing to do, rather than placing people in segregation just because it is the easiest option and money is tight. This is also a very important principle from a legal perspective. Administrative segregation should not be used as a substitute for increasing staff numbers due to a lack of means. If segregation can be avoided by increasing staff, whether that means more security guards or other professionals, then increasing staff is the better option.(1355)Another ethical principle is that control measures should be used only as a last resort. That seems logical. I will continue after question period.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement559266755926685592669559267055926715592672559267355926745592675559267655926775592678AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to take the floor after that ruling, but I am pleased that we can pursue that other matter through other channels.I am here now to address Bill C-83. I appreciate that the Liberal Party gave me a time slot, in recognition of the fact that there has been an allocation of time on debate and I otherwise might not have been able to speak to this at all. I wish to go on record, and I am not feeling any sense of cognitive dissonance in doing this, to thank the government party for allowing me to speak for 10 minutes, and I also wish that the government party had not decided to use time allocation on Bill C-83.In any case, this bill comes to us in a context I want to address first, which is a political context and a political climate that has been created by recent debates in this place, in which, I regret to say, I felt demeaned. I felt displaced, demeaned and diminished by a tactic of the official opposition to turn the House of Commons into sort of a secondary chamber for the review of punishments meted out through the proper system, the courts of law. We have taken days and had people's names and the horrors of gruesome, cruel murders repeated on the floor of this place. There is clearly some thought in some quarters here that it is a good campaign tactic to talk about punishment a lot and to regret when our correctional system responds in ways that might appear to some as lenient. However, we are a country built on the rule of law. We recognize that our prison system is not merely for punishment. We have to have this discussion, I think, fairly constantly. What is the point of our correctional system? What is the point of our prison system? As many MPs have said on the floor of this place today in response to Bill C-83, many of the people in our prison system are going to re-enter society. We would like them to re-enter society with the life skills they will need to be contributing members of society, having paid, in that terminology, their debt to society. It is in that context, where on one end of the political extreme we are told that we have become too lenient towards prisoners, that we turn our attention to an appalling situation, where rights have been infringed and lives have been lost through the failure of the prison system to handle certain kinds of prisoners, those who find themselves in likely incarceration in solitary confinement. Of course, this bill comes to us in the context of one of the most egregious of those examples, again, as has been mentioned in this place today, the case of Ashley Smith. I think we forget sometimes how horrific her death was, how hard her life was, how hard her mother tried to help her and how the prison system made her survival impossible. The coroner's inquest into Ashley Smith's death found that although she died from self-inflicted choking, while the guards watched, the context and the circumstances of her death amounted to a homicide. That coroner provided 104 recommendations.We also know of the cases of Adam Capay, a young indigenous man who spent 1,600 days in solitary confinement; or Richard Wolfe, who did not actually die in solitary but collapsed in a prison exercise yard, at 40 years old, having spent 640 days in solitary confinement; or another indigenous man whose case comes to mind, Eddie Snowshoe, who spent 162 days in solitary confinement before hanging himself.We can note from those cases that it is quite often those with mental health issues, those who are marginalized, those who are racialized and particularly those who are indigenous who end up in solitary confinement. Therefore, it is certainly welcome that the Minister of Public Safety has brought to this place a bill that promises to end this ongoing stain on the reputation of Canada as a civilized country. Solitary confinement for those lengths of times has been found internationally to constitute torture, and we are a people who are convinced that we do not practise torture.(1520)Therefore, I am sad to share my disappointment with this bill and my concern that we do not have it right yet.Coralee Cusack-Smith, mother of Ashley Smith, speaking for her family on Bill C-83, said “it's a sham and a travesty that it's done in Ashley's name. It's just a different name for segregation. It's not ending segregation. Not ending segregation for anyone with mental health issues. It's just a new name.”It seems that the fact it is merely a rebranding is reflected in a statement by the hon. Senator Kim Pate who, having spent time before entering the other place to dedicating her life to the fair treatment of women prisoners, in particular through the Elizabeth Fry Society, described Bill C-83 as disappointing and even as weakening the limitations on how often a segregated prisoner can experience solitary confinement. We have this idea that structured intervention units will be entirely different from solitary confinement. I hope they will be. I have to say that it is one place where I would like to emphasize the positive in this place.I was a member of Parliament, at the same desk, in the same chair, for an opposition party through the 41st Parliament. I could add up on the fingers of one hand the number of times I saw a single amendment made to a government bill. In a four-year term of a majority government under Stephen Harper, bills were rammed through from start to finish without a single amendment. Therefore, I will credit the current government and the administration of the current Prime Minister with being more open to amendments. However, it is a mixed bag. Some bills I would have been so happy to support if they only had been amended enough to make them acceptable. Bill C-69, the environmental assessment omnibus bill, is in that category. It is a tragedy that the Liberals did not get that one right. It will be a tragedy if we collectively in the House do not get it right on this one. We have an obligation as a civilized society to re-examine what we mean by “incarceration” and “corrections” in the criminal justice system and what the purpose of incarceration is. In the 41st Parliament, the former government got rid of prison chaplains in that system. It got rid of prison farms where some prisoners could have the first experience in their lives of a day outdoors doing an honest day's labour. I suppose it is ironic that an honest day's labour took place in a prison farm context. However, those programs were killed by the previous government.The prison system in our country cannot just be seen as a place where some parts of the political spectrum can score political points by talking about life being too easy there for people who have committed heinous crimes, as the language always describes them. I am not sympathizing with criminals. I support the rights of victims. However, it is not an effective prison system if it kills people who have committed minor crimes, who become stuck in a Möbius loop where they cannot get help. We have to break that cycle now. We have to find ways to focus our prison system on fairness, respect, reconciliation and rehabilitation. This is not the stuff of bleeding hearts; this is what makes a society whole. This is what allows people who have been in prison to come back out and function in a civilized society and not pass on the patterns of behaviour they have experienced to their family and children. I have hope for Bill C-83. I will do everything I can at committee, and everything I can by working with members of the groups who have given their lives to this, whether it be the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and those very brave people who have been incarcerated and are willing to come forward to say, “This is what would have helped me. This is how it did not help me.” Yes, a prison system is to ensure that people pay their debt to society and are punished for things that are morally indefensible and a huge assault on our society. However, there are also a lot of people in prison who have committed relatively minor crimes who, if they were wealthier and had better lawyers, might not be there. There, but for the grace of God, go members and I. Therefore, let us fix Bill C-83.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit559297055929715592972559297355929745592975559297655929775592978559297955929805592981559298255929835592984559298555929865592987GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1525)[English]Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech on this bill and her comments, all of which I agree with. She is passionate about this issue, she is well-researched, and I could not agree more that we need to start looking at our prison system in a different way.It is important to remember that this bill is tied to investments in mental health, which are critical for people who are looking at segregation.I am very curious to know what kind of amendments the member would be looking at. Does the member have any suggestions at this point? I would also just comment that I would be happy to work with her as this bill goes through committee.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading559298855929895592990ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1525)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague and I have worked together to amend other pieces of legislation. I can share with her constituents that they have an MP who keeps her word and is as good as her word. I love working with her.I would love to see some amendments to this. I am conscious of the fact that the correctional officers who have to deal with potentially dangerous prisoners have unions that are also deeply concerned. I know that the government is trying to achieve some kind of balance here.I think we need amendments to ensure that we do not weaken the limitations on the use of any form of segregation. Yes, I am very pleased that there will be increases in funding for mental health and assistance. I would like to see more done to ensure that in keeping a prisoner separate from a prison population that may pose a threat to that prisoner, they are not placed in a situation where they lose human contact. Much more could be done to increase family access, as one example.We will work through this at committee.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading5592991559299255929935592994PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is passionate about this subject, knows it well, and provides a great insight into it.What this really comes down to is making sure that we can eliminate as much as possible that revolving door of people coming in and out of prison. The way that we can do that is by making sure that the system we have is one that promotes rehabilitation and reintegration into society.To that end, this bill would ensure sure that those responsible for completing that process would have the tools they need to make sure that as we rehabilitate people, it is done in a meaningful way that can transform inmates into productive members of society.I am wondering if the member would agree with that and with the fact that in order to make this transition back into society, it is key that we give those who are charged with rehabilitating our inmates the tools they require.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5592995559299655929975592998ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree.Of course, members will recall that it was in the hon. member's riding that one of the great campaigns by local citizens to keep a prison farm open was defeated. I really hope we will see the prison farm system come back. It is a great tool for rehabilitation. If we help one individual within a prison context find that place the hon. member mentioned, so that when they are released into the general population, they find a way to function as a productive member of society, that should always be the goal. I hope this legislation will help us get there.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55929995593000MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86786CelinaCaesar-ChavannesCelina-Caesar-ChavannesWhitbyIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaesarChavannesCelina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Lib.): (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, although I was not in the chamber, I was listening in the other room.As other colleagues have mentioned, I really appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. I wonder if she could comment specifically on the need to look at some of the historical issues individuals face and to address them, not just through mental health supports but also through other rehabilitative supports to ensure that we take a more comprehensive and holistic view of the individual when we are looking at reducing recidivism rates and removing that individual from the general population.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55930015593002ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May: (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, the briefest answer I could give is to say that I think the best thing we can do is to listen to the real experts out there.With all due respect to all of us here who study the legislation, I think the real experts are the people at the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and people who have experienced the correctional system. It is going to be a suite of things. For some people, it will be a healing lodge because that will take them back to their indigenous culture. For some people, it will be a pastor who comes in and helps them find Christ. For another person, it will be the experience of working out in the field, or maybe it is studying the Quran.One way or another, people have to find a way to find self-respect and dignity and a way to function as members of society.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559300355930045593005CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.): (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lend my voice to the debate today in support of Bill C-83, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We all want our communities to be safe, and we all want to be secure in the knowledge that when offenders return to the community, our corrections system will have supported their rehabilitation and prepared them to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives. Our government believes that for the corrections system to succeed in that regard, safety and security must go hand in hand with rehabilitative programming and treatment. Today, I am proud to know that principle is at the core of the bold new measures the government is taking to transform federal corrections.Bill C-83 would strengthen the federal corrections system, making it safer and more effective at rehabilitation. The bill would end the practice of segregation. It would establish structured intervention units, or SIUs, to safely manage inmates when they cannot otherwise be managed in the mainstream inmate population, without denying them access to programs, interventions and treatment.Bill C-83 would also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. This change reflects testimony we heard at both the status of women and public safety committees, and I am very pleased to see this included in the proposed legislation. Bill C-83 would strengthen health care governance, allow for the use of new search technologies and enhance support for victims at parole hearings.Key to this landmark legislation is that with SIUs, the practice of segregation would become a thing of the past. Currently, if an offender is considered dangerous to themselves or others, or is at risk of being harmed, they can be placed in segregation if there is no other reasonable alternative. Segregation has remained a common practice over the years. Recently, policy changes by the Correctional Service of Canada led to a significant decline in segregation placements, from over 700 on any given day a few years ago to just over 300 today.However, we cannot ignore the fact that stakeholders, including the Office of the Correctional Investigator, advocacy groups, the Ashley Smith inquest and the courts, have raised concern about its effects, particularly on inmates suffering from mental health issues. I have seen a segregation unit in a maximum security prison. I cannot imagine a human being left there hour upon hour, day after day. Imagine a room with a bed, or more like a cot, a toilet and sink, and maybe a small desk attached to the wall, which might or might not have a seat, and being confined there for 22 hours a day with limited to no human contact.In the courts, recent decisions in both Ontario and British Columbia called for legislative reform to the practice. They have also called for improvements to the provision of mental health services within corrections. At the same time, others have argued that segregation is necessary to ensure that correctional institutions remain safe for their employees and the people in custody. The safety of correctional staff must always be an overarching consideration. Our correctional institutions are full of dedicated staff who work long hours in challenging circumstances to make a positive difference by promoting rehabilitation and protecting communities.As a member of the public safety committee, I have had the opportunity to tour a number of corrections facilities across the country and to get to know many of the men and women who work in the corrections system, including the commissioner and correctional investigator, regional managers, wardens, corrections officers, parole officers, aboriginal liaison officers, program officers, nurses and more. They work incredibly hard with very little recognition, working day in and day out to rehabilitate those in our corrections system. They develop correctional plans for offenders to ensure that they are receiving programming throughout their sentences. They are passionate about their work and often make a real difference in the lives of offenders so that they can become more productive and healthy members of society upon their release.Until now, correctional staff had few alternatives to segregation when having to isolate an inmate for safety reasons. We now have an opportunity to address that problem. Bill C-83 would eliminate segregation altogether and establish structured intervention units. These SIUs would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in difficult circumstances. They would help manage offenders who could not otherwise be safely managed. In an SIU, an inmate would receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs. Every day, they would have a minimum of four hours outside their cell, including at least two hours of meaningful human interaction.(1535)In the existing segregation system, by contrast, people get only two hours out of the cell and little or no meaningful interaction with other people.I find some of the rhetoric on the bill coming from my Conservative colleagues to be disturbing. I have heard my colleagues on the opposition benches argue that the bill would make life easier for offenders in corrections facilities. I have said it before in the House and I will say it again. I believe it is essential that our system does all within its power to rehabilitate offenders, if only because we know that it leads to lower recidivism rates and ultimately makes all Canadians safer.As my friend Stan Stapleton, president of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, has said with regard to the bill: There is evidence that shows that strong rehabilitative programs make communities safer and create a safer environment for both employees and offenders inside institutions...The reality is these offenders--almost all of them--will return to the community. And so if we simply lock them up and throw away the key, we're not providing them with the tools that they require in order to safely reintegrate back into society. I could not agree more and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill. With Bill C-83, offenders will have the ability to work toward the objectives in the correctional plan thanks to a focus on intervention so they are better placed to become productive members of society once they are released. I think we can all agree that this is good for the public safety of Canadians. With these changes, offenders will have daily visits from health care professionals. Ultimately the idea is to facilitate safe reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. To that end, placements in SIUs will be subject to a robust system of review. An initial review will happen within five days by the institution's warden. If the person remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews will be done by the warden after 30 days and by the commissioner every 30 days thereafter. Also, at any time a health care professional can recommend a change in conditions or a transfer out of the SIU.Importantly, the bill also proposes to enshrine in law the principle that health care professionals within the corrections system must have the autonomy to exercise their own medical judgment. As recommended by the Ashley Smith inquest, it creates a system of patient advocates who will help ensure people get the medical treatment they need. Having spent considerable time studying this issue at the committees on which I serve and having visited several corrections facilities, I can say with confidence that Bill C-83 represents a substantial change in the right direction. We have the opportunity to act now to improve correctional outcomes, reduce violent incidents and ensure a safe environment for inmates, staff, volunteers and the institutions as a whole.We have the opportunity to contribute to community and public safety by supporting bold new proposals that assist with the rehabilitation of offenders, reducing the risk of reoffending and keeping our communities safe. I look forward to the opportunity to study the bill further at committee and I urge all members to join me in supporting these important changes.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSafetySecond readingStructured intervention unit5593006559300755930085593009559301055930115593012559301355930145593015559301655930175593018559301955930205593021559302255930235593024ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): (1540)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite.Does she agree with me that the government is going in the wrong direction by doing away with administrative segregation without providing for adequate resources? As the president of the Canadian correctional officers said, they need tools and measures to control the prison population.Does she not think that the bill takes tools away from our correctional officers, thereby making our prisons less safe?That is what we have seen in recent months. Violence has increased as a result of the approach taken in this bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593025559302655930275593028PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not agree with what the hon. member said. Certainly the number of violent incidents in our corrections facilities would not have gone up prior to the introduction of the bill. The fact is that the government has committed to investing additional resources and in hiring more staff to deal with the prison population in these SIUs. The hon. member may be mistaken in his interpretation of what the government has said around the bill. Certainly it is critical that the safety of our corrections officers be paramount. They have to be safe when they go to work. We have made a commitment to making the investments necessary to ensure that happens.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55930295593030StevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1540)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her speech.I certainly do not claim to be an expert in this area, though I have very definite ideas about rehabilitation. However, two courts have ruled that certain measures are unconstitutional. I have to admit that I do not see which measures in Bill C-83 will keep us from ending up in court again. I am not an expert, so I would like the member to enlighten me.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55930315593032PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not a constitutional expert, but I know the government has reviewed carefully the court decisions. In fact, that is why we have a new bill in front of us right now. It has incorporated what the courts have said, along with our previous legislation that had been introduced around administrative segregation. I am confident that the government has looked at it, bearing in mind the importance of the constitutionality of the legislation, but also ensuring we will be rehabilitating offenders when they are in our prison system. As it stands right now, individuals in administrative segregation do not have access to programming and they do not have access to the kinds of mental health services they need. Therefore, by bringing in this legislation and tying it with programming and mental health services, we should see a significant difference in the outcomes of the prison population.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55930335593034RobertAubinTrois-RivièresElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, it is more of a comment than a question for my friend from Oakville North—Burlington. Given her speech and the commitment to work on amendments in committee, I am changing my vote and I will vote for Bill C-83 at second reading.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593035PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, I am so pleased with the hon. member's comments. I am very happy she will be supporting this to get it to committee.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593036ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, the member from Burlington mentioned that segregated individuals would go from two hours to four hours of human contact during the day. The opposition would like to paint that as our being soft on crime. However, the reality of the situation is that we are going to help people become better people so they can be properly rehabilitated and integrated into society. Would the member agree that the goal is to accomplish that, to get people back into society to be productive members?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55930375593038PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88884PamDamoffPam-DamoffOakville North—BurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DamoffPam_lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Pam Damoff: (1545)[English]Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague who, I know, is quite passionate about ensuring not only public safety, but ensuring the safety of people who work in the corrections system and ensuring that those who are in the prison system are able to live law-abiding lives when they get out of prison.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593039MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): (1545)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, a position I used to hold. To start with, I want to say that I will be vigorously opposing this bill. With respect to the point raised a moment ago by my colleague, I would like to remind her that the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Jason Godin, has already pointed out the detrimental effects that this bill would have on security in our correctional institutions. He says that the number of assaults on prison guards by inmates has increased as a result of the reduced use of segregation under the new legislation that has been tabled.I am strongly opposed to this bill, because its very basis is wrong. The first reason I oppose this bill is that it makes our correctional facilities less safe. I am sure members on both sides of the House would join me in acknowledging the remarkable work that our correctional officers do. Much like parents raising children, our correctional officers need respect. Our role, as parliamentarians, is to give them tools to ensure that they get respect, which is essential to keeping our correctional facilities safe. Unfortunately, this bill would weaken the tools available to our correctional officers.I commend these officers, and I want them to know that I oppose this bill, because it will make our facilities less safe and will put our correctional officers at greater risk.The second reason I oppose the bill is that any legislation meant to improve our correctional services needs to take into account a fundamental principle that is missing from this bill. The conditions of detention must reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and must also reflect each individual inmate's risk level. This bill is clearly misguided because it removes tools that help our correctional officers keep our facilities safe.The third reason I oppose this bill is that it does not contain any significant rehabilitation measures. I remind members that our correctional facilities are meant to ensure that when an inmate is released back into society, he or she is able to contribute to this society again.With less respect, less safety and, unfortunately, more violence in our correctional facilities, it will be harder for inmates to focus on their rehabilitation.As members have mentioned, Bill C-83 seeks to eliminate the use of administrative and disciplinary segregation. The Liberals are fixated on that. It seems that those who drafted the bill never had an opportunity, as I did when I was minister of public safety and as our public safety critic did, to simply go and visit correctional facilities to talk to correctional officers and inmates. Our public safety critic and I had the opportunity to meet with inmates who told us to leave this measure in place because it is good for their mental health.Sometimes inmates need to be alone and to get away from others for awhile. There are some inmates who ask to be sent to administrative segregation, as I witnessed first-hand. We therefore see that the Liberals are taking tools away from correctional officers and inmates that help with inmates' rehabilitation.What the Liberals are proposing instead is another mechanism for incarcerating inmates who cannot remain in the general inmate population for safety reasons.(1550)This bill will require Correctional Service Canada to give inmates access to patient advocacy services and consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making.That brings me to the Liberal approach. It took the Liberals 10 months to appoint a federal ombudsman for victims of crime, but far less time to appoint an ombudsman for criminals. That is definitely not in the interest of society. The government should make victims a priority too, but for the past three years, the government has been silent on that subject. Navigating the justice system is a painful experience for victims, and the government needs to make sure they get the support and respect they deserve.I just want to point out that our government was the one that brought in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, and thank goodness we did, because the Liberals are not doing anything, on top of which they are taking ages to fill key positions. Clearly, the government does not think victims are all that important.This bill has other flaws. It seeks not only to get rid of administrative segregation, but also to have body scanners installed. We do not take issue with that idea, but we do have a problem with how this is being handled. We know that a lot of contraband is smuggled into our penal institutions by visitors. It is therefore equally important to include those people in these measures. If the bill gets to committee, I would hope that these measures are given another look.What is more, instead of giving inmates tools to overcome addiction, the Liberals are doing the opposite and providing them with syringes. We know that having syringes in penitentiaries is dangerous for our correctional officers considering the spread of disease associated with their use and the fact that they might even be used against correctional officers. That is something the bill ignores, but the government is okay with that.I hope that the government will get back on track and, like our government, have a zero tolerance policy instead of aggravating inmates' health problems. It is important that the government, as legislator, send a clear message about the presence of drugs in our institutions. Everyone remembers the measures our government put in place.Superior court judges ruled recently on the appropriateness of administrative segregation. I wonder if, much like the members opposite, those judges even bothered to go and speak with officers and corrections officers. Today my colleagues asked the minister, her representatives and other government members if they consulted officers and corrections officers, since this will have a serious impact on their work environment. We have heard nothing but radio silence so far in response.I have so much more I want to say, but I see that I am running out of time, and I would not want to repeat what I have said in the past, which has been reported by my friends at Infoman.In closing, I want share Jason Godin's view. He said that introducing this legislation could have a detrimental affect on conditions in our prison facilities, increase violence and make the situation worse. The government is going in the wrong direction and I urge it to change course. For now, I oppose this legislative measure.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSolitary confinementVictims of crimeWorkplace health and safety5593040559304155930425593043559304455930455593046559304755930485593049559305055930515593052559305355930545593055559305655930575593058PamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, while my colleague was minister of public safety he promoted and was very comfortable with the widespread use of double-bunking, which not only led to unsafe conditions for inmates, but was widely opposed by prison guards throughout the correctional system.I am leery to take his position, particularly when it comes to an issue like this.Could the member at least acknowledge and accept the fact that we have a revolving door when it comes to people going in and coming out of prison over and over again? We need to properly rehabilitate people so that when they come back into society they can be productive members of society who can contribute to their communities. He would know that from his previous position.Would the member not agree that we have to give the proper tools to our guards, and this is one of those tools, so they have what they need? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593059559306055930615593062StevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Steven Blaney: (1555)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question.However, I have to say that his government is doing the exact opposite by getting rid of a tool. According to Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, it is a mistake to eliminate administrative segregation because it is one of the tools that help keep Correctional Service of Canada institutions safe.I would like to come back to one thing he said about the so-called revolving doors. The Liberals are turning our prisons into shopping malls with revolving doors where people can come and go. They are eliminating measures and weakening detention conditions by making it easier for inmates to be released before completing their rehabilitation process.Those are two measures that should be changed. The Liberals should restore administrative segregation and put an end to the revolving door system, which we eliminated but that the Liberals are reinstating. Unfortunately, it makes our communities less safe.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593063559306455930655593066MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86786CelinaCaesar-ChavannesCelina-Caesar-ChavannesWhitbyIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaesarChavannesCelina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Lib.): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke quite a bit about how removing segregation from the system would create an unsafe work environment. I want Canadians to know that members on all sides of the chamber support the fact that our correctional workers do a tremendous job and should be kept safe.While this particular piece of legislation proposes removing administrative segregation and the capacity for people to be placed in administrative segregation, people actually would be assigned to secure intervention units. Usually, when they are removed it is for safety reasons.I am not sure how my colleague would describe this as weakening the system when we would be placing them in a secure unit and giving them the tools necessary to help rehabilitate them while they are in that population. Those interventions could possibly reduce the amount of violence that does happen within the prison system. We would be providing our correctional system with a separate place to house those inmates. It is not like we are just getting rid of it altogether. We would have secure units. We would also be giving inmates mental health support and rehabilitative support to help them reduce violence and correct themselves, thereby adding to the safety of our correctional officers.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5593067559306855930695593070StevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Steven Blaney: (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, I did not see much in the bill regarding rehabilitation.I am sure the member wants safe communities and safe correctional facilities. Joseph Godin, the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, said, “The national prison guards' union is predicting increased violence behind bars as the federal government moves to end solitary confinement...”. He predicted that, “When this goes through, the bloodbath will start.”I hope that when we eventually review the bill in second reading or at committee, we will be able to work together and reinstate those tools that are needed by our correctional officers to ensure that those facilities are safe. This is the way to make sure that inmates eventually will return to society and not pose a risk to their fellow Canadian citizens.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5593071559307255930735593074CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyBillCaseyCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/51BillCaseyBill-CaseyCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaseyBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, Lib.): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand and speak in support of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.It is amazing to me how things connect here in the House of Commons in our parliamentary duties. Bill C-83 today ended up in a discussion with the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention. Bill C-83 also has a direct connection to a town in my riding. It has direct connections to first nations issues as well.I am going to talk about a few different things. I am going to talk about how this affects my own community and also a little about the health impact of Bill C-83.In my own community, in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, I have two correctional facilities. One is the Springhill Institution and the other is the Nova Institution for Women in Truro, Nova Scotia.I will talk about Springhill first. That institution was built in 1967. Partly in response to a natural disaster that happened at a coal mine on October 23, 1958, 60 years ago today, in Springhill, 174 miners went to work. At 8:06 in the evening, there was an underground earthquake, which is sometimes called a bump. It was the most severe bump in North American history in one of the deepest coal mines in North America. Of the 174 who went to work that day, 75 lost their lives. There were 99 survivors, and many of them were trapped underground for many days. Six days after the bump, 12 survivors were rescued by creating a tunnel to get them. Later, on November 1, a second group was saved. That was 60 years ago today, and I want everybody to know that Springhill is remembering that bump today as we speak. Many people who work at the Springhill correctional facility are relatives and descendants of the miners who were lost 60 years ago today.They never forget in Springhill about the people who were lost. They built a beautiful memorial with a number of stones with every name of every miner who lost his or her life in the mines. Every year they have a Davis Day to make sure that people do not forget the lives lost in the Springhill mines. Tonight, at 7 p.m., in the St. Andrew's-Wesley United Church there is a hymn sing led by three daughters of one of the miners, Maurice Ruddick, who was one of the miners trapped underground. He is often credited with helping other survivors underground survive that ordeal. Being trapped 4,000 feet underground, he led them in song and prayer. He was cited as citizen of the year for Canada at the time. Just a month ago, Herb Pepperdine, one of the last men in the mine who was trapped for eight days, died at the age of 95. Therefore, for me, today is a special day, and 60 years ago, I remember the day. I remember the ambulances, the police cars, the turmoil and the TV. Just two years before that, there was another explosion when 39 Springhillers were lost. In just two years, Springhill lost 114 miners. However, the Springhill Institution was built and opened in 1967. It has been very successful since and has expanded several times. It provides correctional facilities for medium- and minimum-security prisoners. I mentioned the connections with the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention. I talked to them today about suicide prevention and what causes people to attempt suicide. Also, earlier this morning, I was talking to my seatmate for Kildonan—St. Paul and she was telling me about a first nation in her riding in Manitoba, the Berens River First Nation. She gave me a document that reads “Isolation with no road access Kills (feeling of 'entrapment' resulting in high suicides)”, which is exactly what we are talking about today: isolation, confinement, solitary confinement and the impact it has on prisoners.Not all prisoners should be in prison for their whole life, as some opposition members would lead us to believe. I have visited the prison in my riding several times, and often I am struck that the prisoners are just regular people who made a mistake. They want to get back into society. They want to be rehabilitated. They want a second chance and they are certainly entitled it. It is certainly worth the effort to try to help them. (1605)Bill C-83 will take steps to eliminate solitary confinement, which is harmful to people. One of the members just said that prisons needed solitary confinement, and I do not believe that. Bill C-83 proposes to do away with solitary confinement and replace it with structured intervention units, so at least prisoners will always have some human contact with health care workers, guards or other people, as opposed to solitary confinement where there is no contact at all.In my area, just a short way from my riding, there is Dorchester Penitentiary, the Westmorland Institution and the Shepody Healing Centre. These are three different institutions, with three different levels and approaches to rehabilitation and incarceration. I am hopeful the rehabilitative nature of these facilities will be enhanced and built on. That is the way we should go. I do not believe there is any point in putting people who have just made a mistake away, throwing away the key as some members have suggested here.A 2017 report from Correctional Service Canada noted that Atlantic Canada had the highest rate of administrative segregation, or solitary confinement, in the country. In addition to that, we seem to segregate them for longer terms than their counterparts in other regions of the country.Five percent of Atlantic Canada's inmates are in administrative segregation, which is five times higher than in Ontario. The same report also noted that Atlantic Canada accounted for more than one-third of all inmates who were in administrative segregation for more than 100 days. A hundred days in segregation is extremely unhealthy for anybody. It is perhaps cruel and unusual punishment.I welcome Bill C-83 and the change to a structured intervention unit. This is a giant step forward. It will be better for rehabilitation, better for health and safer for prison guards, the other prisoners and the people who work beside them. I am glad we are moving forward on it.Our government intends to invest heavily in mental health care within the correctional system, and I am talking exactly about that. I referred to the paper that said that isolation caused a feeling of entrapment, resulting in high suicides. This first nation community I mentioned had a high rate of suicide. After a road was built to it, the feeling of isolation was eliminated and suicides stopped. There were no suicides last year in this community. Prior to that there had been many. The indigenous peoples attributed it to the fact that they no longer have the feeling of isolation or entrapment, which is exactly what solitary confinement does.Again, in the interest of mental health, we are moving in the right direction. This is a great move to follow through on, but I also support rehabilitative steps so people can re-enter society and play a productive role in it.The prisoners I meet when I go to the prisons impress me. Most of them have just made a mistake. They are serving their time. They want to get back out. They want to play a role in the community and be productive citizens. The bill is all about that.We know the administrative segregation rules need updating, and Bill C-83 would do just that. By replacing solitary confinement with structured intervention units, we are going to provide better avenues for our inmates to be productive citizens, finish their terms and come out better trained and be productive citizens.I thank the House for letting me talk about Springhill. Again, this is the 60th anniversary of that horrible disaster on October 23, 1958. I wish all the people in Springhill, who I know are remembering this right now, well. I wish I were there with them.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit559307555930765593077559307855930795593080559308155930825593083559308455930855593086559308755930885593089559309055930915593092559309355930945593095StevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisEvaNassifVimy//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58806EvaNassifEva-NassifVimyLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/NassifEva_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Eva Nassif (Vimy, Lib.): (1610)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impressive speech.I sit on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We heard witnesses from the indigenous community. We noted that a large number of indigenous women who are victims of domestic violence are in prison.Can my colleague explain how Bill C-83 will improve living conditions for women who are victims of domestic violence knowing that a great many of them are in prison?Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWomen559309655930975593098BillCaseyCumberland—ColchesterBillCaseyCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/51BillCaseyBill-CaseyCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaseyBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Bill Casey: (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, again, I come back to my opening statement about how things connect, like Bill C-83 connects with my meeting today with the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention and with my seatmate talking about indigenous efforts and isolation. Bill C-83 would provide a different approach and eliminate solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is probably worse than anything indigenous women experience. Indigenous peoples in my area are family-oriented, have a strong family culture, work together and are very close. To be in solitary confinement or isolated completely would be extremely difficult for indigenous women. I cannot speak for them, but that is my observation based on my experience.I have a really interesting indigenous population in my riding. I work very closely with the people. They are extremely good to work with and very helpful. They are interested in bettering themselves. They are perhaps the most industrious people in my riding. Hopefully this will improve the plight of indigenous women in prison.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWomen559309955931005593101EvaNassifVimyRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1615)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.Although I do believe he has good intentions, I am still a little confused, so I am hoping he can clarify a few things for me.The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the indefinite nature of isolation is unconstitutional. While it has introduced Bill C-83 as a solution to the problem, the government is also appealing the ruling at the same time.If solutions to this problem, which has been deemed unconstitutional, can be found in Bill C-83, why is the government appealing the ruling? Are we supposed to believe that the introduction of structured intervention units is really going to address the concerns raised in the court ruling, when really all this does is reduce the number of hours spent in isolation from 22 or 23 to “just” 20 hours a day?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55931025593103559310455931055593106BillCaseyCumberland—ColchesterBillCaseyCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/51BillCaseyBill-CaseyCumberland—ColchesterLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaseyBill_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Bill Casey: (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, I am the furthest thing there is from a constitutional lawyer. I appreciate the question, but I cannot address the lawsuit.I talked with some correctional officers before I decided to speak. They said that in their opinion this would be a vast improvement. One of them said that after 24 hours in confinement, the impact on a person was profound. At one week, it would be even more profound. People can be in solitary confinement for a month, sometimes 100 days, or more than three months, and it changes them. It hurts their mental health.I cannot answer the question about the constitutional lawsuit, but this bill goes in the right direction.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement559310755931085593109RobertAubinTrois-RivièresJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. I will start by saying that it should come as no surprise that this side of the House feels quite differently than the government side with respect to the legislation.One of the more profound statements I have recently read on this was in a newspaper article by Jason Godin, national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. He was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying, “attacks on guards and inmates have been increasing as the use of segregation has decreased ahead of new legislation to change the prison system.” His words are profound, likely prophetic, when he says, “When this goes through, the bloodbath will start.” That was his prediction with respect to this legislation. We should all heed the advice of somebody like Mr. Godin as we look at enacting legislation that has some serious flaws with respect to the protection of prison guards and what the implications of that could mean for them and their families.Bill C-83 proposes to make changes to how inmates are treated when incarcerated. It also makes changes to that which will affect the safety of corrections staff, guards, health care providers and others. We must remember as well that it is not just guards in the prison system. There are health care providers and resource people who work there as well. It should be the ultimate goal of any legislation to ensure we protect them.The bill proposes that new safety procedures be put in place. The government believes it will keep inmates safe and prevent any unwanted items from getting into correctional facilities. The government is also planning to introduce body scanners to federal penitentiaries. As well, it is very keen to discuss the SIUs, the new model for the structured intervention units, a replacement for solitary confinement, formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, female offenders and offenders with mental health issues. All of these exceptions are important to having correctional services that can obviously help offenders while they are in jail.Let me take a few minutes to speak specifically about solitary confinement. I have no knowledge or any sort of familiarity with it, but the use of solitary confinement is a serious one. It is used for serious criminals who are convicted of some of the worst crimes that anyone can imagine. The need for the use of solitary confinement must also be balanced with the care that the inmate receives and, more important, the safety of the guards and other staff within the prison system. Sadly, in some cases, the use of solitary confinement has been abused. In Ontario, for example, two official offices have investigated the use of solitary confinement. First, the provincial advocate for youth published a report in 2017 called, “Missed Opportunities: The Experience of Young Adults Incarcerated in Federal Penitentiaries”. The report called for sweeping changes to how youth were treated in federal institutions. Among some of the key recommendations in the report were that Correctional Service Canada, CSC, add a flag in the offender management system that would allow the CSC to track individuals with a youth sentence transferred to an adult federal penitentiary; that CSC develop a gang disaffiliation strategy that would be responsive to the needs of young indigenous offenders, women offenders as well; and ensure that non-gang affiliated young offenders were not placed where there would be gang members who might attempt to recruit, indoctrinate or intimidate them.The Ontario chief human rights commissioner also wrote about the use of solitary confinement and added that there was, in that case, a need for a culture shift in how indigenous prisoners, women prisoners and prisoners with mental health issues were treated. Of course, many in the House and those who have followed this closely will recall the tragic incident involving solitary confinement in the case of Adam Capay. (1620)Adam Capay spent four years in solitary confinement while waiting for a trial, and he had not even been convicted while he was in solitary. It is a very sad story. Adam was held in solitary for 23 hours a day with the lights on, and was in solitary for more than four years when we combine his time in the Thunder Bay facility with time in the Kenora jail. We can all agree that what happened to Mr. Capay and what he went through should never happen again. The Ontario government looked into this following reports by the chief human rights commissioner on the treatment of Adam Capay in Thunder Bay. Solitary confinement is a common and legitimate safety measure that protects guards from dangerous prisoners. Solitary confinement is also a tool for keeping other inmates safe from dangerous offenders, but again, we should all agree that it should never be abused.What about the guards? What about the health care providers? What about the staff and those who work within the prison system, including mental health professionals, for example? It has been stated by others on this side of the House that Bill C-83 does not take into consideration the safety of corrections staff. The men and women who work in those institutions deserve to be able to go home every day to their husbands, their wives, and their children. The spouses, parents and children of corrections workers deserve to have their spouses, daughters, sons and parents in a safe workplace. Bill C-83 would give more flexibility to the lives of inmates while almost maintaining the status quo for staff. The bill would take away solitary confinement as a tool. As I just mentioned, it is also used to protect other staff and other inmates from very dangerous inmates and extremely critical and dangerous situations. Bill C-83 would do nothing to deter the bad behaviour of inmates.When we look at some of the financial implications of how this bill is being rolled out, I wonder if what is being proposed in Bill C-83 strikes the balance of what we need when it comes to the use of solitary confinement. There has been no cost assigned or studied in Bill C-83. I wonder if what the government wants to achieve with this bill can be fully met, considering the reduction in funding to federal correctional services. There will be a very large impact, with up to 150 full-time employees lost through reductions in budgets. On Thursday of last week, my colleague from Calgary Shepard raised important issues about the cost of Bill C-83. He also raised some serious concerns that the government is reducing budgets for Correctional Service Canada. Let me read what the member for Calgary Shepard said when he asked the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith a question, because he expressed it far better than I can:[I]n reading the British Columbia decision rendered by Justice Leask he looked at the cruel and unusual punishment provision and said, in paragraph 534, that it is actually not cruel and unusual. He declines to rule against it as a section 12 violation. He finds that it is not unconstitutional to have solitary confinement, only when it is indefinite and prolonged.The member for Calgary Shepard continued:I want to talk about the budgetary impact of this legislation. In the public safety minister's departmental plan there is a projected reduction of 8.8% in real terms, in actual financial resources, being given to Correctional Services, and a reduction of 150 FTEs over the next few years. This bill seems rushed; it is thin on concrete actions and needs to be looked at long and hard at committee. I know that when we vote on this later tonight, there is a strong likelihood that it will pass at this reading and end up at committee, but when it gets there, serious work will need to be done, in particular in relation to making sure that correctional facilities staff are better protected. Members of the opposition and the NDP have all expressed concerns with respect to Bill C-83 that need to be discussed in committee. The Conservatives are very concerned that the government is again giving priority to dangerous offenders; this needs public scrutiny and to be talked about at committee. As I close, I will quote some words of wisdom from the member for Spadina—Fort York, who said, “No one wants to be in jail.” Well, some people deserve to be in jail.Aboriginal peoplesBudget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementWorkplace health and safety55931105593111559311255931135593114559311555931165593117559311855931195593120559312155931225593123559312455931255593126559312755931285593129559313055931315593132BillCaseyCumberland—ColchesterMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, earlier in my colleague's speech he quoted the vice-president of the union. I will also provide him with a quote from May 2014, when the Conservatives were in government. Global News quoted the national president for the same union, Kevin Grabowsky, who said, “The violence is on the rise and it's a big concern for, certainly, correctional officers.”The auditor general at the time was quoted as saying, “Correctional Services Canada has identified themselves that with overcrowding there can be risks to security in their facilities.”This is a stark underpinning of the difference between the approaches to corrections we see from this side of the House versus the other. All of a sudden, the Conservatives seem to be very concerned with the safety of the correctional officers, yet in 2014, they were encouraging over-bunking and double-bunking, which is exactly what the guards were against.How can that member actually stand in the House now and try to make it seem as though the Conservatives are the champions of correctional officers, when in 2014 they did the exact opposite, creating extremely unsafe conditions for them?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety5593133559313455931355593136JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. John Brassard: (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, I thought I was giving a very reasoned argument as to some of the flaws that exist within the bill. We also understand that the current executive of the correctional safety officers' union is quite concerned about this, so much so that I quoted Mr. Godin, who is the president, as saying that this could lead to a bloodbath. Going into a point-counterpoint and blaming one group or another seems to be the consistent practice of the Liberal government as they look back over our 10 years instead of looking at their failed records or perhaps a failed piece of legislation. All I am asking is, if Mr. Godin is saying this on behalf of his correctional officers, should it not be the ultimate priority of any government and of the House to make sure that these correctional officers are in a safe environment? Should they not be consulted? Furthermore, should we not expect that they go home to their families at the end of a long day of doing incredibly hard work within that prison system? That is all I am asking. I am not looking at a point-counterpoint. I provided a very reasoned argument as to some of the concerns with this piece of legislation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety559313755931385593139MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): (1630)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague across the aisle.Bill C-83 does actually contain legislation that is quite progressive. At present, victims have the right to access audio recordings of parole hearings only if they do not attend. However, some people fear that given the emotional nature of those hearings, it might be hard for victims to recall all the details of the proceedings. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on that.I wonder if he could also talk about body scanners. In an effort to combat drugs and contraband, the bill authorizes the use of body scanners, like the ones used at airports, which will be less intrusive for inmates and visitors.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond reading559314055931415593142JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. John Brassard: (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, on the issue of body scanners, there are obviously aspects of the bill that we can agree with. First and foremost is the fact that body scanners should be used. They should be used for everyone entering into the prison system. At the end of the day, it goes back to providing a safe working environment, not only for the prisoners but also for those who work there as guards, mental health professionals and other staff, as well as for those who enter into the prison system, perhaps, to visit those who are incarcerated. There is no question that body scanners are a reliable tool. Certainly they have been used at airports for a long time. They do a great job of addressing what can be on a person's body and whether that instrument is dangerous and could potentially impact the health and safety of those who are within the prison system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond reading55931435593144LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88984PattyHajduHon.Patty-HajduThunder Bay—Superior NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HajduPatty_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, Lib.): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a joy to be here today in support of Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.I heard some of the debate this afternoon, and I would say we all share the goal of safe communities. We all want to be secure in the knowledge that when offenders return to their communities, our corrections system has done its job, supported their rehabilitation and prepared them to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives. For the corrections system to succeed in that regard, safety and security have to go hand in hand with rehabilitative programming and treatment. I am proud to stand here today and know that principle is at the core of the bold new measures the government is taking to transform federal corrections. Bill C-83 will strengthen the federal corrections system, making it safer and more effective at rehabilitation. The bill will end the practice of segregation. It will establish structured intervention units, or SIUs, to safely manage inmates when they cannot otherwise be managed in the mainstream inmate population, without denying them access to programs, interventions and treatment. Bill C-83 will also enshrine in law the principle that offender management decisions must involve consideration of systemic and background factors related to indigenous offenders. It will also strengthen health care governance, allow for the use of new search technologies, and enhance support for victims at parole hearings.Key to this landmark legislation is that with SIUs, the practice of segregation will become a thing of the past. Currently, if an offender is considered dangerous to themselves or others, or is at risk of being harmed, they can be placed in segregation if there is no other reasonable alternative. Segregation has remained a common practice over the years. Recent policy changes by the Correctional Service of Canada led to a significant decline in segregation placements, from over 700 on any given day a few years ago, to just over 300 today. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the practice remains subject to criticism in and out of the courts. Stakeholders, including the Office of the Correctional Investigator and offender advocacy groups, have raised concern about its effects, particularly on inmates suffering from mental health issues. In the courts, recent decisions in both Ontario and British Columbia called for legislative reform to the practice, and they have called for improvements to the provision of mental health services within corrections institutions. All of this is on top of class actions and human rights complaints. At the same time, others have argued that segregation is necessary to ensure that correctional institutions remain safe for employees and for people in custody. The safety of correctional staff must always be an overarching consideration. Our correctional institutions are full of dedicated, hard-working staff who work long hours in sometimes very challenging circumstances to make a positive difference by promoting rehabilitation and protecting communities. Until now, they have had very few alternatives to segregation when isolating an inmate for security or safety reasons. However, we now have an opportunity to address this problem. Bill C-83 will eliminate segregation altogether and establish structured intervention units. These SIUs will provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in difficult circumstances. They will help to manage offenders who could not otherwise be managed safely. In an SIU, inmates will receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs. Every day, they will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell, and that will include at least two hours of meaningful human interaction. In the existing segregation system, by contrast, people only get two hours out of their cell and little or no meaningful interaction with other people. With Bill C-83, offenders will have the ability to work towards the objectives in their correctional plans, thanks to a focus on interventions. They will have daily visits from health care professionals. Ultimately, the idea is to facilitate safe reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. To that end, placements in SIUs will be subject to a robust system of review. An initial review by the institution's warden will happen within five days. If the person remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews will be done by the warden after 30 days and by the commissioner every 30 days thereafter. Also, at any time, a health care professional can recommend a change in conditions or a transfer out of the SIU.(1635)Importantly, the bill would also enshrine in law the principle that health care professionals within the correctional system must have the autonomy to exercise their own medical judgment. As recommended by the Ashley Smith inquest, it would create a system of patient advocates who would help ensure that people got the medical treatment they needed. For all these reasons, Bill C-83 would represent a substantial change in the right direction. We have an opportunity to act now to improve correctional outcomes, reduce violent incidents and ensure a safe environment for inmates, staff, volunteers and the institutions as a whole. We have the opportunity to contribute to community and public safety by supporting bold new proposals that would assist with the rehabilitation of offenders, reducing the risk of reoffending and keeping our communities safe.I urge all members to join me in supporting these very important changes.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety5593147559314855931495593150559315155931525593153559315455931555593156559315755931585593159559316055931615593162CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJohnBarlowFoothills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister spoke quite a bit in her speech about the importance of safety. However, an aspect of segregation and solitary confinement is safety, the safety of not only the inmate who is the target of other inmates but the safety of inmates who may be at risk from the inmate who is to be segregated. It is also a safety issue for the guards and personnel who work in those facilities. I am curious as to what measures the Liberals have taken. We have certainly heard from the employee unions that are involved, which have great concerns about parts of Bill C-83. I would like to ask the minister what steps the government has taken to ensure the safety of those guards. If steps have been taken to ensure their safety, why are they so concerned about the steps being taken in Bill C-83 to eliminate solitary confinement? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55931635593164PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88984PattyHajduHon.Patty-HajduThunder Bay—Superior NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HajduPatty_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Patty Hajdu: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I come to this debate with a considerable amount of experience, having worked with very vulnerable populations. I ran the largest homeless shelter in northwestern Ontario for a number of years. In fact, the shelter was where many released inmates landed after their experience in prison. While working in that extremely volatile environment, I learned that one of the best ways to protect the staff who served those people day in and day out, often in very difficult situations and with very little support from the external community, was to ensure that we had the best opportunities for mental health care for those people we supported in that shelter. We made sure that our staff worked with health care professionals to assess their mental health and to encourage better mental health. Through budget 2017-18, we have dedicated a significant amount of money toward the mental health of inmates. I can tell members that when people feel more positive about their future, they are less violent. They are less aggressive. When they have inclusion and the ability to see another human being and to work on the challenges that led them to incarceration, they have an opportunity to reduce their violent tendencies.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55931655593166JohnBarlowFoothillsGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1640)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments. It is always interesting to hear different opinions, particularly when they come from a member of cabinet.I listened carefully to what was said about the respect we all have for those who work in this very difficult field. One of my childhood friends worked in that field for many years. As everyone knows, this type of work puts a lot of pressure on those who do it, as well as on their families and loved ones.That being said, the minister said that we need to take workers' concerns into account. After all, they are the first to be in close proximity to imprisoned criminals.Could the minister explain why the government did not take those workers' concerns into account in her bill?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety5593167559316855931695593170PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88984PattyHajduHon.Patty-HajduThunder Bay—Superior NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HajduPatty_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Patty Hajdu: (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, I would say that it is precisely because of the concern for the safety of correctional officers that we are taking this step. Certainly it is about rehabilitation, but it is also about lessening experiences of violence, which are often exacerbated by the experience of segregation. When people do not have access to other human beings, when people do not see that they are even considered human, it increases the risk of violence and violent tendencies. We saw that in the shelter I ran, day in and day out. When people feel that they do not have any hope of any interaction with human beings, when they have no sense of how long they are going to remain in that state, when they are not getting the mental health supports they need, they, in fact, become increasingly unpredictable. We want to ensure that our corrections system is safe for those who work in the system and that when offenders are released, they have had rehabilitation so that they can go back to the community with the capacity to function in a way that is improved and have the supports they need to be rehabilitated back into society.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55931715593172GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to sit here during last Friday's debate, where I listened to some of the best lawyers and legal minds who are members of Parliament, including the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. When we start listening to the statistics, when we are talking about all these things that are occurring in our correctional system, there are many different things we have to look at. We have extremely diverse opinions here.One thing we talked about was the fact that correctional officers have not been talked to, so I am going to start with something I put forward last week. It is a quote from my friend Jason, who is a correctional officer. He said, “No profession has hit the toilet [like] corrections in the last several years. Violence, contraband, assault on staff are skyrocketing. Why? Total lack of consequence for behaviour. Eliminating segregation has handcuffed us. Now, no question segregation exacerbates mental health, but we have no choice. Violent offenders continue assaulting, and easy victims continue being preyed upon. We continually have people making changes based on concepts, not reality.”Today we are discussing Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. With the members in this House, I recognize that these views are greatly diverse. I am listening to the questions and answers today. What one member may say goes against my entire moral code on this. We have different ideas on the rights of criminals versus what the rights of victims, the use of segregation versus proposed intervention units, and drugs in prison.Drugs in prison has become a huge issue. It is not just an issue that has come about in the last 10 years. We can find studies done decades ago that show the same trend. While the Liberals put forward policies for needle exchange programs in the jail, I believe we should focus on getting the drugs out of the jails altogether. We can talk about safe injection sites. This is a huge debate in Ontario. What do safe injection sites do to communities and what should we be doing to help those who have long-term addictions? One of the things they say is that it is about saving people's lives, getting them back on track, and making sure that people do not die in back alleys.I am going to remind the government that prisons are not those dark alleys. When we talk about safe injection sites, we are talking about getting people off the streets, putting them into an area where they can have safe injections, and truly hoping that wraparound services are available to them. I question why we are starting at step one and providing safe injection sites in prisons in the first place. Yes, it is a very difficult thing, but this is not a back alley. It is a prison, where there are well-educated, trained and skilled staff who deal with these issues. We should actually be going in a trajectory moving forward, not just compensating for the drugs. There have been so many concerns about convicted criminals and the use of illegal drugs. We have to keep in mind that we are talking about convicted criminals. We are talking about people who are being put in jail for summary or felony offences and what their lives should be like. We have talked very much about Tori Stafford and her abuser, the person who murdered her. We have talked about maximum-security and minimum-security. We are talking about a horrific murderer going from a place where there may be institutional walls to a healing lodge. I have heard from hundreds of constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London who are saying that she is living a better life than they are. When talking to Canadians, a lot of times it is one of the things they are going to say, that people in jail have a better life than they do. They get meals, they get their hydro paid for, all those things that some people living in poverty, and especially in our middle class, have to deal with every day.I want to continue with the segregation part. Yes, I believe there are extreme situations where we must look at the use of segregation. Sometimes it is used to protect the criminal from the rest of the population, and other times it is used because an offender is a danger to the rest of the population, including the guards.In a court decision by Justice Marrocco, he found that administrative segregation itself was constitutional. Of course, we are going to have others who believe that this is cruel and unusual punishment. There are parties that will disagree with this whole philosophy and say that we cannot segregate people and that they need to have personal time and the humanity side of it. (1645)I have a problem when talking about this. We are talking about humanity for someone who is alive versus humanity for somebody who may have been murdered or is disabled for the rest of his or her life because of a criminal. I think the mother in me is asking, “Where is the justice here?” Those are some of my key priorities when we are looking at this.I have always believed in putting victims first. I think we have lost that side of this debate, because we are always asking what can we do to rehabilitate these criminals. I totally agree that there are some criminals who can be rehabilitated, but there are those people who have done horrific things, and we are sitting here saying that they have to have poetry readings and they have to learn how to cook and their lives will be better. We have to take a really hard look at ourselves and ask if we are really going to manage that. It is a compassionate idea, but it is not reality. We have to recognize that crimes have a harmful impact on victims and on society. A bill was put forward by the last government on the Victims Bill of Rights. It is something I want to share with the House today. When I work for the people of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I work for victims' families 100% of the time to make sure that they are taken care of. I am going to read the preamble of the bill to the House: Whereas victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect, including respect for their dignity; Whereas it is important that victims' rights be considered throughout the criminal justice system; Whereas victims of crime have rights that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Whereas consideration of the rights of victims of crime is in the interest of the proper administration of justice; Whereas the federal, provincial and territorial governments share responsibility for criminal justice; Whereas, in 1988, the federal, provincial and territorial governments endorsed the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and, in 2003, the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, 2003; All this being said, I recognize that some circumstances should be reviewed, including sexual violence and abuse. A lot of times when we are talking about vulnerable communities in these institutions, there may be issues that put people in there in the first place.Not everyone agrees with the use of Gladue reports, but if we have Gladue reports, with appropriate writers, people who understand how to write a Gladue report, they can put all that imperative information forward at sentencing to decide how the person should be treated.We talk a lot about truth and reconciliation. We recognize that we have had residential schools and that there has been intergenerational trauma. By no means am I saying that the person should not be looked at a bit differently. I am saying that. That may go against what some of my fellow Conservative colleagues may agree with, but I think these are things we have to go forward with. We have to look at all of these things. Gladu reports are something I support.I will return to my friend's quote and the concern about drugs and contraband in jails. We need to find a solution. Is the solution making sure that we have needle exchange programs? For me, the concept of scanners is a positive option to find out what is actually entering prisons. We know that we have a problem. What is the reason, and how can we find a solution? The concept of these scanners is really positive. I look at them as a solution. I want to go back to my daughter, who has graduated from the protection, security and investigation program. She has had the opportunity to work in some different facilities. She is currently working in security with a large company, and she works on a hotline dealing with victims of crime. Her bottom line is, and this is a quote from Marissa, "There is something missing, and drugs continue to get into the jails". In putting in scanners, should we be expanding that to guests as well? As a graduate and employee in the security field, Marissa's concern about drugs in jails has only been elevated since she graduated, because she sees it more and more each and every day.We have a big social issue in these places. We always have to remind ourselves that we have to be there for the victims of crime, because they have had their rights taken away. Some people see justice differently. I see justice as the fact that I would want to know that if someone murdered my child, he or she would remain in jail for a long time.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCanadian Victims Bill of RightsConstitutionalityCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersNeedle exchange programSecond readingSmugglingSolitary confinementVictims of crime55931735593174559317555931765593177559317855931795593180559318155931825593183559318455931855593186559318755931885593189559319055931915593192559319355931945593195559319655931975593198559319955932005593201PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86786CelinaCaesar-ChavannesCelina-Caesar-ChavannesWhitbyIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaesarChavannesCelina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Lib.): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I too am a mom. I am hoping to be able to speak to this piece of legislation from possibly a different perspective, but I do want to talk about the needle exchanges within prisons. The member talked about safety in prison, including for staff. Right now in federal prisons, the incidence of HIV is 10 times higher than among the general population. If a needle is brought in and shared among many in the population, it is very dangerous for the guards and staff. That said, needle exchanges in communities are based on international evidence that they decrease infectious disease. There is no correlation with increased violence or increased drug use, but needle exchanges do decrease infectious disease and allow people to move toward treatment.Does she not believe that until we get to a point where we could totally eliminate drugs, the evidence for needle exchanges allows for a safer context?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programSecond reading5593202559320355932045593205KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, as I indicated, the safe injection sites that we see in our communities are a lot different from what we see in our jails. There are different ways of looking at this. I recognize that when people go to jail, a lot of times there are issues with substance abuse. We should not sitting there and saying, okay, here is a wraparound approach. We have to recognize that what got them there in the first place may have been the use of drugs and alcohol.We also know there are a lot of gangs within these institutions and that drug trafficking happen to be one of the things they are taking part in for their own wealth. That is also how they are in charge of many of these issues. They are in charge of other people because of the cartel that they have within the jails.I recognize the compassion that we have for this, but I want to go back to Nancy Reagan's approach and say, “Just say no”. There has to be a point in time when we just stop this. That is what I believe when it comes to correctional systems, just say no and stop this.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNeedle exchange programSecond reading559320655932075593208CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88687NathanielErskine-SmithNathaniel-Erskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Erskine-SmithNathaniel_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith (Beaches—East York, Lib.): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been a while since I studied criminal law and the purposes of the criminal justice system. Certainly, I would agree with the member that retribution is an incredibly important principle that underpins our criminal justice system and why we mete out significant penalties for egregious crimes.The member spoke about rehabilitation as only about fairness and a matter of humanity. I would ask the member to think about it a little differently, as a matter of public safety. Most criminals do not stay in the system forever, so as a matter of keeping our communities safe, rehabilitation plays an incredibly important role. I wonder if the member could speak to that aspect of the importance of rehabilitation, which is a matter of public safety.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55932095593210KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, I recognize that rehabilitation is a big issue that we could be addressing here, but we also have to remember that there are those who may not be rehabilitated. When we talk about this, we talk programming, programming, programming. What is actually occurring in these institutions and why have the correctional officers, who are a big part of this, not been part of this bill and not brought in for consultations on this? They are part of the solution and I do not think the government has used any of the information and evidence that correctional officers find in their day-to-day work that would help with this.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593211NathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East YorkJohnBarlowFoothills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister talked a lot about safety and making sure that criminals feel better about themselves. I do not think solitary confinement is about ensuring that the worst of the worst feel better about themselves. I would like the member's opinion on what we should be focusing on when it comes to incarceration of the most vicious criminals in Canada.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593212KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, the one thing that comes to mind is the movie The Shawshank Redemption. Any time we talk about people being in segregation, we are talking about Tim Robbins being put in a hole and having to stay there for months.Rehabilitation is necessary for those who are not horrific offenders. I think about the crimes people have committed. Do people who have raped young children deserve all of this? Or, what do we do? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55932135593214JohnBarlowFoothillsRichardMartelChicoutimi—Le Fjord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1655)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about Bill C-83 because it is of personal concern to me and because I was asked to do so by a number of correctional officers who told me that they feel as though they were not sufficiently consulted during the drafting of this bill.If the government would take the time to listen to our correctional officers, it would find that they think eliminating administrative segregation in correctional facilities is a bogus solution to a bogus problem. Administrative segregation is not used as punishment. It is a risk management tool. The threat of solitary confinement must always be present in order to act as a deterrent, guarantee a certain amount of discipline and enforce compliance in correctional institutions. That discipline is essential to the health and safety of our correctional officers.Segregation is a tool of last resort. By taking that tool away from correctional officers, the government is saying that it does not care about their reality. It does not care that more assaults on officers have happened since the use of segregation was restricted. The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has stressed that violence in prison will go up once administrative segregation is scrapped. Union president Jason Godin foresees a bloodbath. Administrative segregation is not used arbitrarily. It is a tool of last resort that protects inmates from others and, sometimes, from themselves.When a new criminal arrives, conflicts can escalate rapidly. The prison population varies from institution to institution. Sometimes, a new inmate is not welcome, and his new peers will be waiting for him. Administrative segregation is used to ensure that inmate's health and safety until such time as officers find appropriate solutions to de-escalate conflict.What should be done with an inmate in medium security who becomes more and more violent and has to be transferred to a maximum-security institution? Should such an inmate be allowed to keep living by his own rules for four hours a day while awaiting transfer? That makes no sense to me.Some inmates altogether refuse to join the general population and also refuse the protective wing. How are we supposed to accommodate these inmates, who want peace and quiet, without abusing public funds? Is it a prison or a five-star hotel? What do I tell my constituents who tell me they would rather go to prison than live in a seniors residence? Correctional officers legitimately wonder what they will do. What tools will be at their disposal when administrative segregation is eliminated? The officers fear that there will be an escalation of violence. They fear for their health and safety, but also for the health and safety of the criminals. Again, what tools will they have to defuse potential retaliations or thwart revenge plots that they may have caught wind of? Are they to leave the inmates to take justice and discipline into their own hands? Correctional officers cannot turn a blind eye and ignore the warnings they get. How are they supposed to enforce compliance? These are bogus solutions to a bogus problem.The commissioner's directives, including CD 843, already cover exceptions for indigenous and female offenders, and offenders with mental health problems.(1700)Mental health is taken very seriously in prisons. Offenders have access to care, and correctional officers are quickly informed when an offender is struggling with mental health issues. They find out fast. Correctional officers have faith in the commissioner's directives, and they refer to them regularly in the performance of their duties.Correctional officers already take mental health issues seriously because they know what kind of impact these issues can have. In fact, they or their colleagues have been through it themselves.Thirty-five percent of first responders, including paramedics, EMTs and correctional officers, will develop symptoms associated with work-related PTSD.This is not an easy work environment. Officers must sometimes use a lot of psychological tactics to de-escalate conflicts. They may face moral and ethical dilemmas that they would not face in the world outside the prison. For example, it is not easy to be a mother or father and to be around a pedophile every day. One of the worst things that could happen would be for an officer to get to work and learn that an inmate had taken his or her own life. Prison guards face many risks. This kind of situation makes them very susceptible to PTSD.Last week, I met with veterans and first responders who spoke to me about Project Trauma Support, a new Canadian program that treats post traumatic stress and operational stress injury in military personnel, veterans and first responders. I was deeply touched by their story and how the centre, located in Perth, Ontario, helped them turn their lives around.It is often very difficult for anyone affected by work-related post-traumatic stress syndrome to access the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, disability insurance or compensation. They may have to wait a long time before accessing counselling or treatment, which is very unfortunate. We know that the earlier problems are addressed, the better the results and the chances to return to active service. Their families also suffer.My colleagues and I hope that Bill C-211 will provide a comprehensive solution to this scourge. However, I wonder why Bill C-83 does not say more about the health and safety of our correctional workers.The Liberal government's history shows that it favours criminals rather than victims. I should not be surprised to find it more interested in the comfort of criminals than the safety of correctional officers.The government also did not consult the union and employees when it announced a needle exchange pilot project.I wonder how providing access to needles to take drugs or create tattoos, thereby providing a potential weapon to criminals, can be perceived as being a good thing.Canadians need to know about the needle exchange program. When an inmate manages to illegally bring a drug into prison, he can ask the nurse for a needle and he will get one. The nurse and the government know very well that the needle will be used for illicit purposes.(1705)The correctional officer does not know that he will be at greater risk during the next check of the inmate's cell. What message are they sending?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthNeedle exchange programPost-traumatic stress syndromeSecond readingSolitary confinementWorkplace health and safety559321555932165593217559321855932195593220559322155932225593223559322455932255593226559322755932285593229559323055932315593232559323355932345593235KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from the beautiful Chicoutimi and Saguenay region. I find this to be a bit much. We are talking about an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, but that is not really what we heard.I would like him to talk about victims services. He did not say a word about the audio recordings of parole hearings. They currently do not have access to that. Some fear that because of the emotional nature of the hearings, it is difficult for the victims to recall details. However, the inmates would have access to the recordings during parole hearings. I would like to hear the hon. member's thoughts on this and on the scanners. When the new technology is installed at the detention centres, it could be used for both visitors and inmates. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559323855932395593240CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRichardMartelChicoutimi—Le Fjord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Richard Martel: (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have talked to correctional officers and what concerns me is that it is going to be extremely difficult for our correctional officers if they no longer have administrative segregation at their disposal.When something happens, correctional officers are often first on the scene. I would like the government to consider that and understand that correctional officers will have an extremely tough time gaining control if they cannot use administrative segregation. If the prisoner realizes that administrative segregation is not being replaced by anything else, he might end up doing things he otherwise would not have. I think that it is extremely important to keep that in mind for correctional officers' sake.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55932415593242LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesRobertAubinTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71560RobertAubinRobert-AubinTrois-RivièresNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AubinRobert_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech. Our opinions differ on many subjects, and while I realize we are miles apart on this one too, a number of his arguments did strike a chord. I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that two legal rulings have found administrative segregation to be unconstitutional. In my opinion, protecting people who work in those environments must be a consideration, but segregation is no way to treat inmates with mental illness. Can the member reconcile what he just said with those notions of constitutionality and mental health treatment? C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading559324355932445593245RichardMartelChicoutimi—Le FjordRichardMartelChicoutimi—Le Fjord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Richard Martel: (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, on the subject of administrative segregation, I believe the duration was reduced. On the other, I think that there needs to be appropriate mental health screening of inmates.To my mind, if the government takes the crucially important tool that is administrative segregation away from correctional officers, and prisoners know that means they may be transferred elsewhere for their own protection, I have no doubt they will do things they would not do if administrative segregation were here to stay. That is how I see it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading55932465593247RobertAubinTrois-RivièresLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.): (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.As my colleague said, administrative segregation has been widely criticized by stakeholders and has been subject to legal challenges.This bill will eliminate administrative segregation and replace it with structured intervention units, which provide secure environments for inmates who must be separated from the general prison population to receive targeted interventions and real human interaction.The bill will also make changes in connection to health care, the management of indigenous offenders, victims' access to audio recordings of parole hearings, and search technology to keep contraband out of prisons. These are the objectives of Bill C-83.I was here on Friday, like many other colleagues, when we were studying this bill at second reading. We talked about it and we are still talking about it today.Earlier our colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame said that the purpose of detention centres is to rehabilitate inmates so they can reintegrate into society. Yes, they are there because they have committed a crime, but we need to help them reintegrate into society so they can eventually contribute to it once they have made it through the detention part of their sentence.The unemployment rate is at its lowest in 40 years. We need all the talent we can get in our society. Once inmates have served their sentence, they need to integrate and participate in our society. This means that, during their incarceration, they must be able to take training and, if they have mental health issues, they need to see the appropriate professionals.Before I was an MP, I was fortunate to be in business, and I had contracts supplying food to some of the detention centres in my region, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, including the Federal Training Centre in Laval and Leclerc Institution. There were maximum-security and medium-security detention centres, as well as centres for inmates who were nearing the end of their sentence and were getting ready to reintegrate into society. Yes, some inmates do reintegrate into society.Some of those contacts were with family living units, where people work as a team to learn to cook. When inmates are released from a detention centre, they need to be independent. In short, I had those kinds of interactions, and the ultimate goal was for inmates to be able to reintegrate and participate in society. As I said earlier, there are maximum-security penitentiaries for inmates who are not yet ready to be transferred to a medium-security centre or a centre where inmates are getting ready to be released.Mental health services must also be available for people who need them. That is true, and should be one of the first things noted. We need to prepare inmates to return to a normal life in our society and help them get the training they need.The bill requires inmates in administrative segregation to spend four hours outside their cell so that they have contact with other people in the prison system and health professionals, but also with outside visitors. They need to be able to continue to see people from outside the prison walls if we want them to be able to reintegrate into society. Of course, they also need to continue to have access to training programs.One of my colleagues said earlier that this bill needs to go further, that we need to continue the debate and that all members need to have an opportunity to express their views.I would like to continue to talk about the purpose of this bill. Our priority, as a government, is to ensure the safety of Canadians. It seems to me that the Conservatives would be happy to leave people in solitary confinement for years and then send them directly back into our communities. That is what I have been hearing. There are steps to follow, and inmates need to take training.(1715)The best way to protect Canadians, our fellow citizens, is to ensure that offenders serving their sentence in a controlled prison environment, whether it is a minimum, medium or maximum-security facility, get the help and treatment they need to reduce their chances of reoffending.What is more, what we are proposing is very different from the current system. Structured intervention units will double the number of hours inmates spend outside their cells and guarantee them a minimum of two hours a day of real human interaction, whether it be with staff, volunteers, health care providers, seniors, chaplains, visitors or other compatible offenders. Inmates will have daily visits from a health care professional and access to intervention programs and mental health care. That is very important and we need to always keep that in mind. The whole system will be designed so as to address the factors that make the individual a risk and help that individual reintegrate into the general prison population.In structured intervention units, the conditions and resources available will be different than those in the current system. This bill will also put in place a robust review system. The assignment to a structured intervention unit will be reviewed by the institutional head in the first five days. If the inmate remains there, the head will again review the case after 30 days. The commissioner will also review the case every 30 days after that.The bill will also allow a professional to recommend at any time a change in conditions or the transfer of an inmate. The objective will always be the inmate's safe reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.There is more. The bill will also formalize the possibility of having, for example, maximum-security and minimum-security institutions in the same location. As I mentioned earlier, many years ago I dealt with maximum-security and medium-security prisons. Institutions will always have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate their security level.I asked some questions a little earlier. At present, victims do not have access to audio recordings of parole hearings. The bill will change that.There are also the body scanners. When visitors, inmates or employees enter the institution, the search will be less invasive, but we will be able to scan people to ensure no contraband enters the prison.We will be very pleased to support Bill C-83, and I hope that my colleagues will have second thoughts about not supporting it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSmugglingStructured intervention unit5593248559324955932505593251559325255932535593254559325555932565593257559325855932595593260559326155932625593263559326455932655593266559326755932685593269RichardMartelChicoutimi—Le FjordMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, I would pose a question in response to the speech from my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.She touched upon the review process. At the heart of the British Columbia Supreme Court decision, as well as the Ontario Superior Court decision, both courts called on an independent review process upon a determination being made as to the status of an inmate from an institutional head.That independent review mechanism is noticeably lacking in Bill C-83. If the purported objective of Bill C-83 is to respond to court decisions, why the absence?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559327055932715593272LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe: (1720)[Translation]Madam Speaker, our government's Bill C-83 will strengthen the federal correctional system, aligning its practices with sound evidence. It will also use the latest best practices to rehabilitate inmates and better prepare them for safe reintegration into our communities. Reintegration into society is important. I talked about that earlier. We need everyone's talents. When people reintegrate into society, everyone wins.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5593273MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86786CelinaCaesar-ChavannesCelina-Caesar-ChavannesWhitbyIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaesarChavannesCelina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Lib.): (1720)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.I have listened to the Conservatives say that this will endanger Correctional Service Canada staff. However, this bill will make more resources available for reintegration programs, mental health care and other interventions and services for Correctional Service Canada staff.Would the member comment on how this measure will enhance safety within Correctional Service Canada?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading559327455932755593276LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe: (1720)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague. I thank her for her question.We have to make sure inmates do their time. We also have to help them reintegrate into the mainstream prison population and, later, into society. That happens in stages, and we need to provide them with services.My colleague is asking whether there will be more staff. As I see it, since the goal is to help inmates reintegrate into society, we have to help them access any mental health services they might need.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading559327755932785593279CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyAnjuDhillonDorval—Lachine—LaSalle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88453AnjuDhillonAnju-DhillonDorval—Lachine—LaSalleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DhillonAnju_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.): (1720)[Translation]Madam Speaker, people in administrative segregation suffer from hallucinations. They start seeing things that are not there and they are no longer able to distinguish between reality and fantasy.Do you think that people in administrative segregation could reintegrate into society when they leave prison? These people are deeply affected. Will this benefit our society?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55932805593281LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88601LindaLapointeLinda-LapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/LapointeLinda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Lapointe: (1720)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I slip up too sometimes. We can always do better. It is true that when inmates spend too much time in segregation they can be disconnected from reality. There are steps to follow. Inmates are put in segregation for a reason, but they should not be cut off from the rest of the world. They have to have human interaction.As I said earlier, the bill provides for inmates to be able to meet with health professionals, volunteers, chaplains, among others. Inmates in segregation have to be able to see other people and socialize. However, there are steps to be followed before returning them to the general population and before they can reintegrate into society. Being isolated all day is not normal and can lead to problems.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559328455932855593286CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, last week, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. I rise in the House today to address some serious concerns that the Conservatives have with regard to Bill C-83.This bill seeks to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities and replace it with structured intervention units; to use prescribed body scanners for inmates; to establish parameters for access to health care; and to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health conditions. While this bill contains some reasonable measures that are worth considering in order to change and improve the overall prison program, we need to examine it closely to ensure we are making the best decisions and changes possible to the prison program.In recent Supreme Court decisions, the legality of indefinite stays in solitary confinement has been challenged. However, the government is appealing both of those decisions. This legislation applies to transfers, and would allow the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary or to any area within a penitentiary. In a maximum-security penitentiary, nothing gets in or out without the strictest controls. Maximum security means maximum security. As I understand it, with this new legislation, a maximum-security classification could be assigned to any area of a medium- or minimum-security penitentiary. If that is not the case, we need some clarification. A maximum-security facility has an entire perimeter and security system that is designed to guarantee maximum security. If they were to change a section of a minimum- or medium-security penitentiary, would the security measures also be put into place?This bill has one very good idea, and that is to use body scanners. However, it should be expanded to include anyone who enters the facility who is not an inmate or an employee. Body-scan searches would make it possible to control at least 95% of the substances that individuals bring into prisons because they show whether there is anything hidden on a person's body. It is no secret that all kinds of things are brought into prisons.This legislation also proposes to eliminate administrative segregation in corrections facilities and replace it with a newly created structured intervention unit. Solitary confinement is a common and legitimate safety measure that many western countries take to protect guards from dangerous and volatile prisoners. The introduction of structured intervention units may pose a risk to prison guards, other inmates and the inmates in question for whom solitary confinement is used for their own safety.Another problem with this bill is reflected in the spirit of the law. These are the worst criminals in Canada. They are murderers, rapists, etc., and they are in maximum-security prisons. The intent of these proposed changes is to create a structured intervention unit for these people. They would spend less time in cells and would be put together to interact. The prison environment is a unique environment. It is a closed environment. The officers who work there are at risk every day because they have to deal with the worst thugs and criminals in Canada. Prisoners want to control their environment as much as possible, like anyone else. This is difficult for our officers who work 24-7 to keep prisoners under control and keep the guards and the rest of the prisoners safe. Taking away disciplinary segregation would make prisons less safe and more dangerous for the guards as they would have to deal with the most volatile prisoners being out and about from their cells for four hours a day.We cannot support Bill C-83 in its present form. There are some things that would work, such as installing scanning equipment; however, we believe that creating structured intervention units would not. Additionally, it is concerning that the government has not been able to tell Canadians how much the implementation of these measures would cost. Correctional Service Canada has confirmed that it is not able to estimate how much the measures in this bill would cost Canadians. The government seems to believe it is acceptable to table uncosted legislation that would increase the comfort of the most violent prisoners at the expense of the taxpayer. (1730)Let us look back at the McClintic case again. This murderer's transfer from a maximum-security prison to an indigenous healing lodge has had a lot of people concerned, upset and talking. This is someone who should be serving her sentence in a maximum-security prison. In a maximum-security prison, such an offender has her own cell. Those offenders eat, sleep and take classes if they so choose, and they can go back to their cells. They are protected because they are living in a maximum-security environment. However, for reasons still not understood, it was decided to send that person to a place with virtually no security. From what I understand, Bill C-83 would allow McClintic's room in the healing lodge to be designated a maximum-security room. Again, it appears as though it is the Liberal government's priority to put the rights and comforts of violent murderers and rapists ahead of the rights of victims.If what I understand is true, then Bill C-83 would be dangerous to Canadians' safety. It does not care about what a maximum-security prison sentence means or what keeping Canadians safe means. Instead, it prioritizes the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals. Instead of changing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to make sure that killers like Terri-Lynne McClintic are kept behind bars, the bill defines and softens the law to make prison time easier for criminals. I think Canadians know that the government is not serious about being tough on crime and it puts Canadians' safety at risk. If this keeps up, things are bound to get worse. The government should be taking rational measures that are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Prisoners have rights, of course, but it is all in the way things are done. The approach outlined in Bill C-83 is not in line with what the Conservatives consider to be an effective way to manage penitentiaries.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMaximum security institutionsMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety5593287559328855932895593290559329155932925593293559329455932955593296559329755932985593299LindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86786CelinaCaesar-ChavannesCelina-Caesar-ChavannesWhitbyIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaesarChavannesCelina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Lib.): (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, I am going to repeat the same things that I have said in my other questions. When we talk about removing administrative segregation and still having the capacity to separate individuals who pose a safety risk, we would separate them from the general population and put them into secure intervention units. Not only that, but we would also give the resources necessary for them to receive mental health services, rehabilitative programming and other interventions so that we can decrease the likelihood that they will continue to pose a safety risk not only to the staff but to other people within the institution. I would ask my colleague if he does not believe that there should be any mercy in this system, and to look at how we can help individuals who are in the prison system be reintegrated back into the prison or back into our communities.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading559330055933015593302DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, when we talk of mercy, we also need to think of mercy for the victims who have been victimized by these people who are put in prison. My colleague understands the same as we do that what this means is that we are going to take these people from segregated cells. However, if members had the opportunity to visit Kingston in the old days, there were inmates such as Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo, Willy Pickton, and some others who were segregated not only for the safety of the guards and other prisoners, but also for their own safety. I am not so sure that we understand exactly what it would have meant to move them all out into the general population. At the same time, they also had all the rights for access to medical personnel, health care, and everything that we talk about here. The bill would not change that. Those provisions are already within the prison system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55933035593304CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1735)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to serve with my colleague from Oxford on the justice committee. He brings a wealth of experience as a police officer and former chief of police. One of the things that we know about Bill C-83's allowing an additional two hours for prisoners to be out of their cells is that it will cost a lot more resources for that to work. While the government is moving ahead with its legislation, the Liberals at the same time are proposing an 8.8% reduction in funding for the Correctional Service of Canada. Out of the 22 priorities for the Correctional Service of Canada, not one of those priorities includes the safety of correctional officers. In the face of the government's mixed up priorities, is it any wonder that the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has criticized Bill C-83?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55933055593306DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1735)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the correctional officers have found this to be full of shortcomings from their perspective. Those might have been alleviated if there had been more discussion and study with them to hear their concerns on a variety of issues. When we look at it, it is exactly as my colleague said: This is going to cost a lot of money that will not improve either the prisoners' safety or the safety of the guards. It is the lack of consultation with the people on the ground, the front-line officers, that is going to create more problems than we anticipate.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety5593307MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonJamieSchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1735)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.As we know, Bill C-83 proposes to implement a new correctional intervention model to eliminate segregation, strengthen health care governance, better support victims in the criminal justice system, and consider the specific needs of indigenous offenders.The purpose of prisons, though, is clear. We have prisons so that we can protect society from those who, as a consequence of various criminally repugnant acts they have committed, have proven to be too great a risk to the broader safety of others. I believe there are cases where criminals can be reformed. We have programs. We provide opportunities for those deemed to pose a reduced security risk to reintegrate into society and become fully functional and productive members of our community.In general, Canadians believe this and we would not want it any other way. However, there are those in our society who cannot be reformed and have committed acts so heinous that we never want them to be free to walk among our families and friends, in our towns and cities, ever again.I am not just thinking of murderers and those who commit assault, like Olson, Bernardo, Homolka, Magnotta, and McClintic. I am also thinking of those individuals whose names will not make headlines across the country, the nameless violent criminals who beat, and steal without remorse from, the most vulnerable in our society.Prisons are their own societal microcosm. We expect that prisoners will follow the rules of the institutions, that they will behave and participate in programs to improve their situation, as I said earlier, in the hope they can reintegrate back into their communities.This speech is not about the goals of sentencing or to debate the merits of different forms of punishment. It is about protecting society in general, victims in particular, and protecting society from those who are most dangerous.It is no wonder that there is violence in prisons. It does not take an academic to explain why, when criminals are placed in a community together, there is a high incidence of crime. Some might say, who cares, that they get what they deserve? However, that is not the consensus within our society.Our correctional facilities are not designed to put prisoners in harm's way. They are designed to protect prisoners from each other, and to protect the men and women in the correctional services.Bill C-83 proposes to change that by removing an important tool in our correctional services staff tool box to protect prisoners and themselves from violence. Indeed, the argument about prison safety often focuses on the most violent prisoners harming other prisoners, or on protecting the most evil, those who have committed such heinous acts, from retribution.We often feel and sometimes forget those who are on the front lines in our institutions who deal directly with these acts of violence, who put themselves in danger to protect prisoners from each other. Eliminating the ability of corrections officers to segregate prisoners from each other will not only put prisoners at serious risk, it will also further endanger our correctional officers. That is unacceptable.Jason Godin, the national president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has told the Vancouver Sun that attacks on officers and inmates have increased as the use of segregation has decreased. If Bill C-83 passes, he predicts that “The bloodbath will start.” While I do not understand the minutia of administering a prison, Godin does as the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. He is not speaking haphazardly or without merit.Bill C-83 calls for more meaningful, human contact. Human contact is important, but not when it is at the end of a fist or a broom handle. Across Canada the number of assaults on staff is projected to rise 32% this fiscal year compared with last year, coinciding with the projected 15% decrease in segregation bed use during that same time.Solitary confinement is a common and legitimate safety measure that many western countries use to protect correctional staff from dangerous and volatile prisoners. Rather than removing this tool, we should be looking at how to prevent the incidents that cause segregation in the first place. We should ensure that mental health screening is completed, that there is a mental health strategy for prisoners, that psychological counselling is available, and that there are adequate staff on duty to ensure the safety of everyone.(1740)We can reduce the use of segregation by other means without removing the tool of segregation for use when necessary. Rather than prioritizing the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals, the Liberals should be prioritizing the safety of the general population within our institutions and the officers who run them. Correctional officers are calling for serious consultation and resources to make it work. They are asking the committee not sacrifice this segregation tool as a necessary tool to deter violent behaviour. Correctional Services Canada has already limited the use of segregation. What correctional officers want now are alternatives to segregation to ensure that prisoners understand there are consequences for their bad behaviour.In the recent ruling, the Ontario Superior Court called into question the legality of indefinite solitary confinement, and the current government has set its sights on appealing that decision. With this I have no issue. However, I wonder why, while appealing this decision, the government is moving forward with Bill C-83. Logically, the introduction of major changes that are at the heart of its appeal make little sense. However, that is not the only thing that does not make much sense. Under this bill, a maximum-security classification could be assigned to any area of a medium or minimum-security penitentiary. The facility in question, whether minimum, medium or maximum, is built to protect society from prisoners designated as a minimum, medium or maximum-security risks. There are different procedures and expectations in place.I am getting the signal that there is no more time, which, unfortunately, is a shame because I had a lot more to say.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMaximum security institutionsMental healthSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety559330855933095593310559331155933125593313559331455933155593316559331755933185593319559332055933215593322559332355933245593325DaveMacKenzieOxfordAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1825)[Translation]Amendment negativedI declare the amendment lost.[English]The next question is on the main motion. Shall I dispense?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: No.[Chair read text of motion to House]The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?Some hon. members: Agreed.Some hon. members: No.The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.Some hon. members: Yea.The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay.The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.And five or more members having risen:C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReasoned amendmentsSecond reading5593343GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1760GeoffReganHon.Geoff-ReganHalifax WestLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ReganGeoff_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1835)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReferred to Committee after second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5593358GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestGeoffReganHon.Halifax West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.): (1000)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to speak to this bill. Over the last couple of days, I have heard a number of speakers in the House who have had varying and interesting opinions with respect to this bill. I think it is safe to say that a lot of work and extensive consultation went into getting to where we are with Bill C-83 at this time.I want to start by congratulating the people who work in our correctional centres across this country. Many of them I have had the opportunity to meet at many different institutions, and some of them I know personally, so I know that their work in our institutions is often not valued in the way it should be. I really believe that the work they do is exceptional and in the best interests of ensuring safety for all who are in our institutions, including themselves.A correctional institution is a unique environment. I believe that all Canadians realize that. They also realize that it needs to be controlled and managed effectively. Doing so in the best interests of the people who work there, the inmates and, ultimately, public safety is going to be truly important and a key to success.When inmates are at risk of causing harm to themselves or others, it really puts our correctional institutions to the test in handling those risks and challenges and mitigating any harm that could come. Correctional staff are tasked every day with making sure that everyone is safe. They need to factor in physical and mental health concerns and consider inmates' correctional plans. High-risk inmates can pose serious management challenges, and in all cases, safety is paramount.Today we have a new opportunity to move forward with a bold new approach to these challenges. Bill C-83 would eliminate the use of segregation in the Canadian federal corrections system. In its place, the bill would create what are called structured intervention units, or SIUs. SIUs would provide an appropriate living environment for inmates who could not be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons. An inmate could be transferred to an SIU only if the commissioner or delegated authority was satisfied that there was no other reasonable alternative and that the inmate's stay there would end as soon as it possibly could. The SIUs would provide inmates with the opportunity for meaningful human contact through programs. They would allow for interventions and services tailored to respond to their specific needs and risks. We have already heard from many of my colleagues about some of the specific needs that are currently not being met and that are causing unsafe and harmful practices. Structured interventions would address the underlying behaviour that led to an inmate's placement in an SIU. Correctional programming would continue. I think it is important that people understand that. During their time in an SIU, inmates would have an opportunity to spend a maximum of four hours a day outside their cells. That is double the number of hours in the current segregation system. As the bill stipulates, an inmate's stay would be subject to ongoing monitoring, including monitoring of their health while in a structured unit. A registered health care professional would visit the inmate in an SIU at least once every day. These are welcome changes that would make correctional institutions safer and enhance the safety of Canadian communities.(1005)I should have said at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for London North Centre.As I said, a registered health care professional would visit the inmate at least once every day. This is necessary because of the health care needs of certain incarcerated individuals. However, it is important to say that this bill would include additional measures that would strengthen our corrections system. It would establish a patient advocacy service to ensure that inmates understand their rights and get the medical care they need. This would not only address the concerns raised at the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, who was in segregation at the time, but would address calls from the Office of the Correctional Investigator.Providing health care in a correctional institution is a challenging job. It requires a unique skill set that can make a real difference in improving living conditions within a correctional institution and in contributing to better safety. The bill would affirm the obligation of the service to support these health care professionals in maintaining their autonomy and clinical independence. The service would also have an obligation to ensure that systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders were considered in all correctional decision-making. For the first time, that obligation would be enshrined in law as a guiding principle. That could mean, for example, that if an indigenous offender was placed in an SIU, individual or small group interventions would be tailored to their particular needs. Under this model, resources such as elders, aboriginal liaison personnel and specifically trained parole officers would provide culturally appropriate and responsive interventions for indigenous offenders. This would support calls to action 30 and 36 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and it would advance key mandate commitments to address gaps in services for indigenous people and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system.This focus on indigenous inmates would complement steps the government has taken to enhance indigenous communities and to invest in the rehabilitation and safe reintegration of indigenous people who have come into contact with the criminal justice system. In budget 2017, we allocated $65.2 million over four years to address the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice and correctional system. Of that money, $10 million has been allocated to indigenous community corrections initiatives. Under this program, public safety support projects help previously incarcerated indigenous people reintegrate safely and productively into their communities.As I close, I feel that it is helpful to look at this proposed legislation in a much larger context. Overall, Canada is a very safe country, but we must not take that for granted. Strengthening our correctional system is an ongoing process and one that requires our constant attention. Bill C-83 would take us further down that path. Our government wants to help ensure that we not only hold guilty parties to account for illegal behaviour but that we also create a custodial environment that fosters rehabilitation. The goal is fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and safer communities.While there is much more work to do, Bill C-83 would bring us closer to where we need to be. I encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill C-83 and in supporting those Canadians who are asking for this reform and modernization of the correctional centre program.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSplitting speaking timeStructured intervention unit558660055866015586602558660355866045586605558660655866075586608558660955866105586611558661255866135586614558661555866165586617KellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the government has actually costed out these changes. When I look at the departmental plan for Correctional Service Canada, I do not believe government members have read their own plan that the Public Safety Minister signed off on. It shows over five years an 8.8% cut in funding, including inflation, for correctional services. Further, the departmental plan produced by the government, and signed off by the public safety minister, calls for a reduction in the number of correctional services officers.I am curious to know if the government has done its homework on what the cost is going to be. How does it justify that and balance it with the fact that it is calling for significant cuts to correctional services at the same time?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55866185586619YvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones: (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, investments we have made as a government over the last two years in correctional services are making a change within our system. We are a government that has really been focusing hard on rehabilitation. We have been focusing hard on providing alternate correctional services for those who require them, whether that be mental health services or other services, while incarcerated.The goal of the Government of Canada is to ensure that we reduce the number of victims and also reduce the number of repeat offenders in the Canadian judicial system. By offering the programs we are proposing and making the amendments in the bill today, we will be keeping all Canadians safer.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55866205586621KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, indigenous women make up 2% of Canada's population but 38% of women in prison. Eighteen of the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were about justice reform. There has been virtually no progress on most of them, according to witnesses at the status of women committee. The legal counsel for the Native Women's Association, who appeared before the status of women committee, described solitary confinement as “a particularly cruel practice for women with histories of trauma and abuse, another area in which indigenous women are overrepresented.... [They are] particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of isolation.”Bill C-83 does not seem to have a lot of friends who think that the government's actions are the right thing to do. Kim Pate says it would virtually eliminate “already inadequate limitations on its use.” Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator, says “[t]here's no procedural safeguard” in Bill C-83. The Elizabeth Fry Society says that this legislation would not meet its needs.Could the member let me know which indigenous women say this is going to make their lives better, because it sure does not sound like it to us?Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWomen5586622558662355866245586625YvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones: (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate it when members in the House continue to raise the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.Bill C-83 would address two of the specific calls to action, number 30 and number 36, in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This is being done right across government. We have responded to nearly three-quarters of the recommendations in that report. Some action has been taken on all those recommendation that could be actioned by government, but many of them are outside the government's purview, as members may know. Bill C-83 would have a meaningful impact on indigenous people who have been incarcerated, especially those who suffer from mental illness and other health and addiction challenges. The bill is designed to reach out and provide them with the programs and services they need so that they do not continue to be repeat offenders. Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWomen5586626558662755866285586629SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of concerns. The member mentioned in her speech that extensive consultations were done, but my understanding is that the government did not consult with the union of correctional officers, who certainly will be impacted.In addition to that, I am concerned about the Liberal direction of making life easier for criminals, beginning with Bill C-51 and then Bill C-75, where penalties for very serious crimes, such as forcible confinement of a minor and terrorism, were dropped. The government has brought ISIS terrorists back and now is trying to make life easier for criminals.Why are the Liberals doing that as a priority?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading5586630558663155866325586633YvonneJonesLabradorYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/13218YvonneJonesYvonne-JonesLabradorLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JonesYvonne_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Yvonne Jones: (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note that the goal of this bill and the other actions that the Government of Canada has taken is to ensure that we can reduce crime in Canada and reduce repeat crime in this country. We can continue to place people for minor offences in the correctional centres without proper programs or treatment and we have seen what happens from that process. They become repeat offenders.I remember visiting, about a year or so ago, a correctional centre in my own riding, where I talked to a number of individuals who were there for perhaps theft. It might have started out that way, but through breaches of probation and a lack of services for addiction and mental health care, they became repeat offenders who were incarcerated for longer periods of time. It is our goal as Canadians to get people out of the system, to get them rehabilitated and to help them with mental health and addictions issues that often lead to petty crime.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading558663455866355586636MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonPeterFragiskatosLondon North Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88827PeterFragiskatosPeter-FragiskatosLondon North CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FragiskatosPeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Peter Fragiskatos (London North Centre, Lib.): (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-83. Among other measures, the bill proposes to eliminate segregation from federal correctional institutions, and would do it in a way that protects the security of correctional institutions. The reality of any correctional environment is that certain inmates at certain times will need to be separated from the rest of the inmate population. Some inmates pose safety risks. Bill C-83 introduces a new approach to manage those risks. This new approach would ensure the safety and security of staff, the general offender population and the inmate who needs to be managed separately from the mainstream population. However, it would also help ensure the safety of our communities, because inmates would be able to continue the rehabilitative programming that is so crucial to their eventual successful reintegration into society as law-abiding citizens. This is a transformational change for a correctional system, and one that comes in the midst of a debate over segregation, an ongoing one we have had as a society in Canada. Correctional Service Canada is responsible for managing the lives of more than 14,000 inmates in its custody. Correctional staff do a tough job in a difficult environment. We have to ensure they can do so safely, and that they have the tools to effectively rehabilitate offenders. Canada is incredibly fortunate to have an independent watchdog and ombudsman, the Office of the Correctional Investigator, to oversee and report on the operations of our system. From time to time, the Auditor General of Canada also investigates and identifies issues of concern within the system. In recent years, the issue of inmate segregation has come under its microscope. The Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Auditor General have raised concerns about the effects of segregation, particularly on inmates with mental health needs. Under Bill C-83, segregation would be eliminated altogether from the federal correctional system. In its place, the government is proposing to create structured intervention units, or SIUs, to manage inmates whose behaviour poses a safety risk that cannot be managed within the mainstream inmate population. The key, as I noted earlier, is that although they would be separated from the mainstream inmate population, inmates in an SIU would maintain their access to rehabilitative programming and interventions. Upon placement in an SIU, their correctional plan would be updated. This would be done to ensure they receive the most effective programs at the appropriate time while they are in the unit. Also, it is meant to prepare them for reintegration into the mainstream inmate population. They would also spend at least four hours a day outside of their cell and have at least two hours a day of meaningful human contact interaction. Under the current segregation system inmates only get two hours out of the cell and interaction with people is extremely limited. In addition to all of this, inmates in an SIU would be visited by a registered health care professional at least once a day. That health care professional could recommend changes to the conditions of confinement, or transfer back to the general population. As well, for the first time ever, the health care professional's autonomy and clinical independence within a correctional facility would be enshrined in law. The correctional service would also have the obligation to provide patient advocacy services to inmates at designated institutions to help them better understand and exercise their rights, and ensure they get the medical care they need. As hon. members may recall, that was one of the recommendations of the inquest into the tragic death of Ashley Smith. These proposed reforms build on recent investments in mental health care. Budget 2017, for example, invested $57.8 million over five years, and $13.6 million per year thereafter, to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities. Budget 2018 invested another $20.3 million over five years, and $5.5 million per year thereafter, to support the mental health needs of federal inmates, particularly women offenders. However, segregation and mental health are not the only challenges facing our correctional system. Another major and very much related concern is the overrepresentation of indigenous inmates in federal custody. Indigenous individuals currently make up roughly 4% of Canada's population, but they account for more than a quarter of federal inmates. That is unacceptable. (1020)To help address this discrepancy and help those who have been incarcerated to heal, rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, budget 2017 invested $65.2 million over five years and $10.9 million per year thereafter. Bill C-83 would enshrine, again not in regulation but in law, that systemic and background factors unique to indigenous inmates would be considered in all correctional decision-making. This, indeed, flows from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision in 1999, nearly 20 years ago.The number of inmates in segregation has been trending downward for several years. There were, for example, 780 inmates in segregation as recently as April of 2014. However, by March of 2018, that number had dropped to 340, a decrease of more than 50%. This legislation would put an end to this practice once and for all. It would replace it with a far better and more effective approach. SIUs would protect staff and inmates from offenders who exhibit particularly disruptive and dangerous behaviour and ensure that inmates separated from the general population can continue with their treatment and rehabilitative programs. Programs like these prepare inmates for reintegration as law-abiding members of a community, the Canadian community, at the end of their sentences. In other words, they are essential to public safety because almost all inmates will eventually be released from custody.Bill C-83 would help make our correctional system stronger, more humane and more effective. It would mean better correctional outcomes for the most challenging and difficult-to-manage inmates. We have to focus on outcomes. With enhanced rehabilitation and reintegration support, I believe this would lead to a safer environment for those who work or are incarcerated inside of our institutions and fewer victims of repeat offenders outside. That is why I strongly support this important piece of legislation. It is also why I encourage my colleagues to do the same.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit558663755866385586639558664055866415586642558664355866445586645558664655866475586648YvonneJonesLabradorKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, when I asked the parliamentary secretary about how she reconciles the fact that there are going to be all of these added costs for the changes to Bill C-83, but at the same time their departmental plan shows, with inflation adjusted, an 8.8% cut to funding for correctional services, as well as a cut in staffing, her comment was that it is because it is the money the government invested in the first two years. The library of Canada produced a report for me that actually shows that in the first two of the Liberal government, it has actually cut funding to CSC from the Harper era and then going forward for the next five years, is going to cut a further 8.8%.Perhaps my colleague could answer, where the parliamentary secretary refused to or did not know the information for, what the added costs are with Bill C-83, how the government is going to achieve these things when it is cutting a further 8.8% from current funding on top of the funding it cut from the Conservative era to Correctional Service Canada.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55866495586650PeterFragiskatosLondon North CentrePeterFragiskatosLondon North Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88827PeterFragiskatosPeter-FragiskatosLondon North CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FragiskatosPeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Peter Fragiskatos: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, specific details relating to budgetary costs of Bill C-83 and the changes that it will bring about I believe will be announced soon, as my colleague knows.I take great interest, however, in his focus on the Conservative era in office, the most recent reign of conservatism in Canada at the federal level. I have a lot of respect for my colleagues across the way, but I cannot help but notice them, time and again, draping themselves in the flag not only of Canada but of law and order, when actually, if we review the record of the Harper government, we see cuts to the RCMP, we see cuts to the CBSA, key legal agencies enforcing law and order in Canada. We have listened to the folks in corrections. I would ask the hon. member to go back and take a look at what some key folks in corrections have said about this particular bill and the changes it would bring about. It focuses on rehabilitation, reintegration and strengthening the system and making it more effective. That is what Bill C-83 would do.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558665155866525586653KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestLindaDuncanEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are claims by the Liberal government that we are going to have a lot more provisions to deal with indigenous offenders. Of course, we know that a huge percentage of offenders are indigenous, particularly the women. I wish to again raise the case of Edward Christopher Snowshoe from the Northwest Territories, who was confined to a cell the size apparently of a Volkswagen Beetle. He was in solitary for 162 days. At one point, he asked for additional medical assistance and revealed he was suicidal. He, in fact, had attempted suicide several times. He was sent to an aboriginal healing centre, but he asked to leave because the healing centre had nothing to do with his indigenous beliefs. He was from the Northwest Territories. We need to recognize that there are over 300 first nations.What kinds of provision is the government going to take to put in additional resources so that there are provisions for support to all of the indigenous people who are imprisoned?Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558665455866555586656PeterFragiskatosLondon North CentrePeterFragiskatosLondon North Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88827PeterFragiskatosPeter-FragiskatosLondon North CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FragiskatosPeter_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Peter Fragiskatos: (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quite rightly raises the issue of indigenous incarceration. I had the honour of serving on the public safety and national security committee last year, which studied that very issue. I am sure she is aware of this, but I would ask the hon. member to again review the sections in the proposed bill, Bill C-83, that focus on bringing to life what was called for in the landmark decision of the Supreme Court, the Gladue decision of 1999, almost 20 years ago.This is an incredible step forward, a very positive step forward for all those Canadians concerned about indigenous incarceration, about which we have to do more. This is not the end of the line; this is a beginning. It is a new opening. In that light, the bill offers an entirely new and different approach, a more effective approach, to the issue of segregation. I think we will see more positive results as a result of the bill going through.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55866575586658LindaDuncanEdmonton StrathconaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-83 because I am concerned that the changes it would make may put in jeopardy the safety of our institutional staff and that of the inmates who are under our care and control. I was confused when the government introduced the bill. In February of this year, the government appealed a ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court that struck down Canada's law on indefinite solitary confinement, arguing that it needed clarity on the decision. Therefore, why is the government introducing legislation before receiving that clarity? Why are the Liberals fighting the court decision to strike down solitary confinement, while at the same time introducing legislation to do just that? Are they just changing the words and calling it a structural intervention unit?I have a federal prison in my riding of Yellowhead, the Grande Cache Institution. It is a medium-security institution with approximately 300 employees and 240 offenders. I have a lot of respect for my constituents who work there. Working for Correctional Service Canada often means working with violent offenders. Proposed section 36 of the new act will deal with the obligations of service and the rights of prisoners in structural intervention areas. It states:...The Service shall provide an inmate in a structured intervention unit(a) an opportunity to spend a minimum of four hours a day outside the inmate’s cell; and (b) an opportunity to interact, for a minimum of two hours a day, with others, through activities including, but not limited to,(i) programs, interventions and services...(ii) leisure time.Proposed section 37 of the new act states that proposed section 36 does not apply if the inmate refuses or the inmate “does not comply with...instructions to ensure their safety or that of any other person or the security of the penitentiary.”As part of their job, employees are responsible for providing a safe, secure and positive environment for offenders, which is an essential element in helping offenders reintegrate into society. However, is the government fostering a safe and secure environment for our prison guards to work within these institutions? Solitary confinement is a common safety measure many western countries take to protect guards from dangerous and volatile prisoners. I wonder if any of our front-line workers have been consulted on taking this tool away from them. Are we properly training our guards who deal with the most dangerous of offenders, offenders with possible mental conditions and psychological problems? Are these guards being given the necessary tools and knowledge to recognize, work with, protect and, for their own safety, help reintegrate these prisoners?I am concerned that the bill does not mention new training programs to assist prison guards in these changes or in the current programs. It is paramount that the guards dealing with the most dangerous of our offenders have the knowledge and expertise to deal with them. This is for everyone's protection and safety. I have heard concerns from prison staff members that more training should be given to them when they are dealing with high-risk offenders, such as murderers, compared to someone serving six months for theft. We need to ensure they feel prepared and comfortable, instead of taking away the tools they use to manage inmates. Instead of solitary confinement, the government would create structural intervention units, SIUs. Let us be fair: This is just white-washing with some finely tuned words. Under the new SIU model, inmates who misbehave and cannot be safely managed in the mainstream population will get personal programs tailored to their own needs. Are we forgetting the protection and safety of other inmates and prison staff in order to meet the new guidelines as outlined under the SIU? The segregation of certain prisoners in some cases has been done to protect those persons from internal conflicts with other inmates because of their character or mental disposition. In other cases, it is done for legal reasons that could cause interference with an investigation that could lead to criminal charges or a charge relating to serious disciplinary offences within the institution.Under the new act, prisoners segregated for their own safety may spend up to four hours outside their cells each day. This is where I am concerned. This will require more resources and will create longer periods for the chance of an incident to occur. The replacement of solitary confinement strips the ability of guards to use segregation for disciplinary purposes. This change will make prisons more dangerous for the guards as they deal with the worst and most volatile prisoners.(1035)Because the guards are dealing with the most violent criminals and those who do not care to follow the prison rules, when an incident does occur, it is going to be a lot more serious and require more force. Why are we putting our front line workers at risk? I am also concerned that these prisoners who are segregated for their own safety may demand equal opportunities under the new act. This may open up an opportunity for their safety to be jeopardized and also put the safety of our guards in question.This is just another example of the Liberals going soft on criminals and showing indifference to everyone else. Once again, the Liberals are prioritizing the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals. Let me remind everyone of Bill C-75, which proposes sweeping changes to the Criminal Code and reduces the penalties of crimes to fines. Through Bill C-75, the Liberals are reducing penalties for terrorism, gang members, prison breaches, human trafficking, and the list goes on and on. It is not a surprise to me that the Liberal government is now prioritizing the rights of convicted and violent criminals inside our prison system. Another aspect of the bill that I find deeply concerning is the new provision that would allow the commissioner to sub-designate parts of institutions to be a different level of security. It reads:The Commissioner may assign the security classification of “minimum security”, “medium security”, “maximum security” or “multi-level security”, or any other prescribed security classification, to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary.Theoretically, could the commissioner authorize that a room, say in a healing lodge, to be designated as maximum or medium security by adding an extra lock on the door? There needs to be clarification on whether this is to be used as a temporary measure or if this is a declaration that can be made indefinitely of an area. If so, what is the security protocol that would be put in place to change an “area” to a higher designation than the rest of the facility? Under what circumstances would it be used?This provision will lead to more cases where higher security prisoners are allowed into lower security spaces, all based on technicalities. Why are we allowing prisoners who should be in maximum or medium-security facilities into lower designated facilities? I agree with one part of the bill, and that is body scanners. Already in use in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, body scanners should be used to scan prisoners in federal institutions. The more effective we can be in our searches, the better. That means fewer drugs, weapons and other contraband entering our prison systems. I wonder why the government decided to stop there, though. Why only scan prisoners? In 2014, the CBC broadcast an article on the statistics of contraband entering prisons. The data obtained by CBC showed that corrections seized almost 9,000 unauthorized and contraband items, up almost 2,000 from a few years earlier. That was an increase of 20%. The article noted:CSC spokesman Jonathan Schofield said the spike is due to enhanced security measures brought in to stem the flow of drugs and other contraband into institutions, including increased searches, random urine tests, and tools such as metal detectors, X-rays, drug-detecting ion scanners and dogs. Howard Sapers, the former correctional investigator of Canada, said that likely sources of contraband included other people coming in to the prison and sometimes even trusted personnel.Maybe we should be using body scanners to scan everyone, not just the prisoners, entering our institutions. This will help ensure that everyone inside the institution, prisoners, staff and visitors, all have a safe and secure environment in which to live and work. There are different types of body scanners, some detect drugs, others detect metal. We use them in our airports, and there is no reason we cannot use the most sophisticated equipment in our jail system.I am not in favour of the recently announced needle exchange program and a good scanning system would eliminate the need for such a program.We must remember that any legislation brought in that changes how we manage our prisons must take into consideration the safety of our government employees and the safety of other inmates within our institutions. This to me is paramount over catering to the needs of convicted criminals. We must remember they are there because they have committed crimes and are being punished for those crimes. Yes, they have rights to a certain extent, but our institutions are not summer camps or recreational retreats. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal justice systemGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSmugglingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWork-based trainingWorkplace health and safety55866625586663558666455866655586666558666755866685586669558667055866715586672558667355866745586675558667655866775586678558667955866805586681558668255866835586684558668555866865586687558668855866895586690558669155866925586693BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBernadetteJordanSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanBernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Bernadette Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, I sat on the status of women committee. We did a study on indigenous women in corrections. It is particularly challenging to hear the stories of intergenerational trauma and of incarcerated women who are struggling with generations of problems from growing up in difficult situations.My colleague said that the only part of the bill he agreed with was the body scanners. I am having a bit of a challenge with that. A big part of the bill is the mental health supports that will be provided to inmates to ensure they are treated in a way that they can be rehabilitated and not be put back in the corrections system.Would my hon. colleague like comment on why he does not agree with mental health supports?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading558669455866955586696JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I never said I disagreed with providing mental health supports. I said that we need to spend more time and more resources training our personnel at the jails. I clearly stated this a number of times in my comments. Jail guards are concerned that they are not receiving the proper training to deal with people with different mental situations, different stress situations and different violent tendencies. We need to ensure that our guards have the best training so that they understand the situations they are being put into so they can keep themselves and the prisoners safe.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading5586697BernadetteJordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsBernadetteJordanSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanBernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Bernadette Jordan: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure I heard my hon. colleague say he agreed with one part of the bill. I know he said that corrections officers must have training. That is what the bill is doing; it is providing mental health supports. He says the one part of the bill he agrees with is the part dealing with scanning, but he is not saying he agrees that we need to provide for better health. That is what we need to do. That is what the bill is doing and that is what the member is overlooking when he made his comments.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingWork-based training5586698JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in the bill about extra training or education for either the prisoners or the guards. My concern at the present time is the safety of the guards and prisoners in our institutions. The member can talk about programs for them, and those are good. We need to interact with and get prisoners back into civilization as law-abiding citizens, but it is the safety of our guards that I am concerned about and their proper training. There is no mention of that in Bill C-83.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingWork-based training5586699BernadetteJordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to many prison guards, especially in the London area where we have the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and where rampant issues are occurring. Many drugs are coming into the area. The bill talks about scanning the inmates, but does the member think that goes far enough? We have to recognize that drugs are getting into the correctional facilities and find our how they do. Does the member believe that we should expand scanning so it goes beyond the inmates and perhaps to all visitors, and maybe even going one step further than that?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSmuggling55867005586701JimEglinskiYellowheadJimEglinskiYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/48292JimEglinskiJim-EglinskiYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EglinskiJim_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Jim Eglinski: (1040)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct that we need to go further. We need to scan all people coming into and out of our jail institutions to protect the guards and the inmates. We know that contraband is increasingly entering our prisons. We know it is being brought in by people and we have indications that it is being brought in by some guards. It is not going to hurt to scan all individuals coming into our institutions, as many high security institutions already do.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSmuggling5586702KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): (1045)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-83. This bill represents a fundamental change in the way we approach corrections in Canada. It would end the practice of administrative segregation in all federal correctional facilities. What is more, it would implement a new correctional intervention model that would ensure that offenders are held to account while creating an environment conducive to their rehabilitation in the interests of everyone's safety.This is the right thing to do and the safe thing to do. It would keep correctional staff and volunteers safe. It would keep inmates safe, and ultimately it would keep communities safe. An effective corrections system with appropriate, safe and targeted interventions to deal with difficult, challenging or dangerous situations within a secure environment is in everyone's best interests. That is why Bill C-83 would eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units or SIUs. These units would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in these challenging situations. They will be used to manage inmates who cannot be managed safely in the general population. However, unlike segregation, inmates in these units will receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs to address behaviours that led to their SIU placement. They will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell every day, double the number of hours in the current segregation system. They will have a minimum of two hours of meaningful human interaction every day, including through intervention programs and services. Currently in the segregation system, inmates can spend entire days with virtually no meaningful human interaction.Inmates in these units will also have daily visits from health care professionals, and because of the strong focus on intervention, inmates in an SIU would be able to continue working on rehabilitation and achieving their correctional plan objectives. All of this will help facilitate their safe return into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. The result will be better correctional outcomes, fewer violent incidents and enhanced safety for inmates, staff, volunteers, institutions and, ultimately, the general public.This bill is a significant step forward for the Canadian correctional system and builds on the good work already under way.The government has provided almost $80 million over five years through budget 2017 and budget 2018 to better address the mental health needs of inmates. That includes $20.4 million in the last budget specifically for incarcerated women.There was also about $120 million in budget 2017 to support restorative justice approaches through the indigenous justice program and to help indigenous offenders safely reintegrate and find jobs after serving their sentences.The goal is to make Canadian communities safer through effective rehabilitation in a secure correctional environment. This is the right policy direction, and it is in line with recent calls for the kind of transformation this bill lays out.Two constitutional challenges in Ontario and British Columbia found the legislation governing administrative segregation contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are also pending class actions and human rights complaints related to both the use of segregation and what constitutes appropriate mental health care.In this regard, the bill would also strengthen health care governance. The bill would provide that Correctional Service Canada has the obligation to support health care professionals' autonomy and clinical independence.(1050)It also creates a legal framework for a patient advocacy service to ensure that inmates get the medical care they need.The bill also enshrines in law CSC's obligation to take into account systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders are considered when making offender management decisions.The Minister of Justice and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness were given a mandate to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. The government is delivering on that promise.The bill also includes additional measures to round out all of those elements. It also provides for less invasive alternatives to intrusive body searches. It places greater emphasis on the role of victims in the criminal justice system by allowing them greater access to audio recordings of parole hearings. This is a major improvement over the old system.Thanks to Bill C-83, going forward, victims will have access to an audio recording of the offender's parole hearing, regardless of whether they attend the hearing. As I said, this bill is all about safety. It focuses on improving interventions in order to better meet the needs of vulnerable inmates. We need to enhance the safety of our inmates, our correctional staff, our institutions and our communities.This bill will transform Canada's correctional system in order to achieve those objectives. Today I am proud to support this bill, and I encourage all members to join me in voting in favour of this historic piece of legislation.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsConditional releaseConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCriminal justice systemCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthRestorative justiceSecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unit558670355867045586705558670655867075586708558670955867105586711558671255867135586714558671555867165586717558671855867195586720558672155867225586723JimEglinskiYellowheadMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.The member for London North Centre said that this bill would affect just 340 people. However, the bill affects many others, including Terri-Lynne McClintic and the terrorists who are returning to Canada.Why are the Liberals prioritizing help for criminals?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558672455867255586726FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague use the word “terrorist”.The Conservatives talked a good game about this and were very hard on terrorists, but they did not manage to put a single terrorist behind bars in 10 years.We have sent many terrorists to prison, so I am pleased that my colleague talked about that. In 2011, 700 inmates were placed in administrative segregation. My NDP colleague said that there were just 300. The new approach is to make sure that they have access to mental health care. That is the difference.My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton named some prisoners, but she seems to have forgotten the case of Ms. Smith when she asked her question.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5586727558672855867295586730MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his articulate speech.I just want to focus on one aspect. The Ontario and British Columbia courts ruled that the current law is unconstitutional on the grounds of two elements.First, there was no independent body to review the justification for and the extension of administrative segregation. Second, the law did not set a limit for the undue or abusive extension of the administrative segregation.Unfortunately, unlike former Bill C-56, the current bill does not meet these two criteria.How can my colleague believe that the courts will deem this Liberal bill to be constitutional?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit55867315586732558673355867345586735FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I will repeat that when an inmate is placed in this special unit, the warden will examine the case and decide whether the inmate must remain there. Subsequent reviews will be done by the warden after 30 days and by the commissioner of the Correctional Service every 30 days thereafter. I believe that we have put in place a system that will comply with the rulings of the Ontario and the British Columbia courts.I am sure that our bill will comply with the rulings.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5586736558673755867385586739AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I have an institution in my riding where nearly half a million dollars of drugs were seized by corrections officials in 2017. When I think about that situation, I also think about the suggestion that, well, maybe we should be advancing needle exchange programs, spoons, and so on. I think that gives the wrong impression to people about what life and conditions should be in prison. As Conservatives, we look at advancing and expanding the screening process, and maybe making sure that no one comes in. That would perhaps be a better way to create some safety for those who are in the prisons, primarily those who do not use drugs.Thinking about the situation, if everyone else is going to have a needle, maybe each person should have one as well just to protect themself. That is how obscene this approach to corrections is.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSmuggling5586740558674155867425586743FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned the amount of dollars seized in terms of drug seizures. It is why, as part of that response, we will be putting body scanners in prisons to ensure those drugs do not get into our prison system. I agree with the member, there should be a lot more technology. My question to the member is, will he support Bill C-83?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSmuggling5586744EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1055)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, at the top of his speech, my colleague said that Bill C-83 would end the practice of administrative segregation. That is technically true, but only because the name is changing. Instead of administrative segregation, it will be called structured intervention units. However, what does this change actually mean? It means two hours less a day and a little more support for people with mental health issues.Does my colleague not think it is misleading to tell the House and the media that the administrative segregation process is being eliminated completely?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55867455586746FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1055)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, administrative segregation could force an inmate to go a whole day without human contact. The new bill will ensure that inmates get human contact, especially with mental health professionals. That is the difference. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5586747MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaLindaLapointeRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/54434AdamVaughanAdam-VaughanSpadina—Fort YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/VaughanAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Adam Vaughan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development (Housing and Urban Affairs), Lib.): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today in support of the bill in front of the House. It is an important step in the reformation and the improvement of our criminal justice system, in particular, our corrections facilities. The proposed legislation will eliminate the practice of administrative segregation where inmates are confined to their cells for all but two hours a day, with little or no contact with other people and, most important, with little or no contact with rehabilitative programming, which is fundamental to the restoration of their presence in our society.Under the new bill, people who need to be separated from the general inmate population for safety reasons will have at least double the amount of time out of their cells and they will have access to programs, interventions, mental health care and meaningful human contact with staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains, visitors and other compatible inmates.This is good policy and it is also necessary in light of two court decisions declaring administrative segregation unconstitutional, which are scheduled to take effect in the next few months. In addition, the bill would enshrine in law the clinical autonomy of health care providers in the corrections system. It would create patient advocates, called for through the Ashley Smith inquest, to ensure people in correctional institutions receive the medical care they need. It would also codify the principles stemming from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision, which requires systemic and background factors be considered in decision-making, particularly when it involves indigenous inmates. This is fundamental to ensure that the majority of inmates who eventually return to society after they have served time are reintegrated in a healthy way, in a productive way, in a human way, in a compassionate way so recidivism is reduced if not eliminated. The absence of these interventions historically and the impact of the absence of them on indigenous peoples have been catastrophic. The rate of recidivism is one of the challenges we have to deal with as a result of the problems we face by not providing this care inside corrections facilities.The bill would also gives victims the right to an audio recording of their parole hearings, whether or not they attend in person, and it also allows for new search technology to be introduced to the system to once again keep inmates safe and, in this case, corrections officers safe as well. Bill C-83 would make correctional institutions safer, and it will make all of us safer, because we are all better off and better protected when people who have served their sentences return to our communities prepared to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives.The response of the Conservatives to the legislation is incredibly disappointing. They have almost made a parody of themselves. They put out a press release on Tuesday that called solitary confinement “common and legitimate” despite what the Supreme Court said. For a party that prides itself on law and order, members sure have a tough time listening to the orders of the court system, especially the Supreme Court. It is a pattern. In other words, the Conservatives go right past arguing that segregation does not meet the international definition of solitary confinement. They are now saying that solitary confinement in and of itself, which the United Nations calls torture if it lasts longer than 15 days, is a good thing. They are not interested in trying to minimize or restrict the use of segregation in Canadian prisons. In fact, they would be fine if it were routine and more widespread. The Conservatives apparently yearn for the good old days of medieval dungeons.As someone whose parents are Australian, the relationship we have to the corrections system as a culture in the country where my family comes from is a little different. The lack of compassion for the conditions in the prison system traditionally led precisely to recidivism in Australia. The Australian prison system was one of the harshest on the continent at the time it was in operation during the period of transport and the punishment destroyed people's lives. The corrections facility is not about destroying the lives of people; it is about protecting the public. It is about rehabilitating those who have offended and focusing on reintegration, because not every sentence is a life sentence. When convicted individuals return to our communities, we have a responsibility to try to make them safer, both to themselves and to society at large.The Conservatives are back in the period of transport as far as one can tell. I do not know where the member who made those statements received his criminology degree, if he has one, but I would bet he is referring to a phenomenon that is being reported by people who are homeless. There is a belief somehow that people try to get into jail because it is so nice. It just is not true. The reality is that the poverty people are subjected to, the lack of a housing strategy, the lack of supports for people, particularly indigenous people in urban settings, is one of the reasons people have no alternative to prison systems at times. However, no one wants to be in jail. People want an opportunity to have good health and to lead productive lives. The corrections system has to respond to this. We cannot, we must not and we should not make it worse for people, because the impact on the larger population will be present one day.(1215)If the Conservatives, who now suddenly seem preoccupied by poverty and the lack of housing are really focused on these issues, I invite them to support the national housing strategy, the poverty reduction strategy. I invite them to support the initiatives and the advancements we have made in indigenous housing, health care and education. We create a safer country by ensuring we do not have crime to begin with. However, when people fall afoul of the law and end up in corrections facilities, we have a responsibility as a society and as a country to make things right and to ensure that when people are released from corrections facilities, they do not present an even greater danger to the public.When we listen to the Conservatives focus on razor wire and bars and not on the rehabilitation of people who have made terrible mistakes in some cases, we are left speechless as to how they are making society safer through a rehabilitation program. It is not just about punishment; it is also about corrections. That is why the system is called a corrections facility.One of the things we are investing in through this program is ensuring that the prisons and the correction facilities themselves are safer places for guards to work. When segregation is overused and is used as a tool of punishment, the prisons become more dangerous. It is not fair to corrections workers to jack up the system in such a way that their lives are put at risk as they go about doing their critically important work.The Conservative public safety critic has caricatured these new units by saying that the inmates will be invited to cuddle together in the exercise yard. The way in which the Conservatives talk about the corrections system is beyond the experience of anyone I have ever talked to who has been through it. Nonetheless they perpetuate these myths and they do so at the expense of not only the correction facilities, but also the officers who work there and ultimately society at large.The truth is that the proposed legislation will create units that are highly structured and secure and within these secure settings, inmates will interact with staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains and visitors. They will get the health care they need to become more productive citizens upon release. They will only interact with other inmates if compatible and that interaction can happen safely and is part of a restorative justice process. It is about making people safer and making our country safer.The Conservative critic also said in his speech that the current system responded to the needs of prisoners. It does not. More important, it does not respond to society's needs. We need safer communities and that means reintegration has to be a focus of correction to ensure that when people are released, they do not do more harm to communities.Most people incarcerated in our federal prison system have some combination of mental illness, addiction, a history of physical or sexual abuse and an upbringing in poverty. None of these excuse the behaviour that put them in jail. If people break the law, they face the consequences. Sentences are real.However, while they are in custody, we can either leave them to languish in conditions that might aggravate their problems and make them more dangerous upon release or we can take measures within a secure correctional environment to reduce the risk they pose and increase the safety of our communities.Bill C-83 is all about that. It is why it has my strong support. It is why we are focused on ensuring that the criminal justice system is not just tough on crime, but is also smart on crime. We are using the best practices from around the world to ensure we have the best results after incarceration.Absolutely, people should be jailed for serious crimes. Nobody disagrees with that. Anybody who pretends there is a party in the House that disagrees is fooling folks. The reality is this. When individuals are released from prison, when they are exited from corrections and they are reintegrate into society, we have a moral and a legal obligation to ensure they do not reoffend. That requires us addressing mental health issues, addiction issues and other underlying issues which might have been part of the factor as to what put them in prison to begin with.This is a good bill. It deserves the support of all parties in the House.AustraliaC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConditional releaseConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersRecidivistsSecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unit55870185587019558702055870215587022558702355870245587025558702655870275587028558702955870305587031558703255870335587034558703555870365587037558703855870395587040558704155870425587043BruceStantonSimcoe NorthMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I head the parliamentary secretary misstate the law. On more than one occasion, the parliamentary secretary made reference to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. In fact, there is no Supreme Court of Canada decision. There are two lower court decisions, one a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision and another an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, neither of which, by the way, ordered a blanket prohibition on segregation.Could the hon. parliamentary secretary clarify the record.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55870445587045AdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/54434AdamVaughanAdam-VaughanSpadina—Fort YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/VaughanAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Adam Vaughan: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, if I misidentified the Supreme Court in this case, I apologize and stand by the correct record as the member opposite pointed out. However, the issue is this. Segregation has an extraordinarily damaging impact on prisoners who are subjected to it, especially when it is used as punishment and extends beyond 15 days. We have had case after case of people where the damage done to them has been contained while they remain in the corrections system, but when they are released into the larger population, the crimes they commit are even more horrendous than the ones that put them in jail to begin with.We cannot allow a prison system or a justice system to make criminals more dangerous, and when it does, we have a responsibility to act. We also have to take into account the good evidence showing that if we do not address the underlying issues, extended segregation and segregation as punishment without support for the mental health or addictions issues that have put people into that situation, we will not get the results we need to make communities safe.Being tough on crime for the sake of being political about it is one thing, but if we are going to be smart on crime, we need to end crime and the risk to populations and communities. The evidence is very clear that we have to do better with the use of segregation. It has damaged people and put communities and people at risk. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5587046558704755870485587049MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am a resident of a community that includes the Elgin—Middlesex Detention Centre, where, if anyone checks the news, they would find lots of information about what is happening there. I have talked to some of the people who work there, and I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's thoughts on what they had to say. My friend Jason said, “No profession has hit the toilet [like] corrections in the last several years. Violence, contraband, assault on staff are skyrocketing. Why? Total lack of consequence for behaviour. Eliminating segregation has handcuffed us. Now, no question segregation exacerbates mental health, but we have no choice. Violent offenders continue assaulting, and easy victims continue being preyed upon. We continually have people making changes based on concepts, not reality.” Throughout these consultations, we heard that the government has not spoken with corrections officers. My daughter, who is also in corrections, says this bill is hugely flawed and that she feels unsafe when these things are going on. What does the parliamentary secretary have to say about that, and how is he going to answer to people like my friend Jason, who are concerned about their own safety and segregation being taken away?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55870505587051AdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/54434AdamVaughanAdam-VaughanSpadina—Fort YorkLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/VaughanAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Adam Vaughan: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether or not they are working in corrections or any federal institutions, workers have a right and an expectation to be treated fairly and to have their safety protected by a government that passes laws. Clearly, the status quo is not safe. Clearly, the current situation in the corrections system is one that is both dangerous to the workers there and harmful to the persons being incarcerated. Change is needed, which is what this bill presents. This bill presents a path forward that would not allow confinement to be used in a way that has been abusive to some and has intensified the violence and risks to corrections workers. It presents a new regime that would provide a middle path forward. It would allow prisoners to be isolated if they present a risk to staff, other prisoners or themselves, but also allow services to be provided to those people so they can stop being a risk to other people. In particular, the absence of mental health services for indigenous populations in prison systems has been shown to be one of the most significant causes of violence in the prison system. That situation is the status quo at present. We cannot allow that to continue. It is inhumane. It is also really bad justice, creating even more risk, not just for the workers in the corrections system but also for society as a whole when these people get out as damaged goods. When they go into prison and come out worse than they went in, they go back into society and create a greater risk to others. We have to turn that around, and that is what this bill addresses.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55870525587053KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on Bill C-83. I have been intently listening over the last few days to the debate and the argument being made by the Liberal government on the need for this. Several members on the government side have now said that administrative segregation, solitary confinement, is simply unconstitutional. In fact, the parliamentary secretary just said that again and was rightfully corrected by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.I will read into the record exactly what Justice Leask said in paragraph 534 of his B.C. Supreme Court decision. He said, “The plaintiffs do not argue that administrative segregation as a practice is unconstitutional”, circa section 12, which is the prohibition in our charter against cruel and unusual punishment, only that it is unconstitutional under a certain set of conditions. The judge, in fact, said no, he did not accept the argument based on section 12 and that it was not unconstitutional to be used. What BillC-83 would do instead is rename administrative segregation, which is just words, as if the punishment is just being told that one is going into solitary confinement. It would double the hours and makes additional changes that would make it more difficult for corrections officers to look after violent prisoners in their workplace. Let us be honest. Corrections is not the workplace of prisoners; it is the workplace of guards. Their needs should actually come first. Guards in the prison system have agreed to take on violent criminals on our behalf to ensure the safety of the public. I am not saying that prisoners should be treated poorly. I heard the parliamentary secretary mention before that Conservatives believe in some kind of medieval dungeon system. That is absolutely ridiculous. Hyperbole is something I have come to expect, particularly from the member. Hyperbole does not belong in the House. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a reasonable use of administrative segregation, the way these two courts have determined it should be used. That is not what Bill C-83 would do. It would actually modify it completely.There is an additional issue we should look at, which is the financials. If we look at the Correctional Service Canada departmental plan 2018-19, signed off by the Minister of Public Safety , we see that over the next few years, there will actually be a drop in real financial resources of 8.8%. In real terms, Correctional Service Canada will have less money to deal with a bigger workload, because let us be frank, this will lead to a bigger workload for prison guards. We are asking them to take violent criminals out of solitary confinement, and I will keep calling it solidarity confinement or administrative segregation, for longer periods of time. We have heard other members on this side of the House mention what exactly is involved. Oftentimes, it is a group of guards who escort a particular criminal for their time out of segregation.An additional point I want to raise is that in the same departmental plan, over the next two or three years, we see a reduction in full-time equivalent employees of 150 individuals. On one hand, in Bill C-83, the government is saying that it wants to do more. It wants more mental health services. That is great. It wants more for our indigenous prison population. That is great. I am very thankful that it is actually looking after it in that lens. However, where are the financial resources? Where are the people resources to match the lofty language we are hearing in this place? Again, the Liberals say one thing and do another. That is the most I have come to expect from the government. There is a Yiddish proverb that says, “God punishes but man takes revenge.” The prison system should not be about revenge. It should be about reform. I fervently believe that. Many members know this, but I studied in the United States for my master's degree. Part of it was local and state administration, where we learned about the prison system in the United States. Every single state is different, but I will give members, as a corollary, the debate that was happening in 2017 in the State of Massachusetts, which has been using solitary confinement. The debate was this: Is 10 years too long to keep someone in solitary confinement? I think all of us here would say, absolutely. That is absolutely wrong. It destroys people's lives. It destroys their mental health. There is ample evidence of that. (1230)However, what we are talking about in Canada is 15 days. What the government is proposing to do is burden prison guards with having to care for sometimes violent criminals, doubling the amount of time they will spend outside, on top of the other exemptions they will provide for them, without providing sufficient financial and people resources in a plan the Minister of Public Safety himself has signed off on.That causes me to wonder why, who is approving this legislation on the government side and who is approving the departmental plan. I would assume the Minister of Public Safety would have been well versed in the departmental plan that he signed off on and now this piece of legislation I know will lead to greater costs down the road, both in personnel and in financial resources. Personnel do not work for free.I have a great concern more generally with the Government of Canada's behaviour. On the one hand, it talks a good game and puts out flowery language. We heard about the housing strategy. There is no money in it until late into future governments that will actually have to do something about the so-called housing strategy. There are news releases and pretty photo ops. In fact, the Auditor General of Canada, in the last report, accused the government of putting photo ops ahead of doing anything. That is pretty typical now for the Government of Canada.We have the Auditor General slamming the government for its behaviour on photo ops, public relations, its public image management in a government report, so we know there is something wrong. It is pretty typical. The Liberals have done this constantly. During the election campaign, they said they had costed out the so-called tax on the rich, which would be paid off by the so-called middle-income bracket tax cut that all of us here enjoyed and that those earning less than $45,000 got zero. They got nothing. The working poor got nothing.However, the Liberals talked a good game. Then the Department of Finance numbers came out and they were wrong again. They failed at it again. They lost money by the scheme of fleecing the rich, so called, in a vain attempt to try to win public support on the backs of others. It is the bait and switch that we have seen in the House of Commons on a consistent set of issues, and Bill C-83 just happens to be the latest one.Many of my Conservative colleagues were not calling for a return to medieval dungeons or a return to house segregation. We have heard of the cases where people have died in administrative segregation because it was misused, there were no good rules surrounding when, how and to whom it should apply. What Liberals are proposing with this piece of legislation is completely taking it apart. We know, by looking at the departmental plan, that they have not done their homework. Again, that is pretty typical of the government. They have not done their homework, they have not consulted with the guards and I am wondering why not. Why would one not ask the men and women in the workplace? This is where they go on a consistent basis. We talk so much in this House about how we work and the type of work environment we want here, but we are going to make it more difficult for prison guards to do their work in their work environment? Prisoners are supposed to be there temporarily to ensure the safety of the public and for rehabilitation. The guards will possibly spend their entire lives there because this is where they work and we are going to make it more difficult. There will be less personnel at Correctional Service Canada by 2020-21 and there will be a real cut of 8.8% in financial resources. I am not the one saying that. That is in the Minister of Public Safety's plan. That is what he has put forward. I will not be supporting this bill because there is nothing to it. It is a bunch of words on paper that Liberals have put together. They have misapplied the two court rulings and provided no financial or people resources to make it happen. It is bad legislation, it is poorly thought out and it is poor administration on the government's side.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsGovernment policyImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitUnited States of America55870545587055558705655870575587058558705955870605587061558706255870635587064558706555870665587067558706855870695587070AdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, the problem is that I only have a minute or so to pose a question when I could probably use 10 or 20 minutes to counter the misinformation the member has put on the record. We have heard a couple of times from the Conservatives, for example, that body scans only apply to prisoners, which is not the case. They constantly say in their speeches that correctional officers were not consulted, which is just not the case. Does the member not believe that when members stand to speak, facts do matter? When a member makes a statement that correctional officers were not consulted, when they were consulted, should the member be saying that? Should members say that body scans only apply to prisoners, and a number of Conservatives said that, when it is not the case, when visitors will be subjected on occasion to body scans? Do facts matter when opposition members stand to speak on legislation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading55870715587072TomKmiecCalgary ShepardTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals care so much about the environment the guards will be working in and care truthfully for their opinion, one would think that in the 22 priorities listed in Correctional Service Canada's plan they would actually mention the safety and work environment for prison guards. I will let the member know, maybe he has not read the plan, which is quite possible as they get attached to the estimates and many members forget about them, but out of the 22 priorities, not one mentions the safety of the guards working in corrections services.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading55870735587074KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this whole debate. We have issues with criminal justice in this country where we have murderers and rapists going free because the justice minister has not appointed enough judges. We have 160 ISIS terrorists who have returned and are wandering free, but only had 10 charges laid. When I see the myriad of things that the government could have brought, the bill before us would address 340 people who are currently in segregation. It just seems like it should not be such a big priority. Would the member agree?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCanadians in foreign countriesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNational securitySecond readingTerrorism and terrorists558707555870765587077TomKmiecCalgary ShepardTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree with the member for Sarnia—Lambton. She is absolutely right. What we should be doing is looking after the public safety issue that we have raised multiple times now in the House with returning ISIS terrorists. Let me frank here. ISIS, as a combat unit, as a combat effective force, has been defeated on the ground. Those people today who are choosing to return, who are asking to return, are not returning because they have a change of heart. They are not returning because they have seen the horrible atrocities being committed in eastern Syria and Iraq. They are returning because the people who kept them safe in their territories have been militarily defeated by western powers, by the Russian Federation, by Assad's forces and by Kurdish forces on the ground. Many of these people we know very little about. We do not know what type of combat training they received. That is a true public safety concern and should be a top priority for the department instead of something that will look after 300 prisoners in administrative segregation. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCanadians in foreign countriesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNational securitySecond readingTerrorism and terrorists558707855870795587080MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's very well-researched and thoughtful remarks on this. What I found most astounding is that earlier we had a parliamentary secretary misquote the law of Canada, suggesting a lower court decision was actually that of the Supreme Court of Canada. I am glad he corrected the record.What I would like my colleague to comment on is the very fact that the government, on many things, is of two faces. It has a bill before the House that it did not even consult front-line correctional workers on, the justice department is actually appealing the decisions in the lower courts with respect to these issues, yet it has a bill before Parliament. We have heard a lot of rhetoric today in the House with respecting the courts. My friend, Peter Van Loan, was quoted at length by the Minister of Public Safety in an almost embarrassing fashion. Does my colleague think that there should be a bill in the House when there has not been comprehensive consultation with the people impacted, and while the government is appealing lower court decisions on the very issue of the bill? Should this not wait until the courts have determined the full rights and rules with respect to solitary confinement?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading55870815587082558708355870845587085TomKmiecCalgary ShepardTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, this matter is before the courts and so I cannot give further commentary.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading5587086ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on second reading of Bill C-83, which would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. [Translation]As the Minister of Public Safety told us, our government's top priority is protecting Canadians from natural disasters, threats to national security, and, of course, crime. We are doing a number of things to protect Canadian communities from criminal activity.[English]One of the most significant things we can do to enhance public safety is make our correctional system as effective as possible in dealing with people who have committed crimes so when their sentences are over they do not commit new ones. Bill C-83, the legislation before us today, will significantly strengthen the ability of our corrections system to achieve that objective and keep Canadians safe.Following recent court decisions on administrative segregation, Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units, SIUs, which will allow offenders to be separated from mainstream inmate population as required while maintaining their access to rehabilitative programming, interventions and mental health care. If passed, the bill would allow Canada to take a major step forward to having a modern evidence-based correctional system that understands clearly the nexus between the mental health of offenders and the safety of communities.As colleagues may not be familiar with the concept of administrative segregation, let me take a moment to provide the chamber with a foundational understanding of what it means.The Correctional Service of Canada defines “administrative segregation” as “the separation of an inmate to prevent association with other inmates, when specific legal requirements are met, other than pursuant to a disciplinary decision.” Even now, while administrative segregation remains a tool that the Correctional Service of Canada has at its disposal, the objective is always to ensure that it is only used for the shortest period of time necessary when there is no reasonable or safe alternative. Clearly, isolating someone almost all day, every day is an extreme measure that must be used rarely and with caution. In 1955, the United Nations congress on the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders was convened. There, delegates adopted the first iteration of the standard minimal rules for the treatment of prisoners. These represent the very first universally acknowledged minimal standards for the management of prison facilities and the treatment of prisoners. They inform the development of prison policies and practices the world over. They stood the test of time, serving as a standard-bearer for nearly half a century.In 2011, it was decided that these ought to be updated, and by 2015 a new set of revised rules had been crafted. In December 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the revised rules, known as the “Nelson Mandela rules”, to honour the legacy of the late president of South Africa, who spent 27 years in prison in the course of his struggle for global human rights, equity, democracy and the promotion of a culture of peace. This is important to understand, because one of the primary updates that were made when the Mandela rules were released in 2015 was in the area of discipline and the use of solitary confinement. For the first time, solitary confinement is clearly defined and strict limitations are recommended for its use. The Mandela rules define “solitary” as “the confinement of inmates for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact.” They prohibit prolonged solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days. Many have argued that these kinds of conditions have the potential to be damaging to the mental health of inmates, with outcomes such as claustrophobia, anger, depression, hallucinations, insomnia, and obsessive ideation or fixation on dying. I am sure all members in this chamber will agree that these outcomes are not ones that we want to see for inmates, who I will remind members are, by and large, going to be released into Canadian society. It is in no one's interest, least of all the general public's, for offenders to enter a correctional institution and come out worse off than when they went in. Although the Mandela rules are not binding on Canada or any other UN member country, they are an important source of guidance and information. We know that we can always strive to do better when it comes to our criminal justice system and the safety of our communities. That is the spirit behind this bill. Under this new legislation, SIUs would be established to provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety and security risks of inmates who cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. Inmates in an SIU would receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific situation, have an opportunity for a minimum of four hours a day outside of their cell, have an opportunity for at least two hours a day of meaningful human contact and receive continued programming to help them progress toward their correctional plan objectives. At the end of the day, all members of this place must remember this. Almost all federal offenders will return to the community one day. Safe and humane custody and access to programs and services while incarcerated increase the chance that offenders will come back as law-abiding contributing members of society. This creates greater public safety for all Canadians. It is for these reasons that I support Bill C-83 and encourage all members to do the same.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5587087558708855870895587090558709155870925587093558709455870955587096558709755870985587099TomKmiecCalgary ShepardKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up some very good points. There are some parts of Bill C-83 that we support, like the scanners that we would like to see a bit further.Earlier, we asked two different members of the Liberal government about whether they had done the costs. We note in the Liberals' departmental plans that even before wage increases for our correctional officers it is showing, with inflation, about an 8.8% cut in spending. We asked the parliamentary secretary and she said to ignore that because they have spent so much in the last two years. I introduced a Library of Parliament report that shows they actually cut spending to Correctional Service in their first three years of government. We asked another Liberal member of Parliament, who said that the Conservatives cut money to border services. I would be happy to table this report that shows the Liberals have cut money to CBSA since they came to power.Has the member across the way done the study on how much this is going to cost in services? Where are they going to find the money to provide the extra officers to escort the prisoners and to renovate the prisons, when they are showing in their own departmental plan that they are cutting resources to Correctional Services? This is not a partisan question. This is a safety issue for our corrections officers. How are we going to provide resources to them when we are showing at the same time that we are burdening them with extra work, but we are cutting their resources in the Liberals' plan?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558710055871015587102ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. With respect, specifically, to Canada Border Services, there have been significant increases under this government, so I am not sure I can trust the hon. member's numbers. On the other side of things, what is the cost—Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5587103KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1245)[English]I hear the member calling out from the other side. I am sure he is excited to ask another question.That being said, what is the cost of doing nothing? The Conservative plan is for us to have more hardened criminals. Knowing that almost all of these people are going to be released, we want a safer population with a lower recidivism rate, and this is a bill that would achieve that. It would lead to lower costs for the taxpayers at the end of the line, and that is the important thing and it would better public safety.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55871055587106KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Catharines alluded to two lower court decisions and, typical of the Liberals in trying to justify their legislation, they argue that the courts made them do it. In that vein, I was wondering if the member for St. Catharines could explain why the government is appealing those decisions.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5587107ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, as the law has not changed, the government has an obligation to proceed with the justice system and proceed to appealing those decisions, as the law that exists on the books is not something that the government necessarily wants to see. We do want to see changes, and we appreciate and respect the court's decision, but as a matter of course and a matter of principle, the appeal has to go forward. We hope that Parliament moves quickly, and I hope the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton will support this bill and we can get it to the Senate as quickly as possible.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5587108MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, juxtaposing the member for St. Catharines' remarks with question period is really what I want to talk about. Here, we have a case where this bill deals with subjects currently under appeal by the federal government, by the justice department, for lower court decisions in two provinces, namely the B.C. Supreme Court. The very subject matter of solitary confinement is under appeal. Therefore, is it appropriate in this House for us to be discussing something that is currently before the courts?We heard repeatedly today from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness what we should not be discussing in this House. He quoted my friend, Peter Van Loan, at length about it, yet several Liberal members are referring to court decisions that are leading to this bill and the substantive elements in this bill. Could the member square how the Liberals are more than happy to talk about ongoing court proceedings in this subject, but not when it comes to the due process rights of one of our top-ranking military officers?Access to informationC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCanadian ForcesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersInformation leaksLegal proceedingsNorman, MarkSecond reading55871095587110ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1250)[English]Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the subject of due process, it is ironic that the Conservatives will stand up and ask questions about that because they have shown time and again their unwillingness to consider that for other individuals. That being said, this is a decision that has been made, it is a decision that is public and it is a decision that we can talk about frequently. Cases that are before the courts, cases that are under criminal investigation and cases that the Public Prosecution Service is dealing with are an entirely different ball game. It is shameful that the hon. member would attempt to confuse these things.At the end of the day, this is a policy decision by the government. It is a bill that would increase public safety, and something we should all be moving forward on for the safety of Canadians.Access to informationC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCanadian ForcesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersInformation leaksLegal proceedingsNorman, MarkSecond reading55871115587112ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP): (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be rising in the House to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. Before I go any further, I want to express my unqualified admiration and appreciation for the incredible and very important work done by the employees of the Correctional Service of Canada and Drummond Institution, especially the mental health professionals.I have had the opportunity to meet with their union representatives on several occasions to learn more about what they are dealing with. What they go through every day is not easy. I take my hat off to them for doing such a terrific job. They deserve the highest praise.I should note that these employees have been affected by the infamous Phoenix pay system problems. In 2017, 60% of the employees of Drummond Institution had issues with the Phoenix pay system. Sadly, the people at Drummond Institution have had a rough time, whether because of their poor working conditions or because of the Phoenix pay system fiasco.Again, I thank the people at Drummond Institution who work hard to keep our communities safe while inmates serve their sentences. They also do all the work involved in rehabilitating the inmates so that they can contribute to our society and our community when they leave prison.I now want to get into the context around Bill C-83 because that has an impact on today's debate. By the minister's own admission, the bill was only ever meant to address some of the concerns expressed by the courts in their rulings.First, the Supreme Court of British Columbia explicitly said that there are not enough tools for ensuring that a lawyer is present during administrative segregation hearings. Inmates are put in administrative segregation without independent third-party oversight, which would allow for a second opinion before proceeding.It also mentioned the inhumane conditions resulting from overuse of administrative segregation and the fact that a predetermined time limit on the use of administrative segregation had been ignored. That is extremely important. There has to be a limited number of days and even hours during which inmates can remain in administrative segregation.That ties in with part of the ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which states that more than 48 hours in administrative segregation may cause serious and irreversible mental health problems. Earlier we were talking about rehabilitation. That is another very important aspect. When people have served their sentence and reintegrate into society, we do not want their mental health to be aggravated by their stay in prison. We want them to be rehabilitated so that they can contribute to our community in a positive and constructive way.(1255)That is the most troubling part.The use of administrative segregation has been found to be abusive by the correctional investigator countless times and in countless reports that he has published over the past decade.In addition, some vulnerable populations, such as women with mental health issues and indigenous peoples, are overrepresented in administrative segregation. More than 42% of inmates in administrative segregation are indigenous. This situation is obviously quite problematic.What exactly does this bill do? We are concerned that it is nothing more than a repackaged administrative segregation system. The name is different, but inmates can still be kept in segregation for an indeterminate period of time, for up to 20 hours a day. The government claims that this is a big step forward, since the maximum will be 20 hours instead of 22, but that is essentially the same. This is obviously just window dressing.This can cause permanent damage to inmates' mental health. These inmates will be returning to society. We do not want their mental health to be permanently damaged. On the contrary, we want them to be rehabilitated and to reintegrate into society.I am a teacher by profession. Some of my colleagues teach in the adult education program at the Drummond Institution to help inmates do everything they can to improve their situation when they return to society. These are good things that are happening in our correctional institutions. It is important to mention them and to point out all the work that is being done, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.The current situation is very difficult. Very painful things have happened. There was the tragic death of Ashley Smith and the subsequent recommendations from the coroner. In June 2017, 399 federal inmates were in administrative segregation and 94 of them had been there for over 90 consecutive days. Over 90 consecutive days in administrative segregation can have an impact on a person's mental health. It is just not right.Instead, we need to improve the situation in our correctional institutions. How is it that we still have overcrowded prisons? How is it that we still have a lack of mental health care professionals? How is it that there is a lack of programs for inmates so that they can get the training they need to find jobs when they get out of prison?That is extremely important. We need a different approach to administrative segregation, with limits and external oversight so that there is a different point of view from that of prison workers.In recent years, the two rulings that I mentioned earlier have shown how important it is to implement legislation that is much more structured than Bill C-83, which will do little to change the situation.Many studies have shown that prolonged administrative segregation can trigger or aggravate certain psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, depression, impulsiveness, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, and more. It can increase the number of suicide attempts or make inmates suicidal.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinement5587113558711455871155587116558711755871185587119558712055871215587122558712355871245587125558712655871275587128558712955871305587131ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting part of this debate to watch the opposition parties. Both the Conservatives and the New Democrats oppose this legislation, but for very different reasons. I can somewhat understand the Conservative side. I disagree with it, but I somewhat understand it. On the other hand, the NDP makes absolutely no sense at all. There is something really wrong with this picture and why the NDP—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55871325587133FrançoisChoquetteDrummondToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering if you could inform the House of the amount of time this debate has taken place.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPoints of orderSecond readingTime limits on debate5587134KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, that was an interesting interjection, I must say.What I was getting at is that if we look at the legislation, it is very progressive. I would have thought the New Democrats would have favoured the change from segregated units to having services and programming, such as health services. There are other aspects, such as the body scanners. There is the access to audio for victims who are not attending parole hearings. There is a lot of good stuff in this legislation.Could my colleague across the way identify precisely what in this legislation makes the NDP oppose it?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558713755871385587139KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. François Choquette: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, earlier on I identified everything wrong with this bill. First, the government should not be tabling a bill that does not address the court rulings. This bill will be deemed unconstitutional too. That is the first problem.The other problem with this bill is that the significant, express demands for external oversight and monitoring of inmate segregation placements were not accepted. That is an extremely serious problem. In recent years, some people have still ended up spending more than 90 days in segregation without external oversight. Just imagine the psychological and mental health consequences of spending more than 90 days in segregation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55871405587141KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLindaDuncanEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very cogent, thoughtful and clear speech about the things he would like to see changed in this bill.One of the things that troubles me is that the government is promising that via this legislation, all of a sudden there are going to be additional resources for inmates that would resolve the kinds of problems that we have run into where in many cases someone who is completely mentally stable becomes unstable as a result of a long period of incarceration and solitary confinement.In the case of Eddie Snowshoe, he was sent to a healing centre with the presumption that all 300-plus first nations in Canada practice exactly the same cultural practices. He wanted to leave because he said he could not relate to what was going on.Could my colleague speak to the issue of there being no promised exponential increase in dollars to ensure that we have more healing centres? Maybe the government will bring back the prison farms. Perhaps it will give greater consideration to communications between prisons, so inmates do not start again at zero in solitary confinement.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5587142558714355871445587145FrançoisChoquetteDrummondFrançoisChoquetteDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35351FrançoisChoquetteFrançois-ChoquetteDrummondNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChoquetteFrançois_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. François Choquette: (1305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I want to start by expressing my deepest gratitude to everyone working at Drummond Institution, including the correctional officers and all other staff, especially the mental health professionals. What is important, and not just for this bill, which fails to address the court ruling, is that we also need to do something about prison overcrowding and the shortage of health care professionals and other professionals. My colleague also mentioned that we need these resources to reduce the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in our prisons and in segregation. We also need to reduce the overrepresentation of people with mental illness. Most of the women who end up in segregation are women with mental illness. We need to provide services. Segregation is not a service that improves overrepresentation of women with mental illness or overrepresentation of indigenous peoples.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealing lodgesImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558714655871475587148LindaDuncanEdmonton StrathconaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusGreg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): (1305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-83.One of the things that I find truly remarkable about this bill is that specific measures were taken for the rehabilitation process of inmates with mental health problems.Before becoming an MP, I promised myself to go see things that I could not see as a regular citizen. The first such thing was to visit a military base and meet the men and women who are committed to serving the country.The second was to visit a prison. I knew that the reality in penitentiaries was quite different from that of ordinary Canadians. In December 2016, I had the privilege of visiting a penitentiary and that experience had a real impact on me. I saw the conditions that criminals are living in. There certainly are people who deserve to be there, but they will leave prison one day. It is important to provide all the necessary services to give them the best chances to reintegrate into civil society.I visited two men's prisons. The inmates not only have trouble obeying the law, but also have mental health issues. I am very proud that this bill will give them access to services that can help them learn to deal with their mental illness. I think a holistic, comprehensive solution to all this is key to ensuring that people have a chance to deal with their problems. In many cases, mental illness is what led these people to break the law.That is why I am very proud to participate in this debate and support this bill. The program will enable inmates to reintegrate thanks to better services that help them deal with their mental illness.The second reason I am so proud to participate in developing this program is that it will give us an opportunity to take a close look at issues affecting indigenous populations. As we all know, 4% of Canada's population is indigenous. I went to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, to visit the penitentiary, where the majority of the population is indigenous. In general, penitentiary populations are between 26% and 28% indigenous.(1310)That is six to seven times higher than their demographic weight, which I think indicates a number of things. First, we need to do better with respect to many issues affecting indigenous communities. Second, systemic discrimination exists in our criminal justice system. We need to do everything we can to tackle these issues. I was very proud to hear the speech given by the Minister of Justice last June, I think, when she was introducing Bill C-75. She said that we are going to try to address this, because it is extremely important. As a black Canadian, I am well aware that people in the black community are also victims. There were a lot of black inmates in the prison I visited in 2016, even though it was in a very remote area of Saskatchewan. This also indicates that there is a problem with systemic discrimination in our justice system. We need to address and resolve these issues. I am proud to say that the provisions of this bill will give us the opportunity to ensure that all services are provided, which is very important and can improve the chances that these individuals will be able to successfully integrate into society. That is the goal. We are not like some people who believe that humans can be treated like animals, that you can put them in a cage, lock the door and throw away the key. That is not acceptable. That is inhumane. That view is not worthy of a civilized society such as ours. We must ensure that we properly address these issues. When people break the law, there definitely will be consequences. Those people deserve to be in jail, but we must plan for and consider the day that they will get out of jail. We cannot just punish them. We also have to teach them how to be members of our civilized society and how to be good citizens. In order to do that, we have an obligation to ensure that they receive all services they need to better adapt and better reintegrate into our society. I encourage all my colleagues who have not yet done so to follow my lead and visit a penitentiary or a prison.That will change their minds. That will encourage members to focus on finding solutions that will help these people to get out of jail, learn their lesson and learn to obey the laws and customs of a civil society. If they do not, there will be consequences. However, we want to ensure that these people are ultimately well reintegrated into our society. That is why I am delighted to learn that we will have services to try to help these people address their mental health issues.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthRacial equalitySecond reading558715155871525587153558715455871555587156558715755871585587159558716055871615587162BruceStantonSimcoe NorthErinO'TooleHon.Durham//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, all sides in politics can sometimes resort to easy catch phrases to summarize the views of their contemporaries. When I hear “locking up people in cages” and things like that, I do not think it describes some of the valid concerns about this bill mainly because part of our criminal process, as covered in section 718 of the Criminal Code under “Purpose and Principles of Sentencing”, means that protection of the public, separation of a dangerous offender from the public, has to be part of the discussion. Once we have incarcerated someone for a serious crime, particularly ones with violent tendencies, we also have to consider the safety and wellness of our correctional service officers, uniformed service people who go through tremendous stress in that job.When it comes to a bill that has not properly consulted correctional service officers, they not putting people in cages, they are detaining people, protecting the public as part of our criminal justice system. As important as rehabilitation is, one of the principles of sentencing, equally as important is separation of the offender. That is a principle in the Criminal Code as well to protect the public from dangerous offenders.Will the member commit, as part of this bill, to speak more with correctional service members to hear their concerns about a top-down approach when it comes to solitary confinement or procedures within the penal system?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading558716355871645587165GregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusGreg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Greg Fergus: (1320)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Durham for his questions and comments. I appreciate him asking his question in a reasonable tone of voice.However, I do not want him to misrepresent my comments by saying that we are going to lock people up in their cells. Yes, there must be consequences, and we have to protect not only society, but also our correctional officers. We agree on that. Actions must have consequences. However, with the exception of those deemed impossible to rehabilitate, most inmates eventually get out of prison. That means we are responsible for ensuring that they are prepared to return to society and the mainstream population.That is why I am so proud of our bill. It will give them access to services, specifically mental health services. Whether their mental health issues are lifelong or developed while they were incarcerated, we have to meet those needs because they will go back into society one day.I am sure that, like me, my colleague from Durham and all of our other colleagues want these people to be prepared to reintegrate and become citizens once again.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading5587166558716755871685587169ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.While there are some measures in the bill that are positive, on the whole, I cannot support Bill C-83. I cannot support Bill C-83, because important aspects of the bill, significant aspects of the bill, put criminals ahead of public safety. They put criminals ahead of our correctional officers, employees in correctional institutions. These are folks who work in some of the most difficult and dangerous work environments in Canada. Indeed, one could say that Bill C-83 is part of a Liberal scheme to put criminals first. Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Bill C-83 is the fact that it would eliminate, right across the board, in all circumstances, both administrative and disciplinary segregation. Under section 31 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, segregation is a last resort. The institutional head may only order that an inmate be segregated when there are reasonable grounds under one of three criteria: first, the inmate poses a security risk to the institution or to an individual in that institution; second, again as a last resort, there is a need to protect the integrity of an investigation; and third, it is necessary to protect the inmate from harm. Not only that, under section 31 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, an inmate must be released from segregation at the earliest opportunity. If we listened to the speeches from members on the Liberal side and the NDP side, we would think it was something that occurred on a routine basis. In fact, when it comes to segregation, the criteria are high, the standard is high, and very few inmates are subjected to it. Indeed, if one looks at the statistics, in 2014-15, 638 inmates across Canada were subject to administrative segregation. That number fell to 430 in 2016-17, and as of July 31, 2017, fewer than 300 inmates were subject to administrative segregation. The number of inmates who were subjected to disciplinary segregation is even lower: five in 2010-11 among male inmates, down to three in 2014-15; among female inmates, the number was zero, other than one year, 2012-13, when one female inmate was subjected to disciplinary segregation.While the standard is high, and while it is only used in the rarest circumstances, make no mistake about it, segregation is an important tool to deal with, in some cases, the most dangerous and violent offenders in our institutions. Members do not have to take my word for it. They can take the word of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who said, in regard to Bill C-83, “the new Bill C-83 must not sacrifice disciplinary segregation as a tool to deter violent behaviour.” This is the union that represents the men and women who work in correctional institutions. However, instead of listening to them, the government ignored them. The government totally disregarded them and said that it had no choice, because the courts made it do it. (1325)Balderdash, that the courts made the government do it. There are two court decisions. The parliamentary secretary said the Supreme Court of Canada made the government do it. He had to stand up in his place and admit there was no Supreme Court of Canada decision. However, neither of the lower court decisions contemplates the elimination of segregation in all circumstances, nor does the 1996 Arbour commission, nor do the UN Mandela rules. It seems the only people who want to eliminate it in all circumstances are the Liberals at the expense of the safety and security of correctional officers and at the expense of the safety and security of inmates. The government should be ashamed.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5587172558717355871745587175558717655871775587178558717955871805587181BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release Act [Bill C-83—Notice of time allocation motion]InterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersNotice of motionSecond readingTime allocation55871845587185BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1010)[English]Bill C-83. Second reading moved 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. He said: Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the legislation we are about to discuss today pertaining to the correctional system, I want to take this moment to recognize that the family, friends and colleagues of a correctional officer, the late Lesa Zoerb, will be gathering tomorrow for her funeral service in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan. Lesa lost her life in a vehicle crash while on duty last week. She was born in Regina. She had two children. She had worked as a federal correctional officer for 20 years.I know everyone in this House will want to join with me in extending our deepest condolences to all those who are mourning the loss of Lesa, especially her loving family. May she rest in peace.I will now move on to the legislation at hand. What we are doing today is opening the second reading debate on Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.The act is all about greater safety, security and effectiveness within Canada's correctional system. It follows two superior court decisions that have imposed certain deadlines on Parliament, which will be coming up toward the end of this year.[Translation]Our government's top priority is protecting Canadians from natural disasters, threats to national security, and, of course, crime. We are doing a number of things to protect Canadian communities from criminal activity.[English]To protect Canadian communities from criminal activity, we are supporting law enforcement and ensuring that the brave women and men who serve our communities have the resources they need to do their jobs. We are funding programs that help keep young Canadians out of gangs and provide them with more positive opportunities and choices. We are addressing some of the social determinants of crime, like poverty, housing and education. We are combatting gun smuggling at the border and the flow of illegal cash into organized crime. We are also advancing new legislation to tackle some of the most serious threats to the safety of our communities, like gun violence and impaired driving.Another significant thing we can do to enhance public safety is to make our correctional system as effective as possible at dealing with people who have committed crimes, so that when their sentences are over they are prepared to go straight and not commit new crimes. Certainly, there are some offenders who have received life sentences from the courts and who may never be granted any form of conditional release by the Parole Board. However, the vast majority will eventually return to our communities, which is why the main responsibility of our correctional system is to do as much as possible to ensure that when offenders are released, they are ready to leave their criminal past behind them and to lead safe, productive, law-abiding lives. We all want fewer offenders, fewer victims and safer communities. Achieving that is obviously no easy task. It involves an expert, accurate assessment of each offender's issues, needs and criminogenic risk, both at intake and on an ongoing basis. It involves meeting those needs and reducing those risks through appropriate interventions, programming, education, skills training and gradual supervised release, as opposed to simply sending an offender cold turkey straight from maximum security back into society. It also involves any required treatment for addiction or mental health. The Correctional Service of Canada estimates that about 70% of all inmates exhibit symptoms of some form of mental illness. In administrative segregation, more than one-third of men and virtually all women have moderate to high mental health issues.(1015)The legislation before us today would significantly strengthen the ability of our correctional system to achieve the objectives of the system and to keep Canadians safe. Safety is job number one.To begin with, the bill introduces an innovative new way of dealing with offenders who for one reason or another cannot be housed within the general population of a correctional institution. At the moment, those offenders are placed in administrative segregation. Segregated inmates are allowed two hours out of their cell per day and interactions with other people are tightly limited. While the correctional service tries to avoid interruptions and interventions in programming, practical considerations make that very difficult to do.Intense debate about administrative segregation has been ongoing for many years. Despite the fact that the practice harkens back to the treatment of Nelson Mandela on Robben Island and has been branded by some as a form of torture, particularly by comments at the United Nations, there are those who have defended administrative segregation as a valuable security management tool.On the other side of the debate, the use of segregation has been vigorously criticized by the correctional investigator, by the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith a number of years ago, by many NGOs and most recently by a number of Canadian courts.Within the last year, courts in both Ontario and British Columbia have ruled in different ways and for different reasons that administrative segregation as currently practised is not constitutional. Those rulings have been appealed, one by the government and one by the other party, but at the moment they are scheduled to take effect in just a few months, toward the end of this year and the beginning of next year, and we as a Parliament need to be prepared for that eventuality. That is part of the reason for the timing of Bill C-83 today.There can be no doubt that within a correctional institution it is essential to have an effective way of separating certain people from others be it for their own safety or for the safety of staff and volunteers or for the safety of other inmates.The question that we have been examining is how to do that effectively while maintaining as much as possible the offender's access to the programming, the mental health care and the other interventions that are available to the general population, especially given that the people who end up in segregation often have needs and risks that are particularly acute.The solution that we are proposing in Bill C-83 is to completely eliminate the existing practice of administrative segregation and replace it with a new approach, and that is the creation of structured intervention units, or SIUs.These units will be separate from the general population so that the safety imperative will be met. But they will be designed and they will be staffed and resourced to ensure that the people who are placed there will receive the interventions, the programming and the treatment that is required.Inmates in SIUs will be out of their cells for at least four hours daily, with a minimum of two hours of meaningful interaction with staff, volunteers, elders, visitors or other compatible inmates.Additional mental health professionals will be hired and assigned specifically to the SIUs. The legislation will make it clear that inmates are not to be separated from the general population any longer than necessary.This new approach will help to ensure the safety of correctional institutions and the public by strengthening the capacity of the Correctional Service of Canada to promote rehabilitation in a secure environment.(1020)Bill C-83 also includes several other related measures to further that same objective. For example, it would implement a key recommendation from the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith to establish a system of patient advocates for inmates with mental needs. Patient advocates would work with offenders and correctional staff to help ensure that people in federal custody receive appropriate medical care. The legislation would also enshrine in law the principle that medical professionals working in the corrections system must be free to exercise their professional judgment autonomously on the basis of their own medical expertise. These measures would, ultimately, enhance public safety because offenders whose medical and mental health issues are under control are more likely to achieve safe and successful rehabilitation and less likely to reoffend after they have served their sentences.The bill would also formalize the obligation on the part of the Correctional Service of Canada to take into account systemic and background factors affecting indigenous people when making offender management decisions. The consideration of these factors is, in fact, an obligation that was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1999 Gladue decision. For 15 years, Correctional Service Canada has had policy directives in place implementing that obligation, but now it would be enshrined in law.As we all know, indigenous people are dramatically overrepresented in our corrections system, and that is a harsh reality that we all have to work hard to change. While the socio-economic factors that cause this overrepresentation must generally be addressed by other departments and agencies before incarceration occurs, it is the responsibility of the corrections system to provide indigenous offenders with both appropriate consequences for criminal activity, as well as effective and culturally appropriate rehabilitative interventions. The changes made by this bill would help ensure that is the case.This legislation would also expand the access of victims to information related to parole hearings. Currently, a victim who does not attend a parole hearing is entitled to receive an audio recording of the hearing, but for some reason, if victims do attend, they lose their right to receive a recording, and that just does not make much sense. Attending parole hearings can be a very difficult experience for victims of crime and their families, and we have seen that demonstrated in recent days. They cannot possibly be expected to retain every word of what is said, nor should they have to. If, after the hearing is over, it is all a bit of a blur and they would like to listen to the proceedings again in a more comfortable setting, they should be able to do that, and this bill would give them that right.This bill would also allow for the use of body scanner technology to help keep contraband substances out of federal correctional institutions. These kinds of devices are already in use in many provincial correctional facilities. They make it easier for officers to detect when someone is trying to smuggle in drugs or other illicit materials and they are less invasive than other methods of security, like strip searches, for example. Keeping contraband out of correctional facilities would help make institutions as safe and secure as possible. The safety of employees, volunteers, visitors and inmates is an absolute prerequisite for all the other work that Correctional Service Canada does.In other words, the legislation that is before us today in Bill C-83 recognizes two things. The first is that institutional security is an absolute imperative that the Correctional Service of Canada must always meet.(1025) Second, the safety of Canadian communities depends on the rehabilitative work that happens within secure correctional institutions. The new structured intervention units being created by Bill C-83 will help keep institutions safe by ensuring that inmates can be separated from the general population when that is necessary and they will help keep Canadian communities safe by ensuring the continuity of rehabilitative programming and the accessibility of mental health care for the inmates in these units.Let us be clear. Providing quality, rehabilitative programming and mental health care is not about being nice to criminals. Rather, by having a correctional system that is as effective as possible at preventing people who have broken the law from breaking it again, we are increasing the safety of our communities. That is our priority and that is why we are introducing this legislation, taking full account of the most recent decisions of Canadian courts. I look forward very much to the constructive input of all colleagues in the House, both during today's debate and throughout the legislative process on Bill C-83. Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSmugglingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unitTraffic accidentsWorkplace fatalities558417155841725584173558417455841755584176558417755841785584179558418055841815584182558418355841845584185558418655841875584188558418955841905584191558419255841935584194558419555841965584197558419855841995584200558420155842025584203KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1025)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for his speech.Mr. Minister, your government is talking about changing—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55842045584205RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1025)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I apologize; it is early. The government is changing the rules governing solitary confinement in prisons. Before those criminals go to prison, they are in the streets. In Canada, street gangs and organized crime are a huge problem. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness promised to make funds available to crack down on those people.On June 4, the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction wrote in a letter that the money had not yet been made available. I would like the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to tell me why the money he promised would be used to go after criminals and send them to jail has not yet been made available. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584207558420855842095584210CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure if I got the essence of the honourable gentleman's question. I think he was making the point that in order to achieve effective public safety one needs to have not only changes and improvements in the laws, rules and regulations, one also needs to have the financial resources and the dollar commitments to implement the principles that are enshrined in the legislation. Certainly, I agree with him. One has to make sure the laws are as good as they can be and then they must be backed up with financial resources and that is what we are doing in the context of Bill C-83. We are making the commitment that not only will the rules be changed to eliminate the practice of administrative segregation and to replace it with a new approach of structured intervention units, but that will be coupled with significant investments in staff, financial resources and other resources that are required, including mental health professionals, to make sure that Correctional Services of Canada can deliver on the principles that are embodied in this legislation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55842115584212PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, the unfortunate thing here is that it is almost Orwellian to say that the government is getting rid of administrative segregation because essentially it is the same practice under a different name. Of course, there are some bells and whistles that have been added to how it is taking place. The reality is this. In the decisions of the Ontario Superior Court and the B.C. Supreme Court, despite being somewhat different decisions, there were a few common themes. One of those themes was the lack of oversight, the lack of independent reporting and oversight and any kind of mechanism in the event of abuse taking place and the use of this practice in corrections. If we go back to Justice Arbour's recommendations in the commission of inquiry on certain events at the women's prison in Kingston where she talked about even having judicial oversight, we have the corrections investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger who said that there is no mechanism in place for recourse and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Society saying the same thing and Senator Kim Pate, who was once at that same association.I want to ask the minister this. What is this legislation actually going to do to ensure that there is proper oversight and proper recourse in the event of abuse? Right now it is in the hands of the warden or the commissioner, and that is just not good enough.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismSecond readingSolitary confinement5584213558421455842155584216RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, I would make two or three observations in response to that. Point number one is that what we are proposing to put in place is fundamentally different from administrative segregation. It is not the same approach. The courts have said that if there is going to be administration segregation, it is unconstitutional unless there is better oversight provided, unless the conditions of confinement are improved and unless a number of other structural changes are made. We have taken those messages to heart. Rather than trying to repair administrative segregation, we have said that we would eliminate it entirely and replace it with a new approach. The same safeguards that were necessary in relation to administrative segregation would become quite different in nature, because our new system would be fundamentally different.Second, as the hon. gentleman has observed, oversight and a number of reviews are provided for in the legislation. There would be a review by the warden after five days. There would be another review after 30 days and then a review by the commissioner herself on an ongoing basis. There are review mechanisms built into the legislation.My third point is that as we go along with this debate in the House or in committee, if there are stronger ideas to be put forward for improving the review process, I would be most happy to hear what those ideas are.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersOversight mechanismSecond readingSolitary confinement558421755842185584219MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. minister has given us a very good perspective that there are challenges with safety and security in our prison system. That is obviously highly disconcerting and is why he has brought this legislation forward. Could the minister give us the performance metrics? How is he measuring safety and security in the prison system today, and how in this legislation would he measure it going forward to ensure that the legislation would actually deliver the outcomes and results he is intending?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55842205584221RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, I know that the commissioner of corrections will be anxious to have that discussion with members of Parliament when this legislation comes before the parliamentary committee to get into the precise details. Ultimately, there are two fundamental parameters we would look for. In terms of safety within the institutions, we would be looking for a steady reduction over time in the number of reported incidents of violence or disruption within those institutions. We would be looking very closely to see those statistics coming down over time, with the number of physical and dangerous situations reduced.The second thing would be the recidivism rate, because the whole point here would be to have an effective system that would not only keep everyone safe and secure but would also accomplish more effective rehabilitation so that at the end of day, we would have fewer people reoffending, we would have fewer victims and we would have safer communities. A reduction in the recidivism rate is also something we would be looking forward to.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety558422255842235584224LeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1035)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the minister knows very well that indigenous people are overrepresented in solitary confinement. These individuals currently make up 46% of the population in solitary confinement. We know that many women with mental health issues have been placed in solitary confinement. In about 90 cases—I do not recall the exact figure—inmates were kept in solitary confinement for over 90 days. According to the United Nations, more than 15 days in solitary confinement would be considered a form of torture.The legislation before us, which comes in response to the B.C. Supreme Court decision—which the government appealed, I might add—does not include any provisions to address this problem. Giving the commissioner or a warden the authority to do a review after five or 30 days is not good enough.Getting back to the question I asked earlier, would the minister be open to an amendment to ensure that we have an independent or even judicial review, if needed, to prevent abuse?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558422555842265584227RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaRalphGoodaleHon.Regina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale: (1035)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's criticism with respect to administrative segregation is obviously part of the very reason we are eliminating administrative segregation and moving to a different approach, with a different system.The issues he has raised, those raised by the correctional investigator, those raised by the coroner's inquest with respect to Ashley Smith, and those raised by the courts are clearly valid criticisms. We are addressing those criticisms by changing the system altogether. As I said in response to an earlier question, if there are stronger suggestions to be made in the course of this debate on review and oversight mechanisms, I would be anxious to hear what those are and would take them into consideration.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55842285584229MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1035)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. In our opinion, the Liberals' bill reeks of improvisation. Allow me to explain.This bill seeks to eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities and replace it with structured intervention units; to use prescribed body scanners for inmates, which is a good idea; to establish parameters for access to health care; and to formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders with diagnosed mental health conditions.Obviously, the bill in question contains some reasonable measures that are worth examining. We should all consider how we can change and improve the overall prison program. In a recent ruling, the Ontario Superior Court called into question the legality of indefinite solitary confinement, but the Liberals are appealing that decision. This is what I mean about improvisation. On one hand, the Liberals are appealing the court's decision, but on the other they are introducing a bill that introduces major changes. It is difficult to follow the Liberals' logic.As far as administrative segregation is concerned, let me share a concrete example. Last week, I was invited to Donnacona Institution, a maximum-security federal penitentiary in the Quebec City region. Representatives for correctional authorities made presentations and the union shared its concerns. Then, during the tour of the penitentiary, I was brought to the administrative segregation area so that I could see what it is. They even brought out an inmate who was in administrative segregation, a murderer who has been incarcerated for 41 years and has spent only three months out of segregation. He committed other major crimes as well.He came to see me and said that he wanted to stay in what is referred to as the “hole”, in other words, administrative segregation. That person does not want to be with the other inmates. He has been incarcerated for 41 years and says that administrative segregation suits him best. The correctional officers asked me what they are supposed to do with him since he wants to stay there. If he is forced to return to the general population that will cause problems. It is hard to know what to do or to assess the usefulness of administrative segregation.Getting back to the bill, this legislation also applies to transfers and allows the commissioner to assign a security classification to each penitentiary and all areas within penitentiaries. I do not understand that. In a maximum-security penitentiary, such as Donnacona, nothing gets in or out without the strictest controls. I know from experience because I had to go through several steps when I went to visit. Maximum security means maximum security, period. As I understand it, under this bill, a maximum-security classification could be assigned to any area of a medium- or minimum-security penitentiary. If that is not the case, someone will correct me. If we are talking about basic safety, that simply does not make sense. A maximum-security classification cannot just be assigned to an individual cell at a minimum-security facility. That would be absolutely ridiculous, since the facility's entire perimeter and security system would not be designed to guarantee maximum security. Someone needs to explain that, because I do not understand.I firmly believe that Canada has one of the best correctional systems in the world, both for prisoners and for guards. Everyone can agree that criminals need to serve their sentences, as required by law. However, a prison must not become a five-star Holiday Inn, because that will give prisoners no motivation to renounce the criminal lifestyle. When someone goes to jail, they should feel like they are in jail. They should want to leave and never come back once their sentence is up.If prisoners decide they do not like life on the outside and do bad things so they can go back to jail—which is something that is already happening, because they get free room and board, are cared for and have all their needs met—then there is a problem. This is not the way to help people get back on the straight and narrow.I was eager to see the bill. After a preliminary reading, I see some good points. It is not all bad. Just because we are in opposition, that does not mean we can only see the negative side. By no means. For example, using body scanners is a great idea. In fact, it is one of the things I wanted to recommend to the minister.(1040)The problem is the spirit of the law. These are the worst criminals in Canada. They are murderers, rapists, you name it, and they are in maximum security prisons. They are the worst people in Canada. The intent of the law is to take these people and create a structured intervention unit for them. They will spend less time in cells, and they will be put together to give each other hugs and to talk. There is a very liberal attitude underlying all of this, which I understand is about believing that everyone is good, everyone is kind.However, as I was saying, when I was at Donnacona I saw some videos about what happens in the corridors and with inmates. Those people are hardened criminals. They will attack one another on the slightest pretext. I was even shown a video of an inmate who was knifed in the head by another inmate. There is incredible violence. The most dangerous inmates, the ones who do not want to co-operate, are put into isolation cells so they can be controlled.Then there are the victims. The inmate who was attacked in the video I saw knew that something was going on. He knew that his life was in danger. These people ask to be put in segregation. They do not ask to be put in segregation so they can get touchy-feely with the most dangerous inmates. This is not how it works. This person wants to be isolated, in a quiet cell, which, I should add, is nothing like what you see in the movies. People imagine the hole like a dungeon at Alcatraz, where the guards slam the door and the room is completely black. These cells are the same size as the ones in normal sections. They are exactly the same, just more private. Inmates are segregated either to be put under control or to give them the peace they need to be safe. That is what segregation is about.I am not suggesting that nobody ever abuses the system. I am not suggesting that, over the years, people such as prison wardens have not abused the system. That may have happened, but again, why lay down a general rule to deal with exceptions? There have been exceptions. If certain individuals have taken inappropriately draconian measures, then they need to be told they did not do their job properly, and they need to be fired. Why change the whole prison system? Why change a way of doing things that works in that setting? The existing laws are fine if they are applied properly. They meet the needs of correctional officers and inmates.Prisoners have diverse needs, and many of them ask to go to the hole. The man I was talking about, who has been in prison for 41 years, wants something unusual. He wants his own blankets and he wants to stay there. The warden is trying to figure out what to do about him. It is complicated. However, we have serious concerns about the idea of taking people who are in segregation and making them hang out together for four hours. That is not really the right place for it.This is part of the Liberals' current approach to security. Canadians are very skeptical of our Prime Minister's security plan. Take, for example, our border crossings; or the government's handling of Canadians who decided it was more fun to go play with terrorists, kill people, come back and pick up their lives as though nothing had happened; or even our soldiers. For the past three years, the Liberal government's record has shown us that it has something akin to contempt for the people who work to keep Canada safe and secure. The government's management of our Canadian forces is appalling. I served for 22 years and I have friends who are still in the system. I can say that they are very disheartened by the current government.Police officers are doing what they can. They are being put in impossible situations, just as they are with the legalization of marijuana. Police officers are saying they will make it work, because they are professionals and they have no choice. In the real world, if you speak to them privately, they will tell you that it is not working and they do not have what they need. We saw how great it was yesterday with everyone lining up to buy their pot. I have to wonder who all these people are who have time to wait in the rain for three hours on a Wednesday to buy drugs. Police officers are saying they will be the ones left to deal with that. The government says the police will sort it out, they are up to the task. That is disrespectful to our security agencies.The same goes for prisons. The prison environment is a unique environment. It is a closed environment. The officers who work there are at risk every day because they have to deal with the worst thugs and the worst criminals in Canada. The Liberals like to think that everyone is nice and everything is peachy, but that is the worst way to think when dealing with these prisoners.(1045) They are the greatest manipulators. They do anything they can to manipulate others to get what they want. They want to control their environment. This is difficult for our officers, who work 24/7 to keep these prisoners under control and keep the guards and the rest of the prisoners safe.Next, I want to talk about syringes. We have a problem because the government just decided that it would use taxpayer money to give syringes to all inmates who ask for them, so that they can inject drugs. How is it that people are able to inject drugs in prison? Is the correctional setting not supposed to keep them away from all that? Drugs are smuggled in by visitors. They hide drugs in all kinds of places, but I will leave that up to your imagination. All kinds of things are brought into prison, usually through visitors and corrupt officers. It is no secret that this happens.I am pleased because, under the bill, all prisoners will be required to undergo body scan searches. However, mandatory scans will also be required for all visitors. This measure was included in the bill in response to a request from the Donnacona Institution, and I am pleased to see that it is going to happen. Ontario and British Columbia are already conducting such searches. Body scan searches will make it possible to control at least 95% of the substances that individuals bring into prisons because they will show whether there is anything hidden in an individual's body. That will allow us to prevent drugs from entering prisons. If body scan searches keep drugs out of prisons, then we can immediately suspend the needle distribution program.Prisoners will keep the needles. The most serious criminals with best ideas for doing the greatest harm will have needles in their possession. That does not make any sense. We are giving prisoners weapons. These people have a lot of imagination; we have no idea just how much. I saw a chart at the Donnacona Institution of everything that the guards had confiscated. Some inmates spend two months rubbing a nail clippers on part of their bed to create a knife. They are patient. They are there for a long time. They will take the needles from the syringes to make weapons. They will be able to make blades with the spoons provided to cook drugs.I believe that the government knows all of this. If the government understands, why is it doing this? Why is it not thinking things through and using common sense to say that it will do things the right way by installing scanning equipment and preventing drugs from entering so needles are no longer needed? We should forget about this absolutely ridiculous program which endangers the safety of our correctional officers.We cannot support Bill C-83 in its present form. Basically, there are some things that work, such as installing scanning equipment. However, we believe that creating structured intervention units is just smoke and mirrors. This shows that the government does not understand the prison system.Last week, my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and I toured a prison. The unions gave presentations to all elected members of the House. Even our Liberal and NDP colleagues heard from the unions about their concerns and were asked to stop thinking that a federal penitentiary is a fantasy world. I am referring to the prison near Quebec City, but the same applies to every federal penitentiary in Canada. Take the McClintic case, for example. This murderer's transfer from a maximum-security prison to an indigenous healing lodge got a lot of people talking two weeks ago. This is someone who ought to be serving her sentence in a maximum-security prison. In maximum-security prisons, each offender has their own cell. They eat, they sleep, they take classes if they so choose, and then they go back to their cells. They are protected because they are living in a maximum-security environment. However, for some incomprehensible reason, it was decided to send this person to a place with virtually no security.From what I gather from Bill C-83, room 83 at the healing lodge, to use a random number, will be considered a maximum-security room. If I read between the lines, that is basically what the Liberals want to do. The end result will be a place surrounded by beautiful pine trees where room 83 is a maximum-security room.(1050)Ms. McClintic will be in room 83, the maximum-security room. Do they think we are idiots? Either they must be idiots or they think we are, to believe that would work. I hope that I am wrong and that what I am saying is false.If what I am saying turns out to be the truth, then this government is really dangerous to Canadians' safety. It does not care what a maximum-security prison sentence means or what keeping Canadians safe means.Then there are the victims. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of victims who are seeing the murderer who killed their father, mother, brother or sister end up in such conditions. What must they be thinking? They must be wondering what country we live in. What kind of country lets its worst citizens spend their sentence in such conditions by claiming room 83 is a maximum-security room? This is a serious problem.I could go on about this for two hours, but I think that Canadians know that this government is not serious and that it puts Canadians' safety at risk. If this keeps up, things are bound to get worse. Otherwise, then the government should prove it by taking rational measures that are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Prisoners have rights, of course, but it is all in the way things are done. This approach is not in line with what we as Conservatives consider to be effective management of a penitentiary.AmendmentOn that note, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, since the Bill prioritizes the rights of Canada's most violent and dangerous criminals over safety and victims' rights by eliminating the use of solitary confinement, a common measure many Western countries take to protect guards from dangerous and volatile prisoners, and since the principle of the Bill fails to end the practice of allowing child killers, like Terri-Lynn McClintic, to be transferred to healing lodges instead of being kept behind bars.”C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationDrug use and abuseGovernanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersReasoned amendmentsSafetySecond readingSmugglingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit558423055842315584232558423355842345584235558423655842375584238558423955842405584241558424255842435584244558424555842465584247558424855842495584250558425155842525584253558425455842555584256558425755842585584259558426055842615584262558426355842645584265RalphGoodaleHon.Regina—WascanaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1055)[Translation]The motion is in order. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for questions and comments.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesDecisions of the SpeakerGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersReasoned amendmentsSecond reading55842665584267PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89466Robert-FalconOuelletteRobert-Falcon-OuelletteWinnipeg CentreLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/OuelletteRobertFalcon_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.): (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, under the Conservative regime, they started mixing prisoners who should not have been mixed together. That created a very dangerous situation. My brother is a corrections officer, and the Conservatives in that situation made it extremely unsafe in the prison system, and now our government has to spend a lot of time trying to clean up the mess the Conservatives left us after a decade of darkness. It was absolutely horrific. The Conservatives talk about the rights of victims and drape themselves with the victims, but at the end of the day, they created extremely dangerous situations. I would contend that the situation in the prison at Prince Albert, for instance, was created directly by the regressive policies the Conservatives put in place. In fact, these were so destructive of our corrections system that they created extremely dangerous situations, which led to riots and violence in the system. We need to look for ways to make the system safer and to make it work for the people working in the correctional facilities and for the prisoners who find themselves there so they can be rehabilitated, because most of them will eventually end up back in society. We need to find ways of making the system work for Canadians, and not follow regressive policies that do not work.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558426855842695584270CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1055)[Translation]Madam Speaker, there is so much going on in that question.I saw this last week. Within prison walls, there are problems with race, problems with language. I was surprised, because the problems were not necessarily connected to mixing white and black inmates. For example, in the Quebec City prison, the problem is between anglophones and francophones. The officers manage these situations by having separated wings in the prisons. Different street gangs cannot be mixed, of course. I do not understand what the Liberal member was trying to suggest. There may have been some policies that changed things at the time, but the fact remains that there are problems now, and they already have the solution of separating groups. Will these groups all be mixed together if there are new structured intervention units?From my understanding of the bill, it seems that that will be the case.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584271558427255842735584274Robert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg CentreMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1100)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I take issue with the use of the word “volatile”. Taking mental health problems seriously and not using this type of language is what ensures public safety. We are not talking about a one-size-fits-all solution, to paraphrase what my colleague is trying to do.The reality is that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that more than 48 hours in administrative segregation caused serious, irreversible mental health problems. The United Nations found that more than two weeks in solitary confinement is considered a form of torture. Between 2011 and 2014, 19 suicides were committed in administrative segregation.The question I have for my colleague is this: how is public safety ensured by exacerbating existing mental health problems in certain inmates? How is public safety ensured by having a system that has a clearly disproportionate representation of vulnerable individuals who will simply be released and reoffend, when we could truly help these people who have mental health problems and ensure public safety?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading558427555842765584277PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1100)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. If I am not mistaken, when our government was in power, measures were put in place to help inmates with mental health problems. We recognize that mental health is an issue and we do not want to hide that, on the contrary. We have already taken measures and now we are prepared to help people so that they do not fall any deeper into depression than they already are.The fact is that we believe Bill C-83 goes way too far in how its perspective of the reality on the ground, the reality of prisoner management. It goes to an extreme that does not work. The government could have proposed a more balanced approach, a different perspective, but this bill is way too extreme. It will not work.I agree with my colleague that it may be problematic to keep people in solitary confinement for long periods of time without cause, but this bill does not resolve that issue.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading558427855842795584280MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, during my work on my private member's bill, Bill C-211, which includes correctional officers, I spoke at length with correctional officers regarding the fact that they were the front line. They see, hear and experience oftentimes the worst of our society.In a recent statement by the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, he mentioned that over 100 assaults on officers over the last 12 months had taken place at the Regional Psychiatric Centre. Does our hon. colleague feel that the removal of disciplinary tools, such as what Bill C-83 proposes, enhances the security of correctional officers or does it make them more vulnerable to assault?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55842815584282PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1100)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George raises an excellent question.That is exactly what I was told last week in Donnacona. A number of correctional officers are on leave right now because of post-traumatic stress caused by assaults committed within the prison. Unbelievable things happen in our prisons. I was shown several videos of different types of assault. Correctional officers have to intervene in those situations. They are in real danger. They intervene to keep an inmate from killing someone, but then another inmate may come up behind them.It is a very difficult place to work. The government wants to treat the worst of the worst like delicate little flowers, while our correctional officers are putting their lives at risk every day. These officers are having a hard time understanding what the government is doing, and with good reason. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety558428355842845584285ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88394StéphaneLauzonStéphane-LauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LauzonStéphane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.): (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my opposition colleague's speech. Like his fellow Conservatives, he is once again using the politics of fear. He is also being overly dramatic by sharing examples solely for the purpose of scaring people. The opposition's examples and analogies are essentially misinformation with their talk of luxury condos and treating prisoners like delicate flowers and so on. Does my colleague agree that it is much better to support people with professional rehabilitation services than to put them in long-term solitary confinement, which makes them even more vulnerable?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55842865584287PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I love it when the Liberals tell us we are scaring people or doing whatever, but I think we are the ones who see things as they really are.As I just said, I have visited Donnacona. Union presidents come to see my colleagues and me to tell us what goes on in the real world. They do not talk about what goes on in some imaginary world; they talk about what goes on in real life. That is not scaring people, for crying out loud. We are talking about the worst criminals in the world here, and we cannot start saying we should handle the poor things the way we would handle a 15-year-old kid. It is not the same thing.We do not want to scare people. We want to tell Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, that we understand them and we are listening to them. Yes, we believe in rehabilitation. Yes, we know mental health issues are real. We know some people are in prison because of mental health issues, and of course we want to help them deal with those issues.Take the Paul Bernardo case. I am glad he did not get out of prison yesterday. He is one example. What are we to do with him? He has spent 25 years in prison. Some will say that he has done his time. He is mentally ill, he is crazy. I hope he will stay there until the end of his days. Is my colleague now going to accuse me of stoking Canadians' fears? This is life, this is the real world.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584288558428955842905584291StéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the issue of correctional officer's safety. In 2011, costs at Correctional Service Canada rose by $250 million. Between 2012 and 2015, the Conservative government cut its budget by $300 million, not to mention the two shuttered penitentiaries.Can my colleague tell me how that helps correctional officers do their job?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55842925584293PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.I was not there. The fact is that certain decisions are made at certain times. I can say that, despite what people think, Donnacona is about half full, I believe. One wing is completely empty and the other half is empty. There is plenty of room in there for more sickos. We need to deal with the Jordan decision so that people can be judged and put behind bars. If the CSC needs more money, we can make that happen. Nothing would make me happier.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55842945584295MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-83, which was introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in response to several court rulings and a debate over administrative segregation that has raged in Canada for years.I want to thank organizations like the John Howard Society, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which are leading the charge against the overuse of administrative segregation. They won out in two slightly different court rulings.Before I start, I want to give some background on those court rulings because they impact today's debate. The minister himself said that Bill C-83 is partly intended as a response to the concerns expressed by the court.Let us start with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. In its recent decision, the court explicitly said that there are not enough tools for ensuring, for example, that a lawyer is present during administrative segregation hearings. It also mentioned the inhumane conditions imposed by overuse of administrative segregation and the fact that a predetermined time limit on the use of administrative segregation had been ignored.That ties in with part of the ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which states that more than 48 hours in administrative segregation caused serious, irreversible mental health problems. This also ties in with the UN's finding that more than two weeks in administrative segregation can be defined as a form of torture. These findings are so important.The use of administrative segregation has been found to be abusive by the correctional investigator countless times and in countless reports that he has published over the past decade. We also see that an overrepresentation of certain vulnerable populations in administrative segregation shows that there is not only an abusive use, but an extremely problematic use that can exacerbate problems in some cases and hinder rehabilitation efforts of certain inmates in our correctional system. For example, there is an overrepresentation of women with mental health problems. There is also an overrepresentation of indigenous peoples, since 42% of inmates in administrative segregation are indigenous peoples. It is mind-boggling to see just how overrepresented indigenous peoples are in administrative segregation. Let us not forget that they are already overrepresented the general prison population.(1110)[English]The decision brought forward by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, following efforts by, among others, the BC Civil Liberties Association, made it clear that the Correctional Service of Canada was acting in a way that was deemed to be unconstitutional under section 7. What did the government do following a very clear prescription from that court about what could be done in order to remedy the situation? It appealed that decision, and that was shameful. It was interesting that in June 2017, certainly before that decision was made, the government had legislation before the House, which is still on the Order Paper, Bill C-56. Bill C-56 sought to remedy, in part, the issue before us today, the issue of solitary confinement, by imposing a 21-day limit that would then be followed by a review. Despite any decision that might be made, any findings of abuse or overuse of solitary confinement, there was no independent mechanism to act on any findings of abuse. All that was required to prolong the 21-day period was for the warden, the head of the institution, to provide reasons in writing. To be honest, that is a pretty low threshold for continuing with a practice that has already been deemed, as I have said on several instances, to be problematic.We are not the only ones saying this. This is something that has been going on for a long time. As I said in my question to the minister, Justice Arbour long ago called for judicial oversight of the use of administrative segregation, or solitary confinement, if members prefer less Orwellian language for what this practice actually is. That followed a commission on certain events in the women's prison in Kingston. That recommendation has so far gone unanswered, not to mention the many recommendations that followed from the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the horrible situation with Ashley Smith.This leads me to another troubling statistic. Between 2011 and 2014, 14 inmates who found themselves in solitary confinement committed suicide. This is a public safety issue. Let us be clear. Using a tool that exacerbates mental health situations in corrections and diminishes the ability of corrections to rehabilitate those offenders will inevitably cause a public safety concern with respect to recidivism and other things.That is why, when we look at the tools being used, understanding that corrections officers need tools to ensure safety within the institutions they manage, we also have to understand the danger that can be created by exacerbating existing issues and the importance of prioritizing rehabilitation.(1115)[Translation]I would like to read the testimony of some experts in order to demonstrate to what extent the bill before us is problematic.I will read the press release issued yesterday by Senator Kim Pate, who was the then CEO of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.[English] Senator Pate said: With respect to segregation, Bill C-83, is not only merely a rebranding of the same damaging practice as “Structured Intervention Units”, the new bill...also virtually eliminates existing, already inadequate limitations on its use. Moreover, she adds: Bill C-83 also maintains the status quo regarding a lack of effective external oversight of correctional decision making. Under the new legislation, all decision making regarding when and how long prisoners are to be segregated will be made by a CSC administrator without the review of any third party. The last sentence in that paragraph goes to an earlier point I made: This change represents another step away from Justice Louise Arbour's recommendation for judicial oversight of corrections following the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston. [Translation] I agree with Senator Pate. It is quite disturbing that, in media articles and in his comments, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is trying to give the impression that the government is working to eliminate administrative segregation. That is just a sham. Let us be clear. What the government is really trying to do is to make a few changes to the administrative segregation process in correctional institutions. In fact, all they are doing is calling it something else. It is disturbing, since the government is appealing a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court that clearly identifies the problems with administrative segregation. In a media scrum after the bill was introduced earlier this week, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness implied that what they are calling it now is no longer administrative segregation. They appear to believe that by changing what they call it, they can avoid their obligations with respect to administrative segregation imposed by the Supreme Court and listed by the United Nations. The senator is not the only one to say so, and I would also like to share with the House the opinion of a correctional investigator.[English]The correctional investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger, shares the same assessment as Senator Pate, and that I have made, of the proposed legislation. Dr. Zinger told iPolitics:We may end up with a regime that touches more people and that is very restrictive.... This is a widening of the net of those restrictive environments. There’s no procedural safeguard.[Translation] Two things in this passage are extremely important. Not only will administrative segregation continue under another name, but they are going to be casting a wider net. This will drag in more inmates, who may also belong to vulnerable groups that are already overrepresented in administrative segregation. There is no procedure in place for reviewing or appealing decisions to place inmates in administrative segregation. The lack of third-party review and an appeal mechanism is extremely disturbing. When I asked the minister the question, he said that it was not important and that there were already mechanisms in place, including multiple reviews by the commissioner and a review by the institution’s warden. That is simply not enough. It has been clearly found and established in correctional investigators’ reports, court decisions and United Nations resolutions that there has been abusive use of administrative segregation. According to the experts and in my own opinion, it is not enough to simply rely on wardens’ and the commissioner’s decisions. Of course, these individuals have a certain expertise. They are responsible for managing their institutions, and we respect that. However, once it has been determined that there has been abuse, there must be a recourse mechanism for putting a stop to that abuse.(1120)[English]That is the problem with some of the measures concerning the new powers that would be given to recognized health care professionals. On the surface, and in a somewhat substantive way, this is a positive thing. However, there are two key issues with what health care professionals could do under Bill C-83.The first is how we define the health issues on which those health care professionals could act. Experts are already saying that there is a concern that some health care issues that may be identified as not essential by a warden or an administrator in a corrections institute would go without the proper treatment and that the arbitrary way in which such a determination could be made is obviously cause for concern.The other piece is that even if a determination was made by a registered health care professional, or someone that person had delegated, offenders, inmates, who found themselves in solitary confinement, or this new SIU in Bill C-83, and then for a variety of physical and mental health reasons should no longer be in such a situation, would have no recourse. Those findings would be presented to the administrator, and consequently, under certain articles of the bill, would go to the commissioner. However, the reality is that as long as there was no proper oversight, third party or judicial, as has been recommended by folks like Senator Kim Pate, Justice Louise Arbour and Dr. Ivan Zinger, our corrections investigator, the proper protections would not be in place.[Translation] I am very concerned. I would like to return to my Conservative colleague’s speech. Some Canadians listening today are probably asking a very simple question: why should we want to make life easier for certain inmates? How does that help ensure public safety? Certain points are extremely important, and I mentioned some of them in my speech. To ensure public safety, we need disciplinary measures guaranteeing that correctional officers can properly manage their institutions. We also need to make sure that the people with problems and, in some cases, serious mental health issues, will not get worse and that, on the contrary, they will receive adequate and appropriate treatment. We want to prevent recidivism in the case of certain inmates who will be granted parole. We also want to ensure the protection of correctional officers inside the institutions. Providing proper treatment for individuals with serious mental health problems is extremely important. The concerns in this area expressed by the union representing correctional officers are extremely important. The hon. member who spoke just before me alluded to this in her speech. I would like to take the time to address some of their concerns. Resources are the main issue. In its statement on Bill C-83 today or yesterday, the union clearly identified this problem, which remains one of its top concerns.[English]That is a recurring theme with regard to what is required for corrections officers to be able to do their jobs. When we look at the approach taken by the previous government, in 2011-12 alone the legislation adopted by the Conservative government represented an increase in cost of around $250 million for Correctional Service Canada, which was followed by the need to cut nearly $300 million in operating costs from 2012 to 2015, followed by the closure of two penitentiaries, Leclerc Institution and the Kingston Penitentiary. That is a circle that cannot possibly be squared when it comes to ensuring public safety and ensuring that corrections officers have the ability to adequately do their jobs: ensuring safety and security within those institutions and ensuring that the correctional program that has been assigned to a specific offender can be followed through on.(1125)[Translation] Of course, the problem is extremely worrying to the entire population, but let us be clear. What we want above all from the correctional system is, on the one hand, the assurance of public safety; on the other hand, by applying the disciplinary and punitive measures that exist in the justice system and are essential to rehabilitation, we want to achieve the objectives of treating mental health issues, as well as ensuring public safety, when it comes to inmates who could reintegrate into society and their respective communities. I would like to get back to Bill C-83. It is all a sham, as I said before, to oversell what is actually a minor change. Right now, we are told that 22 hours is the threshold for placing someone in administrative segregation. The government is talking about a major change in the number of hours prisoners can spend outside their cells. In fact, relative to current legislation, this change amounts to two hours. As the executive director of the John Howard Society said in an interview this week, most of the time, these hours are granted at 5:00 a.m. when it is 40 degrees below zero outside. Understandably, the inmate will refuse to come out. Under this bill, such refusal will have consequences. [English]To conclude, the smokescreen the government has put up to say that it is addressing the concerns of the court, of the United Nations and of the correctional investigator just is not enough. The reality is that we are proceeding with the current regime under a different name. That is not enough to ensure public safety and that corrections officers are attaining the objectives imposed on them by the law but also by constitutional obligations.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsConstitutionalityCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCourt ordersGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthOversight mechanismSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety5584296558429755842985584299558430055843015584302558430355843045584305558430655843075584308558430955843105584311558431255843135584314558431555843165584317558431855843195584320558432155843225584323558432455843255584326558432755843285584329558433055843315584332558433355843345584335558433655843375584338558433955843405584341558434255843435584344PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree that public safety is the number one objective and that by improving rehabilitative programming within some of our correctional institutions, we will support public safety by having fewer people reoffend and therefore fewer victims. I believe that mental health care services are a key part of that rehabilitative program. What are the member's ideas on how we can make that program for mental health advocacy even stronger?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading5584345MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly share my colleague's thoughts and concerns on this issue insofar as addressing mental health concerns is paramount to public safety in particular. However, just before I get to the substance of her question, when we look at this bill and the solutions we propose, the issue here is that the current abusive use of solitary confinement has been proven to exacerbate some of the mental health situations we currently find. I will quote the press release by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies following the tabling of this bill, which said the following about mental health: “CSC's approach translates behaviours symptomatic of mental health into risks and security concerns.”Therefore, the solution is simple. It is to adhere to the prescriptions that were offered by the Supreme Court of B.C. and the United Nations, and to put in place strict parameters so that house solitary confinement can be used in our correctional services with a ceiling of 15 days, among other things, including keeping those with serious mental health issues out of solitary confinement and trying to address the disproportionate representation of vulnerable offenders in the correctional system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading55843465584347KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying when he talks about a sham and the protection of prisoners as a basic right. All that is entirely legitimate. However, we Conservatives have concerns, which we share with unionized prison guards. Historically, I think that the NDP has always promoted unionism and, more often than not, supported labour demands in our country.I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the concerns and objections expressed publicly by prison guards, who say that the segregation of certain inmates helps them maintain discipline inside prisons, which is important. It is an exceptional measure, but a measure that is needed in order to remind inmates that there are serious consequences to some of their actions inside the prison walls when they are arrested and incarcerated. What does my colleague think about the concerns expressed by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558434855843495584350MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. We are extremely proud in the New Democratic caucus to be the workers’ party, founded in large part by unions. Their grievances and concerns will always be our first consideration. That is precisely why, in my speech, I cited the press release issued by the union representing correctional officers. Here is what it says in the first paragraph: “resources needed.” That is why the NDP protested when the Conservative government closed two prisons in 2012. That is why we protested the nearly $300-million budget cut the Conservative government imposed on Correctional Services between 2012 and 2015. That is why we also protested the fact that, by introducing this bill supposedly intended to enhance public safety, the government has now made it more expensive and more difficult for correctional officers to both ensure safety in institutions, and to properly manage the institutional life and progress of inmates so as to ensure the safety of the public. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55843515584352AlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, for his work on this bill and for reminding us that, when it comes to this kind of reform, public safety must be our main concern. We also need to talk about mental health. Sometimes there are priorities other than public safety, like the effective administration of prisons, but public safety concerns must be at the top of our list. What concerns me is this government’s track record with public safety. We have seen it with the cannabis and pardon issues. They changed the language but maintained a system that does not do what it is supposed to. As my colleague said, they are doing the same thing here. They are playing with words, but they are not really changing the system. How can they make real changes when all they do is play word games?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558435355843545584355MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, public safety is always the top priority. In its decision, the Ontario Superior Court had this to say about administrative segregation:[English]“no serious question the practice is harmful”.[Translation] Moreover, the harmful effects of the practice can manifest in as little as 48 hours. As I said in my speech, they are using a practice that is supposed to ensure public safety but that, in reality, hinders the rehabilitation of certain inmates by making their mental health problems worse. That is what concerns me. Whether we like it or not, some inmates are released on parole, which is appropriate in a lawful society. However, we expect the problems that led to their incarceration to be treated inside the system before they return to society.I called it a sham because, despite two court decisions and all the work of civil society, the minister is telling us not to worry and that he is taking care of the problem, while in fact all he is doing is calling the practice something else. In our opinion, there are not enough substantial changes to believe that this is an appropriate response to the serious concerns about the practice in our correctional system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5584356558435755843585584359558436055843615584362DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, if the courts have been very clear about the risks of this practice and have prescribed ways of regulating it to diminish those effects, why is that work not represented in this legislation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5584363MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, when two courts have ruled that the current use of solitary confinement is unconstitutional, including the Supreme Court of B.C. in its scathing decision that clearly lays out what the government needs to do, and that has been shamefully appealed afterward, one can ask what exactly the government is trying to do with Bill C-83. Unfortunately, by all appearances, it seems that it wants to bypass these court decisions and what experts, civil society and the UN have said with regard to the use of solitary confinement. That is reason enough to oppose Bill C-83.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5584364DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton Centre. This initiative goes back quite a long way for me. I want to recognize the former member for Kitchener Centre, the hon. Karen Redman, who raised the issue of Ashley Smith's death and how it affected so many of us, in caucus and outside of caucus, particularly for people like me who are not from Kitchener.I want to begin by reading the dry coroner's report, which states: Coroner's Inquest Touching the Death of Ashley Smith.Aged: 19Name of Deceased: Ashley SmithDate and Time of Death: October 19, 2007, 8:10 a.m. Place of Death: St. Mary's General Hospital in Kitchener Cause of Death: Ligature strangulation and positional asphyxiaBy What Means: homicideThat is the coroner's way of introducing what is in fact a substantive report that forms, in part, the basis for the initiative in Bill C-83. The newspaper report is a little more graphic. It states:Smith, 19, originally from Moncton, N.B., was imprisoned at the Grand Valley Institution in Kitchener, Ont., when she died in 2007.She had tied a piece of cloth around her neck while guards stood outside her cell door and watched. They had been ordered by senior staff not to enter her cell as long as she was breathing....In the last year of Smith's life, [she] was shuffled 17 times between nine institutions in five provinces.She was clearly a troubled young lady, but there was still a massive failure on the part of the institutions that were responsible for housing her, and ultimately for her death. The minister of the day, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, said after receipt of the coroner's report: “My thoughts and prayers go out to Ms. Smith's family. I've asked my officials to review carefully the jury's recommendations”. That was on December 19, 2013. At that time, he was the federal minister of public safety and emergency preparedness. Here we are, more than 10 years after Ms. Smith's death, looking at a bill that incorporates of many of the recommendations contained in the coroner's report. Clearly, nothing was done from 2007 to 2015, when the previous government ceased to be the government. Three years later, we are now preparing this, in some respects driven by the forces of civil society, but also by the reality of two lawsuits, which at its core means the current system is not sustainable. Among the recommendations of the coroner's report is that CSC ensure that nursing services are available on site for all inmates; that CSC expand the scope and terms of psychiatric contracts to enable them to perform duties in a meaningful way; that decisions about clinical management of inmates be made by doctors, not CSC staff; that inmates must have access to an independent patient advocate system; that indefinite solitary confinement for prisoners be abolished; and that meetings between prisoners and support staff should not happen through food slots. That was something that happened frequently with Ms. Smith. (1140)We have a long way to go, and I do not pretend to assume that Bill C-83 responds to each and every recommendation. My colleague, the NDP critic for public safety, highlighted some of the real questions that would be properly posed to the minister before a committee. Hopefully, the responses of both the minister and the head of Correctional Service Canada will be helpful in assuaging him about the concerns that are legitimately raised, both in the coroner's report and in the lawsuits that have come up.The Prime Minister was so concerned about the inadequacies of, for want of a better term, solitary confinement that he actually incorporated it into the mandates of the justice minister and the public safety minister. The justice minister's mandate says, “recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith regarding the restriction of the use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with mental illness.”The mandate letter of the public safety minister, states, “address gaps in services to Indigenous Peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system”.In 2013, we had a coroner's inquiry and recommendations coming out of the death of Ashley Smith in 2007. In 2013, the Conservative Party said that its thoughts and prayers went out to the family. The Liberal Party became the Liberal government in 2015. Incorporated into the mandate letters of two senior ministers were the requirement that they deal with these issues. Now we have Bill C-83 on those issues.In addition, the corrections commissioner has further been mandated to help create a “safe, secure and humane” corrections environment and to address the physical and mental health of inmates, among other priorities. In fact, two weeks ago, the new head of CSC, Anne Kelly, spoke to her mandate. Indeed, members had every opportunity to question her about her mandate and also to see how this part of her mandate might well be fulfilled.Most significant is that Bill C-83 would put an end to segregation. In Ontario and British Columbia, two constitutional challenges have found that the legislation governing the administrative segregation is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My friends in the Conservative Party might wish that to go away. They probably wish the charter would go away. Nevertheless, two of the most significant provinces in the country have said that the way things are being done is not sustainable and is contrary to the Constitution. It is quite clear that what is motivating in part, beyond the mandates etc., is the reality of the NGO community and these class action lawsuits. The time to act clearly is now. It is clear that large parts of the administrative segregation provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will no longer be in existence in two of Canada's most populous provinces. The Conservative Party's position seems to be to just let people sit in the current system anyway. That is neither a very morally nor legally sustainable position. (1145)In my opinion, taking prisoners out of administrative segregation and putting them into a situation is a greater benefit to public safety.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernanceGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementSplitting speaking time558436555843665584367558436855843695584370558437155843725584373558437455843755584376558437755843785584379558438055843815584382558438355843845584385558438655843875584388558438955843905584391558439255843935584394MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyVanceBadaweyNiagara Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88867VanceBadaweyVance-BadaweyNiagara CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BadaweyVance_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Vance Badawey (Niagara Centre, Lib.): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, Bill C-83 would eliminate administrative segregation. Instead, people who have to be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for safety reasons, would be assigned to a secure intervention unit, SIU. What would be the difference between a new secure intervention unit and administrative segregation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5584395JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. John McKay: (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, there is clearly an effort to make the secure intervention unit an environment that allows very troubled prisoners to have more human interaction. There is a mandated time that they will be allowed to interact with other human beings. There is a mandated time that they have to interact with health care professionals. There is a mandated time in which there is a review of their past progress. At the end of the day, almost everybody gets back on the street. We can wish that they come back onto the street whole, but that is just wishful fantasies. The prison system needs to be mandated to make people as able as possible to reintegrate into our society to maximize public safety.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit55843965584397VanceBadaweyNiagara CentreToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, how will the desired outcomes of the bill be measured and can the Liberals tell Canadians today how much the implementation of the bill will cost?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5584398JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. John McKay: (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, the measurement of the success of the bill will be over time, and that is absolutely necessary. We currently have a system that is not working, that is constitutionally deficient, that offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that has a little too many Ashley Smiths in the system. The improvement will hopefully be measurable over time. I am sure the head of CSC will have some metrics to share with the committee.With respect to funding, we are certainly in recovery mode from the previous government. The hundreds of millions of dollars that were cut out of the system are clearly having an impact, and that is extremely regrettable for public safety and for the rehabilitation and well-being of the prisoners.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55843995584400ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, in the last two years, we have seen time and again that the Liberal government has a propensity to always walk along the line of a court judgment. The role of the House of Commons is to reiterate, sometimes through the preamble of a new bill, to the courts and the judge the intent of a bill of a rule that was put forward, accepted and voted on in the House. Jean Chrétien did that many times. He did it for advertising in the tobacco sector. Companies wanted the Supreme Court decision and Jean Chrétien tabled a bill with a preamble saying that the judges were wrong.In this instance, why are the Liberals again and again following the judgment when they could have just reiterated the intent of our purpose in the House of Commons, to protect the citizens of Canada and to ensure that guards had the necessary tools to apply discipline?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55844015584402JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. John McKay: (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, I really feel bad that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government adheres to the rule of law. What a concept. We do have those of us in here who make law and we have those down the street, learned judges in the law, who interpret the law. When the interpretation comes back that this offends the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, which it does according to the two cases that are currently before the justices, then this body needs to adjust.We are all subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We might not like that, but we are.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55844035584404AlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha (Brampton Centre, Lib.): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, since 2015, the government has been very clear about its commitments to Canadians. Broad criminal justice system reform is central to those commitments. The government followed through, first by introducing major legislation that would protect the vulnerable, meet the needs of victims and keep our communities safe. It also promised to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples and those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. Further, the government vowed to implement recommendations from the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, regarding the restriction of the use of solitary confinement and the treatment of those with mental illness. Today, the government is following through with it once again. Bill C-83 represents a groundbreaking shift in Canada's approach to federal corrections. At its core is a focus on ensuring that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment, one that is conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety and protection of the public. With this bill, the government proposes to eliminate segregation. We will eliminate it in a manner that continues to ensure institutions are secure. It will help reduce the rate of violence in federal institutions and provide inmates in need with support. This is an effective, practical and proactive approach to managing inmate safety. For the first time in history, there will be a requirement in law for consideration of broad systemic and background factors unique to indigenous inmates in corrections decision-making. All of that said, at the heart of this legislation is the elimination of segregation and the introduction of structured intervention units to manage inmates at higher risk. It would create structured intervention units, or SIUs, as a practical new tool for institutions. They would be established at numerous institutions. These SIUs would provide a safer environment for inmates. Inmates in SIUs would have the opportunity to be out of cell for at least four hours per day, offering more opportunity for human interaction. If we are all being honest here, we know that there are times in prison that some inmates cannot be in the general population. These new SIU proposals would address the safety risks of those inmates who could not be managed in the mainstream inmate population. Those members on the right are going to say that we should throw them in the hole. In fact, the Conservatives put out a release that pretty much said that. Those members on the left are going to say that we should not separate them at all, that we should leave them in the general population. However, when problems such as gang hostilities are brewing, this is not an option either. (1155)We need a solution that would ensure that offenders can be separated from the general population when needed but also to ensure that those who cannot be in the general population for their safety or the safety of others can still have meaningful contact and programming.Under this legislation, all interventions would be tailored to the specific needs of offenders to address the behaviours that led to their movement to the SIU.They would have daily visits from health care professionals. After five days in the SIU, a decision would be made about whether or not to keep the inmate there. That decision would take into account the inmate's mental health care needs and if appropriate unique indigenous factors, including systematic and background factors.Inmates assigned to an SIU would have their correctional plan updated to ensure they receive the most effective programs at the appropriate time during their assignment in the unit and to prepare them for reintegration into the mainstream inmate population. They would have meaningful human contact with other compatible inmates and in some circumstances even visitors.This is a major step forward but not the only one we have taken. The new bill builds on important investments the government has made to date.Budget 2018 invested $20.33 million over five years and $5.54 million per year after that to further support the mental health needs of federal inmates. Funds will be largely targeted towards providing enhanced mental health supports for women in federal correctional facilities across Canada. That is on top of budget 2017 funding of $57.8 million over five years, and $13.6 million per year after that to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities.All of that said, our work is not done. We can all agree that we need to do better in our correctional system.We are transforming the way we manage inmates whose behaviour poses a security and safety risk that cannot be managed within the mainstream inmate population. More broadly, we need to acknowledge and address the cycles that contribute to crime and the unique needs and risks of vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples.We need to make sure we are not only holding guilty parties to account for what they have done, but that we are creating an environment that fosters rehabilitation for the safety of all.This is the right choice at the right time. I call on all members to join me in supporting Bill C-83, so that our correctional institutions can better fulfill their important goals of safety and rehabilitation.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5589759558976055897615589762558976355897645589765558976655897675589768558976955897705589771558977255897735589774558977555897765589777558977855897795589780JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that a structured intervention unit would be a good thing, since it would give individuals in segregation the possibility of human contact. I am going to talk about two cases, two individuals. The first is a dangerous killer who keeps threatening people. He has to be placed in segregation because he is dangerous to others and might kill another inmate. The second is an inmate who fears for his life because he is being threatened. He wants to be placed in segregation because someone wants to kill him. He is therefore placed in the new structured intervention unit. The violently angry killer and the inmate who fears for his life are sent to the structured intervention unit, where they are asked to engage in human contact. Does my colleague think this will work?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5584427558442855844295584430RameshSanghaBrampton CentreRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have the example of two people, one is a hardened criminal we want to throw in the hole, another was tried and is serving for a lesser infraction. We want them to be together, and SIUs are created to study these situations. They will monitor things very closely and see what the needs of both these persons are, how we can bring them into the mainstream when their terms are finished and they are coming out, and how we can help to get them ready to integrate into society.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5584431PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. As I have said before, my father was a warden in a minimum-security prison, and my mother was a prison guard. I would like to know whether the hon. member across the aisle knows the difference between a maximum-security prison and a minimum-security prison. Inmates are incarcerated in one or the other for different crimes. Those in minimum-security institutions are serving less than two years, while those in maximum-security prisons are serving more than two years. The inmates in maximum-security prisons have committed serious offences, unlike those in minimum-security institutions.Can my colleague tell me whether he knows the difference between a maximum-security prison and a minimum-security prison?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584432558443355844345584435RameshSanghaBrampton CentreRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, during my presentation, I did mention clearly those who deserve to be treated in a nice way. We cannot say everyone will be treated in the same manner, for example, those who are there under extreme circumstances. They would be monitored differently, which is what we want. We want people to serve their jail terms and come out ready to go into the community.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584436SylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89000BardishChaggerHon.Bardish-ChaggerWaterlooLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChaggerBardish_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, Ashley Smith died in custody in 2007. My colleagues opposite talk about different levels of prisons, and it is interesting how people go through that system. Nonetheless, this was a girl who died in her cell. There have been court challenges, and the courts have ruled. We tend to respect the rule of law.Could our colleague please share with this House what SIUs are designed to do, and how people would continue to serve their sentences but could also be provided the programs and services necessary to ensure mental health?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingStructured intervention unit55844395584440AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a case law around this situation. Ashley Smith's case has created a new guideline for us to act on, otherwise we would be left behind. Liberals do not want that, we want to move forward. We want to make corrections to the law and bring changes that would make it suitable for the inmates.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingStructured intervention unit5584441BardishChaggerHon.WaterlooAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.As always, I will begin by saying hello to my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou, many of whom are watching today, as I am told every time I go door to door.I also want to tell them that the issue we are discussing today is a very delicate subject. We are talking about the prison environment and about people's lives, namely, the lives of victims of crime and the lives of criminals in prison. This subject can be unsettling, and people often have very strong views on one side or the other. Some people want a really tough-on-crime approach, while others want a softer approach, for reasons that are equally legitimate on both sides.I would like to ease into the debate and explain the Conservative caucus's take on Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, our public safety critic, was the commanding officer of the Régiment de la Chaudière. I have a lot of faith in him. Today he moved a motion calling on the House to simply end the debate on Bill C-83. My colleague believes that the bill is so botched that we need to shut down debate. In other words, we want to stop this bill and keep it from moving forward or being voted on in this place.What I find interesting is that the NDP members have said that the bill does not go far enough in terms of protecting people who are incarcerated, while we are saying that it goes too far because it compromises the safety of prison guards and Canadians in general. Given that the motion moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will not be voted on right away, I will address some of the main aspects of this bill.I want to address my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. The bill would eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on administrative segregation. These opinions are often based on Hollywood movies. Administrative segregation is used when an inmate is imprisoned for life, or for 10 or 2 years. Inmates serving a life sentence already know that they are not getting out of prison and that they will probably die there, even though there is a provision allowing them to request a discharge after 25 years and leave prison, even in very serious cases of premeditated murder.Nevertheless, life in prison is a very long period of time for someone who is incarcerated. How can the correctional facility and the guards compel or force this prisoner to comply with disciplinary guidelines? The prison guards are ordinary men and women, with normal lives, who go home at night, who have children, and all that. How are they meant to impose order every day in prison when there are inmates who will be there for the rest of their lives? These lifers could go so far as to kill another inmate since they will be in prison either way.What I am saying is that correctional facilities need access to measures that are psychologically difficult for prisoners, like segregation, otherwise known as the hole. I do not think that is a good word, since they are no longer holes. They are real and proper cells, just used as a means of segregation. (1210)The inmates eat well enough, and they have access to sanitation facilities. Prisons are not like Alcatraz in the 19th century. We are talking about orderly, coordinated disciplinary segregation that gives correctional officers some measure of control over hardened criminals who do not follow the rules unless they are afraid of ending up in segregation.This bill would eliminate that. Considering the argument I just laid out, we think that is totally ridiculous. The bill would also replace those facilities with structured intervention units, but it does not tell us exactly what those units are or how they will work.The bill also talks about using a body scanner, and that is one part of the bill we support, as do corrections professionals and unions. Visitors often find ways that I will not describe in detail to bring drugs and other objects, such as cell phones, to prisoners. That is not allowed. Using a body scanner could make life easier for corrections officers, visitors and prisoners because there would be no need to conduct uncomfortable searches.The bill specifies that exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders and offenders diagnosed with mental health issues need to be formalized. It is about time.Speaking for myself, there is something I find intriguing. The bill comes in response to recent superior court decisions that found that indefinite segregation was unacceptable under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.I want to respond to something my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood said in answer to a question I asked 15 or 20 minutes ago. He told me that we make law, but the courts and judges interpret the law.Nowhere in the Canadian Constitution does it say that lawmakers do not have the right to interpret the law. It is ironic to hear a lawmaker say something so absurd, because we interpret laws every day in the House of Commons. We interpret them in debate and in committee. We review laws, we rewrite laws, we pass laws and we repeal laws. The role of interpreting law belongs as much to the legislative branch as to the executive branch. The executive branch is even required to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to evaluate every bill through the lens of the charter.Distinguished Professor Christopher Manfredi of McGill University, who is recognized by his peers around the world, said that the interpretation of each of the three branches is important because they each have their own interpretation of Canadian law and that we achieve better results for Canadians when there is vigorous competition between the powers.In conclusion, I will say that we could have a philosophical debate about the existence of prisons. No one thinks that prisons are wonderful. At a human level, I believe prisons are probably the most horrible thing there is. However, the historical evolution of humanity shows that this is the only known way to ensure that the most dangerous members of our society will not have any further criminal impact on others. The objective is public safety. The Canadian government's main objective is Canadians' safety. That is why I told the member from Scarborough—Guildwood that he should have instead introduced another bill that emphasizes the government's role in protecting Canadians and that tells the court that it is absolutely wrong about administrative segregation in prison. It is unfortunate, but we must have prisons.As I reiterated in my arguments, administrative segregation is the only real tool that ensures that prisoners serving a life sentence, for example, have a psychological constraint preventing them from harming other inmates in jail. How can we control a lifer without administrative segregation? It is good for the effectiveness of prisons and for the safety of guards. We hope that the government will reverse course on this bill. I do not understand why the NDP does not want to support the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which believes that ending the practice of administrative segregation will jeopardize the safety of correctional officers.I thank the citizens of Beauport—Limoilou for listening.(1215)C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinement558444255844435584444558444555844465584447558444855844495584450558445155844525584453558445455844555584456558445755844585584459558446055844615584462RameshSanghaBrampton CentreFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to remind the House that laws do not take precedence over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why Bill C-83 exists.Members opposite seem to be saying that there will not be any solitary confinement at all and that there will be no way to deal with dangerous inmates. I would like to remind the House that there will be structured intervention units where inmates will have access to mental health care.What do we do in cases like that of Ms. Smith, the young woman who died as a result of her time in solitary confinement? That is why we introduced this bill. What solution is my colleague proposing?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558446355844645584465AlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, inmates who are disciplined by being sent to these units that the bill seeks to create—and that we hope will never see the light of day—will have access to a television and anything else they usually have in their cells. What we are saying is that administrative segregation, as it now exists, is a psychological deterrent for inmates serving life sentences, for example, who would otherwise not hesitate to harm other inmates or guards. They do not care because they are already in prison for life. The only way to dissuade them from engaging in that type of behaviour is to threaten to send them to solitary confinement with no television or anything else. That psychological element is needed to maintain discipline in prisons.It is unfortunate, and perhaps prisons should not exist, but that is the only way to protect Canadians, and the only way to maintain discipline is administrative segregation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558446655844675584468FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellSylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. His remarks are always music to my ears. I would like to ask him a question along the same lines as the one my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell just asked him about Ms. Smith.Do the Liberals always introduce bills on behalf of a victim? Bad things happen, and we agree that it is unfortunate. However, are there perhaps sometimes other victims in our prisons who are not protected, victims such as correctional officers? My parents worked in the prison system, and they were often taken hostage when riots broke out.On one hand, the Liberals are hastily introducing a bill as a result of an individual case, and on the other, they are ignoring other victims, the people who work in maximum-security prisons and protect our lives.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558446955844705584471AlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouAlupaClarkeBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88404AlupaClarkeAlupa-ClarkeBeauport—LimoilouConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ClarkeAlupa_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alupa Clarke: (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. The Liberals like to base bills on individual cases. That is understandable in some ways because the fundamental objective of a liberal democracy is to protect the minority from the majority. However, the Canadian majority is beginning to get fed up with never having a voice in this government and never having its wishes and desires represented.That is very dangerous for social harmony, because the majority also needs to have a say. One of the complaints that we as MPs hear most often in our ridings is that the government is always kowtowing to the Canadian judiciary.To show my good faith, I will say that I will always be proud of Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin—perhaps a little less so of Mr. Martin. Mr. Chrétien carried on the tradition of other prime ministers. When he and his caucus did not agree with a Supreme Court ruling, they reintroduced the same bill in the House of Commons with a preamble.That is called an “in your face” reply. I suggest that my colleagues go see all the eminent law professors at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. They know all about that kind of thing, and they detest it. An “in your face” reply is when legislators tell the Supreme Court justices that they are wrong, that they do not understand the government's objective, and that they misinterpreted Canadian law.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584472558447355844745584475SylvieBoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): (1220)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for that enlightening speech. He may enable the government to improve the bill it introduced today, Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.The bill would enact a number of measures, as listed in the summary: eliminate the use of administrative segregation in correctional institutions; replace those facilities with structured intervention units; use body scanners on inmates; establish guidelines for access to health care; and formalize exceptions for indigenous offenders, women offenders, and offenders with diagnosed mental illness. In a few days, this Parliament will be three years old. The Liberals have done all kinds of damage in those three years, and we can add this bill to the list. They have not thought this through. The Liberals do not know what they are talking about.Let us look at each point individually. The first amendment eliminates the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation. On October 19, 2015, I had the privilege of being elected to represent the people of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, and I am so proud to do so. There is a correctional facility in my riding called Donnacona Institution. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and I recently had the privilege of visiting that institution, as luck would have it. We do our due diligence, and we know what we are talking about, because we went there for ourselves to meet with the management and the various unions. We even met some inmates. We did not see a hole during our visit. The Liberals seem to want to eliminate something that does not exist and replace it with something else that will do the same thing, but with fewer restrictions.I am a father. Parents are responsible for disciplining their children. We teach our children that actions have consequences. Of course, they are not the same as those imposed on inmates in maximum security. Rules are put in place. There are rules, and correctional officers have tools. Unfortunately, the Liberal government wants to take away one of those tools. It wants to limit the number of days of intervention and take away this tool in order to make inmates more comfortable, inmates who have done wrong or are looking for security. It is rather appalling.What is the government's motivation for eliminating solitary confinement and creating structured intervention units or SIUs? I will try to get used to the acronym, but I hope this legislation will not have to be enforced. It is quite an invention. The Liberals improvised. They decided that what the Conservatives did was wrong, that they are too mean, that they segregate people who have done wrong, and that they are too harsh with inmates.One person's rights end where another person's begin. On this side of the House, we support protecting victims. We want these inmates, who have acted inappropriately in a society like ours, to face consequences. They should not be encouraged. These people must face consequences. These consequences are tools for corrections officers.The government wants to eliminate administrative segregation, create SIUs and limit the number of days. It wants to take away consequences for inmates by limiting the number of hours a day.(1225)Are they going to give every inmate a cake on their birthday? Are they going to roll out the red carpet when inmates arrive at Donnacona? Let us be serious here.I must acknowledge that the government did include something worthwhile in the bill. Life is a mystery. After meeting with corrections officers and management from institutions like Donnacona, the government introduced the idea of scanners. These scanners are found in airports and even here in Parliament. People go through various checks. In penitentiaries, inmates can be strip-searched. Officers have a little metal mirror they can use to do an external check.Yesterday, October 17, was a sad day for Canada because the government legalized marijuana. As its very name states, organized crime is organized. These people unfortunately discovered that they could use body orifices to hide things. Corrections management and officers said one of their priorities was to stop inmates and visitors from bringing drugs, cell phones and tools into penitentiaries. Criminals have a lot more time than we do to think up ingenious solutions, because we have jobs. They may work, but they do not have the same objectives as we do. They look for ways to build tools and get access to the outside world.One thing that was addressed during our meeting last week at Donnacona was the importance of providing scanners. It seems that the government across the way is going to allow them, but we are a long way from unpacking scanners at Donnacona and other maximum-security institutions in Canada. This should be a priority. It should be considered an essential tool.Of course, they are going to ask why the Conservatives did not take care of it. At the time, there were other technologies. Today, there are scanners. Institutions should get the tools they need to impose restrictions. There are the infamous drones, there are scanners, and there are other important tools.The bill I am reading today seems to include some things that are more permissive and inclusive that will make life more comfortable for our inmates, but we need to be protecting the victims. We need to be strict. We need to command respect and ensure that there are consequences for these people so that they get the message. We are not against reintegration programs, but we think they should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Now the programs are being used in a general, inclusive and permissive way. Life in Canada's penitentiaries is a party. We have to be responsible and ensure that the tools are put in place quickly. This government should make it a priority to have scanners installed. I think this will vastly and quickly improve the situation in the penitentiaries. It is a priority tool. It is important. We cannot accept this bill, even though we see the beginnings of positive solutions in it.(1230)Clearly we cannot support this bill because of this government's improvisation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unit5584476558447755844785584479558448055844815584482558448355844845584485558448655844875584488558448955844905584491AlupaClarkeBeauport—LimoilouFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): (1230)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech, even though I do not agree with everything he said. First, life in prison is not going to be a party. Far from it. The member knows this because he said he visited several prisons. When we enact legislation, we have to provide the resources required. The Conservatives claimed they were the champions of law and order and were tough on organized crime, but they never backed that up with the necessary resources. That is why police chiefs asked for more money to fight organized crime. Even the Minister of Public Safety, a former police chief, says that he did not have access to those resources.Let us come back to the safety measures that we want to put in place, such as body scanners. Why is the member opposed to equipping our prisons with more technology to ensure the safety of prison guards and inmates by preventing them from using guns?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558449255844935584494JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Joël Godin: (1235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my esteemed colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for his question about my speech. Unfortunately, he was not actually listening. What I said was that installing scanners should be a priority. However, with respect to the former police chief who is now the minister in charge of regulating marijuana and fighting organized crime, I have no faith in him. When the Conservatives were in office, we cut corrections budgets and closed some prisons because we were responsible. There is room in every prison in Canada, but the Liberals will probably build three more over the next year at great expense. They do not care how much things cost, they just love spending money. We, the Conservatives, treat Canadians' hard-earned money with respect. We are also diligent, because while it is important to respect inmates, it is also important to have disciplinary measures in place and ensure there are consequences.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558449555844965584497FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his fine speech explaining the Conservative stance on this bill. In our opinion, the bill has some major flaws in terms of ensuring a safe environment for both prisoners and guards. This job and this environment are very tough and create a special kind of stress. In the case of maximum-security prison guards, we are asking them to guard individuals who are considered to be the most dangerous people in our society. This government bill proposes what are referred to as structured intervention units, but in my opinion, and I am sure my colleague would agree, they will not provide real administrative segregation. Quite the opposite, since the guards will have to let the inmates out for at least four hours a day. I would like to hear more from the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier about how this environment will no longer be safe for our prison guards.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5584498558449955845005584501JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierJoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-Cartier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Joël Godin: (1235)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard, who always asks relevant questions.Security is a very important factor in Canada's penitentiaries. Correctional officers need tools. The Liberal government disbanded the fire brigades to save a few pennies, even though that is a security issue. It was a tool used by correctional officers. The government does not have its priorities straight.Segregation is also a tool. There are even some inmates who want to be sent to solitary confinement to protect themselves. However, under the bill, they must be there for as little time as possible and they need to be given an explanation as to why things are being done the way they are. It is like day care. Let us be clear. We are talking about criminals who committed acts that are unacceptable in our society. Correctional officers therefore need to be given effective tools.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit558450255845035584504TomKmiecCalgary ShepardKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to add my voice in this debate around Bill C-83.We are committed to ensuring that we not only have the tools to hold the guilty parties accountable for breaking the law but also to create an environment that fosters rehabilitation, so that we will have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities. This bill proposes to transform the way our federal correctional system works in this country to meet those critical goals.A central element of this transformation is eliminating the use of segregation. Segregation would be replaced by the safety and intervention-focused structured intervention units, or SIUs for short. SIUs would operate in a much different way from what is currently the case with segregation. I will get to those crucial differences in just a few moments.First, let me just say that in any large population there will be people who pose risk to those around them and to themselves. That reality holds true and perhaps is compounded in a population of offenders housed together under one roof. Correctional institutions are home to inmates whose behaviour can be dangerous to others or to themselves, and disruptive or highly difficult for those around them to endure.It is a very challenging environment, both for inmates and for the professional, brave and hard-working correctional employees. Corrections officials and staff must have a tool they can use in cases where an inmate cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. For many years, segregation has been that tool.However, the practice has come under fire in recent years. Watchdogs like the correctional investigator and the Auditor General of Canada have urged the government to restrict its use or eliminate it altogether. Two recent constitutional challenges in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia have found the legislation governing administrative segregation to be unconstitutional.As of December and January, administrative segregation will no longer be a tool available in those two provinces. That means that if an incident happens in a yard and inmates need to be separated while witness statements are taken, as correctional workers find out what happened, correctional officials will not be able to use administrative segregation. This means that if several members of a gang are threatening another inmate, there will be no administrative segregation unit to use. All of those involved will simply stay in the general population. This is a recipe for disaster.Let us be very clear that when the Conservatives say we should just keep using “administrative segregation”, which what they called it in government, or “solitary confinement”, as they call it in opposition, they are telling correctional officials to do something they will not have the legal authority to do anymore. Those sections of the act will not exist in those two provinces.What the Conservatives are really saying, then, is to just keep all of the inmates in the general population, regardless of the risk they pose to guards and health care workers and regardless of the risk from other inmates. It is not a real plan. It is reckless, and it is reckless thinking that we would expect to hear from people who have no real policies and no ability to make tough choices that governing this country requires.Of course, those two court rulings came subsequent to the tragic case of Ashley Smith, who died in custody in 2007 at the age of 19. The coroner's inquest into Ashley's death focused on administrative segregation and the treatment of inmates with mental illness.The Government of Canada has committed to implementing recommendations from that inquest. The mandate letters of three ministers also commit them to addressing gaps in service for indigenous peoples and for those with mental illness throughout the criminal justice system. Both of those groups are not only overrepresented in the overall federal corrections system, but also in the inmate population in segregation.(1240)Some progress has been made by Correctional Service Canada over the past few years. Canada's correctional investigator said in March of last year that CSC “for the last few years has dedicated a lot of time and effort to address the gross overuse of administrative segregation.” For example, CSC implemented policy changes that led to a sharp decline in the use of administrative segregation placements between 2015 and 2017. Those changes have ensured that inmates with serious mental illness who actively engage in self-injury and are at elevated or imminent risk of suicide are not admissible for segregation.According to the correctional investigator's 2016-17 report, the average stay in segregation has also seen a significant drop, from 34 days in 2015 to 23 days in 2017. The correctional investigator calls these reductions “encouraging”, but he cautions that there is more work to be done.The time has come to better focus on interventions and on safety, and that is what this important piece of legislation would do.Under Bill C-83, segregation would be eliminated outright from Canada's federal corrections system. In its place, the government is proposing to create structured intervention units. SIUs would be established in numerous institutions. They would offer a secure and structured environment to address the safety risks of inmates who cannot be managed or integrated into the mainstream inmate population.The initial decision to move an inmate from the mainstream inmate population to an SIU would be made by a CSC staff member under the institutional head. This decision would be based on an evaluation of the inmate's needs, including health needs, and the safety risks for themselves, others and the institution. The staff member would have to be satisfied that there were no reasonable alternatives to placement in an SIU. The inmate would receive a notice explaining the reasons for his or her movement, the right to retain and instruct counsel, and the right to make representations regarding movement back to the mainstream inmate population, or other alternatives.Unlike segregation, SIUs would provide inmates with uninterrupted interventions and programs tailored to address their specific and unique needs and risks. Inmates would also have the opportunity to be outside of their cells for a longer period of time, at least four hours a day rather than the two hours a day currently practised. At least two of those four hours would allow inmates to interact with others.In addition, inmates would receive daily visits from health care professionals. The plan would include additional staff to ensure that inmates could be moved safely throughout the new SIUs as they continued to receive programming and time with other compatible inmates within the SIU.This is truly a revolutionary approach that would lead to better rehabilitation, which would mean less recidivism once inmates were released. Fewer inmates reoffending would mean less crime, and it would mean fewer victims in our communities.Bill C-83 also addresses key recommendations from the coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith. In addition to ending the practice of placing female inmates in conditions of long-term segregation, the bill would introduce patient advocates at designated penitentiaries to help inmates navigate their health care rights and responsibilities.All of this would facilitate the reintegration of offenders into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible. It would also support their treatment and rehabilitation in preparation for their eventual release into the community. That, in turn, would support safety in our communities, because the vast majority of inmates will eventually complete their sentences and will be freed from custody.(1245)We must do everything we can to ensure that offenders are as well equipped as possible to be productive, law-abiding citizens by addressing the underlying behaviours that got them into trouble to begin with. This is what we need to focus on. Public safety is not well served by seeing offenders released more hardened, more bitter or more resentful than when they came in. Nor is it ever a good thing for inmates with health or mental health issues to be undiagnosed or to go untreated while in federal custody. That is why the establishment of the SIUs under this legislation would be such a big and positive step forward on the safety front. I am confident that it would mean better correctional outcomes for inmates, more security for the staff, safer institutions and greater public safety in the long run.Bill C-83 would also correct a long-standing problem that has developed over time for Correctional Service Canada. When the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was written in 1992, CSC had facilities that were entirely dedicated to a single security classification. However, over time, CSC's infrastructure became mixed, with institutions often having, for instance, a maximum- and a medium-security wing. Today virtually all the facilities are mixed facilities. In fact, all the women's institutions are, indeed, mixed. The act, however, was never changed to reflect that fact.Bill C-83 would ensure that CSC had the clear and proper legal authorities to operate and move inmates from one wing of an institution to another wing in the same facility. This legislation would also grant CSC the legal authority to use body scanners. As we all know, drugs and other prohibited contraband find their way into prisons, despite efforts to keep them out. Body scanners would provide an important tool for corrections guards that is less invasive than physical searches and more effective in detecting contraband.The bill would also ensure that audio recordings of parole hearings would be made available to victims who attended a hearing. The existing Corrections and Conditional Release Act permits a registered victim who was not in attendance to receive an audio copy of the hearing, but it does not allow someone who was there in person to have one. During the government's consultations, we heard loud and clear that for many victims, a parole hearing is such an emotional moment that the time seems to fly by. Later, they have difficulty clearly remembering what transpired. Section 34 of Bill C-83 would ensure that victims who attended in person could receive an audio recording of the hearing afterward. Another important aspect of the bill stems from the Gladue Supreme Court decision of 1999. This was the case that required the Correctional Service to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making. Over the past 20 years, CSC has developed internal policies to give effect to the Supreme Court ruling, but Bill C-83 would go further by ensuring that the Gladue principles were fully enshrined in the CCRA.I am proud to stand with a government that continues to take action to reform the criminal justice system, and I am proud to stand here today in support of this important bill. As I mentioned at the top of my speech, this bill would ensure that CSC would have the tools to hold guilty parties accountable for what they have done while creating an environment that fosters rehabilitation. Effective rehabilitation means that we would have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsConditional releaseConstitutionalityCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGladue reportsGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unit5584505558450655845075584508558450955845105584511558451255845135584514558451555845165584517558451855845195584520558452155845225584523558452455845255584526558452755845285584529558453055845315584532558453355845345584535JoëlGodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1250)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this bill is very inconsistent. I listened carefully to what the parliamentary secretary had to say.The government is introducing the concept of structured intervention units by saying that they are a great invention and will work perfectly. However, there is one thing that I do not understand. Right now, administrative segregation cells, which are separate from the general cell block, are identical to ordinary cells. Inmates who are currently in administrative segregation spend 22 hours a day in their cell and are released for two hours. There is even a designated section for them in the yard outside.What is the major physical difference between those cells and these much-talked-about structured intervention units besides the fact that inmates will be given four hours of freedom a day rather than two? Will the cells be bigger? We already have the equivalent of these units. I do not understand what is really going to change besides the fact that the inmates will have an extra two hours of freedom a day.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit558453655845375584538KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, nothing is ever perfect, but having double the time out of the cells is an important step forward. As well, when prisoners have been in segregation, they have not had access to health care, to mental health care, to visitors, and to other programs that might have supported their rehabilitation. This SIU, even though it only doubles the amount of time prisoners could spend out of their cells, would actually mean that they could have intervention activities while they were in the SIU. That is why we think that is going to make a difference.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit5584539PierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest concerns about Bill C-83 has been identified by many. The correctional investigator, the John Howard Society and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies have all identified one core piece that goes back to a recommendation made by Justice Arbour a number of years ago relating specifically to her recommendation that dealt with judicial oversight. Really, at this point, we are talking about any kind of oversight at all. In the bill as it stands currently, notwithstanding any ability of the commissioner or the warden to continue to examine a person's presence in what essentially is still solitary confinement under a different name, even with the recommendation of health care professionals, the ultimate decision would still lie with them. There would still be a lack of third-party investigation. There would still be a lack of independent oversight and recourse in the event that the abuses we have seen take place in the past occurred again under this new system.As I asked the minister, would the government reconsider and go forth in a direction that complies more strongly, or at all, with the B.C. Supreme Court decision and with recommendations that have been made by many experts throughout civil society?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit558454055845415584542KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a slight difference of opinion. When some of those rulings were put forward, they were addressing administrative segregation. Administrative segregation does not allow for rehabilitative activities to happen. It does not allow visitors. It does not allow a visit from a health care professional or a mental health care professional or access to other rehabilitative programs. This would really be a transformational change, because when these offenders were in a structured intervention unit, they would have access to this kind of programming that under administrative segregation they do not.In the past, there was a suggestion to have a cap on the number of days, or whatever was appropriate. We are saying that the decision would be reviewed at least three times by three different people about an extended stay in a structured intervention unit. We feel that the review is there and that the changes from administrative segregation to a structured intervention unit actually would provide significant benefits toward an offender's rehabilitation.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit55845435584544MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, a pilot project was recently announced that indicated there would be a needle exchange program available in certain prisons across Canada. One of those prisons is in my area, in the Waterloo region. It is the Grand Valley Institution for Women. We know the correctional officers at these facilities are very much opposed to the idea of a needle exchange program, and that they were basically not consulted on having the program implemented. Now that we have the body scan and a zero drug policy in prisons, will the Liberals finally discontinue their misguided needle exchange program?Also, I would like the member to tell me if the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers was consulted on Bill C-83 as it relates to the safety of our correctional officers, who serve Canada so well in the work they do. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSmuggling558454555845465584547KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. The work correctional officers do is something that is probably underappreciated by a great number of Canadians. They work very hard, and their days are very demanding. When we talk about issues like needle exchange we are trying to look at things based on harm reduction, on safety and on the evidence we have seen. This is an issue that will require more discussion in order for people to feel comfortable with the decisions being made. However, when we are basing the decisions on science, on evidence and on the overall safety of institutions, we think it is the right way forward. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSmuggling558454855845495584550HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, if offenders walk into our prison system with a bachelor of offences and walk out with a Ph.D. of offences, then our prison system has failed them. We know that administrative segregation has caused deaths in our prison system. Of course, we are talking about the case of Ms. Ashley Smith. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain the key differences between administrative segregation and the SIU system we are proposing. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingStructured intervention unit55845515584552KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has identified the crux of the matter. This is transformational change away from administrative segregation, where offenders were in their cells for 22 hours a day, with no access to programming, to visitors or to mental health treatment. We know that 70% of the inmates in our institutions today suffer from some kind of mental illness. We feel that if we do not address these mental health concerns before inmates are released back into society, their chances of successfully rehabilitating back into society will be much diminished. That is why we made this transformational change toward a structured intervention unit, where people still have access to the rehabilitative training that will give them the best chance for a better future. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingStructured intervention unit558455355845545584555FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short and the answer could be even shorter. Has the government consulted our correctional officers on the implementation of the bill as it relates to their safety?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584556KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonKarenMcCrimmonKanata—Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71602KarenMcCrimmonKaren-McCrimmonKanata—CarletonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McCrimmonKaren_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Karen McCrimmon: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, all I can say to answer that is I have not been part of that process, but I can get back to the member with an answer to his question. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584557HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my remarkable colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. I use the word “remarkable” because the word “incredible” has been overused for him recently.I am proud to speak today to Bill C-83, which amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. This is also known as another case of Liberals putting interests of criminals ahead of everyone else, with little thought put into it. It should not be confused with Liberal Bill C-71, or Bill C-75, or Bill C-28, or any other myriad number of bills in which they have put criminal rights ahead of those of regular citizens.We all know the horrific story of the case of Ashley Smith and her unfortunate death. That never should have happened within our prison system, and the government should make moves to prevent situations like that from recurring. However, it should not impose a poorly thought-out, outright ban on segregation. There are some good parts to the bill and I congratulate the government on it. I support the idea of body scans to prevent contraband and drugs coming into prisons, but it should be extended to everyone entering the prison, not just certain people. I also like that it gives more consideration to indigenous offenders. But, and it is a big but, there are a few key points in the bill that would directly impact the safety and security of our corrections officers and those who need segregation for their own safety. This is another example of the government's obsession with making criminals' lives easier while making our front-line officers' jobs more dangerous.I want to talk about the reality of the most common use of segregation. Inmates who commit crimes in prison do not always get the segregation. Very often, it is the victims who are segregated to protect them from those inmates. It is often used as a means of ensuring the safety of the targeted inmate from further assault, often because the target does not want to name the inmate who assaulted them. This means the assaults continue and the inmate who went into a segregation unit has to eventually reintegrate somewhere else in another unit or institution, or even in another region in the country.It is relatively uncommon that segregation is ordered as a disciplinary sanction. In fact, most inmates view segregation time as a holiday rather than a consequence, especially since they must receive all their possessions, such as a television and their other belongings on their property card, within 24 hours of admission.A report from CBC that came out last April quoted the Ontario Public Service Employees Union as saying that segregation isn't the deterrent it once was, because the maximum time inmates can spend in segregation has been halved and increased privileges for those in segregation mean that inmates are no longer as skittish about being sent there. It also confirmed that in fact there are not enough segregation units, at least in Ontario, because most are being used by inmates who have mental health issues.That is the provincial system, but it correlates to the federal system as well. It leaves violent inmates out in the general population, where they can continue to commit assaults against other inmates and corrections officers themselves. Another CBC report quotes an officer as saying, “Where [the more violent inmates] used to be in separate containers, now they're all in one bag, and we're just waiting for one to go off. And that sets the rest of them off and you end up with murders, stabbings, slashing, and officer injuries higher than ever.”Another officer is quoted as saying, “The inmates, they can get away with a lot more than they used to in the past, and that contributes to the growing violence and the crisis in corrections.”As I mentioned, with previous changes to segregation policies the maximum time in segregation has already been cut in half. Also, the increase in privileges available to those in segregation means it is not as strong a deterrent as it used to be. All removing segregation does, especially disciplinary segregation, is soften reprisals for bad behaviour. Inmates know there is one less tool for correctional officers to use to maintain order and ensure their own safety and that of other inmates. A CBC report from September 2017 indicated that the stricter limits on segregation have led to a massive upswing in inmate assaults. Between 2012 and 2017, the number of violent repeat offences after leaving segregation increased 50%.Statistics released recently for corrections in Ontario show close to 800 reported incidents in 2016. By halfway through 2017, the last time we had the numbers available, there were almost as many violent incidents in our prisons. The report quotes Jason Godin, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who pointed out that segregation is a tool for a reason and that restrictive policies only transfer the problem of violence.The creation and integration of structured intervention units makes violent and non-violent inmates equal, regardless of the quality of their conduct while they serve their time. They get access to four hours per day outside their cells from the structured units, and they also get two hours of “significant human contact”. This is going to require significant increases in resources for the officers, but there is no money set aside for this.(1305)Now, every time someone is moved into segregation, or out of segregation for their two hours out in the open, it requires two officers to accompany them. That is for the safety of the officers, to ensure they always have enough manpower to protect themselves. Where is this money going to come from?If we look at the government's departmental plan signed by the Minister of Public Safety, allowing for inflation it is actually cutting 8.8% of the funding to Correctional Service Canada over the next four years. Where is this money coming from? I am sure the minister did not even look at the plan before he signed off on it, and I am sure my colleagues across the way have not read the plan either. It actually calls for a reduction in officers in Correctional Service Canada over the next years, but it is going to increase the workload and the costs of these units with what money? We do not know.The officers themselves are left with one less tool that allows them to deter assaults and violence from taking place in the cellblocks. Corrections officers already face a host of challenges. Even though it is their choice to work in these jobs, keep in mind that these men and women are still in a prison themselves. They are subjected to the same environment that the inmates are.Statistics from a 2018 report prepared for the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers show that between 60% and 65% of correctional officers report their work has a negative impact on their life away from work. A substantial proportion of correctional officers, about 75%, report that the psychological demands of their job have increased in the last five years. Nearly 55% of long-serving officers report that their physical ability to properly do their work is worse or much worse in the last few years. The report summarizes: [T]here is a particularly poor fit between interest in work and the psychological and mental disposition of [the] officers...on the one hand, and the environment and working conditions set out and maintained by CSC, on the other. Such a poor fit cannot go on forever, nor be ignored, other than to the detriment of both the correctional officers...as well as public interest as embodied in CSC's mandate and social mission.I want to look at an another area where the government has failed our corrections officers. They are one of the main victims of the Liberal Phoenix fiasco. Roughly 85% of corrections officers across the country have been affected by Phoenix. This is because many of them are shift workers with irregular schedules that require manual entry into the system, something the government could have prevented had it not botched the entire rollout.In fact, the Treasury Board was specifically told this was a failure in the Phoenix system when it was doing the pre-testing, yet the government chose to ignore it, just like the President of the Treasury Board ignored the Gartner report when it advised not to proceed with Phoenix. I find it very amusing that the President of the Treasury Board justifies his meddling in the Davie supply ship contract on behalf of Irving as part of his job, but apparently it was not part of his job to act on the Gartner report on Phoenix, which, by the way, he commissioned himself.The UCCO president has already called for help for its members because, like many public servants, they are renegotiating their mortgages and taking out loans to ensure they can keep a roof over their heads because of the pay problems. Unfortunately, we do not see an end in sight for those suffering from the Phoenix pay problems.I want to talk about the government's priorities. I mentioned before that its priorities seems to be on criminals, not on average Canadians. Page 210 of last year's budget proposes $21.4 million for the mental health needs of RCMP officers and the same amount for the mental health needs of federal inmates. There are a lot more RCMP officers than there are inmates. For the average RCMP officer, the people putting their lives on the line every day and fighting for us, we have from the government $1,100 per officer for mental health. For prisoners, it is $1,400. Where is the justice?Of 1,400 words in the CSC's much-ballyhooed mandate letter, the first time a corrections services lead has had a mandate letter, there were 24 words on victims and 52 on the workers. Those 52 words on the workers included such gems as, “I encourage you to instill within CSC a culture of ongoing self-reflection.”There are the government's priorities in a nutshell: more money for criminals, less for the RCMP and for our valued officers in the prisons. Perhaps it is time for self-reflection on the issue.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersIncome and wagesMillimetre wave scannersPhoenixSecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety5584558558455955845605584561558456255845635584564558456555845665584567558456855845695584570558457155845725584573558457455845755584576558457755845785584579558458055845815584582558458355845845584585KarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he would have negotiated a better deal, but that same member could not even negotiate with his own caucus member, which resulted in the People's Party of Canada, so welcome to that.Getting back to the facts, is the member opposed to body scanners in prison? Is that what I am hearing? He is opposed to body scanners in prison and is going to vote against this bill to make more equipment available for our prison officers. Is that what I am hearing on the other side?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond reading55845865584587KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I serve with this member on committee. We generally get along. However, that is a silly question. Twice now he has sat in this House and listened to members on this side of the House say that they agree with the idea of body scanners. In fact, I sat here and congratulated the idea of body scanners, yet this gentlemen stands and asks why I am against body scanners. It is very clear he is not paying attention, just like the current government is not paying attention to the needs of our officers in the correctional services industry.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMillimetre wave scannersSecond reading5584588FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House I am glad there is someone who is standing up on the side of victims, because clearly the other side is more concerned about the criminals than they are about the victims.Previously today, on two occasions, I asked members of the governing party whether or not they had consulted with the corrections officers with respect to the implementation of this bill. The first time I received no answer. The second time I received an answer from the parliamentary secretary, no less, who said she was not sure. That concerns me. If the parliamentary secretary is not aware as to whether or not negotiations, or consultations at least, went on with the corrections officers' union, that is a huge concern.I have a quote from the president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, who said, “At...[the Regional Psychiatric Centre] we...had...100 assaults on staff in 12 months.” It is very troubling to me that our corrections officers are put in that kind of a situation where 100 assaults per year occur.Does my colleague really believe that this idea of not allowing segregation will make our correctional officers more or less safe?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety5584589558459055845915584592KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have spoken to several correctional officers. Unfortunately, they do not want to come forward because they are afraid. That is one more reason why the current government should update the whistle-blower act, as we have asked. The correctional officers made it clear that the statistics show that segregation is a tool that can be used. It is very clear that it had been used incorrectly in a couple of cases, and those cases should be addressed. However, our focus has to be on the protection of our CSC officers. They are under siege. They are having mental health issues. Nothing in this bill addresses them, but addresses the health and well-being of the prisoners. The mandate from the government continues to tell the head of the CSC to focus on the health and welfare of the prisoners, but not the officers themselves who are there protecting average Canadians. This bill has a couple of good things, but goes nowhere close to addressing the real issues we are facing today. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety5584593HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/69488RobertSopuckRobert-SopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SopuckRobert_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC): (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from Edmonton West for his speech. I can truthfully say that I listen to every word of all of his speeches as they are so well done and well researched. He cites facts and figures. He is a very credible member of Parliament.I am going to take a bit of a different approach here. I would like to ask my friend from Edmonton West what it is about the Liberal DNA that always blames the victims and never assigns personal responsibilities to the criminals themselves. To the Liberals, people are criminals because it is society's fault, it is how they were brought up or it is who they are. They never assign personal responsibility. We Conservatives believe in personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Can my friend from Edmonton West explain this Liberal mindset?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55845945584595KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish I could explain the Liberal mindset. Experts have tried and they cannot figure it out. However, I will comment on the Liberals' focus, the wrong focus.I have the Correctional Service Canada department plan. It lists about 40 or 50 priorities. Not one single priority of the current government lists any safety issues for our corrections services officers. There is not one to protect them. However, there are 50 or so to improve the lives of inmates. That is wrong.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55845965584597RobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off this intervention by setting the situation we are faced with today.Imagine a time when we call murder a “bad practice.” Imagine being at a point in time where we cannot use the word “illegal” for those who cross our borders illegally. It is now “irregular”. Imagine our government of day actually paying convicted terrorists $10.5 million for pain and suffering. Imagine a time when our government reaches out to a terrorist who, at one point, bragged about playing soccer with the heads of those he fought against, an ISIS terrorist, who bragged at one time about playing soccer with the heads of those they captured and decapitated.I offer this because this is where are at, at this point. We see, time and time again, the government, our colleagues across the way, continuing to go on, “merrily, merrily, life is but a dream”. It goes down the way, all rainbows and sunshine. It is hug-a-thug. Imagine a time when we are moving a convicted murderer, one who had been sentenced for society's most heinous crime of kidnapping and killing an eight-year-old, to a healing lodge part way through their sentence, not behind bars, but having a key to their own condo, if you will, free to come and go as they please within that area. Imagine a time when we always err on the side of the criminal rather than that of the victim. Imagine a time when a convicted murderer can claim PTSD from the murder that he committed and receive treatment for PTSD before veterans and first responders.That is where we are with Bill C-83. Before our colleagues across the way say, “The Conservatives are so against these body scans and different elements of this piece of legislation”, we are for providing the tools for our front-line workers every step of the way so that they can be safe. We are for providing victims and their families the rights and the tools so that they can remain whole, so that they are not revictimized at every step of the way.Bill C-83 is about abolishing segregation. Oftentimes in the movies and in prison slang, segregation is referred to as “the hole”. Maybe that is how we got here. Maybe that is how this came to be. The Liberals, in the ways they dream things up, actually thought it was a hole we were putting people in. That is not true. It is a cell, no different than others.As a matter of fact, somebody who spent a long period of time in segregation, one of our country's most notorious serial killers, Clifford Robert Olson still managed to take advantage of the situation. A reporter who visited him at one point remarked that he was healthy, that he even had a tan. Here is a guy who raped and murdered children in my province of British Columbia, and maybe even in other areas.Segregation is not just for the safety of our front-line officers. It is also for the safety of those who are incarcerated. One of our colleagues mentioned that in interviewing somebody who has been incarcerated and spent a majority of their time in segregation that they preferred that, that they knew if they were out in general population that they probably would not last very long.(1320)I actually would like to name some of the folks in our prison system who are housed in segregation and who the government is proposing to allow out of segregation, such as Paul Bernardo who has just been denied parole again. He is known to have lured young women, torturing, raping and murdering them with his then girlfriend, Karla Homolka. He actually murdered her own sister. Other inmates in segregation are Robert Pickton, who is a serial killer in my province of British Columbia, Renee Acoby, John Greene, Andrew Gulliver and Christopher Newhook.Again, as I mentioned earlier, there is probably one of our most notorious serial killers, Clifford Robert Olson. I had an opportunity to speak with some of the arresting officers in his case and those persons who were charged with guarding him in his cell. He bragged incessantly and wanted to talk about those crimes. He was diabolical. He was sick.Segregation provides a disciplinary administrative tool that both keeps those who are incarcerated protected, but also protects front-line workers. Is that not what we are here to do, protect society and those who have been charged with protecting society, keeping them safe both physically and mentally?Through the course of my work in building Bill C-211 and then getting it passed in June of this year, I worked closely with correctional services. Very often, correctional guards and correctional officers are not seen as first responders, yet they perform those duties every day. They are seeing the worst of society at their very worst, while providing medical and life-saving treatment almost on a daily basis. They also have to guard those individuals and their safety is always at risk. Imagine being a guard in charge of a unit and there are 40 of society's worst criminals, yet that guard is alone.The president of the union of Correctional Services of Canada recently said that in his centre in the course of the last 12 months there had been 100 violent incidents against his officers. I have also learned that the government is approving a needle exchange program where the guards are to give the inmates needles and spoons to cook drugs and then go back to their cells, unbelievably. There is no onus on the prisoners; when they come up for parole, they are not required to report that they had been using in prison. Therefore, yes, we do agree that we should have full body scanners, not only for prisoners or their guests, but also for guards. I believe that would make everyone safe.How unbelievable is it that we are now going to give needles and cooking spoons? I do not mean ladles for cooking soup, but cooking spoons for drugs, to use drugs, then allow them to go back to their cells and expect a guard to go into the cell to do some form of administrative management or security search, not knowing whether there is a needle there with some form of bodily fluid.When the union heard about Bill C-83, it sent letters to the minister outlining its concerns. Union representatives were worried about segregation and emphasized to the minister the importance of this tool for correctional officers. They brought up their concern over the prison needle exchange and suggested rather than doing that, the minister focus on the resources to treat inmates with infectious diseases instead. They came at this in a reasonable way and offered solutions, yet they were not listened to. They were pooh-poohed. As a matter of fact, the minister thanked them for their time and then went forward in crafting this bill.We are against the bill as a whole. We are not against certain elements of it. I would urge the government and the minister to reconsider Bill C-83.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinementViolent crimeWorkplace health and safety558459855845995584600558460155846025584603558460455846055584606558460755846085584609558461055846115584612558461355846145584615KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Conservatives are surprising anyone when they say they are against the legislation. They have this Stephen Harper mentality, that Conservative spin, as if they are tough on crime and they are the only defenders of victims. Progressive legislation of this nature would prevent future victims. Some countries around the world recognize that certain things can be done To allow for a better system, and we see that, whether it is indigenous concerns through some of the changes being proposed, or body cavity checks through technology or screening or different courses that will be provided, even for those in segregation.Most people would acknowledge that Bill C-83 is progressive legislation. We need to move forward on this. The Conservatives want to stay in the past. They believe that by standing on the hilltop yelling “We're for victims”, they will get the votes. They should look at this legislation, as well as how the world is evolving, and recognize this.When will the Conservatives look at what other jurisdictions are doing to move progressively on this file?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584616558461755846185584619ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the past. Something came up over the course of this summer. Let us talk about turning our eyes toward the victim. When the Prime Minister was accused of a groping incident 18 years ago, he had a chance to apologize. I will take no lessons from the member across the way. I asked time and again of that member and all of his colleagues whether they shared the same sentiment as the Prime Minister; that female victims of violence might sometimes experience that violence, that situation, differently than their male counterparts. I have asked that of them and not one of them have answered that. Not one of them stood up for those victims of violence. The Prime Minister failed to apologize and our colleague across the way continues to stand up for him. That is shameful. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558462055846215584622KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1330)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.In the speech I delivered earlier today, I was able to illustrate our concerns over the changes that are being made and the fact that administrative segregation is an abusive practice that has been overused.I would like to focus on one aspect of my colleague's speech because he raised a very important point. Far too often, correctional officers are forgotten, for example when we look at the repercussions of PTSD on public safety officers. The committee tabled a unanimous report, and I know that the hon. member also made an effort to change this through his bill. I thank him and commend him.Those are the positive things, and here comes the negative. I asked a number of my Conservative colleagues how we are supposed to ensure safety at the institutions when the Conservatives closed two penitentiaries when they were in power. What is more, their bill increased costs by $250 million in one year, and they made cuts of nearly $300 million between 2012 and 2015.How do they reconcile the reality of the guards' safety with the reality of the cuts?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55846235584624558462555846265584627ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for our hon. colleague across the way. In fact, I worked closely with him during the work on my Bill C-211. He knows I am passionate about ensuring that our part-time workers, our first responders get the help they need whenever they need it and for however long they need it, whether it be correctional officers, police officers, firefighters, dispatch officers, our veterans or our military personnel, those front-line workers who experience human tragedy every day. I was not part of the previous government, but I will offer this. My hon. colleague should be focusing his attention across the way rather than on what was done in the past. Let us see how we can move forward and get the bill amended to include front-line officers.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingWorkplace health and safety55846285584629MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this very important legislation. I come from a part of the country that has six penitentiary facilities in the immediate areas. It used to be seven before the former Conservative government closed one of them. People in my riding take great pride in the work that our correctional officers do. We regard the work they do in their role of rehabilitating and reintegrating inmates into society to be an extremely serious one. From the guards to the parole officers, from program staff to medical professionals, correctional employees work hard around the clock, in challenging environments, to keep our institutions safe and to support effective rehabilitation, which ultimately protects Canadian communities. Correctional officers and workers represent a professional workforce of nearly 18,000 employees, all engaged in the success of the corrections system and the fulfillment of the mandate of Correctional Service of Canada. That is complemented by the nearly 6,000 volunteers in the institutions and in the community, not to mention the elders, chaplains and many other unsung heroes. When people who have broken the law return safely to society and to our communities, that is a testament to their work and it is essential to the safety of our communities. Our number one priority is the safety of Canadians.This summer, I had the opportunity to go on a tour of the closed facility in the Kingston area, the former Kingston Penitentiary. We had an opportunity to hear from various former and retired correctional officers. Through that tour, I learned a great deal about their dedication to our justice system, but also the many dangers they faced in the safety aspects of their jobs. That is why I applaud the efforts of the government and I am supportive of correctional employees and the work they do in ensuring the federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment for staff and inmates.Within the secure environment, effective rehabilitative interventions reduce the risk of reoffending and help keep our communities safe. The goal is to have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and ultimately safer communities. That is why the mandate letters to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness include addressing gaps in service, particularly to vulnerable populations, including indigenous peoples and those with mental illness, throughout our criminal justice system. The government has also demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation through the reopening of prison farms, which I can attest is happening in my riding. Prison farms provide prisoners meaningful work at farms at the end of their sentences. Farms teach inmates skills in various agricultural fields, such as heavy machinery operation, food handling and dairy operation. Even if inmates do not go on to a career in agriculture, practical skills and certifications earned through farms will apply for future jobs. In fact, data demonstrated that prison farms increased the likelihood of employability once inmates were released.The government has shown a commitment to improving our correctional system by making rehabilitation possible again and by enhancing the safety of prison workers. This is a new, bold approach to federal corrections. It will protect the safety of staff and those in their custody by allowing offenders to be separated as required, while ensuring those offenders receive more effective rehabilitative programming as well as interventions and mental health support. Under this bill, the practice of administrative segregation will become a thing of the past. The corrections system will have a new tool to manage inmates who pose a safety risk in the form of structured intervention units, or SIUs. Inmates in SIUs will have at least four hours a day outside their cells, instead of the two hours under the current segregation system. They will have a minimum of two hours of meaningful interaction with other people, including staff, volunteers, elders, chaplains and other compatible inmates. They will have access to structured interventions to address the underlying behaviour that led to their placement in the SIU. These will include programs in mental health care tailored to their needs.(1335)Offenders may be placed in an SIU when there are reasonable grounds to believe they pose a risk to the safety of any persons, including themselves, or the security of the institution. An inmate's assignment to the SIU would be subject to a robust internal review process. By the fifth working day after movement to an SIU, the warden would determine if the inmate should remain there, taking into account factors such as the inmate's correctional plan and medical condition.I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth. If an inmate remains in the SIU, subsequent reviews would happen after 30 days by the warden and every 30 days thereafter by the commissioner of corrections. Reviews could also be triggered by a medical professional at any time. In fact, strengthening health care is a big part of the legislation. In an SIU, inmates would be visited by a registered health professional at least once a day.Bill C-83 also affirms that the Correctional Service has the obligation to support health care professionals and their autonomy and clinical independence. The bill provides for patient advocacy services to help ensure offenders receive the health care they need. Clearly, an offender in good physical and mental health is more likely to achieve successful rehabilitation. The bill represents a giant leap forward for our corrections system. The proposals are proactive and sensible, with public and institutional safety at their core. We should all want to ensure that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment, one that is conducive to inmate rehabilitation, staff safety and the protection of the public. Eliminating administrative segregation and creating SIUs represents a landmark shift in our approach to corrections. I look forward to continuing to work with the government, with colleagues in the chamber, and the many people who work within the corrections system to continue advancing the objective of enhancing safety and security through effective interventions and treatment. As I have said, nearly 18,000 corrections workers and 6,000 volunteers across the country do a remarkable job in what are often very difficult circumstances and harsh environments. They deserve to carry out their work in a safe and more secure environment and they deserve to be better supported in their goal of better correctional outcomes. On all fronts, Bill C-83 would answer those calls. I call on all members of the House to join me in supporting the bill. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersPrison farmsSecond readingSplitting speaking timeStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety55846305584631558463255846335584634558463555846365584637558463855846395584640558464155846425584643558464455846455584646ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeHaroldAlbrechtKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35607HaroldAlbrechtHarold-AlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/AlbrechtHarold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, we heard our colleague reference the importance of our correctional officers and the work they do, and I could not agree more. Earlier today, on two occasions, I asked government members whether meaningful consultations had occurred with corrections officers. To this point, after a number of hours, we have no answer to that. I wonder if my colleague could answer this. Was meaningful consultation entered into with correctional officers? We need to ensure that they are on side and that their safety is not put in jeopardy because of the bill's implementation. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading55846475584648MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is always a certain degree of consultation that goes on in the preparation of a bill, but the bulk of the consultation comes through a bill going to a committee and a committee doing its work, talking to the stakeholders, reporting back to the House and then going through the same process in the Senate. After hearing what has been coming from the other side of the House, it is quite clear that the Conservatives believe in a justice system that involves locking them up and throwing away the key. On this side of the House, we believe in rehabilitation and reintegration into society. We know that the majority of people who go into a prison will come out on the other end one day and return to society. We want to ensure they are ready to come back into our society and be productive members of our communities. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersPublic consultationSecond reading55846495584650HaroldAlbrechtKitchener—ConestogaMatthewDubéBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71368MatthewDubéMatthew-DubéBeloeil—ChamblyNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DubéMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague the same question I asked the minister. The answers remain incomplete, non-existent in fact. It is the notion of oversight and recourse. If we look at the corrections investigator, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the John Howard Society, Senator Kim Pate, who has worked in this field for a very long time and knows far more than any of us about some of these important issues, all those intervenors agree on one thing. They agree that the bill and the current system lack any kind of ability to have any kind of recourse in the event that abuse takes place in solitary confinement. We know that is the case when we see the disproportionate representation of vulnerable Canadians or when we see the number of suicides committed while in solitary confinement.My question for my friend is this. Does he truly believe that the warden and the commissioner having the final say on whether solitary confinement should continue is really any kind of proper oversight to ensure that mental health issues are being properly protected and that inmates are being properly rehabilitated? He spoke of those principles, and I agree with him, but I do not feel the bill would do anything to address that. Before we hear that component, we are not actually getting rid of solitary confinement. This SIU thing is just a smokescreen. (1345)Understanding that it is still the same reality, should we not have a more robust review and recourse process in place?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584651558465255846535584654MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am very familiar with the Elizabeth Fry Society and the John Howard Society. I visited them when I was mayor of Kingston, in addition to visiting many other facilities. I saw the tremendous work they do helping inmates to reintegrate into our communities.We are seeing a stark difference, which we quite often see in the House. The Conservatives are telling us that we are doing way too much, and the NDP are telling us that we are just not doing enough. At the end of the day, it is important that we put the right measures in place to give inmates the support they need to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, but at the same time, we need to make sure we are protecting, and have the right safeguards in place for, the people who are taking care of them.It is a balancing act. I am looking forward to seeing how this comes back from committee, where some of the suggestions the member made can come forward and possible amendments be made. The deliberative process that we go through in the House is to fish out exactly the kind of questions he is talking about.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558465555846565584657MatthewDubéBeloeil—ChamblyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, could my colleague expand on why it is important that we bring forward legislation of this nature? There is indeed a high recidivism rate and, as much as possible, we want to allow for successful reintegration into society.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584658MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is important because Liberals believe in reintegration and successful rehabilitation of inmates.We believe that the vast majority of people who go into a facility can be properly rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. However, the most important thing is to give the necessary tools to those who are rehabilitating our inmates so they can be successful at the rehabilitative process.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55846595584660KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88994JulieDabrusinJulie-DabrusinToronto—DanforthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DabrusinJulie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. The bill represents a landmark shift in how we approach corrections in Canada. It would end the practice of segregation in all federal institutions. It would implement a new correctional intervention model that would ensure that offenders are held to account while creating an environment conducive to rehabilitation in the interests of everyone's safety.This is the right thing to do and the safe thing to do. It would keep correctional staff and volunteers safe. It would keep inmates safe, and ultimately it will keep communities safe. An effective corrections system with appropriate and targeted interventions to deal with difficult, challenging or dangerous situations within a secure environment is in everyone's best interests.The reality is that almost all offenders will return to the community. If we lock them up and throw away the key, we are not providing them with the tools they require to safely reintegrate back into society. That is why Bill C-83 would eliminate segregation and establish structured intervention units. These units would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety risks of inmates in these challenging situations. They will be used to manage inmates who cannot be managed safely in the general population.However, unlike segregation, inmates in SIUs will receive structured interventions and programming tailored to their specific needs to address behaviours that led to their SIU placement. They will have a minimum of four hours outside of their cell every day, double the current number of hours in the segregation system. They will have a minimum of two hours of meaningful human interaction every day, including through programs, interventions and services.Currently in the segregation system, a full day can go by for an inmate with virtually no meaningful human interaction. Inmates in an SIU would also have daily visits from health care professionals, and because of the strong focus on intervention, inmates in an SIU would be able to continue their rehabilitative progress and work toward their correctional plan objectives. All of this would help to facilitate their safe return into the mainstream inmate population as soon as possible.The result would be better correctional outcomes, a reduced rate of violent incidents and more safety and security for inmates, staff, volunteers, institutions and ultimately, the public. The bill is a significant step forward for the Canadian correctional system and builds on the good work already under way. The government has provided almost $80 million over five years through budget 2017 and 2018 to better address the mental health needs of inmates. That includes $20.4 million in the last budget specifically for incarcerated women. There was also about $120 million in budget 2017 to support restorative justice approaches through the indigenous justice program and to help indigenous offenders safely reintegrate and find jobs after they have served their sentences.All of this is about making Canadian communities safer through effective rehabilitation in a secure correctional environment. This is the right policy direction, in line with recent calls for this kind of transformation. Two constitutional challenges in Ontario and British Columbia found the legislation governing administrative segregation contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are also pending class actions and human rights complaints related to both the use of segregation and the inadequacy of mental health care. Of particular importance in this regard, the bill would also strengthen health care governance. The bill would provide that corrections has the obligation to support health care professionals in their autonomy and clinical independence. It would also create the legal framework for patient advocacy services to ensure that inmates receive appropriate medical care.(1350)Importantly, the bill would enshrine in law the requirement for Correctional Service Canada to consider systemic and background factors in all decision-making related to indigenous offenders. Addressing gaps in service for indigenous people and people with mental illness in the criminal justice system is a mandate commitment for both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, and the government is following through.I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which finished a report last spring on indigenous people in the correctional system. During testimony for this report we heard from an individual by the name of Mr. Neal Freeland, who stated: If you're native...If you're native in this country you know someone in your family is in prison. If you're native, That's a fact. If you're native, That's the reality of growing up in this country.His testimony was very powerful. Our committee recommended that the Correctional Service of Canada develop risk assessment tools that are more sensitive to indigenous reality and review its security classification assessment process. In the government's response to this report, it confirmed that this recommendation was supported by a June 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ewert v. Canada that Correctional Service Canada must ensure that its use of tools with respect to indigenous offenders do not perpetuate discrimination or contribute to a disparity in correctional outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada will continue its work, informed by this decision, to ensure that it applies the assessment tool in a culturally responsible way for indigenous offenders. The budget contribution, along with the work by the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for the Correctional Service of Canada, and the Minister of Justice, is complemented by additional measures in the bill, including enshrining in law the requirement for CSC to consider systemic and background factors in all decision-making related to indigenous offenders. On another note, at committee, I also worked on a report called the “Use of Ion Mobility Spectrometers by Correctional Service Canada”. The committee agreed to undertake a study of “the alarming rate of false positive results from ion mobility spectrometers with a view to finding more effective ways of preventing drugs from entering prisons, while encouraging the effective rehabilitation of prisoners.” In this regard, Anne Cattral from Mothers Offering Mutual Support told the committee:There is now a clear disconnect between CSC policy, which recognizes the importance of building and maintaining family ties and community support for prisoners, and the continued reliance on an unreliable tool that fails to keep drugs out of prisons but does a very good job of deterring families from visiting... The effects on children of being denied a visit to a parent are also deeply distressing; this happened to my own grandson.The bill would authorize the use of body scanners on people entering correctional institutions. A body scanner is similar to what is used by security personnel at airports. Body scanners provide a less invasive alternative to strip or body cavity searches and eliminate the issues with false positives that I heard about. The bill would also better support the role of victims in the criminal justice system by allowing them enhanced access to audio recordings of parole hearings. That would be a vast improvement over the old system.As I stated, this is about safety. It is about focused intervention to better serve the needs of vulnerable inmates. We need to improve the safety of our inmates, our corrections staff, our institutions and our communities. This bill would transform Canada's correctional system to meet those goals.I am proud to stand behind this bill, and I encourage all members to join me in supporting this historic proposed legislation.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersRacial equalitySecond readingStructured intervention unit558466255846635584664558466555846665584667558466855846695584670558467155846725584673558467455846755584676558467755846785584679558468055846815584682AnthonyRotaNipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaNipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, first, I want to mention that I look forward to hearing the speech of my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View, with whom I will be sharing my time. In the meantime, he is the one who will be listening to what I have to say about Bill C-83. Hon. members will notice that our opinions are quite similar. That goes without saying.I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.It will make a few rather major changes since it will, among other things: eliminate the use of administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation; authorize the Commissioner to designate a penitentiary or an area in a penitentiary as a structured intervention unit for the confinement of inmates who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons; provide less invasive alternatives to physical body cavity searches; affirm that the Correctional Service of Canada has the obligation to support the autonomy and clinical independence of registered health care professionals.It will make other amendments that I unfortunately do not have time to talk about. It is impossible to address every aspect of the bill in just 10 minutes. However, I will focus on a few aspects, including the government's desire to eliminate the use of administrative and disciplinary segregation. The government made that decision as a result of two cases that are currently before the courts. Although the government is appealing the rulings in those cases, it decided to legislate an extreme solution. It is recommending eliminating the use of administrative and disciplinary segregation to address an issue I believe could have been addressed differently. Unfortunately, like most of this government's initiatives, even if this bill passes, it is destined to fail. Doing away with administrative and disciplinary segregation will create a lot more problems in Canada's correctional facilities than it will solve.To back up my prediction about how the government's plan to eliminate administrative segregation will end in failure, I would like to talk about some of the other ways this government has failed since it took office in 2015.The government tried to resolve a number of issues, and every time it made those situations worse.On the economic front, it raised taxes. It scared off billions of dollars' worth of investments by making Canada less attractive to foreign investors. Those billions have been invested elsewhere. On the border security front, everyone here knows that Quebec in particular is still grappling with an unacceptable situation. Thousands of asylum seekers have entered and continue to enter Canada illegally, yet the government has failed to find a solution, do something, or take action.On international trade, there have been no new trade agreements with other trading partners anywhere in the world. The government has also jeopardized existing agreements. Who can forget the Prime Minister's failure to show up for a trans-Pacific partnership signing ceremony, thereby making Canada the laughingstock of the countries who were there at the appointed time?What about the recent free trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada? Canada ended up with more tariffs than it had before. That is a first, and it is a dismal failure on the government's part.On justice, the government refused to put Tori Stafford's murderer back behind bars. The government also allowed a cop killer who never served in the armed forces to keep receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada. Every time we ask the government to do something about this, we get a vague, evasive response and nothing gets done.(1515)No account of the Liberal government's failures would be complete without an account of its failure on the ethics front. This Prime Minister is the first Canadian leader ever found guilty of violating ethics laws. Four of his ministers have also been the subject of federal investigations over the last three years.These failures have real consequences for Canadians. They have increased the cost of living, made Canadians less safe, and, by essentially slamming the door on foreign investment, as I said earlier, made it impossible for Canadians to do business and prosper. In addition, Canadians now have less confidence in the government, sadly. I may have discovered why the Liberal government is having this problem. Digging through the archives and looking through books for some explanation of why a government would choose to fail on so many fronts, I found a book written a few years ago by Paul Watzlawick entitled Ultra-Solutions, or, How to Fail Most Successfully. I truly believe this book is on every Liberal's nightstand.I will read a few comments from the postscript: How to fail most successfully? It's simple. For each problem, just find the ultra-solution. What's the ultra-solution? “Such a solution not only does away with the problem, but also with just about everything else, somewhat in the vein of the old medical joke—Operation successful, patient dead”. The problem with the Liberals is that they always find the ultra-solution. There was a cannabis problem, so they found the ultra-solution: they legalized it with total disregard for all the problems, all the dissenting opinions they heard from police forces, psychiatrists, and municipal and provincial officials. The ultra-solution was chosen to solve a very real problem in Canada. They decided that the ultra-solution was to legalize it across the board. We could apply this logic to every decision this government has made from the beginning.Getting back to Bill C-83, yes, there are problems with segregation, as we have seen. There are problems with respect to the various groups or different communities, such as indigenous peoples, who are placed in segregation, for preventive purposes or for security. Rather than trying to come up with solutions to specific problems, the government chose the ultra-solution and decided to simply eliminate administrative segregation.I have an article here dated September 28, 2017. It talks about Ivan Zinger, who was the correctional investigator of Canada and who conducted an investigation into segregation. To his great surprise, “[the] new strategy to limit prolonged segregation has had the unintended consequences of more violent attacks behind bars”. That is what he himself acknowledged. This is what is happening because, indeed, since 2014, the penitentiaries have tried to send fewer people to segregation.According to the data compiled by Mr. Zinger, the number of inmates kept in segregation at any given point in the year has gone from 800 to fewer than 300 since 2014. However, over the same period, the number of assaults committed by inmates against other inmates spiked by 32%: there were 719 incidents last year versus 543 incidents in 2013-14. The number of incidents involving prison guards remained stable.That is exactly what I am trying to explain and get across to the government By wanting to pass a bill seeking to eliminate the problem and everything that goes with it, the government is creating other problems that are sometimes worse than the ones they are trying to fix. That is why I cannot support Bill C-83.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsGovernment performanceImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinementSplitting speaking time55849475584948558494955849505584951558495255849535584954558495555849565584957558495855849595584960558496155849625584963558496455849655584966GeoffReganHon.Halifax WestTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his comments.Every federal department is supposed to submit a plan that includes cost estimates. The Correctional Service of Canada plan proposes to cut staff over the next four years. There is also a proposed 8.8% reduction, over the next four years, in the financial resources that help the Correctional Service do its work. However, the government's bill proposes to increase services received under the new inmate detention system.Can my colleague talk about what will happen to our correctional system given these budget plans?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558496755849685584969LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.As I mentioned in my speech, the bill, as cobbled together and proposed by the Liberal government, does not take these cuts into account. What is going to happen? They will fail once again.They are likely endangering prison guards and the people who work in these institutions. Those people are there for the good of the inmates and the public. They keep dangerous criminals behind bars. Sometimes, we must protect criminals from themselves, to prevent them from attacking others. Unfortunately, these cuts and the Liberals' improvisation are likely to cause more and more serious incidents in our prisons.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558497055849715584972TomKmiecCalgary ShepardAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.We are going to oppose this bill, but our reasons for doing so are not the same as those of my colleague, as he can well imagine. We find it rather strange that the Liberals, compelled by the courts, have started referring to administrative segregation as structured intervention units, and that they are reducing the maximum number of hours spent in segregation from 22 to 20, but they are still allowing inmates to be kept there for an indefinite period of time, as was the case before. In our opinion this bill is a waste of time. No real changes are being made. The government is not abiding by the court's decision.What does my colleague think about the fact that 42% of inmates in administrative segregation are indigenous? Is that not a form of systemic discrimination?Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558497355849745584975LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I said in my speech. This bill is an “ultra-solution”. The government thinks that it is going to solve all the problems through a small clause in a bill when there are very different solutions that could have been implemented in a very different way. Unfortunately, the Liberals completely ignored them. They chose a single solution to very different problems.Yes, there are problems. Yes there are different populations that warrant different solutions. Unfortunately, in this bill, the government treats everyone the same and does not take into account the differences, the causes, and mental health conditions. We are just being told that the same formula now applies to everyone. In that regard, I agree with my NDP colleague, even though he does not seem to like it.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55849765584977AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think that the Conservative and New Democrat members' comments complement one another. They do not necessarily oppose the same things, but they do complement each other. I want to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for his great speech. I learned a lot, and I think Canadians did as well, about why it is important to plan well and have a vision when introducing a bill. It seems clear that this is not the case here, based on the points my colleague made in his speech. Correctional Service Canada has told us that there is absolutely no budget for this bill. The government did not do any budget forecasts.Since my colleague was once a mayor, I would like to ask him a question. Would he have ever introduced a by-law, law or new approach at city hall without knowing how much it would cost?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584978558497955849805584981LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1520)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I never would have done that.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5584983CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): (1525)[English]Madam Speaker, it was a remarkable speech of my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, and certainly I hope that I can live up to the expectations he had. I am honoured to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, because located in the centre of my riding is the Bowden Institution, which is presently a medium security prison built on an open campus model. It was opened in 1974, being built on the site of former RCAF Station Bowden, a World War II British Commonwealth air training plan facility. Although it is a medium-security prison, recently a considerable contingent of violent gang members have been transferred there.During my 34 year career as a teacher in Innisfail, just a few miles north of the pen and during my wife's 10 year teaching career in Bowden, we both had many interactions with families who had relatives incarcerated at the penitentiary, as well as interactions with community members who worked as guards, psychologists, or teachers in the institution.In my role as the member of Parliament, first for Red Deer from 2008 to 2015 and then for Red Deer—Mountain View, concerns about the activities that take place not just at Bowden but at correctional facilities across Canada often end up on my desk. The morale of prison staff is so important because for them to function in a way that can be helpful to both the inmates and themselves, they need safe conditions and positive direction. I will start with one of the issues that has weighed so heavily on their minds, and that is the disastrous Phoenix pay system. No worker should be forced to sell their vehicle, move out of their homes, deal with marriage breakdowns from financial stress and declare personal bankruptcy simply because the government cannot get a properly calculated cheque to them. However, those are things that have happened and are continuing to happen.No worker should have to deal with drug addicts inside a prison, especially when those drugs are fentanyl, which can be lethal if one just breathes it in. In July 2017, a corrections officer was hospitalized after finding fentanyl in a car in the parking lot. Drugs are hidden in flower beds, come over the walls in tennis balls, and are brought in by visitors, many under threat of violence to their loved ones if they do not comply.In November 2017, half a million dollars of drugs, mainly methamphetamines and THC, was seized by staff. Imagine how people feel when the concept of needle exchanges and heating spoons also finds its way in and how that discussion occurs. It simply illustrates to the public just how dangerous and unmanageable the situation is. Corrections staff are not only expected to deal with these dangerous issues, but they also have their hands tied even to the extent of being subject to monetary penalties if they take actions against an inmate, even if they are protecting themselves.As far as Bill C-83 is concerned, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers intends to spend a lot of time reviewing this legislation. Jason Godin, the national president, said: Bill C-83 will require serious consultation and resources to make it work.... As correctional officers, we want to make sure that we have the proper tools to ensure staff and inmates safety. In that sense, Bill C-83 must include structured intervention units, which would operate as a population management tool that they can ensure staff and inmate safety.With regard to consultation, resources, and proper tools to make it work, I don't think many people believe that adequate resources management is, or ever has been, a Liberal priority after the way the government rolled out its marijuana program.The union emphasized say that the new bill must not sacrifice disciplinary segregation as a tool to deter violent behaviour. It said:We need alternative sanctions to disciplinary segregation, ensuring that inmates displaying dangerous and violent behaviour have some consequences for their actions. Since CSC has limited its use of segregation with new policies, there has been an increased report of assaults on inmates and staff.For example, Mr. Godin said: At RPC (Regional Psychiatric Centre) we have had over 100 assaults on staff in 12 months and that they need to get this under control.(1530)It is my assessment that the introduction of SIUs may pose a risk to prison guards, inmates, particularly those for whom solitary confinement is used for their own safety. Additionally, the stripping of the ability to use segregation for discipline makes prisons more dangerous for the guards, since they will now face having to deal with the worst of the worst, the most volatile, being out and about from their cells for four hours per day.Bill C-83 also goes further than what was raised in either of the Supreme Court decisions by banning administrative segregation and changing it to this SIU model. This is just another example of how misplaced Liberal thinking is when it comes to criminals, give them all the breaks and putting the screws to those charged with keeping control.Conservatives will always stand strong by supporting workers' safety and victims' concerns over increasing the rights and privileges of criminals.Another aspect of this bill, one that I am in agreement with, is the introduction of body scanners. For those who travel as much as we do as members of Parliament, it is just second nature. What are those scanners designed to do? It is to keep everyone safe, to restrict dangerous items, to prevent the possibility of mayhem. Where could that be more important than in a prison? The union also welcomes the introduction of body scanners to prevent contraband, saying that “Our union has advocated strongly for the implementation of body scanners. We are satisfied with the results.”I agree that body scanners are a good idea, but we will be proposing amendments to extend scanning to anyone who enters the institution, other than employees. Personally, I would go so far as to say that if everyone had to go through the scanners, and inmates knew this was the way it was going to be, then the resulting recognition that nothing could come in would go a long ways to ensuring safety for all.One of the things that I have been acutely aware of as a resident of central Alberta is the issue of criminality. We have a penitentiary, but we also have criminals from all over this country. I have heard from other members that there are issues regarding the special circumstances of indigenous inmates and concerns about inmates from ethnic or religious minorities. These are all issues that need to be carefully addressed.There are also issues with people who have drug addictions, who feed their habit through criminal behaviour, and those special cases where inmates with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder are engaging in criminal activity because they are manipulated by con artists, some within the institutions as well. These are circumstances where effective mental health protocols and interventions need to be used.The formalization of exceptions for offenders with mental health conditions of special circumstances, when done properly, would truly be fair. As a matter of fact, our previous Conservative government championed the improvement of mental health treatment for patients, by ensuring faster mental health screening through the creation of mental health strategies, by extending mental psychological counselling and improving staff training.This was not hard on criminals; it was compassionate and effective. Granted, much more work still needs to be done. However, just throwing up our hands like the Liberals are doing, hoping they can move criminals out of prisons faster by simply reclassifying them, does not make sense, and it surely does not protect the public.Policies such as classifying a single prison cell in a minimum-security facility to become a maximum-security cell sounds more like an administrative solution than a strong security decision.In conclusion, we want to see the risk to prison guards, the institutions' staff, and the general public completely eliminated. Isolating offenders who attack other inmates or are harmful to themselves and others should not always be second guessed. Making prisons drug free with the use of technology and strict enforcement should not be considered an impossible task. Ensuring that the right mental health treatment gets to the right inmates as quickly as possible should be the goal of everyone involved.Hopefully those witnesses who are clamouring to make the Liberals see the light will get a fair hearing when this goes to committee, and amendments will be accepted to make this legislation effective.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitWorkplace health and safety558498455849855584986558498755849885584989558499055849915584992558499355849945584995558499655849975584998558499955850005585001558500255850035585004558500555850065585007558500855850095585010LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableFrankBaylisPierrefonds—Dollard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88578FrankBaylisFrank-BaylisPierrefonds—DollardLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BaylisFrank_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): (1535)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I congratulate my former fellow member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on his wonderful speech.[English]The hon. member mentioned fetal alcohol syndrome. I have read and heard that upwards of 70% to 80% of people who are incarcerated have two common indicators: one that their mother drank while pregnant, and the other that they have not finished high school.Has the member looked into those statistics to see how people with those two characteristics might be rehabilitated?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558501155850125585013EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen: (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, I would first say in response to both of those items that, as a former teacher, they are important. I know, for example, that in Bowden we have great staff working with individuals. It is a much more difficult situation to work with those who have FASD, but it does work. If they do not have a lot of extra distractions around them, it is a lot easier for them to manage under those circumstances. However, one of the critical and key parts is that often other criminals will want things done inside the prison. Therefore, it is not just a case of what they did on the outside, because we find that many of them end up getting charged for other activities they have committed on the inside because someone told them they were good guys and asked them to do something for them, that everything would be great. However, the former are the ones who get caught and end up having to serve extra time. That activity is still going on. Therefore, if someone wants to move drugs from one person to another and he or she sends someone else to do that, obviously that person would be the one who would suffer the most.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55850145585015FrankBaylisPierrefonds—DollardMarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71395MarjolaineBoutin-SweetMarjolaine-Boutin-SweetHochelagaNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoutinSweetMarjolaine_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): (1535)[Translation]Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, this bill offers nothing more than a change in terminology. What used to be called administrative segregation will now be called structured intervention units. This is not much better. The government also wants to reduce the number of hours in segregation from 22 or 23 hours to 20 hours. This is a difference of two or three hours.The Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Superior Court of Ontario have ruled that the existing segregation regime is unconstitutional, and, as I just mentioned, not much is changing about this regime, other than the terminology and the number of hours.Does my colleague agree with the courts?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit558501655850175585018EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen: (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, the definition with respect to an inmate's rights in the bill states that an inmate in a structured intervention unit has the same rights as other inmates, except if they cannot be exercised due to limitations specified for the SIU or security requirements.First of all, the opportunities for inmates to spend a minimum of four hours a day outside their cells or to interact for a minimum of two hours a day with others through activities, including but not limited to some programs, and going through interventions and services that encourage them to make progress, all of these things sound like a great opportunities. Although the inmates are given a certain amount of leisure time, it seems as though the Liberals are trying to dictate how those four hours would be dealt with. There are even points in the bill where inmates have to make sure they have spoken with a certain person during the time of day that is listed. Whatever the situation is and the relationship this has to the Supreme Court's decision, I believe that the Liberals have gone too far. I know that the unions are extremely frustrated by this. In my speech I mentioned a lot of different situations where the unions are saying that they need this tool. Therefore, notwithstanding what the Supreme Court says, and I do not think we are going there but that is the situation many people are indicating, this is causing a lot of nervousness in the corrections system.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit55850195585020MarjolaineBoutin-SweetHochelagaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this important piece of legislation. I think it is one of the pieces of legislation that really illustrates the differences between political entities inside this chamber. I want to provide some thoughts on the legislation and why I believe we are quite different in terms of political philosophy and the way we want to approach crime and ensure that we have safe streets in our communities. I am going to approach this from the perspective of some personal experience. I was the chair of the youth justice committee in the north end of Winnipeg for many years. I was also the justice critic for the Province of Manitoba for a number of years, and I have had an opportunity to gain a certain amount of insight by talking to victims, offenders and the many stakeholders around our justice system. I suspect one could anticipate that I am somewhat opinionated on this issue.Crime is one of the issues that our constituents are very much concerned about. It is an issue that I often talk about with constituents at the door. We can talk about health care to some and there is a high level of interest in education. However, the one issue that seems to be universal in terms of having a discussion, is the issue of safety in our communities. I take it very seriously. We often hear from the Conservative benches about being “soft on crime”. Let me be very clear. For me, it is about the victims and preventing victims from being victims in the first place. That is something that is very important to recognize. Holding individuals accountable for breaking the law is of the utmost importance. There needs to be a consequence when someone violates the law. However, we should be looking at it from the perspective of how we ensure that there are fewer repeat offenders. If one were to follow the tough talk of the Conservatives, one would think it would be by incarcerating them in a facility and allowing them to remain in that facility and maybe, to a certain degree, being better educated in different types of crime. The whole concept of rehabilitation seems to be lost on Conservative Party members, especially when they are in opposition or when they write press releases. We know that at times, a Conservative government can do some good things related to rehabilitation, such as when they set up healing lodges in the past, for example. That was something they established when it came to having someone move from a high-security prison to a medium-security prison. I am glad that the Conservatives applaud and recognize that. At times they will do good things, but they will never really talk about them. What they want is to have the Conservative hard-nosed attitude that if someone breaks the law, throw them in jail and throw away the key.Having the opportunity to tour facilities, whether it is the Headingley facility just outside Winnipeg, or Stony Mountain just outside Winnipeg near Stonewall, one gains a fairly good perspective in terms of what incarceration is all about and why it is important that there be a strong rehabilitation component in prisons.(1540)We need to realize that the majority of people who are going to prison today will leave prison at some point. Contrary to the impression the Conservatives might like to give Canadians, it is not just murderers and rapists and pedophiles who go to prison. There are many other individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, for numerous reasons, and ultimately end up in prison.My colleague and friend made reference to fetal alcohol syndrome. It is a very serious disorder in different regions of the country, in some regions of the country more than others. There is a correlation factor that should be taken into consideration. One of the surprises I had was the number of individuals who have addiction issues. One of the addiction issues I would make reference to is a gambling addiction. As a result of a gambling addiction, individuals often find themselves on the wrong side of the law, and if it is severe enough, they end up being in custody or in jail. We need to recognize that if we have sound programs provided, then after they leave incarceration, there is a better chance of their being productive and law-abiding citizens. If we take away those programs the Conservatives would like to see disappear, or at least have the imagery of them disappearing, I would suggest, and I believe that studies will show, that we would have more victims as a direct result. Therefore, rehabilitation is an important component of our justice system and our corrections facilities. That is not to take away from consequences. As I indicated, I sat on a justice committee. Justice committees are quasi-judicial, such as youth justice committees, where members of a community come before the community and say that they would be prepared to be honorary probation officers and deal with young offenders. For years I chaired one and I always found it interesting, when we would get new members coming in, to see the type of thinking they had about some of the young offenders we would get. A typical case might be someone who was shoplifting, for example. We would see shoplifters coming in with their guardians and they would sit before two or three honorary probation officers for an interview. They would talk to the young person to get a sense of whether there was remorse and what sort of disposition would be in the best interests of the community for the crime that had been committed and in the best interests of the individual so that the individual young person would not recommit. In the 1990s, we had a fairly proactive group of youth justice committees in the north end of Winnipeg. I suspect that for many of those young people who went before those youth justice committees, where members of the community were engaged, there was a stronger likelihood of success and those youth were not committing offences.If we leave it to the professionals, the individuals in the facilities who have studied human behaviour, and even to victims organizations, and listen to what they are telling us, we will find that there is a great deal of room for us to look at ways we can improve our correctional facilities. That is really what this bill is about.(1545)It is an interesting fact that around 2011, the average number of inmates in segregation was in excess of 700 on any given day. Contrast that to today. Today it is roughly 340 or just under 350 a day. That is a substantial decrease in a relatively small number of years. From 700 to around 340 or 350 is a significant decrease. I would suggest that this is in good part from the sense of professionalism our correctional officers have. They do a phenomenal job. I want to recognize the efforts of our correctional facility officers and applaud them for the day-in and day-out services they provide making our communities safe and our correctional facilities safe. They do a phenomenal job, second to no other, I would argue.Those numbers are very encouraging. We are seeing fewer people put into segregation units. What the bill would do is eliminate administrative segregation units and put in structured intervention units. There is a difference. The Conservatives say that we are doing too much and are being too nice. The New Democrats say that we are not doing anything and that we need to do more. I am glad to say that the government and the minister have done a fantastic job working with stakeholders to bring forward structured intervention units, which would actually be effective. In fact, they would make a difference and meet the needs of some pending court decisions on challenges brought forward in regard to segregation. The bill has also taken into consideration what other jurisdictions around the world are doing. The minister has done a fantastic job in ensuring that we have solid, sound legislation, but both the NDP and the Conservatives are both voting against it, for totally different reasons, rather than recognizing that we are, in fact, on the right path. They do not need to criticize only because they happen to be in opposition. If the government brings in good legislation, there is nothing wrong with recognizing it for what it is, good legislation, and supporting it. That is what we have been debating and why I have been somewhat discouraged by the remarks coming from both opposition parties.What we would be doing with the elimination of segregation is allowing those individuals who are in segregation today the opportunity to be provided with programs. We would be recognizing the importance of mental health. It is ludicrous to believe that mental health is not one of the primary reasons we have individuals entering our correctional institutions in the first place. If we want to make our communities safer into the future, we need to deal with mental health issues. For the first time, we have taken a very bold approach by saying that if individuals are in segregation, let us get rid of the concept of segregation in favour of structured intervention units and ensure that there are programs and services that include the issue of mental health.(1550)If we are able to deal with issues of mental health and provide essential programming services when these individuals go back into the general population, that then means that when it comes time for their release, they will be in a better position to conform to our laws. They will be better citizens in the community. They will be more positive and they will contribute as such. Is that not what we are supposed to be doing in this House? The Liberal members of this House recognize that. We recognize it, we believe it and that is why we are supporting this legislation. Not only do we talk about it, but we want our communities to be safer. We want fewer victims.There are other amendments in the legislation that are very positive that I have not heard members talk about. For example, when offenders go before the Parole Board, the victims can attend to hear what is said. If they do not attend the Parole Board, then they can apply for an audio recording of it, so they can hear what took place. With this legislation, they will be able to request audio recordings whether they attend or not. Let us imagine being the victim of a crime and having to listen to the offender. For some, that might be okay; for others, it might not. Those who attend have all sorts of things going through their minds. Should they not be allowed to ask for the audio recordings that exist, so they can take them home and listen in their own homes, or in an atmosphere that is more comfortable for them?There are some things in this legislation that I believe everyone in this House would easily support. We hear about body scanners. That is no surprise. Members of Parliament tend to fly a lot and are very familiar with the body scanners at airports. With this legislation, correctional facilities will be afforded the opportunity to acquire body scanners so that cavity searches will not be required to the degree they currently are. I see that as a positive thing. It is less intrusive. We are not only talking about prisoners; these scanners are also used for individuals who visit prisoners.I represent a north end Winnipeg riding and understand the importance of victims' rights. Legislation has been introduced by this government to protect victims' rights. We should not buy the Conservative spin that gives an impression that the Conservatives are the only ones concerned about victims, because that is just not true. Legislation is before us that all members should support because it will prevent victims in the future. I genuinely believe that. That is one of the reasons I would ask members to consider—C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsHuman diseases and disordersImprisonment and prisonersMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unitYouth crime558502155850225585023558502455850255585026558502755850285585029558503055850315585032558503355850345585035558503655850375585038558503955850405585041558504255850435585044558504555850465585047EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewRobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/69488RobertSopuckRobert-SopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SopuckRobert_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert Sopuck: (1555)[English]Give us some proof.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSafetySecond reading5585048KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, a member asked if we have data to back it up. We know that programming in our correctional facilities makes a positive difference. It prevents and minimizes repeat offences. If we can do that and prevent crimes from happening in the first place by having better and more sound laws, we will have fewer victims.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSafetySecond reading5585049RobertSopuckDauphin—Swan River—NeepawaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague expressed at great length and volume that he never hears the Conservatives willing to talk about our justice system. That is ironic, because we actually asked about the rights of the accused several times today in question period, and our Attorney General would not talk about ensuring that the rights of the accused are respected. The Criminal Code, section 718, has the principles of sentencing for our justice system. They are six: denunciation; deterrence; separation of offenders, that is protection of the public; rehabilitation; reparation; and promotion of responsibility. We agree that all of those are important: rehabilitation, particularly for non-violent offenders, and deterrence, denunciation, promotion of responsibility and protection of the public.There should be separation of the offenders in grave cases of murder, rape and those sorts of cases. That is the distinction between us. The member talked a lot about victims in his speech. When we look at those principles of sentencing, how can the member in good conscience say that an offender like Terri-Lynne McClintic, who should be denounced by the public, from whom the public should be protected, and who should be deterred, could be transferred to a healing lodge? How can the member defend that in accordance with the Criminal Code section 718?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5585052558505355850545585055CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member would make that his example. We need to recognize that it was the Progressive Conservative Party that created healing lodges. I applaud it for that. It was not the current Conservative reform party; it was the Progressive Conservative Party of the Brian Mulroney days that created the healing lodge. They then told the correctional facilities that if inmates were in a medium-security facility, they could use the healing lodges.What happened was under Stephen Harper, the very individual the member is talking about was transferred to a medium-security facility, which then allowed that individual to go to a healing lodge. When the Conservatives were in government, the policy was to hush up, say nothing and allow the transfer. If that transfer had been prevented, the individual in question would never have been able to go to a healing lodge. However, true to form, the Government of Canada, under the Liberal Party, supports Canada's professional civil service and those individuals we have entrusted to administer justice. That is unlike the Conservative Party, which demonstrated yesterday and again today that it does not respect the independence of our court system. We do, and that is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558505655850575585058ErinO'TooleHon.DurhamLindaDuncanEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, there are a good number of concerns with the bill. The first is, whatever happened to Bill C-56? It was tabled. Now the Liberals have introduced another bill. Their original bill, tabled more than a year ago, would actually limit administrative segregation to 21 days, and then within 18 months would further limit it to 15 days. This bill imposes nothing definitive. It says an inmate's confinement in an SIU is to end “as soon as possible”.Eighteen hundred Canadian inmates are being segregated, and almost 50% of them are suffering from mental health issues. I refer the hon. member to the case of Eddie Snowshoe, an indigenous man from Northwest Territories who committed suicide after being in segregation for 162 days in a 2.5-metre by 3.6-metre cell. Eddie Snowshoe was in a desperate situation. People had even forgotten he was in there. What is this bill going to do to stop more tragic Eddie Snowshoe cases?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinement558505955850605585061KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, the way the legislation is worded, we can see that Eddie Snowshoe would have received mental health services, along with other programming. This is the reality of the NDP's position. There is absolutely no doubt, philosophically, that this advances us forward. It might not go as far forward as the NDP would like to see it, but it brings us forward.One would think the NDP would support that. I do not understand the positioning of the NDP on this. It makes no sense whatsoever. If we look at the example the member just gave, Eddie would actually have benefited by this. In addition, the legislation would add the guiding principle to the law to affirm the need for CSC to consider systemic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinement558506255850635585064LindaDuncanEdmonton StrathconaDougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89027DougEyolfsonDoug-EyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/EyolfsonDoug_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Doug Eyolfson (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, Lib.): (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, is the member aware of any evidence or data that shows that the safety of the public is improved by administrative segregation in prisons?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinement5585065KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, if we take a look at segregation as a whole, we have seen from other jurisdictions that we can improve the whole concept of rehabilitation in many different ways. Segregation would now be converted into something new, where there would be an allowance for rehabilitation programs and mental health services. As I pointed out, most individuals who are incarcerated today are going to be living in our communities, hopefully as productive members of the public. The better programming we can provide, the greater the likelihood of the public being safer once they are released into communities, whether it is of a physical or a property nature. C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinement55850665585067DougEyolfsonCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1605)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the bill before us is the result of two decisions rendered by the B.C. Supreme Court and an Ontario court, which ruled that the existing measures are unconstitutional for two reasons.First, there is no independent oversight agency to determine whether administrative segregation is justified. Second, there is no fixed maximum duration for administrative segregation. However, the bill that the government has presented us with today does not provide for independent oversight, nor for a fixed maximum duration for administrative segregation, so this bill does not change anything.The only difference seems to semantic. Under the Conservatives, an inmate's confinement in administrative segregation was supposed to come to an end “at the earliest appropriate time”, whereas under the Liberals, it should end “as soon as possible”. Perhaps my colleague can clarify the difference for me. What is the difference between “at the earliest appropriate time” and “as soon as possible”?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5585068558506955850705585071KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, if the member across the way does not understand the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals on this issue, I would advise that he read my comments. I have been speaking on it for the last 20 minutes.When we take a look at what this legislation would actually be doing, I do not understand how the NDP could possibly not support the legislation. I can understand why the Conservatives do not support it, but I do not understand why the NDP does not. Between now and the time it comes to vote, NDP members might want to caucus the issue. Hopefully they will realize it would be a mistake to be on the wrong side of it. They can bring forward their ideas and suggestions at the committee stage, and let us see if we can have some positive dialogue.This government has consistently proven in the past that it is open to good ideas and ways to improve legislation. We have accepted amendments by opposition members in the past. We are always open to good ideas that have really been thought through and brought forward. I would encourage my colleague to reflect on his positioning on this legislation and ultimately get behind it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558507255850735585074AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1605)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who will speak very eloquently on Bill C-83.This is not how I meant to begin my speech, but since the parliamentary secretary has opened the door by saying he is open to suggestions, I have a very liberal idea to suggest. It is from a Liberal bill, Bill C-56, introduced by his own government, which would solve a lot more problems than Bill C-83 that is before us today.This did not come from a small group of far-left extremists, but from his own government. Bill C-56 is full of good ideas, much better ideas than we see in Bill C-83, unfortunately. I suggest that he read his own bill, which is still in limbo somewhere in the House of Commons.I, too, frequently met with correctional officers' unions back when I was still the NDP's labour critic. I share some of their concerns regarding their workload, as well as their health and safety at work. As I recall, they were particularly critical of the positions taken by the Conservative Party at the time, especially with regard to overcrowded prisons and the security problems associated with shared cells. I want them to know that we continue to support their demands for good working conditions.I have also had the opportunity to visit a number of penitentiaries over the past two years at the invitation of a prisoners' rights advocacy group. Two years ago, I visited the Federal Training Centre in Laval, a medium-security penitentiary. More recently, I visited the Leclerc penitentiary, which is also in Laval, not far away. I also had the opportunity to meet inmates who moved from the Federal Training Centre in Laval to the Leclerc prison in the space of a year. They had made progress and were nearly eligible for parole.Since we are talking about the prison system, it is important to demystify a few things and explain how it really works.First, a medium-security prison is not an easy place to visit. Deprivation of liberty is an extremely serious thing. Ordinary citizens can hardly imagine being imprisoned in a cell. A lot of people think being in prison is easy, but the simple fact of spending months or years inside takes a toll. It truly is a punishment. In a moment, I will talk about the use of solitary confinement as a way to manage certain situations with prisoners. This kind of punishment can, in some cases, be considered cruel and abusive.I have visited penitentiaries over the past two years and spoken with prisoners. They are extremely interested in politics, and I noticed that the environment is their top concern. They would ask me questions about the St. Lawrence, climate change, the future of beluga whales, and things like that. These people were going through a rehabilitation process and serving their time, and it was fascinating to see that they were keeping in touch with the rest of society. They asked all kinds of very relevant questions.Recently, I also met with men from halfway houses run by the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec. These former inmates support men who have gone through the parole process and are participating in a program with services and therapies so they can rejoin civil society and our communities. These people do extraordinary work and do not accept just anyone. To be honest, 20% of the people in these halfway houses went back to prison because they were unable to stick to their program. They do not accept just anybody. Participants must be disciplined and follow the rules. They must explain their absences and always report their whereabouts.Parolees who are in halfway house programs and return to the community have a 1% rate of recidivism. That is fascinating. That means that 99% of them will never end up in court or prison again, because the process worked.(1610)I think that it is important for people to understand that when done properly and thoroughly, the process works. Often the most dangerous thing is when people serve their sentence in full. They have spent 25 years in prison. They have not taken part in any programs, been granted parole or received therapy. When they are released, it is true that they can represent a danger to society.Those who are not dangerous are not the ones who have served their full sentence. It is the ones who are released early because they made an effort and are ready to resume their place in the workforce, among their family and friends.I think the bill before us is Orwellian. In essence, two superior court rulings, from Ontario and British Columbia, ruled that the current legislation, which provides for administrative segregation in certain situations, was unconstitutional. There are two problems. First, there is no third-party independent observer to determine whether the use of administrative segregation was justified and whether prolonging it was also justified. That is the first problem. Second, the average duration of administrative segregation is 24 days. That is a long time, and it takes a toll on inmates and their mental health.Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today does nothing to address the concerns raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice or the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I think it is worth pointing out that one of those two courts stated clearly that prolonged segregation can be considered cruel punishment if it is used abusively. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that administrative segregation lasting longer than two days can have negative and sometimes permanent effects on mental health.People can suffer permanent mental health effects if they are in administrative segregation for more than two days. The current average is 24 days. According to the United Nations, administrative segregation lasting longer than 15 days may be considered torture. The average is 24 days. Does the Liberal government's bill cap the number of days? No. There is no limit.The first clause of the bill is absolutely fascinating. It proudly states that administrative segregation will be eliminated. The government is going to listen to the Ontario court and the B.C. court and put an end to this practice.In the second clause, we see that it is now called a structured intervention unit. That is exactly the same thing. They changed the term “administrative segregation” to “structured intervention unit”, which is still segregation, which still has the same effect on the inmate, which is still a form of punishment that can be abusive and cruel and can exacerbate mental health problems, and which, beyond 15 days, can be seen by the United Nations as a form of torture. Structured intervention units can be any area designated as such by the Correctional Service of Canada.The structured intervention unit can be the entire penitentiary, an area in the penitentiary, or certain cells designated as such. I suspect that the administrative segregation cells will now be called structured intervention units. They are exactly the same areas. The Liberal government is absolutely not satisfying the courts' demands. There is also no independent body to verify whether any of this is being done in compliance with the standards and rules. There is no difference in the planned or possible duration of this segregation for these inmates.The only difference is that we are going from a maximum of 22 or 23 hours a day to a maximum of 20 hours. That is all. That does not change the inmate's reality very much. Again, it should be noted that a consequence of this is that the release time could be 3 a.m., and the inmate might be asked to go outside when it is -25 degrees Celsius out. In fact, this often does not even exist.(1615)I hope that the Liberal government will listen to reason this time.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementSplitting speaking timeStructured intervention unit558507555850765585077558507855850795585080558508155850825585083558508455850855585086558508755850885585089558509055850915585092558509355850945585095KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthFrankBaylisPierrefonds—Dollard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88578FrankBaylisFrank-BaylisPierrefonds—DollardLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BaylisFrank_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): (1615)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear that my colleague was asked questions about the environment when he visited the prisons. The inmates are interested in what is happening in society, and that is good news.My colleague pointed out parts of the bill that he feels are inadequate. For example, he said that the bill should establish the number of days of administrative segregation. The bill is now at second reading. My colleague knows very well that if we vote for the bill, it will be referred to a committee, and he will have the opportunity to propose these changes.Will my colleague vote in favour of the bill as it stands, knowing that he will have the opportunity to propose changes in committee? If not, why?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading558509655850975585098AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice: (1620)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have informed my colleague about the concerns of certain inmates, in particular about environmental causes.At this stage, it is extremely difficult for the NDP to vote for this bill because it does not remotely respond to the demands of the Ontario or B.C. courts, nor does it reflect what the Liberals had proposed in Bill C-56. I hope my colleague will be open to significant amendments that will fix the bill when it is studied in committee, because a majority government could refer it to a committee. In our opinion, the bill does not fix any problems at all. It is the same old, same old.Today, 50% of those placed in administrative segregation have mental health issues. That is very worrisome. In Canada, between 2011 and 2014, 14 inmates committed suicide after being placed in administrative segregation. I believe it is time that we changed our practices with respect to this measure.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5585099558510055851015585102FrankBaylisPierrefonds—DollardLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1620)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I understand that he does not completely agree with the bill. The Conservatives feel the same way but for different reasons.My colleague keeps repeating that the structured intervention units proposed by the Liberals are just administrative segregation cells by another name. However, in their testimony, prison guards said that the Liberals' proposal could endanger the lives of guards and other inmates. My colleague keeps saying that neither solution is sufficient and that something else needs to be done.What does he propose?One one hand, we have the government, which is improvising solutions. On the other, we have a party that is saying that the government's solutions are no good but that is not proposing anything else.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5585103558510455851055585106AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice: (1620)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think that our current prison system is generally safe. Yes, correctional officers have legitimate demands, but it is also important to remember that a great deal of their dissatisfaction is due to the previous Conservative government's actions. The repeated, abusive and prolonged use of administrative segregation is not a solution for dealing with recalcitrant inmates. If 50% of them have mental health problems, it is more of a health issue than a judicial issue. I think that there are other ways to address this issue. Prolonged administrative segregation can trigger or aggravate certain psychiatric symptoms, such as hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, depression, impulsiveness, hypersensitivity to external stimuli, self-harm, insomnia, and problems with thinking, concentration and memory. Putting these inmates into such a situation increases the safety risks for correctional officers.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55851075585108LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, tomorrow is the 11th anniversary of the death of Ashley Smith. This is a tragic story that was broadcast across the entire country. Having been moved from one stage of the criminal justice system and Canada's jail system, Ashley died alone in solitary confinement without the protections that Canada offered her. This happened 11 years ago and here we are still.As of June 2017, 399 federal inmates were in administrative segregation, including 94 who have been in isolation for more than 90 consecutive days. Between April 2011 and March 2014, 14 inmates died by suicide in solitary confinement.The 2014-15 report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator reported the overuse of solitary confinement as a tool for managing the inmate population. Twenty-seven per cent of the inmate population experienced at least one stay in solitary confinement. This overly affects some incarcerated groups more than others, including women with mental health issues, aboriginal inmates and black inmates.Aboriginal inmates continue to have the longest average stay in segregation compared to any other group and represent approximately 46% of inmates in segregation.The average segregation period is 24 days according to Correctional Services Canada.Why does this matter? How does it harm?In the spring, the status of women committee of which I am vice-chair studied the over-incarceration rates of indigenous women in prison, their experience in the justice system and their experience in jail.Here are a few quotes and stats from that report. The 2006 report of Correctional Services Canada, which is called “Ten-Year Status Report on Women’s Corrections” said:Segregation tends to have a significant impact on women offenders. Generally speaking, women are linked to each other through relationships and the isolation of segregation, combined with the crisis or stress the woman is experiencing, can take its toll.We heard testimony on February 1 from Ms. Virginia Lomax, legal counsel for the Native Women's Association of Canada, who said:Segregation is a particularly cruel practice for women with histories of trauma and abuse, another area in which indigenous women are overrepresented. Their specific lived experiences of colonial patriarchy, intergenerational trauma, and state violence makes them particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of isolation....Prohibiting the use of segregation for prisoners who are actively self-harming is an acknowledgement that the practice should not be used to manage mental health crises, but does nothing to address the fact that segregation itself is often the cause of escalating self-harm behaviours.For these reasons and many others, the Native Women's Association of Canada calls for a complete end to the practice of solitary confinement by any name and for any duration.Dr. Ivan Zinger of the Office of the Correctional Investigator said in testimony at committee on February 2 of this year:The impact of segregation is also something that we've identified. The great majority of the women incarcerated in secure units have experienced segregation. There's also a gender-based classification system, which requires that some inmates who are seen as higher risk are handcuffed and sometimes shackled to go off the unit, which creates all sorts of problems for those women.In response to a question I asked him about how Correctional Services Canada treats women prisoners in need of emergency health care in the Pacific region, he said: The practice of taking a woman with acute mental illness and putting her into an all-male institution, completely isolated, all alone in a unit, is shameful and a violation of human rights. I think there is no room for this in Canada.It has to be said that these women were tried and are in jail for a reason that the justice system identified. We certainly heard a lot of testimony. They said that they were themselves usually victims of crime before they entered the criminal justice system. We absolutely do need to protect victims and we need to see justice be done in cases of violent crime.Many times we heard from witnesses that they want these people to end up on the other side of the criminal justice system better than they started and some of the practices described tell us otherwise. This is an important debate about solitary confinement.(1625)This is what the NDP recommended. In our final report to the government, tabled here in June, we quoted Ivan Zinger, the correctional investigator of Canada. He said: I sincerely believe that in a women's facility, you could de facto abolish the practice altogether, if you used those secure units with the same sort of rigour in making it a last resort and using those secure units to separate, and not isolate, the few cases that you need to deal with for a short period of time. The United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women, who monitors Canada to see whether it is upholding its commitments to the United Nations, said: ... I would like to call for an absolute ban on solitary confinement, segregation, intensive psychiatric care, medical observation and all other related forms of isolation of incarcerated young women and women with mental health issues. The NDP said, in its final report to the government: It is shocking that instead of moving forward with reform, the Liberal government appealed the BC Supreme Court ruling against solitary confinement, choosing to spend taxpayers' money fighting the BC Civil Liberties Association in court instead of implementing reforms to help indigenous women in prison. What did we get? The government tabled on Monday, Bill C-83. It tweaks administrative segregation, or solitary confinement, and rebrands it with different wording. It retains much of the same language and the framework that is used for administrative segregation. It ignores the rulings from the B.C. Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court that ruled that administrative segregation was unconstitutional. It failed to give an option for independent oversight for decisions to further restrict liberties of inmates by transferring them into the renamed segregation units. Instead of spending 22 to 23 hours a day in segregation in the current system, the new scheme proposes up to 20 hours a day for an indefinite period of time. The Ontario Superior Court had already found that the harmful effects of sensory deprivation can manifest in as little as 48 hours.Finally, in a critique, the Supreme Court ruled that the indefinite nature of isolation is again unconstitutional, although the federal government, as I said earlier, is currently trying to appeal that decision.This morning, at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund breakfast in honour of Persons Day, we heard a presentation from Senator Kim Pate, who flagged that, in addition, sections 21, 81 and 84 are all interfered with in Bill C-83. These were all mechanisms, enshrined in law, that allowed prisoners to be moved to different levels of care to carry out parts of their sentence, whether that was in the community or it was a healing lodge. There were three different tools. All of them had been underutilized, hardly used at all. Senator Pate, in her previous role with Elizabeth Fry and now as a senator, had been drawing attention to them. Both the public security committee of this Parliament and also the status of women committee had studied those three provisions and made recommendations on them and, strangely, they are now gutted in this bill. It is a funny coincidence.The representative of the Elizabeth Fry Society said, “While we have advocated for decades for the abolition of administrative segregation, Bill C-83 leaves much to be desired.”I say, with sadness, New Democrats wanted to see real reform. We have made specific proposals on what that would look like. The government has rebranded this unconstitutional practice instead of doing what the court ordered. I will leave with a reminder. More than one in three women in federal prisons is indigenous; 91% have histories of abuse; and many also experience debilitating mental illnesses. We have to end the use of segregation and solitary confinement. We will oppose this bill.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementWomen55851095585110558511155851125585113558511455851155585116558511755851185585119558512055851215585122558512355851245585125558512655851275585128558512955851305585131558513255851335585134558513555851365585137558513855851395585140558514155851425585143AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues asked the member's colleague a question about voting for the bill. He responded by saying something to the effect that the Liberals have a majority government and thereby, having a majority government, we will be able to get the bill going to committee.If I try to better understand that comment, it is almost saying that as the New Democratic Party, the members are opposing the bill but they hope it goes to committee so they can change it. I would like to get clarification from the NDP on whether the New Democrats support those initiatives that are within the legislation, that stand today. Yes, I understand the New Democrats want amendments, but would they be prepared to support the current initiatives without the amendments, or would they see themselves voting against it even in third reading?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55851445585145SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson: (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, both myself and other members of my caucus have gone into these committee meetings in good faith and have proposed in some cases hundreds of amendments only to have the Liberals vote them down one after the next without even debating them. I must say that it is a little hard to take my colleague's encouragement to vote in favour of a bill that does not even meet the orders of two supreme courts in this country. The government is probably going to invoke closure on this bill, like it does with everything else, and will probably jam it through just for it to be challenged in court again.I will restate the recommendation that we gave the current government back in June. It should immediately stop the appeal that it launched against the 2018 ruling to end indefinite solitary confinement in prisons across Canada and recognize the practice is unconstitutional and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment that can lead to the suffering and death of some prisoners, including indigenous women in the federal prison system. This bill does not do that.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55851465585147KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her contribution to the debate I have been listening to throughout the day. I think she and I will agree that we disagree with the content of the bill for very different reasons. I will mention that in reading the British Columbia decision rendered by Justice Leask he looked at the cruel and unusual punishment provision and said, in paragraph 534, that it is actually not cruel and unusual. He declines to rule against it as a section 12 violation. He finds that it is not unconstitutional to have solitary confinement, only when it is indefinite and prolonged. I think the contents of this legislation completely take apart the system that we have today. That is why many Conservatives will be voting against it. I want to talk about the budgetary impact of this legislation. In the public safety minister's departmental plan there is a projected reduction of 8.8% in real terms, in actual financial resources, being given to Correctional Services, and a reduction of 150 FTEs over the next few years. Does the member have any concern, or does she share my concern, that Correctional Services Canada simply will not have either the financial resources or the manpower to actually implement the contents of this bill?Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading5585148558514955851505585151SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithSheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89486SheilaMalcolmsonSheila-MalcolmsonNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/MalcolmsonSheila_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Sheila Malcolmson: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague raises an interesting point. As this bill was only tabled on Monday, that is not an analysis I have done. It is certainly a good point to say that it is indefinite solitary confinement. There are times that segregation is necessary for the safety of other prisoners. However, we did have very clear direction from both courts, and very good advice from multiple witnesses, the investigation done by the correctional investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger and advocates across our country. The current government was given good advice, which it has failed to take.Budget cutsC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond reading55851525585153TomKmiecCalgary ShepardCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89466Robert-FalconOuelletteRobert-Falcon-OuelletteWinnipeg CentreLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/OuelletteRobertFalcon_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker,[Member spoke in Cree][English]The Government of Canada's number one priority is the safety of Canadians and our communities. It is important to ensure that federal correctional institutions provide a safe and secure environment for staff and inmates, which assists with the rehabilitation of offenders. We must reduce the risk of reoffending and we must keep our communities safe, whether it is in Winnipeg or elsewhere across the country.The Government of Canada introduced legislation that proposes to strengthen the federal correctional system, changing its direction from one which was under the Conservatives' more of retribution to looking at latest evidence and best practices by implementing a new correctional interventions model and strengthening the health care governance, better supporting victims and addressing the specific situation of indigenous offenders.Following a recent court decision on administrative segregation, Bill C-83 proposes to eliminate segregation and establish a structured intervention unit, SIU, that will allow offenders to be separated from the main stream inmate populations as required, while maintaining their access to rehabilitative programming, interventions and mental health care. We need to ensure they actually have rehabilitative programming and can receive appropriate interventions and health and mental health care. These are extremely important.These proposed reforms support the government's continued commitment to implement recommendations from the coroners inquest into the death of Ashley Smith, regarding the use of segregation in the treatment of offenders with mental illness. It also builds on past efforts to address gaps in services to indigenous peoples throughout the criminal justice system.I would like to quote my good friend, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the member from Saskatchewan. He said: We are committed to a correctional system that keeps Canadians safe and holds guilty parties accountable for breaking the law, while fostering practical rehabilitation so we can have fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims, and ultimately safer communities. This approach to federal corrections will protect the safety of our staff and those in their custody by separating offenders when required, and ensuring they get more effective interventions, rehabilitative programming and serious attention to mental issues. The bill is extremely important because it introduces a number of new elements into our corrections system. I had the opportunity of hearing the Commissioner of Corrections Canada, Anne Kelly, who testified last week. This will be an important means forward. She is very committed to having a corrections system that responds to the department's mandate, not just simply having a justice system that responds to mob justice, a corrections system that improves safety not only within society, but also within the corrections institutions for staff and inmates, and also ensures that we rehabilitate people so they can integrate and not reoffend when they leave the corrections system.Some of the things being put into place are the structured intervention units. These would be established to provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety and security risks of inmates who cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. It does occur that there are certain people who will never be safe within our prisons. No matter what we do in this place, unfortunately some people commit crimes that are so heinous, those against children, those done by pedophiles, that it is very difficult to integrate them into the mainstream population. For their own safety and for the safety within the entire system, sometimes a different approach must be taken.A structured intervention unit would have structured interventions and programming tailored to the specific situation of that inmate. Inmates would have an opportunity for a minimum of four hours a day outside their cells. They would have an opportunity for two hours a day of meaningful human contacts. They would receive continued programs to help them progress toward their correctional plan objectives.Also being put in place are factors unique to indigenous offenders. The needs and interests of indigenous peoples would be better supported by the legal requirement for Correctional Service of Canada to ensure that systematic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders are considered in all correctional decision-making. For an awful long time indigenous peoples have not received the same amount of supports. For instance, in Manitoba, in 2016 our government put forward $26 million for legal aid to help all peoples. Generally, a lot of indigenous peoples are very poor and need recourse to legal aid. Unfortunately, the provincial Conservative government decided to cut back the exact amount that was given to this. Instead of helping the people who were most vulnerable in the system, they were not helped. They were thrown to the side again. (1640)This is often why we have systematic structural violence in the system, which ensures that indigenous peoples continue to be overly represented because they cannot obtain good legal advice. This is a good way of ensuring that even indigenous offenders within the prison system will obtain the services they require. For instance, I have met many indigenous peoples who have been in the corrections system, but they did not know how to apply for early release or parole on time because they did not have access to those services. This is part of that. Supporting victims is another aspect of the bill, which is very important. It would better support victims in the criminal justice system by allowing those who attend Parole Board of Canada hearings to access audio recordings of the hearings. We are also going to be strengthening the health care governance. The proposed reforms will affirm Correctional Service Canada's obligation to support health care professionals in maintaining their professional autonomy and clinical independence. They do not need the Minister of Public Safety telling them how to do their jobs or what they should be doing. It has been said in the House in the past number of weeks that the opposition would like the Minister of Public Safety to intervene directly in cases. However, we must ensure that health care processionals have the opportunity of doing the assessments independent of the political obligations or politics that happen in this place.The Correctional Service of Canada would also have the obligation to provide patient advocacy services to inmates to help them better understand their health care rights and responsibilities, as recommended by the coroner's inquest on the death of Ashley Smith. Included in that is further improving mental health supports for inmates to ensure offenders with mental health needs receive proper care. Budget 2017 invested $57.8 million over five years, starting in 2017-18, and $13.6 million per year thereafter to expand mental health care capacity for all inmates in federal correctional facilities. Budget 2018 builds on these investments, proposing $20.4 million over five years, beginning in 2018-19, and $5.6 million per year going forward for Correctional Service of Canada to further support the mental health needs of federal inmates, particularly women.We all know, and I am sure all believe, that those who end up in corrections facilities obviously are not within the norm of our society. They have committed crimes for whatever reason and some do require mental health supports. Winnipeg, right now, is facing a deep and profound meth crisis, which has been ignored by the provincial government. Thankfully, the mayor is a bit more progressive and is attempting to tackle this problem head on. However, the provincial government for a long time has refused to even meet with city counterparts or even with the federal government on this issue. This has caused issues. People should not walk around any Canadian city fearing they might be attacked. Often, many of these issues are related to mental health and people self-medicating themselves with drugs, alcohol, gasoline and other types of drugs, which numb them to the pain of the life in which they exist in great poverty. Our corrections system really needs to hold guilty parties to account for breaking the law. However, we also need to create an environment that fosters rehabilitation so there are fewer repeat offenders, fewer victims and, ultimately, safer communities. That is why it is important for this bill to pass. We need to strengthen the federal correctional system and align it with the evidence and best practices so inmates are rehabilitated and better prepared to eventually re-enter our communities safely. One day, almost all prisoners will leave the prison system and live among Canadians. We need to ensure that they do not reoffend, that we are all safe and that they have received the appropriate care so when they are released, they do not reoffend and do not hurt others.(1645)Therefore, the bill would eliminate segregation following recent court decisions and introduce more effective structured intervention units; increase better support for victims during parole hearings; increase staff and inmate safety with new body scanner technology; and update our approach to critical matters, like mental health supports and indigenous offenders' needs. Correctional Service of Canada needs the authority to separate offenders from the general population for the sake of institutional safety. By replacing administrative segregation with structured intervention units, the proposed legislation ensures that offenders who are separated from the general population will retain access to rehabilitative programming, mental health care and other interventions. Ultimately, effective rehabilitation and safe integration is the best way to protect Canadian communities.The practice of administrative segregation and its history is an interesting one and has been criticized for many years. The case of Ashley Smith, who died in 2007, a case that has been mentioned in most of the speeches today, comes to mind. It highlighted issues related to segregation and mental health care in a Canadian correctional system. In 2013, a coroner's inquest into the death of Ashley Smith resulted in recommendations, including instituting a cap on the amount of time an inmate could spend in segregation.In 2016, the government introduced Bill C-56, which would have created a presumptive cap of 15 days in administrative segregation and a system of independent external oversight, which I believe is very important. Since that bill was introduced, legal challenges in Ontario and British Columbia found administrative segregation to be contrary to the charter. We cannot keep inmates locked up by themselves, with only two hours of contact with other people, for the rest of their lives. Both these rulings have been appealed, one by the government and one by the other party. However, as things stand, they take effect in December 2018 and January 2019. This means that Corrections Service of Canada may no longer be allowed to use the current system of administrative segregation. There are also pending class action lawsuits related to administrative segregation and the failure to provide adequate mental health care, as well as complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In May 7, Ontario passed Bill 6, the Correctional Services Transformation Act, which implemented a hard cap on days spent in segregation and prohibited certain classes of inmates, like pregnant women or those with mental illnesses, from being segregated at all. The number of inmates in segregation on any given day was over 700 in 2011. It is now 340.While the correctional investigator has acknowledged that the reduction in the use of administrative segregation is an improvement, he has also raised concerns that this decline may be related to increased violence among inmates. However, SIUs are designed to ensure that inmates can be kept in a secure environment, while not being segregated from vital programming and meaningful human contact.Bill C-83 would eliminate administrative segregation. Instead, people who have to be separated from the mainstream inmate population, generally for safety reasons, will be assigned to a secure intervention unit. In an SIU, people will get a minimum of four hours daily out of the cell, including at least two hours of meaningful human contact with staff, volunteers, visitors and other compatible inmates. There will also be a daily visit by a medical professional. By contrast, people currently in administrative segregation are only entitled to two hours daily out of the cell, with minimal human contact and access to programming.Within five working days of movement to an SIU, the warden will review the case and decide if the inmate should remain there. Subsequent reviews will be conducted by the warden after another 30 days and by the Commissioner of Corrections Service Canada every 30 days thereafter for as long as the inmate is in the SIU. Therefore, it will be the top corrections officer in Canada, our commissioner, who will be reviewing all of these cases. Reviews can also be triggered on the recommendation of a medical professional, who, as I have mentioned, will be independent and have full independence to conduct what he or she terms is in the best interest of the patient, or if an inmate refuses to leave his or her cell for a given number of days.Currently victims are only entitled to audio recordings of parole hearings if they did not attend. However, there have been concerns that, due to the emotional nature of the hearings, it can be hard for victims to retain all the details of the proceedings. Even victims who are present could benefit from access to a recording that they could review afterward, on their own time and in a more comfortable setting. Therefore, Bill C-83 would give victims access to audio recordings whether they attend or not. It is very important to have to a good record of what actually occurred.(1650)This legislation will add a guiding principle to the law to affirm the need for a CSC to consider systematic and background factors unique to indigenous offenders in all decision-making. This requirement flows from the Supreme Court's Gladue decision in 1999, and has been implemented through CSC's policy directive since 2003. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to follow, as the corrections services have often not followed it. Now it is actually being enshrined in law.This bill would also implement key recommendations of the Ashley Smith inquest by creating the legal framework to have patient advocates in CSC institutions. Patient advocates will work with offenders and correctional staff to ensure that the offenders receive appropriate medical care. Bill C-83 also enshrines in law the decision-making autonomy of medical professionals operating within the CSC. The next one is extremely important to ensuring safety within correctional facilities in Canada. Here I refer to body scanners, which will help keep drugs and other contraband out of prisons. The bill authorizes the use of body scanners, comparable to the technology used at airports, to search people entering correctional institutions. These devices are less invasive than strip searches or body cavity searches, and they do not raise the concerns of false positives reported by some people who have been examined using ion scanners.Body scanners are already in use in many provincial correctional facilities, and now the federal system is catching up. This is going to improve safety. A number of groups are in favour of this, including the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which. While cautiously acknowledging Bill C-83's measures on administrative segregation, it welcomes the introduction of body scanners to prevent contraband. Jack Godin states:Our union has advocated strongly for the implementation of body scanners. We are satisfied with the results. But we still need more resources to manage high-risk, violent and self-harming offenders, such as what was tabled by the Union in 2005 to manage high-risk women offenders which has fallen on deaf ears.They have some criticisms, but nonetheless are favourable overall towards the idea of body scanners.To implement these secure intervention units, new investments will be required, mainly to hire new staff. The government has committed to making the necessary investments, with the exact dollar amounts to be announced very soon.The government has also signalled its intention to invest heavily in mental health care within the corrections system. This will include mental health care in SIUs, as well as early diagnosis and treatment for inmates from the moment of intake, and upgrades in the CSC's regional treatment centres, which provide intensive mental health care for more serious cases. This funding will be on top of some $80 million for mental health care for the CSC in the last two budgets.I only have about two minutes left, as my time is slowly winding down. I would like to read a few clauses from the bill so that people who are watching on CPAC, or anywhere else, can hear what is in the bill.On structured intervention units, the bill states:Purpose 32 The purpose of a structured intervention unit is to (a) provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons; and (b) provide the inmate with an opportunity for meaningful human contact and an opportunity to participate in programs and to have access to services that respond to the inmate's specific needs and the risks posed by the inmate.In section 33, it states:An inmate's confinement in a structured intervention unit is to end as soon as possible.As I have already mentioned, there are other elements are included in that. For instance, we talk about “four hours outside of the cell each day”, but there is also time not included. Section 36 states:Time not included (3) If an inmate takes a shower outside their cell, the time spent doing so does not count as time spent outside the inmate's cell under paragraph (1)(a).Also section 37.2 states:A registered health care professional employed or engaged by the Service may, for health reasons, recommend to the institutional head that the conditions of confinement of the inmate in a structured intervention unit be altered or that the inmate not remain in the unit.That means it is up to the health care professional to decide when things have gotten out of hand.In my last minutes, I would like to quickly address the whole idea of indigenous offenders. It is incredible because, first, the bill defines indigenous people in its very first clause: Indigenous, in respect of a person, includes a First Nation person, an Inuit or a Métis person; (autochtone)It also includes putting in place a lot more advisory committees, committees to consult, and the idea of spiritual leaders and elders: Spiritual leaders and elders83(1) For greater certainty, Indigenous spirituality and Indigenous spiritual leaders and elders have the same status as other religions and other religious leaders.Let us give thanks to Gitchi Manitou. Let us give thanks to the Great Creator. I think this is the first time I have ever heard this mentioned, and I proud to see that this measure has taken hold within this bill.(1655)With that, I believe my time has come to an end at 20 minutes. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here and look forward to some of the very interesting questions and comments.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCaregivers and health care professionalsCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCreeCriminal rehabilitationGovernment assistanceGovernment billsHealth care systemImprisonment and prisonersLanguage other than official languageMental healthMillimetre wave scannersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementSound recording mediaStructured intervention unit5585155558515655851575585158558515955851605585161558516255851635585164558516555851665585167558516855851695585170558517155851725585173558517455851755585176558517755851785585179558518055851815585182558518355851845585185558518655851875585188558518955851905585191558519255851935585194558519555851965585197558519855851995585200558520155852025585203558520455852055585206558520755852085585209558521055852115585212558521355852145585215558521655852175585218558521955852205585221CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manitoba for his interventions, as he knows better than most of us the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in our prison system, as well as their overrepresentation in solitary confinement. He also well knows the long-standing evidence of the damage and the harmful effects that can happen to someone in solitary confinement.Just for the record, the Orwellian language being thrown around in this debate is a bit worrisome. Most Canadians who are at all familiar with the topic know what solitary confinement is. It is solitary. That is what it is. Calling it “structured integration units” pretends it is something else than what it is. I think that is abusive of the debate. I think it disabuses Canadians of the truth of what is happening here.My question is very specific. The whole reason this bill has been tabled is that the previous practice of solitary confinement in our prisons was shown not by one but two of our higher courts to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of British Columbia said that it allowed for prolonged indefinite confinement, but did not allow for independent oversight of decisions to segregate and to prevent inmates from having a lawyer represent them at segregation hearings. As well, an Ontario court found the same thing, namely, the lack of independent oversight when a decision was made to put a prisoner into solitary confinement, which we know from extensive research can have long-term and damaging effects on them. There are, of course, instances when there have to be separations. With just an “Orwellian” change of terminology, the Liberals are setting this up to head right back to the courts, because they have not included the independent oversight that both of those superior courts insisted upon in striking down the previous regime, giving the government time to fix it. This bill does not fix it. Why not?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement55852225585223558522455852255585226Robert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg CentreRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89466Robert-FalconOuelletteRobert-Falcon-OuelletteWinnipeg CentreLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/OuelletteRobertFalcon_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. I have been working quite hard with the John Howard Society, which has an office just in front of my office on Ellice Avenue. I am very proud of the work. I often have the chance to go over and speak with them. They have had a halfway house in the past few years where I could go to speak with people who had just been recently released from prison and hear their own stories directly from them.Solitary confinement is a terrible thing. In the military it was used quite often against prisoners in POW camps. It is a form of torturing people because, over time, it erodes your sense of humanity. It erodes your sense of connection. As human beings are social animals, we do need contact with others.I think the difference with this bill is that we are trying to define, to a greater extent, what intervention will actually look like, and if we must have rehabilitative programs, what those would entail. In this case, we must have meaningful contact. The bill refers to “an opportunity for meaningful human contact and an opportunity to participate in programs and to have access to services that respond to the inmate’s specific needs and the risks posed by the inmate.” I think that is extremely important, because there are other clauses here that refer to a health care professional. Their ruling is important and if the inmate is suffering from mental health duress, then that must have a review, and it goes immediately, I believe, to the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558522755852285585229NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35873LindaDuncanLinda-DuncanEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/DuncanLinda_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way has raised many concerns about the treatment of indigenous Canadians in our country. He has often supported reforms in that direction, and yet I am puzzled that the member has not mentioned another tragedy. There was a lot of talk about the way Ms. Smith was treated and then committed suicide, but three years after Ms. Smith's death in prison, there was a suicide by an indigenous man, Eddie Snowshoe, from Northwest Territories. Mr. Snowshoe had been incarcerated in solitary confinement for 162 days. Mr. Snowshoe had attempted suicide many times in prison. What was the response? They gave him drugs that made him feel even worse and put him in solitary confinement. The same situation happened with him as it did with Ms. Smith. When he was transferred from Stony Mountain to Edmonton, no one bothered to tell them that he had already been in solitary confinement for 134 straight days, so they started the clock again. Just before Mr. Snowshoe committed suicide, he asked to speak to a psychiatrist. That request was never passed on. Also, he asked to be transferred into the main cells. Could the member speak to why the bill, unlike the previous bill his government tabled a year ago, which specified 21 days maximum for solitary confinement and 15 days after a year and a half, gives no time limit and has completely discretionary language? How are we to be satisfied that there will be no more Eddie Snowshoes when so many indigenous people are incarcerated in our country?Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558523255852335585234BruceStantonSimcoe NorthRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89466Robert-FalconOuelletteRobert-Falcon-OuelletteWinnipeg CentreLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/OuelletteRobertFalcon_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. Mr. Snowshoe's case is absolutely disgusting. Spirituality is extremely important to me as a sun dancer and someone who believes in and practices spirituality. I had a pipe ceremony in my office yesterday, and the hon. Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the member for Etobicoke came to my office. We spent a beautiful 20 minutes praying and thinking. Excuse me, I am not a lawyer, but the bill does have has a paragraph specifying that indigenous spirituality must be allowed for all indigenous inmates. Under it, Mr. Snowshoe could request those services and have contact. Subclause 83(2), under spiritual leaders and elders, states:The Service shall take all reasonable steps to make available to Indigenous inmates the services of an Indigenous spiritual leader or elder after consultation with (a) the national Indigenous advisory committee established under section 82; and (b) the appropriate regional and local Indigenous advisory committees.It is extremely important to allow contact with another human being, to allow a person who is in segregation, or in this case an intervention unit, to have contact with others. From what I read in the bill, the idea is to make sure that if they have to regroup people together who have similar issues, a certain amount of services can be provided. All that programming needs to be provided to that person. They cannot be isolated by themselves, but the programming for all of those things needs to occur day after day to get them on the right path.Aboriginal peoplesC-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5585235558523655852375585238LindaDuncanEdmonton StrathconaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88340BernadetteJordanBernadette-JordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsLiberal CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JordanBernadette_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Bernadette Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I sat for quite some time on the status of women committee, and we did a study on indigenous women and their access to the justice and criminal justice system. One of the things we heard over and over again was the intergenerational trauma and how women in corrections, particularly indigenous women, are strongly affected by what has happened to them and their families over a number of years. Could my hon. colleague talk a little more about how important it is to have that mental health component in this piece of legislation?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading55852445585245BruceStantonSimcoe NorthRobert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89466Robert-FalconOuelletteRobert-Falcon-OuelletteWinnipeg CentreLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/OuelletteRobertFalcon_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is actually written right into the bill. This is not something that is a regulation that can be changed if another government comes to power. Under the Conservatives, in 2015, the government actually cut the budget by $295 million. In fact, clause 30 of Bill C-83, under proposed section 89.1, states: The Service shall provide, in respect of inmates in penitentiaries designated by the Commissioner, access to patient advocacy services (a) to support inmates in relation to their health care matters; and (b) to enable inmates and their families to understand the rights and responsibilities of inmates related to health care. We are actually supposed to be providing that. It would actually be written right in the law. This is an extremely important change, because as I have mentioned, it is not normal to be in prison. We have to ensure that people have the appropriate mental health supports so that they can not only get on with the healing for themselves but they do not reoffend in the future.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond reading558524655852475585248558524955852505585251BernadetteJordanSouth Shore—St. MargaretsDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity to stand again. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.I am rising to speak to Bill C-83, the flawed reforms to our correctional system the Liberals are trying to push through. This issue is very important to me because of the hundreds of correctional staff who call my riding home and who rightfully expect me to stand up for their safety and best interests.The Union of Canadian Correctional Officers told me at meetings that the government did not bother to consult front-line correctional officers on these reforms. These people put their lives in harm's way every day to ensure that the most dangerous and violent offenders do not harm the innocent. These courageous men and women, at the end of the day, should be able to go home safely, and we must consider how these changes will affect their safety in the workplace. Recently I had the opportunity to meet with the union representatives who interact with these criminals. These people have first-hand knowledge and experience of what is happening in the system. These are the people we should be looking to for solutions. They are very concerned about this legislation and many other policies the Liberal government is bringing forward with regard to correctional reform. These concerns involve the safety of correctional officers. They believe that the government is ignoring them and running over them with legislation that would grant extraordinary new privileges to prisoners at the expense of public safety and rehabilitation. One of the main problems is the policy of administrative segregation. This policy is used to separate dangerous, violent offenders who are threats to the safety of fellow inmates and staff. Administrative segregation is a means to both protect and punish. It acts as a deterrent to committing violence against staff and inmates. Some cases brought to me by correctional staff have included inmates telling each other that it is not a big deal to assault a corrections officer, because they will only get five days. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to deter. I wonder why the Liberals are reducing punishments for inmates who assault staff and make the workplace dangerous for those who serve in this risky environment.Let us be clear. We are not talking about an oppressive system like that outlined by the United Nations. We are not even talking about how prisons operated in decades past. Canadians, when they think of administrative segregation, might conjure up images from movies such as The Shawshank Redemption, where corrupt wardens can place inmates in solitary confinement, in darkness, with no amenities or opportunities for meaningful human contact. That is simply not the case. Although there have been mistakes in the past, several government members today have noted that the CSC has taken great strides in recent years to improve administrative segregation.Administrative segregation is restrictive, but we are not talking about Club Med resorts. We are talking about prison. Inmates in administrative segregation have the right to exercise and leave their cells for an hour each day. These cells are lit, not dark. Prisoners have access to services to better themselves. If one listened to some groups, one would believe that these inmates were being thrown into a hole and forgotten about, and that is simply not the case.It is clear from several high-profile cases that administrative segregation cannot be used as a replacement for effective psychological health services in the prison system. I know that Correctional Service Canada has taken many positive steps in recent years to integrate recommendations to ensure that past poor practices are reformed. Many of those suffering from mental health challenges have been administratively segregated, and the consequences to their health and the overall outcomes for rehabilitation have not been positive. No one wants to see anyone fall through the cracks, and ensuring that services are available to those who need mental health services is absolutely critical, but this does not mean that we have to get rid of administrative segregation. It means that we need new tools to address these issues. Reforming administrative segregation needs to involve an assessment of risk and needs to seek the improvement of rehabilitation and mental health outcomes. I am sure we could all agree that people who find themselves in the prison system are troubled individuals, but that does not mean that all criminals suffer from mental health issues. Abolishing administrative segregation as a practice would take an essential tool away from front-line personnel for protecting themselves and the inmates. In that sense, although these new secure intervention units may hold some promise, there is no reason they could not operate alongside an effective and responsibly used system of administrative segregation.(1710)Those who do not suffer from mental health issues and who choose to assault other inmates or staff should not be rewarded with the secure intervention units. In fact, the union representing correctional officers is asking that these tools be maintained. The government is ignoring the wisdom of front-line personnel who put their safety on the line every day.The Liberals' action to move full steam ahead in abolishing administrative segregation is a concerning move, but they are also introducing other means for threatening staff and other inmates by condoning drug use and needles in prisons.Most Canadians would be shocked to hear that the Liberals are pushing forward with a policy to provide needles to prisoners so that they can self-administer harmful drugs. Not only is this counter-productive for the rehabilitation of prisoners, it is a threat to the security and safety of prison staff.Violent incidents are not uncommon in a correctional environment, and handing out needles to prisoners can be akin to handing out weapons. Vulnerable inmates, guards and other staff will now live in a state of new fear that these potent tools could be used against them, possibly even lethally.Most Canadians would also be shocked to learn that the Liberals even intend to provide cooking spoons. These are not my words. It is what the union of correctional officers is telling me. Prisoners will be able to cook and produce their own drugs so that they can self-inject. This policy is seriously ill-informed, because as I have been told, lighters have been banned from prisons, because they have been used to start fires in the past. How are they even supposed to cook the drugs with these cooking spoons if they are not even allowed to have lighters?The Liberals are rolling back best practices that have been learned from experience by our front-line personnel and implemented. The government is rolling back these best practices and putting people at risk. This does not make sense.Many look to Europe for an example for Canada to follow, but the government is selectively choosing which European policies to adopt while ignoring how the overall system works. Yes, needles are used in some European prisons, but there is no European country where needles are provided in all prisons. The eventual agenda of the Liberal government seems to be that all prisons, regardless of security classification, should have access to needles.In Europe, administrative segregation is used in the case of an assault on a police officer. It changes from country to country. This is not seen as a viable option for the future for the government. Why is it not being maintained here?I just wonder what policy objective the Liberals intend to achieve through prisoners receiving needles. Do the Liberals want to protect prisoners from infectious diseases? Correctional staff have informed me, and I have seen the statistics on this, that over the past 10 years, the rate of infectious diseases, such as HIV, have been reduced drastically. I think 50% was the model. I do not see how introducing new needles would decrease the likelihood that dirty needles will be used. This permissive approach to this abuse is likely to cause more of the same problem the Liberals are looking to get rid of.When actions are brought before the courts, it seems that the policy of the Liberal government is always to cave in and run. Some courts have ruled that the widespread use of administrative segregation is a violation of prisoners' charter rights. It is clear that in the cases cited earlier, oversight was the issue and the indefinite period of time was the issue. That does not mean that administrative segregation in and of itself is a flawed concept.We have charter rights, but when people go to jail, they give up some of those rights. They are not absolute. The right to liberty is an example. We have to draw a line. What about the safety of our correctional staff? Where is their right to safety in the workplace?Correctional staff have every right to expect that the government will ensure that they have a safe working environment. This legislation, combined with allowing needles in prisons, would endanger the safety of correctional staff. It is time for the Liberals to take a stand, uphold the will of the people and the will of those who serve on the front lines and stop taking away the tools they need to do their jobs.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActConstitutionalityCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional officersCorrectional servicesDrug use and abuseGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersMental healthSecond readingSolitary confinementSplitting speaking timeWorkplace health and safety5585252558525355852545585255558525655852575585258558525955852605585261558526255852635585264558526555852665585267558526855852695585270558527155852725585273558527455852755585276Robert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg CentreCelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86786CelinaCaesar-ChavannesCelina-Caesar-ChavannesWhitbyIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CaesarChavannesCelina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes (Whitby, Lib.): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is very well known and recorded that I am very much a strong advocate for mental health. I know the member spoke quite a bit about the mental health issues of inmates and the safety of those who are in charge of them. While I recognize the need for safeguards, I do take some offence with using the mental health case as a reason to misinform Canadians by saying that inmates will be rewarded, as my colleague mentioned. Inmates will be separated through a secure intervention unit. Inmates will be separated when necessary while providing not only mental health services, but rehabilitative service and other intervention services that are necessary. This is not just about mental health. This is about securely having someone away from the general population and providing them with the services that they need because there is the capacity to rehabilitate and reduce recidivism rates.The warden has the opportunity to review at five days and then at 30 days, while the person is in the secure intervention unit. I am hoping that my colleague could speak to why he focused on the mental health aspect when he clearly understands that this is not the complete intention of the bill.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit558527755852785585279DaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have not solely been focusing on the mental health aspect because I have been focusing on the right of our correctional officers to have as safe a working environment as they can possibly have. These are the people who put their lives on the line every day when they work in these dangerous environments with people who have committed violent crimes and are likely to commit violent crimes. I stand by the use of the term “reward”. We are talking about a previous system where someone would be sent to administrative segregation and completely stripped of their right to extra privileges and now under this new SIU policy the government proposing, the individual will gain those privileges back. I do not see any other way to look at it other than it is adding privileges, it is rewarding prisoners under this new policy. That is the way that I see it and that is the way that people in the corrections system are seeing it.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingStructured intervention unit55852805585281CelinaCaesar-ChavannesWhitbyNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard this in my friend's speech because there is the way he sees it, the way my colleague from Whitby sees it, and there is the way the courts have seen the use and practice of solitary confinement in our prisons and the response from not one, but two superior court decisions, one in British Columbia and one in Ontario, against this practice is what the bill is responding to, allegedly.We craft laws in this place. They then get put out into the public and if they are challenged, as this previous practice was challenged in court, after the most brutal experiences where people in solitary confinement ended up killing themselves, because the practice was abused.There are two things that both of the courts identified. One was oversight and the second was a limitation on the number of days that solitary confinement could have. A previous Liberal bill actually had some elements of oversight and had some limits to solitary confinement. The bill does neither. How does my friend not expect this to end up right back in the courts after more damage is done to more people who are incarcerated and Parliament in some future day to be taken up with the very same example after so much more human tragedy?C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement558528255852835585284DaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, what I worry about is not necessarily that this will end up back in court, but that we are going to see some deadly consequences from this legislation if correctional services officers are being put at increased risk because they have this essential tool taken away from them. I can agree with my colleague that there have been abuses in the past and that things need to be done about that, such as talking about appropriate limitations and appropriate oversight. These are things that I can certainly support in legislation. What I will not support is completely taking away an essential tool that is necessary not only to protect prison staff, but to protect vulnerable inmates from being preyed upon by the more powerful.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSecond readingSolitary confinement5585285NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35320SylvieBoucherSylvie-BoucherBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/BoucherSylvie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC): (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act.I do so because I have a duty to give a voice to the victims of crime and their loved ones here in the House because, ever since the Liberals came to power in 2015, the voice of the people has been growing weaker and weaker and their rights are being increasingly trampled.The Canadian justice system is not perfect. A lot of work remains to be done to make it better, fair and equitable, and to ensure that it upholds the rights of victims of crime and their families. There is still a lot of work to do to make victims' rights equivalent to the rights of criminals.Fortunately, the previous Conservative government took an honest look at the imbalances that persisted for many long years.The excellent work done by former prime minister Stephen Harper for the advancement and respect of the rights of victims of crime resulted in the creation of the position of federal ombudsman for victims of crime, an end to prisoners serving only one-sixth of their sentence, the drafting of Bill C-452 to support victims of procuring, minimum penalties for certain sexual offences, a financial compensation program for parents whose children are missing or killed as a result of a criminal offence, a review of the faint hope clause bill and, finally, the victim surcharge bill.Since 2015, the government across the aisle has not passed a single piece of legislation to support victims. Worse still, it has not introduced a single bill to improve the lives of victims of crime.On top of that, even though the House unanimously voted in favour of Bill C-452 in June 2015, the government has backtracked and still refuses to sign the order in council to implement the act, which would protect young girls from sexual exploitation. It claims that the bill is too harsh on pimps. The Liberals also want to eliminate the mandatory minimums in some acts. Further evidence that the Liberals would much rather support criminals than victims is that they took nearly a year to appoint a new federal ombudsman for victims of crime, but the new federal ombudsman for offenders was appointed in less than a month. Furthermore, they voted against my private member's bill, Bill C-343, which would have made the position of ombudsman for victims of crime the same level of authority as the corrections one.Now, with Bill C-83, the government continues on its path, seeking to punish criminals as little as possible, even the most dangerous, aggressive criminals who pose serious risks to the safety of other offenders and corrections officers. The government wants to stop placing inmates in segregation, commonly known as the hole.I must say that, these days, being sent to the hole is not the same thing as before. I come from a family that worked in the prison system for a long time, so I know what I am talking about. My father was a prison warden and my mother was a prison guard.The Minister of Public Safety wants to replace the administrative segregation cells reserved for the most dangerous and problematic offenders with structured intervention units, which would separate these offenders from the rest of the prison population, when necessary, but continue to give them access to rehabilitation programs, interventions and mental health care.(1725)We all agree that mental health issues must be treated. However, we also all agree that, when inmates are in solitary confinement, it is because they are endangering the lives of others. Because of that, I will have to vote against this bill. For me, victims of crime come well before criminals themselves.C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesCriminal rehabilitationGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersSafetySecond readingSolitary confinementStructured intervention unitVictims of crime558528855852895585290558529155852925585293558529455852955585296558529755852985585299BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1265RalphGoodaleHon.Ralph-GoodaleRegina—WascanaLiberal CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/GoodaleRalph_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionHon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.)(1000)[English]Bill C-83. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another act. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another ActCorrectional servicesGovernment billsImprisonment and prisonersIntroduction and First reading5582033SheilaMalcolmsonNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1550)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security entitled “Use of Ion Mobility Spectrometers by Correctional Service Canada”.8510-421-445 "Use of Ion Mobility Spectrometers by Correctional Service Canada"Correctional servicesIon mobility spectrometryStanding Committee on Public Safety and National Security5508000KellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestNathanielErskine-SmithBeaches—East York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1832KevinSorensonHon.Kevin-SorensonBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SorensonKevin_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic AccountsInterventionHon. Kevin Sorenson (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1600)[English] Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 47th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “Report 5, Preparing Women Offenders for Release—Correctional Service Canada, of the 2017 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada”.Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.8510-421-408 "Report 5, Preparing Women Offenders for Release—Correctional Service Canada, of the 2017 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada"Correctional Service of CanadaCorrectional servicesImprisonment and prisonersReport 5, Preparing Women Offenders for Release - Correctional Service Canada, of the Fall 2017 Reports of the Auditor General of CanadaStanding Committee on Public Accounts54440125444013MaryAnnMihychukHon.Kildonan—St. PaulShannonStubbsLakeland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89466Robert-FalconOuelletteRobert-Falcon-OuelletteWinnipeg CentreLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/OuelletteRobertFalcon_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.): (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House of Commons for debate on Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.It is an act that looks at fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the criminal justice system. It would make it more responsive to the needs of our society. It is incredible that today, in 2016, we still lock up people who suffer and take little to no account of the impact on their mental health or the long-term outcomes. In this case, we are talking about FASD. We are talking about outcomes in the criminal justice system and the hopeful rehabilitation of our fellow citizens. In Winnipeg I have had the great privilege of meeting youth who have been impacted by FASD, youth who want to contribute to our society. FASD Life's Journey, an organization in Winnipeg Centre, helps by offering training and support to our fellow citizens so that they can navigate life more successfully.FASD affects the central nervous system. Symptoms include learning difficulties, difficulty with social interactions, behaviour affected by impulses and passions, which has consequences, and memory issues.I spoke with these youth about politics and what we do here in this House. It was just last month. I also had the opportunity to see them working with the drum, using traditional indigenous healing techniques to make their lives better. They did that drumming with such passion. They lived in the moment. It was as if there was no tomorrow. It was not in 10 minutes that we were going to be living but right now, today.They sang Gitchi Manitou Makwa, which is a song called great bear spirit, and it was great. I was proud to participate with them.I have had the opportunity of reading the annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator. In January 2016, it reported that the federal corrections system had a sad milestone: 25% of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries are indigenous people. They are 35% of the women's population in prison. Between 2005 and 2015, the federal inmate population grew by 10%. In the same period, the indigenous population grew by 50%.We all know these stats here in the House. It was a decade of darkness. We have become ready in our society to lock up people who are suffering and throw away the keys. They are people like James, who I met at the John Howard Society. He has been in and out of prison most of his adult life. As an indigenous man, he has been given no support, except now, by the John Howard Society. He is a man who suffers from FASD. He is my relation. He is all of our relation. He is my brother. I believe that he, too, can become a productive member of our society.This bill is the work of the hon. member for Yukon. I am very proud of what he has done. It has four recommendations, which come from the Canadian Bar Association. This association represents thousands of lawyers who deal with this affliction every day.First, this bill would allow the courts to order an assessment to determine if a person charged with a crime had FASD. Second, if the assessment was positive, it would allow the judge to use it as a mitigating factor in sentencing in certain circumstances. Third, the bill directs that FASD would be added to the already prescribed list of special needs the correctional institution must be responsive to. Fourth, and most importantly, offenders with FASD would have an external support plan when they left prison so they would not immediately reoffend or miss a probation meeting, and as judges often say, use the revolving door of a broken system again and again and end up in my riding, clogging up, unfortunately, our justice system.On December 18, 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its final report, “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future”. The Government of Canada has committed to implementing all of the recommendations. These goals are important, and they are also very ambitious.(1835)The TRC's calls to action impact corrections as well. I am going to read those calls to action:1. Eliminate the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people and youth in custody over the next decade.2. Implement community sanctions that provide realistic alternatives to imprisonment for Aboriginal offenders and respond to the underlying causes of offending.3. Eliminate barriers to the creation of additional Aboriginal healing lodges within the federal correctional system.4. Enact statutory exemptions for mandatory minimum sentences or imprisonment for offenders affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).5. Reduce the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people.We promised that during the election. I promised that during the election. This bill goes a long way to making a difference. It will go a long way to making this system more responsive. I have been told there are some provincial justice ministers who are concerned with the bill. However, they should remember what their title says. It says “justice minister”. As a justice minister they must offer justice to all Canadians. It is unjust when young people with FASD do not receive the community supports they need, when they end up in prison because of a series of poor choices they make throughout their life.We should be focused on ensuring that our most vulnerable fellow citizens are not in prison due to a lack of resources, or time, or effort, or cost or perhaps just the plain laziness of bureaucracy and the inability of systems to be flexible.I would hope our government would be able to support this legislation. I hope my fellow parliamentarians will hear the call from the hon. member for Yukon for the great work he has done, because it is important. It is one small step in realizing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 recommendations, and it is a path that we can make today. It is something we can start today.Tapwe akwa khitwam.Aboriginal languagesAboriginal peoplesBehaviour disordersC-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder)Care for childrenCorrectional facilitiesCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCrime preventionCriminal chargesCriminal justice systemCriminal liabilityCriminal rehabilitationDiagnosisEqual opportunitiesFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderGovernment policyHealth screeningImprisonment and prisonersLanguage other than official languageLearning disabilitiesMandatory sentencingMental healthNervous systemOffice of the Correctional Investigator of CanadaPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingSentencingSocial supportStatisticsThe Canadian Bar AssociationTruth and Reconciliation Commission of CanadaVulnerable personsYoung people4690354469035546903564690357469035846903594690360ChristineMooreAbitibi—TémiscamingueBrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/53569BrigitteSansoucyBrigitte-SansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/SansoucyBrigitte_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): (1835)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to speak to Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder).I want to begin by saying that my NDP colleagues and I will support this bill. The NDP would like all parties in the House to work together to adopt this positive and long-overdue reform, which the previous government neglected.Fetal alcohol disorder can have a range of effects on affected individuals. Those effects may include difficulty reasoning, inability to remember things, and trouble learning from past experiences and not repeating mistakes. Bill C-235 defines the neurodevelopmental disorders associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. The spectrum of these disorders is commonly known as “fetal alcohol spectrum disorder” or by the acronym FASD, which I will use. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to establish a procedure for assessing individuals who are involved in the criminal justice system and who may suffer from fetal alcohol disorder. It would also include FASD as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The bill also recognizes FASD as a disability in the federal correctional system. It also requires the courts to order people who have FASD to follow an external support plan so that they receive the support they need for their reintegration into society. It finally makes a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.Bill C-235 is actually is a reintroduction of two past bills to better address the needs of individuals suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome disorder who find themselves in our criminal justice system. In terms of the trial process, this latest version of the bill allows the courts to order an assessment over the objections of the defendant and at any stage of the proceedings. We have supported every past incarnation of this bill, which seeks to better address the needs and circumstances of offenders suffering from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the criminal justice system.In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, November 26, 2014, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied a previous version of this bill, Bill C-583. The report of that study was tabled in May 2015. The report indicates conclusively that people with fetal alcohol disorder are overrepresented in the penal justice system. According to a study conducted by the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society of Yukon, 76% of the target population affected by fetal alcohol disorder had contact with the justice system.Currently, our justice system does not leave room to take the individual's situation into account or to address it. It is therefore very important to support this bill, which needs to be passed quickly if we are to take people and their particular condition into consideration when we seek justice. We sincerely lament the fact that for years, the Conservatives ignored evidence and used a one-size-fits-all approach to impose mandatory minimum sentences that are costly, ineffective, and even unconstitutional. The NDP is in favour of a more effective approach that is more suited to the victims. We have a real problem when it comes to identifying this disorder in those who have it. Wenda Bradley, one of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, said that “there are many people within our society who are affected by FASD but who have not been recognized and who keep circling in and out of the justice system”.The problem is that this disorder is somewhat invisible. Those who have it look like you and me. However, they have special needs and that is why we must provide them with the appropriate support throughout the entire penal process.(1840)In fact, when he appeared before the same committee, Rodney Snow had this to say: ...criminal law assumes that individuals make informed choices, that they decide to commit crimes, and that they learn from their own behaviour and the behaviour of others. Fourth, these assumptions are often not valid for individuals with FASD, so our criminal justice system fails them and it fails us.By considering this disorder as a mitigating factor in criminal proceedings, we could better adjust sentences for these individuals. Studies of young offenders indicated, for example, that the sentence alone does not reduce criminal recidivism. On the contrary, it could even encourage it.The passage of this bill would allow the criminal justice system to adapt sentences for these individuals so that they are as effective as possible. Moreover, a system would have to be put in place to identify children with fetal alcohol syndrome as early as possible.The data I have collected on children with fetal alcohol syndrome demonstrate the extent of the problem in Canada. In Quebec, one in 128 children are affected by this disorder. In Ontario, one in 156 are affected. In Saskatchewan, it is one in 40. In the Northwest Territories, it is one in 33.We must not wait until these individuals wind up in court for committing a crime before they are diagnosed with this disorder. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Yes, including FASD as a mitigating factor in sentencing is already a big step forward. However, this disorder also carries other consequences. A number of FASD symptoms, such as impulsiveness, make it hard for sufferers to hold down a job or live a stable life, which can lead to poverty and homelessness. Having spent many years working in community-based organizations, including over 10 years as executive director of Auberge du coeur Le Baluchon, I knew a few young people who had FASD who, as a result of the disorder, had developmental delays and were constantly having problems at school. These young people endure one failure after another, and often they do not even understand why. They think that they are to blame for their problems and that they are inadequate. They often have very low self-esteem, which creates a whole slew of other problems. They will be penalized throughout their lives by the lack of appropriate care and support.I think that it is critical that the government do more to support other levels of government in order to help people who have FASD and invest in prevention and awareness.As an NDP member, I support this bill, and I urge all my colleagues in the House to do the same. Let us think of all the young people suffering from FASD and bring in measures that could help them. Rod Snow, former president of the Canadian Bar Association, agrees that everyone should support this amendment to the Criminal Code and to our correctional system so that they are appropriate and effective when it comes to fighting crime. The old approach is simply not working.Behaviour disordersBradley, Wenda LC-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder)ChildrenCommittee studies and activitiesConservative Party of CanadaCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCrime preventionCriminal chargesCriminal justice systemCriminal lawCriminal liabilityCriminal rehabilitationDiagnosisEvidenceFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderHealth screeningHomelessness and homelessInformation disseminationLearning disabilitiesMandatory sentencingMental healthNeurological disordersOffendersPovertyPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingSentencingSocial supportStanding Committee on Justice and Human RightsStatisticsYoung people4690370Robert-FalconOuelletteWinnipeg CentreMichaelMcLeodNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89374MichaelMcLeodMichael-McLeodNorthwest TerritoriesLiberal CaucusNorthwest Territories//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeodMichaelV_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael McLeod (Northwest Territories, Lib.): (1845)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-235, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder).Alcohol is one of the most toxic substances we humans consume. Unfortunately, in pregnancy, it crosses the placenta and disrupts the fetal development. As a result, some children are born with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. FASD was first identified a little more than 40 years ago when a similar pattern of malformations was discovered in children, but the disorder goes way beyond the physical. Individuals affected by FASD may have trouble with memory, attention, self-care, decision-making and social skills, and may also suffer from mental health disorders such as depression, addiction, and difficulty controlling their emotions. They may also have problems with organization and planning daily activities, controlling their emotions and completing tasks, which would allow them to lead productive lives. Circumstances such as these often lead these individuals into trouble with the law and create further issues once they are incarcerated. The consequences associated with FASD are widespread. They may affect the child, the families, and the communities they reside in. To give everyone a better picture of the prevalence of FASD in Canada, this disorder affects nearly one in 100 children. Some Canadian data indicates greater prevalence of FASD in children in rural communities, the foster care systems, the juvenile justice systems, and aboriginal populations. This higher prevalence of FASD found in aboriginal children is often linked to historical and multi-generational trauma. Research and data on the consequences of FASD have grown in the past decades, and programs are being implemented to prevent the disorder and address the special circumstances and the difficulties people are suffering from FASD.However, it is time to address FASD in the criminal justice system. In fact, in its calls to action, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called upon the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments to undertake reform of the criminal justice system to address the needs of offenders suffering from FASD.That said, let us get to the reasons why the bill is important. As my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, mentioned, the bill seeks to do a number of things. First, it seeks to define FASD. Second, the bill would give a court the right to order FASD assessments where it has reasonable grounds to believe an offender may be suffering from the disorder and that FASD could have had an impact on the offence committed. Third, the bill would give the court discretion to consider FASD as a mitigating factor when handing down a sentence. Fourth, when a person with FASD is released, they would have an external support plan.It is important to understand that the goal of the bill is not to consider FASD as an excuse for bad behaviour. When a person breaks the law, it is important that this person be held to account. Why it is important to give the court the ability to order FASD assessments where it has reasonable grounds to believe an offender may be affected by the disorder is that not all cases of FASD are physically recognizable, and not all individuals affected by FASD are diagnosed early in life. They may only discover they have FASD once they enter the criminal justice system. It is essential that screening for FASD take place within the criminal justice system to better address the needs of those individuals affected by this disorder. The earlier we are able to identify offenders with FASD, the more we will be able to avoid more serious crimes being committed in the future, and the more we will be able to manage these individuals when they are incarcerated.Then comes the question, why is it important to consider FASD as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process? When a person breaks the law, it is important that this person be held to account, but it is also important to consider the greater picture and to look at the explanation of the person's behaviour.(1850)As I mentioned earlier, people with FASD may suffer from an array of symptoms, such as a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions, making them more prone to trouble with the law. We need to understand that these individuals are born with a development disorder due to exposure to alcohol before they were even born. We need to recognize that they are victims of a disorder. It therefore becomes all about creating a balance between recognizing the effects of this disorder on offenders and the need to hold people accountable for their actions. This bill would give the courts the power to do this. Health Canada estimates that as many as nine in every 1,000 babies born in Canada have a disability on the FASD spectrum. The effects of this are a lifelong array of mental and physical disabilities, including difficulty understanding the consequence of their actions. As a result, many of the victims of FASD end up in Canada's justice system and prisons. Data suggests that between 10% and 23% of inmates in our prisons have FASD. The Canadian Bar Association, the organization representing Canada's legal professionals, agrees that this is too many people and has indicated its support for Bill C-235. It feels that an unfair number of people with FASD are being prosecuted by the legal system. Here is a quote directly from a CBA letter, which all members should have received this week from the member for Yukon. It states: We believe that Bill C-235 is an important step in addressing some of the shortcomings of the current framework.... Bill C-235 advances several changes, in line with previous suggestions made by CBA. The CBA supports the proposed amendment to define FASD in section 2 of the Criminal Code. The CBA also supports an amendment to allow a judge to order an assessment of someone they suspect has FASD. We believe this would assist courts in handing out more appropriate dispositions to people with FASD. The CBA supports amending the sentencing provisions in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code to allow a judge to consider evidence that an offender has FASD as a mitigating factor on sentencing. We also appreciate the section that would require judges to include, as a condition of probation, compliance with an external support plan established for the purpose of supporting and facilitating successful reintegration into society. Finally we commend the proposed amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to expressly require Correctional Services Canada to be responsive to special requirements or limitations of people with FASD. The problem of incarcerating people with FASD is pressing and can no longer be ignored. This is a strong endorsement from the legal profession. We need to take action to assist those who have been incarcerated to help ensure they receive support to help them get back into society. That is why I urge all my hon. colleagues to consider voting in favour of this very important bill. Aboriginal peoplesAlcohol use and abuseAlcoholic beveragesBehaviour disordersC-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder)ChildrenCongenital anomaliesCorrectional Service of CanadaCorrectional servicesCorrections and Conditional Release ActCourt ordersCrime preventionCriminal chargesCriminal CodeCriminal justice systemCriminal lawCriminal liabilityCriminal rehabilitationDiagnosisFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderFetus and embryoFoster careGovernment policyHealth screeningImprisonment and prisonersIntellectual disabilityLearning disabilitiesMedical researchMental healthOffendersPregnancyPreventive medicinePrivate Members' BillsProbationRural communitiesSecond readingSentencingSocial supportStatisticsSupport of a billTerminologyThe Canadian Bar AssociationTruth and Reconciliation Commission of CanadaYoung offenders46903944690401BrigitteSansoucySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBillBlairScarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88961BillBlairBill-BlairScarborough SouthwestLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlairBill_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, today I rise to contribute to the second reading debate on the matter of Bill C-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, fetal alcohol disorder. I would like to begin by thanking most sincerely the member for Yukon for his advocacy on this very important issue. With this private member's bill and other initiatives, he is growing a greater awareness of a disorder that often goes unnoticed.The private member's bill would amend both the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide special treatment for individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, who are involved in the criminal justice system. The bill proposes to do essentially four things: first, to define FASD in the Criminal Code; second, to permit judges to order FASD assessments for bail and sentencing; third, to require sentencing judges to consider FASD as a mitigating factor for the purposes of sentencing; and, finally, to require Correctional Service of Canada to provide FASD-specific programming for individuals who are serving prison sentences in federal facilities.FASD is a diagnostic term used to describe the brain damage caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol as a result of maternal consumption of alcohol. In other words, if a pregnant woman consumes alcohol while she is pregnant, it may result in irreversible, lifelong brain damage to her baby. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, FASD affects at least 1% of all babies born in Canada, and it is the leading cause of preventable congenital brain damage and developmental disability. However, due to the fact that there are usually no obvious external physical indicators, FASD is for all intents and purposes invisible. The invisible nature of this condition is one of the reasons it poses such a challenge to the criminal justice system and, indeed, to our greater society.I want to emphasize at the outset that the government fully supports the very laudable objectives of the private member's bill. However, after careful consideration, we have concluded that the bill presents serious policy and legal challenges that cannot be substantially addressed through amendments; and therefore, for these reasons, the government is unable to support the specific proposals of this bill.We come to these conclusions after reading the recently released report from a committee of federal-provincial-territorial experts on the exact proposals covered in this bill. This group of experts, the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Steering Committee on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder was struck at the request of federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice and public safety. Their mandate was to study the issue of FASD in the criminal justice system, and to consider how to improve access to justice for individuals with FASD and to make recommendations for action to ministers and deputy ministers responsible for justice and public safety.The committee members considered several proposals for legislative reform to address FASD, including the specific ones that are proposed in Bill C-235. The FASD steering committee reported its findings and recommendations to the ministers of justice just this past October and their report was made publicly available. I would encourage each and every member who has not already done so to read this report, which is publicly available online at the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat. I would also like to draw members' attention to one of the overarching themes in the report that speaks directly to the heart of the proposals that are before us today.The committee concluded: ...legislative amendments which would single out one specific disability for special treatment to the exclusion of others was not supported. It was noted that the criminal law does not currently single out specific disabilities and no policy rationale for singling out FASD in this way was identified. This is a very important point, and I would like to take a moment to reflect briefly on it. The Criminal Code does not currently define any specific mental disorders or disabilities. Instead, section 2 of the code defines mental disorder broadly as disease of the mind. This has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada to embrace any illness, disorder, or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning. FASD has been found on numerous occasions to be a mental disorder under this very broad definition. The bill's proposal to include a definition of only FASD would therefore likely raise questions about why the law does not also specifically identify any other disorder, and may lead to calls for their inclusion in the future.While specifically identifying other disorders may seem like an obvious solution to this challenge, I invite members to consider that there are more than 300 separate and distinct mental disorders listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.(1900)One can only imagine what the Criminal Code would look like if each and every disorder was specifically defined and our courts were given instructions to treat each specific disorder diagnosis differently. Proceeding in the manner proposed by the bill before us could, unfortunately, create a potential discriminatory impact of establishing a regime that focuses exclusively on one particular disorder to the exclusion of others. This reflects one of the many possible unintended consequences of the bill.The government also had similar concerns with respect to the proposed FASD assessment power. It would permit judges to order FASD-specific assessments for a number of enumerated reasons under the criminal law. The proposal to only permit a court to order an FASD assessment would mean that other disorders would not be diagnosed, potentially creating a hierarchy of medical conditions in the criminal law.I would like to return for a moment to the report of the FASD steering committee. It also expressed concern with the issue of creating a specific FASD assessment power in the Criminal Code. However, it recognized that in the area of sentencing, the ability of the court to order a broader assessment of the mental condition of the accused was unclear, and therefore these assessments are not undertaken in a consistent way across the country. The steering committee was of the view that clarifying the Criminal Code assessment power to permit a broader assessment of the mental condition of the accused for the purposes of sentencing would permit the court to gather relevant evidence about the accused, including information about the offender's capacities, limitations, and support needs. Such an approach would provide an opportunity to address many of the concerns underlying the proposal for specific FASD assessment and could have a positive impact for all offenders in the criminal justice system, not only for those with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The government agrees with the conclusions of the steering committee that FASD should not be specifically singled out, but that there should be a study of a broader assessment power for the purposes of sentencing, and I would support that approach.In conclusion, although the government cannot support the proposals as they are presented in the bill, I want to take a moment to reflect and to again thank the member for Yukon for bringing this very important issue before Parliament. His efforts and his passion have created a national discussion on this very important issue, and I would like to personally commend him for his leadership and his commitment.Alcohol use and abuseAlcoholic beveragesBailC-235, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (fetal alcohol disorder)Canadian Intergovernmental Conference SecretariatChildrenCongenital anomaliesCorrectional Service of CanadaCorrectional servicesCourt ordersCriminal CodeCriminal justice systemCriminal lawCriminal liabilityCriminal rehabilitationDiagnosisDiscriminationExpert panelsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderGovernment policyHealth screeningHuman diseases and disordersInformation collectionJudgesJurisprudenceLegislationMedical techniques and proceduresMental healthMothersNervous systemPregnancyPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingSentencingSetting of standardsSocial supportStatisticsSupport of a billTerminology4690404MichaelMcLeodNorthwest TerritoriesLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Human Rights ActInterventionMr. Randall Garrison: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work in her riding on behalf of the LGBTQ community, and also here in the House for her constant support.Many of the social problems of discrimination in housing and employment fall under provincial jurisdiction, but there are some very fundamental things that are in the hands of the federal government. One of those is access to passports and identity documents that will help transgender people travel, be employed, and help them in all facets of their daily life. A second one is a particular concern of mine that I raised in the House in 2012 and unfortunately in committee where we were laughed at for raising this concern. That is the concern of the emphasis on gender in airport screening, which has nothing to do with security but often causes humiliation and embarrassment to transgender people who are not currently in possession of documents that match their gender identity.A third, which is very important and I have also worked on for a long time, is federal corrections and making sure that inmates are assigned to the proper correctional facility, because if they are not assigned to the proper correctional facility they face great danger of violence. This also applies to those under immigration detention who are quite often not in federal facilities but face the same kinds of problems if they are placed in the wrong institution.C-16, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal CodeCorrectional servicesDiscriminationFederal jurisdictionGender identity and gender expressionPassports and visasThird reading and adoption4641354HélèneLaverdièreLaurier—Sainte-MarieSheriBensonSaskatoon WestINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE