House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to two petitions.

     While I am on my feet, I move:

     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 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:

    The Speaker: Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

     moved:

     Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

    I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

    The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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—

    Order. I have to remind the hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington to direct her comments to the Chair. Of course, when one says “you”, one is asking the Speaker a question, it would seem. I do not think she intends to do that. Therefore, perhaps she could rephrase that last bit.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

     It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion 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 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:

    The Speaker: Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

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

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-83.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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:

     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.”

    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.

    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.

    She did not ask me a question, Mr. Speaker.

    I will explain the way things work. Normally we allow questions or comments. A comment has been made and if the hon. member wishes to respond, he may. If not, we will go on to the next question. I will leave it to the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner to decide if he wishes to respond.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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,

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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,

    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:

    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:

    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.

    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:

    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:

    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:

    There was also this shocking revelation by Ivan Zinger:

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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:

     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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. He will have approximately five minutes and then we will go to question period. He will have his remaining five minutes when we return to this discussion.

    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:

    The very issue that we are debating today is on the front page of The Globe and Mail. The article continued:

    Further on, there is some disaggregation of the errors and omissions:

    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.

    I see that my all too generous five minutes are now up and I will be delighted to resume after question period.

    The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood will have five minutes coming to him once we resume debate.

    Mr. Speaker, young people in Montreal and around the world are calling on the government to get serious about the climate crisis, but the federal government does not seem to be getting the message.

    The National Energy Board proved it by publishing its report on the Trans Mountain pipeline project, which will export the dirtiest oil in the world. The English-only report found that Trans Mountain will cause a spike in greenhouse gas emissions, threaten already endangered killer whales, and adversely affect the cultural practices of indigenous peoples, who, by the way, were not adequately consulted on this. However, the NEB is saying yes to Trans Mountain, just like it has been saying yes to pipelines for the past 60 years. That is what a petro-state is all about.

    On March 15, there will be a global youth climate strike. Students will be protesting in Montreal and elsewhere, and I invite the public to join them.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House about Teesha Sharma from my riding of Pitt-Meadows—Maple Ridge, who passed away last week at the young age of 27.

    From being abused at a young age and living on the streets as a teen to becoming an advocate for homeless youth, as well as finally being named Citizen of the Year in the under 40 category, Teesha was a force to be reckoned with.

     Those of us who attended the Standing Committee on Human Resources' study on poverty reduction in Maple Ridge last year will remember Teesha and her unforgettable story of her life on the streets. Her words touched every MP there.

    Teesha was a fighter and never gave up. She found a way to overcome the tragedy in her life. She took the pain from her past and turned it into a determination to help shine a light on the struggles many vulnerable youth face.

    Teesha's presence will be deeply missed. She set out to make a difference and she did just that. May the lives she touched continue to carry on her work, and through them, her lasting legacy.

    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Home Builders' Association is on the Hill today, meeting with members of Parliament. Made up of over 8,500 companies, homebuilding represents 1.2 million jobs and $151 billion in economic activity. Together, they build what many consider to be the highest-quality housing in the world.

    In Vancouver, Toronto and too many other communities, many Canadians are finding it hard to access ownership in housing and get a place they can call home. There is much to be done on affordability, and the home builders call on governments at all levels to help Canadians achieve home ownership by addressing excessive taxation, huge fees and onerous approval processes. Together, these can represent up to 40% of the price of a new home, which is passed on—

    The hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

    Mr. Speaker, the evidence is quite clear. Mother Nature or Old Man Winter, whomever people believe in, has been in my riding of Long Range Mountains plenty this winter, and it has been wonderful for all the winter carnivals. There has been sliding, skiing, snowmobiling and snowshoeing, just to name a few of the snow sports, plus plenty of community events, great food and entertainment for all ages to participate in and enjoy.

    I very much appreciate the new volunteers and sponsors who make these events such a success year after year.

    Winter tourism is growing incredibly in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and these carnivals are a great attraction for tourists as well. This week, at the annual tourism conference of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, tourism industry leaders are discussing the growth potential of the winter season with our federal Minister of Tourism, who will be attending.

    I would have my colleagues know that there are plenty of people who enjoy the snow in the winter, and I am pleased to be one of them.

    Mr. Speaker, survivors of St. Anne's residential school joined abuse survivors from around the world in Rome to call on the Pope to take action, yet we learn the Government of Canada has dropped extradition efforts against Johannes Rivoire, a sexual predator who preyed on youth in Nunavut.

    In doing so, Canada has failed justice and reconciliation. Rivoire is being protected by the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate in Strasbourg, France. The decision of the Oblates to protect this criminal is a crime against the people of Nunavut, a crime against the church and a crime against the human community.

    Today, I am calling on Canada's Catholic churches and Oblate congregations to condemn Rivoire. I am also calling on the Oblates in France to stop protecting this criminal. It is time that the Oblates and the Catholic Church took responsibility for this criminal abuse. We are seeking justice for survivors.

    Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Scarborough—Rouge Park, I am thrilled to welcome Professor Wisdom Tettey as the eleventh principal of the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus.

    Born and raised in Ghana, Professor Tettey completed his Ph.D. at Queen's University and has held academic positions at Queen's, the University of Calgary and the University of British Columbia's Okanagan campus. At the Okanagan Campus, he was the main instrumental figure in the development of a five-year strategic plan and the indigenization of UBC's curriculum.

     Professor Tettey is an expert in African studies and has several publications on media, politics, civic engagement, the African diaspora and the brain drain from the continent. He was the lead investigator for the World Bank and has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

     I recently met Professor Tettey and was truly impressed by him and his commitment to research, academic freedom, equity, students and reconciliation. Principal Tettey becomes the first black principal at UTSC.

    Mr. Speaker, amid a mounting list of failures, the Prime Minister's 2019 carbon tax is just the beginning of what he wants Canadians to pay. The Prime Minister's carbon tax will add 11 cents to the cost of every litre of gasoline and hundreds more to heat a home.

     Despite fake assurances that it will not add up to much, if anything, independent experts disagree with the Prime Minister on the cost of his carbon tax to Canadian families, with some estimates as high as almost $100 per month more, just for doing family things like working, playing and living, and at a time when Canadians say they cannot afford it.

    Worse, the Liberal tax will go even higher. The Prime Minister may shrug, as he has never had to worry about money, but another $100 matters to families trying to make the household budget last to the end of the month.

    Canadians should not have to pay for the Liberals' failure or just to get by. That is why Conservatives are fighting for better. In October, Canadians can choose Conservative leadership to get ahead.

    Mr. Speaker, as a part of celebrating Black History Month, I was pleased to host the first African Day on Parliament Hill.

    I would like to thank the volunteer team led John Adeyefa and Hector Addison of the African Canadian Association of Ottawa. I would also like to recognize students Jada Baptiste and Dana Amegatse of St. Mother Theresa High School in Nepean for organizing an event in their school.

     I would like to thank a few hard-working community leaders, including Sahada Alolo, co-chair of the Ottawa Police Community Equity Council; Dorris Ngaiza of Tanzanian Canadians; Hodan Egale of the Somali Canadian Youth Centre; Moses Pratt of the Global Community Alliance, Chuks lmahiagbe and Wale Adesanya from the Nigerian Canadian Association, Francis Yel of the South Sudan community, and Dr. Thomas Ngwa and Franklin Epape of the Cameroon Canadian community.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House today with the privilege of telling my fellow members about a real life superhero from Sault Ste. Marie: Kayge Fowler.

    On May 25 of last year, at five years of age, Kayge received a devastating diagnosis. Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, is a highly aggressive brain tumour found in the brainstem. When the doctor informed Kayge's parents of the diagnosis, she said to them, “You need to understand that 100% of children don't survive this kind of cancer, and there's nothing we can do. We'll do 30 rounds of radiation to buy you some time, but that's all we can do for you.”

    Superhero Kayge and his parents, family, friends and community decided that they would believe in miracles and work hard for hope. They have rallied to fight for Kayge's life and for all children who may in the future be facing a diagnosis of DIPG.

    In fact, his grandparents, the Fowlers, are visiting Ottawa today. They created e-petition 2046 to establish May 25 every year as the national day for DIPG awareness. Please sign the petition.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Canada's best alpine skiers, Larisa Yurkiw. Born in my riding in the city of Owen Sound, Larisa is a world-class skier who represented Canada for over 10 years, including at the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games.

     Larisa's accomplishments run deep. She made her World Cup debut in 2007 and has been on the podium three times. At the time of her official retirement in 2016, Larisa ranked third in the world. An accomplished athlete, business woman and academic, Larisa has done everything from fundraising her own budget and managing her ski staff to completing her MBA.

     Over the next few days, Larisa is graciously volunteering her time with the Boys and Girls Club of Ottawa during their annual charity ski day. I ask all members to join me in recognizing her outstanding athletic career.

    Larisa has made all residents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and indeed all of Canada, very proud. Well done.

    Mr. Speaker, the issue of housing affordability is a major concern for all Canadians.

    I am pleased to inform the House that members of the Canadian Home Builders Association are on the Hill today meeting with parliamentarians to see just how we can work better together to help people across Canada realize their dream of home ownership.

    The CHBA has more than 8,000 member firms across the country. It is an industry that represents 1.2 million jobs and generates over $150 billion in economic activity.

    Home ownership is a key hallmark of the middle class and those working hard to join it. I encourage all MPs to support measures that will help unlock the door to home ownership.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Drake for today being named the Global Recording Artist of the Year by the international music industry. Drake also won the award in 2016, and now becomes the first artist to win it twice.

    I am very proud that a Canadian artist is making history in the global music industry. To see Drake's talent and success recognized at the highest level reinforces that Canadian artists are worth supporting and protecting. This recognition also highlights the importance of our heritage committee's study on remuneration models for artists and creative industries.

    We are committed to building a framework that allows Canadian artists to build long and sustainable careers so that they can continue to create art that resonates on the world stage.

    My many thanks to Drake.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of paying for the Prime Minister's mistakes.

    His first three budgets buried Canadians in debt, and Liberal taxes keep going up—this at a time when Canadians, especially low-income Canadians, can least afford it. Now the Prime Minister insists that low-income Canadians do not benefit from tax cuts because they do not pay any taxes.

    Canadians below the government's low-income cut-off pay plenty of taxes: income taxes, GST, payroll taxes and EI. The Prime Minister has been increasing those taxes on all Canadians to pay for his failures. Payroll taxes are up, leaving less take-home pay for those who need it, and the Prime Minister's ever-increasing carbon tax makes every tank of gas and every degree on the home thermostat more expensive.

    While he and many of his cabinet colleagues may be able to afford to set up companies and buy villas to avoid taxes, most Canadians do not have the same options.

    Why keep paying for Liberal failure when Canadians can choose Conservative leadership to get ahead?

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and welcome to Ottawa a very distinguished member of my Waterloo region community, Nobel laureate in physics Dr. Donna Strickland.

    Last fall Professor Strickland, of the University of Waterloo, became the first Canadian woman and only the third woman in history to be awarded the Nobel Prize for physics.

    Dr. Strickland was awarded the prize along with Dr. Gérard Mourou for her groundbreaking work as a Ph.D. student in developing chirped pulse amplification, a technique that allowed laser technology to surpass a fundamental barrier.

    Dr. Strickland's work has paved the way toward the most intense laser pulses ever created. Most notably, it has corrected nearsightedness for millions of people through laser eye surgery.

    She is an incredible role model for young people across the country, particularly young women who aspire to enter the STEM fields.

    I ask all of my colleagues to join me in welcoming her here today.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a housing crisis in first nations in our region and across the country, with long waiting lists, overcrowded homes and tens of thousands of homes that have critical mould issues. In Manitoba alone, 85% of first nations people report mould in their homes.

    It does not end there. Many homes still lack access to clean water and to sewer service, such as Garden Hill First Nation, where many people do not have clean running water because their houses are not hooked up. They have been unable to get funding, because they are not on a boil water advisory list. That is because they do not even have the water to boil.

    The housing crisis is making people sick. Wherever I go in our north, what I hear when it comes to housing and sewer and water is that there are longer and longer waiting lists, and the problems are getting worse.

     When I have raised this issue in the House, all we get is talking points, even from the Prime Minister.

    Enough is enough. The government has been in power for three years, and many more before that. It is time to cut the talk and act. There is a budget coming up, and people cannot wait longer.

    Let us act to end the housing crisis now.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were whiteout conditions across southern Ontario, but when the skies cleared, there was a brilliant blue glow over York—Simcoe.

    Congratulations to the new MP, Scot Davidson. Scot, Suzanne, Graydon and the amazing team in York—Simcoe won the trust of their community.

    Neither sleet nor snow nor wind could keep Ontario voters back from saying “no” to the Prime Minister, “no” to PMO pressure, “no” to insider deals, “no” to running deficits, “no” to carbon taxes and other taxes. They said “yes” to getting things back on track in York—Simcoe, and more Canadians will too.

     The winter of Liberal discontent is coming to an end. The polls show that spring is on the horizon, where more Canadians can make the choice, as they did for Scot, and elect a strong, stable Conservative government.

    Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of fair play, I believe we can all unite today in congratulating the newly elected members of Parliament for Burnaby South, Outremont and York—Simcoe.

    The commitment to serve Parliament and our constituents is one we all share, and I thank the three victorious candidates, as well as all the others who put their name on the ballot.

    I thank the hundreds of volunteers who helped all the campaign teams reach thousands of voters. I thank them for all the doors they knocked on, the calls they made, the hands they shook and the smiles they shared. The campaign could not have succeeded without their dedication and conviction.

    Once again, allow me to offer my heartfelt congratulations.

    Mr. Speaker, the government is continually trying to find new ways to justify the political interference in an ongoing court case by the Prime Minister and his key advisers. The law on this is actually very clear. If an organization, like SNC-Lavalin, is charged with bribery, then the law states, “the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest”.

    The former attorney general made her decision. She said no, so why did the Prime Minister not take no for an answer?

    Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservatives has just confirmed that there are two ongoing court cases.

    We on this side take seriously the responsibility of standing up for jobs and growing the economy. The justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states that two of the main purposes for remediation agreements are, one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing and, two, to reduce the harm that a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, stakeholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence. We will always protect Canadian jobs. That is what we do on this side.

    Mr. Speaker, we know that cannot be their motivation. We know that because when they wrote the law they specifically excluded the national economic interest. They wrote the law and then tried to get the former attorney general to break the law. She said no. Apparently people in the Prime Minister's Office would not take no for an answer.

    Why would the Prime Minister not accept the decision of the independent prosecutor of Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, once again, we on this side will always respect the work of committees. We on this side will always respect the independent judicial system. We on this side will always respect the independence of officers of Parliament. We on this side will always protect Canadian jobs and stand up for them. We know our plan is working, and that is why Canadians have created over 800,000 jobs since we took office.

     What is the record of the Conservatives? They had the least amount of growth, the worst growth since the Great Depression. Now we know why. Because they will not stand up for Canadian jobs.

    Mr. Speaker, again, she is saying things that just are not true. We know they tried to interfere with an independent legal officer. They tried to get the former attorney general to change her mind. She said no. She said no on multiple occasions. In her view, and the view of the independent Crown prosecutor, SNC-Lavalin, based on serious corruption and bribery charges, did not qualify for one of these deals the way the Liberals themselves wrote it. Now they are trying to hide behind crocodile tears that no one is believing.

    Here is a very specific question for the House leader. Did anyone in the Liberal government communicate to SNC-Lavalin—

    The hon. government House leader.

    Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

    We on this side have increased resources to committees so that committees can do their work. Members from both sides sit on the justice committee. Justice committee members have come together to ask for witnesses to appear. Witnesses are appearing.

    I will remind the House and all Canadians what Canadians said no to. Canadians said no to the failed approach of austerity by the Conservatives, which their leader continues to fight for.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know the truth about the SNC-Lavalin case.

    However, yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Liberal members refused the request for the Prime Minister to testify before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    Will he answer a simple question? Did anyone in the PMO or any of the ministers close to him assure SNC-Lavalin that there would not be a criminal trial, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, they will continue to speculate, but we, on this side of the House, are interested in the facts.

    The leader of the Conservative Party met with the company, as did the leader of the NDP. The Conservative deputy leader said in committee that she did not want to give the impression or go on the record as saying that there was anything wrong with meeting with SNC-Lavalin.

    We, on this side of the House, respect the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We respect the work of all committees. That is exactly why we increased resources to committees. We will not take the Conservative approach.

    Mr. Speaker, I asked a very simple and perfectly legitimate question. Did a cabinet minister, the Prime Minister's Office or anyone from the Prime Minister's inner circle tell SNC-Lavalin that it could avoid a criminal trial for the matter we are now all aware of, which was brought to light over three weeks ago?

    Why is the Prime Minister refusing to explain his actions to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no respect for committees. Those of us on this side of the House know that members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have called witnesses to appear. The witnesses are appearing and answering questions from members on both sides.

    We know this matter is currently before the Commissioner of Ethics and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We on this side of the House respect the work of the commissioner and the committee. Clearly the Conservatives do not.

    Mr. Speaker, in 2006, SNC-Lavalin illegally donated nearly $110,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada and its associations. Today, SNC-Lavalin needs help because it is in big trouble.

    The machinery was then set in motion. The company had more than 50 meetings with the government. Why?

    Over those two years, the company had 14 meetings with the Prime Minister's Office, or one meeting every two months. Why?

    The fact that the former justice minister will appear before the committee is something, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. However, I would like to know why there were so many meetings with lobbyists.

    Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the NDP met with SNC-Lavalin representatives. The leader of the Conservatives met with them also. The leaders of both parties met with them. Everyone knows this, and the leaders are not hiding it.

    We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights are doing their job. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that they will do their job and ask questions, and that the witnesses will be able to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a world of difference between one meeting and 50 meetings.

     Here is what we know. The director of public prosecutions formally rejected a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin on September 4. Two weeks later, on September 17, the Prime Minister met with the former justice minister to discuss the matter. The day after that meeting, SNC-Lavalin lobbyists managed to get four meetings with senior officials and ministers.

    Would the Minister of Finance or the Minister of International Trade Diversification, who each took one of those meetings, be willing to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to explain what those conversations were about?

    Mr. Speaker, clearly, the NDP and Conservative members are sharing talking points, but let us look at the facts.

     The director of the Public Prosecution Service has confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently.

    The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the Minister of Justice to take.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday's letter from the former justice minister shows the extraordinary steps she has had to take to force the Prime Minister's hand to lift the legal gag order so she can speak truth to a parliamentary committee.

    However, she is not the only person we need to hear from in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We notice that there were numerous attempts by the Prime Minister's staff to pressure her into intervening in an independent legal investigation after it was found out that SNC was not eligible and they used a manifestly illegal argument, which was the economic interest.

    In the interests of fairness, will the Prime Minister agree that Katie Telford and Gerry Butts and the rest of his staff will also testify in this hearing?

    Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many members who was denying that members of the justice committee could do their work and would be able to meet. Today, that committee is meeting. The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the justice committee would not be calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing. They are answering questions.

    The member and his party as well as the Conservatives said the former attorney general would not be invited to speak. Members of the justice committee invited her to speak. She will be speaking. They need to stop undermining the work of committees and start respecting our institutions so that Canadians know that they can as well.

    Mr. Speaker, she is not going to get her honorary set of gold SNC cufflinks with excuses like that, because we are talking about illegal interventions by the Prime Minister's Office.

    The Prime Minister and the clerk met with the former justice minister on September 17. She said no. The PMO official met her on December 5. She said no. The PMO staff met with her staff on December 18. They said no. Then the Clerk of the Privy Council met with her on December 19. She said no and was removed from her position soon after.

    In the interest of corruption, I ask the Prime Minister this. When does no mean no for the Liberal Party?

    Mr. Speaker, once again let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan considerations. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that, at every opportunity verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the former minister of justice to take.

    We on this side have lowered taxes on middle-class Canadians so that we could increase them on the wealthiest 1%. The NDP said no to that measure.

    We on this side brought in the Canada child benefit. Today, Stats Canada confirmed that 278,000 kids have been lifted out of poverty and over 800,000 Canadians. The NDP—

    The hon. member for Milton.

    Mr. Speaker, I feel like the hon. House leader is being paid by the word today.

    I would say this. I have very few words on this matter. What I would like to know is this.

    I am sorry. I cannot—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I would ask members to come to order. I would encourage members to try to avoid things that provoke disorder in the House, and comments that are insulting do that.

    The hon. member for Milton.

    I cannot blame her, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to answer my questions either.

     I have one question, which is very simple. I would like to know if between September 4 and October 10 the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, any cabinet minister, any lobbyist or anyone associated with the Prime Minister's Office indicated to SNC-Lavalin or gave assurances that it would be able to get a deferred public—

    The hon. government House leader.

    Mr. Speaker, the justice official backgrounder on remediation agreements states two of the main purposes for remediation agreements: one, to hold the organization accountable for wrongdoing; and, two, to reduce the harm a criminal conviction of an organization could have for employees, pensioners, shareholders and other third parties who did not take part in the offence.

    The record shows that the leader of the Conservative Party met with the company. We know that the leader of the NDP met with the company. We know the deputy leader herself said on the record that she disagreed that there is anything wrong with meeting the company.

    We on this side will focus on Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, somebody is going to have to answer this question, because on September 4, the director of public prosecutions actually informed SNC-Lavalin that it would not be receiving a deferred public prosecution agreement. However, the audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin indicate that the company was advised by the director of PPSC in October 2018 that it would not be invited by the PPSC.

    Who in the Prime Minister's Office gave the assurance between September 4 and October 10 that there would not be a problem with the PPSC?

    Again, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case, “exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

    Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that “there is no direct communication, in any specific case, between the PMO and the DPP.”

    The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed, “At every opportunity verbally and in writing in December, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was the decision for the Minister of Justice to take.”

    We on this side will not undermine the work of committees or the commissioner, like the Conservatives—

    The hon. member for Milton.

    Mr. Speaker, I am going to break it down super simple.

    On September 4, the director of public prosecutions told SNC-Lavalin that there would be no agreement coming its way. They did not report it, and they did not think it was real until October, but miraculously, there were copious meetings between SNC-Lavalin lobbyists and the Prime Minister's Office and the Clerk of the Privy Council.

    So let us try this again. Who told them that they were going to be able to get out of going to court?

    Mr. Speaker, once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of committees. Once again, it is not surprising that the Conservatives will undermine the work of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. They did it for 10 years under Stephen Harper. Today they have chosen a new leader, but it still remains the same party as Stephen Harper's.

    Canadians can have confidence in their institutions. We on this side will let them do their work. They are meeting. They are calling forward witnesses. Witnesses are appearing and answering those tough questions. Members from both sides are present.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. There is too much noise. I am having trouble hearing the answers. We need to hear both the questions and the answers. Members have to remember that their side will get their turn in due course. Members have to listen to each other, whether they like what they are saying or not, as my hon. friend for Cariboo—Prince George is aware.

    The hon. member for Carleton.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that if he had allowed SNC-Lavalin to face criminal conviction, the company would go out of business, because corporate criminals are banned from federal contracts. But wait; in December 2015, the government gave SNC a deal exempting it from the ban, despite criminal charges. Now the government is changing the policy to exempt SNC even if it is convicted.

     If the Prime Minister plans to allow SNC to get contracts, even after a conviction, why did he need to intervene to stop the company from going to trial in the first place?

    Mr. Speaker, our government works to ensure the highest ethical standards for government procurement and effectively addressing wrongdoing. We have developed and are implementing a stronger integrity regime that holds companies accountable. PSPC has entered into an administrative agreement with this company while criminal proceedings are under way. This agreement permits the company to contract with the government while meeting strict corporate compliance conditions, ensuring strong oversight while protecting innocent third parties, like pensioners and employees, from financial harm.

    Mr. Speaker, is that not an interesting admission? They now claim that they can sign a direct deal between the public works department and the company to protect pensioners and jobs. That was supposedly the justification for interrupting the criminal proceedings in the first place, so if they have the ability to do this without blocking the prosecution, there must be another motive for having tried to secure a deferred public prosecution agreement.

    Will the minister admit that they were just trying to protect their corporate cronies and not the jobs of the workers?

    Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the government to put in place administrative agreements with companies while criminal proceedings are under way. This administrative agreement will terminate if there is a criminal conviction. In the meantime, we cannot comment on any ongoing court cases.

    Mr. Speaker, the government is working now on changing the policy so that the company could get an administrative agreement even after conviction. In other words, it did not need to go about blocking the prosecution to achieve that goal.

    If it was not to protect the workers or the pensioners or any other innocent party, who does it leave that the government was actually protecting? Is it not clear that this company, which gave over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberal Party, is the real organization these Liberals are trying to protect?

    Mr. Speaker, it was the Conservative government that put in place the integrity regime, and our government is working to in fact enhance it. We are increasing the scope of activities that could result in debarment from contracts with the government with our enhanced integrity regime. We are looking at putting in place a stronger integrity regime that definitely will benefit Canadians and make sure that Canadians' money is spent with integrity.

    Mr. Speaker, people across the country are struggling to afford their medications and struggling to make ends meet. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal government continues to tell them that they must wait.

    Unions are in Ottawa this week to urge the government to work on creating a universal pharmacare program that is fully funded for everyone. People clearly need a single-payer universal pharmacare system that provides equal coverage to everyone.

    When will this government take action?

    Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party, we on this side of the House do our homework.

    We want to make sure that we develop a pharmacare plan that will meet the needs of all Canadians. We created the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare to do just that.

    I look forward to seeing the council's recommendations. We will receive its report later this year.

    Mr. Speaker, too many people skip the medicine they need because the prices are too high. All Canadians deserve coverage, but instead, the Liberals are cooking up a half-baked plan that leaves workers out. Do the Liberals not know that employer coverage is not what it used to be? Corporations have been rolling back benefits for working people, leaving them with not only less coverage but often with no coverage for the drugs they need.

    Canadians want a comprehensive, universal, single-payer pharmacare plan that covers everyone equally. Why are the Liberals refusing to listen?

    Mr. Speaker, with something as important as a national pharmacare program, this side of the House wants to get it done right, and that is why we are doing our homework. I am very pleased that we have put together an advisory council on the implementation of a national pharmacare program. We have six Canadian experts who are looking at this matter and having conversations with Canadians. I look forward to receiving the report later this spring to meet the needs of all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the justice committee, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions. What lawful authority did the Prime Minister have to conspire to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with bribery? What lawful authority?

    Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have the rule of law. In Canada, we have a system that works. Canadians can have confidence in that system.

    Members from both sides of the aisle sit on the justice committee. The member who asked the question is actually a member of the justice committee. He knows very well that when witnesses appear who have been asked to appear, witnesses are answering questions. We on this side have confidence in the work of the justice committee. It is really too bad that the member and his party do not.

    Mr. Speaker, instead of respecting the former attorney general and the independence of her office, the Prime Minister launched a concerted campaign to change her mind, a concerted campaign to interfere with the independence of the office of the Attorney General. What lawful authority did he have to do that?

    Mr. Speaker, the member continues to speculate rather than look at the facts. Let us look at the record so that Canadians can be reassured that they can have confidence in their institutions. The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration. Last week, the deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the PMO and the DPP. The Clerk of the Privy Council also confirmed that at every opportunity, verbally and in writing, the Prime Minister said it was a decision—

    The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons often talks about what is happening at the justice committee.

    In fact, yesterday afternoon, retired judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond testified that all public officials must be able to point to lawful authority for their actions.

    In light of this, could the Prime Minister, who refuses to appear in committee, tell us whether he attempted to stop the criminal trial of a company charged with corruption, without regard for lawful authority?

    Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, increased resources to committees to help them do their work.

    We know that the MPs who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice, who come from both sides of the aisle, are doing their work. They are asking witnesses to appear, and the witnesses are appearing and answering questions.

    The striking thing is that this member claims to have no intention of hurting the employees of SNC-Lavalin. He says so himself. However, the member for Carleton says something quite different in English. He said—

    The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

    Mr. Speaker, that line is getting old.

    One thing is for sure: The committee is ready, but the Prime Minister has refused to testify. We also know the Prime Minister and his team pressured the former attorney general to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin.

    They did not see eye to eye on that, so what did the Prime Minister do? He gave her the boot.

    Now Canadians know that their self-styled feminist, transparent government is nothing but a joke.

    Once again, by what lawful authority did the Prime Minister attempt to halt criminal proceedings against SNC-Lavalin?

     Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have confidence in our institutions and in the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The clerk confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister clearly stated that this was a decision for the justice minister to take.

    Interestingly, the member opposite himself said he did not intend to harm SNC-Lavalin employees, but in English, the member for Carleton said he wanted to shut down the company and was not afraid to say so. They need to be clear with the—

    Order. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years in this place, I thought that nothing could surprise me, but the Liberals can.

    The National Energy Board said in its report that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion does not respect indigenous rights, that it constitutes a danger to our environment and that it will affect an endangered species. However, the Liberals are going to move forward with the project anyway, on the pretext that it is in the national interest.

    Are we to understand that the Liberals believe that protecting our environment and respecting first nations is not in the national interest?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected our government because of our plan to grow the economy and protect the environment. That is exactly what we are doing with a $1.5-billion investment in our oceans protection plan. We are also following the recommendations made by the Federal Court of Appeal concerning the progress of TMX.

    If it were up to the NDP, there would be no new investments in the natural resources sector. Fortunately, it is up to Canadians, who elected a government to grow the economy and protect the environment.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a question for this genius pipeline-owning Prime Minister, the one who handed over $4.5 billion to a Texas oil company after its pipeline was thrown out of court. Now he is looking to spend another $10 billion to $15 billion of our money.

     The National Energy Board admits that this pipeline will hammer the environment, hurt indigenous relations and further wreck our climate. Governing is about making choices, and the Liberals are actually weighing the choice between protecting an orca population, repairing indigenous relations and actually fixing our carbon emissions, or building their pipeline. Which one is it going to be?

    Mr. Speaker, the court provided us with a clear path to move this project forward in the right way, and that is what we are delivering.

    The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a supporter of the LNG Canada project that will go through his riding and create 10,000 good jobs, seems to pick and choose the pipelines he supports. The members of the NDP caucus seem to think they can pick and choose which court rulings they listen to.

    We know how important this process is to Canadians. We are working each day to get it right.

    Mr. Speaker, constant snow and ice buildup on runways can sometimes present a challenge for pilots in landing safely at regional airports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Kenora riding, there are 22 airports of this kind. My constituents rely on Red Lake Municipal Airport to support our local economy and to maintain social well-being within our community. Can the minister please inform my constituents about what is being done to help local airports address their safety concerns?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kenora for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. He knows that for this government, safety is our top priority. That is why I was delighted to join him at the airport in the community of Red Lake to highlight the new de-icing equipment and the new, improved runway lighting that is going to make the airport even safer. It is important for local residents, for tourists and for the local businesses that we will always put safety in front of everything at our regional airports.

    Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the year, when the Prime Minister fired the former attorney general of Canada, she wrote a letter that spoke volumes. She wrote that it was vital to maintain a separation between the criminal justice system and politics. However, that is the exact problem at the heart of the Liberal scandal that has been rattling our country for the past three weeks.

    We know that, on September 4, the director of public prosecutions said that she would be moving forward with the case against SNC-Lavalin.

    I have a perfectly simple question. Did cabinet discuss this matter, yes or no?

    Mr. Speaker, the director of public prosecutions has confirmed that prosecutors in every case exercise their discretion independently.

    On this side of the House, the government has done its job properly and has followed all the rules and laws. We stand up for the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.

     We know that this case was extensively discussed by the Premier of Quebec and many other individuals, including MPs. The case is currently before the Ethics Commissioner and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the director of public prosecutions, there were three separate attempts to pressure the former attorney general. That pressure did not come from mere lackeys.

    First it was the Prime Minister, then his principal secretary, and finally Canada's top public servant. Those three individuals, the most powerful people in the Canadian government, put direct pressure on the former attorney general. The question is very simple, since we still have not had an answer.

    Was this matter discussed at cabinet, yes or no?

     Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council confirmed that, at every opportunity, the Prime Minister made it clear that this was a decision for the minister of justice to take.

     The director of the Public Prosecution Service confirmed that, in each and every case, prosecutors exercise their discretion independently.

    The deputy minister of justice confirmed that there was no direct communication in any specific case between the Prime Minister's Office and the DPP.

    What is clear is that the Conservatives are saying one thing in French and something else in English. They should stop doing that.

    Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberals' cover-up on this SNC-Lavalin scandal is that they are having trouble keeping their stories straight.

    The Clerk of the Privy Council testified last week that there was no discussion of the special deal for SNC-Lavalin at cabinet, but the Minister of National Revenue went on the radio and said that the SNC-Lavalin deal was discussed at cabinet.

     Only one of these people can be telling the truth. Which one of them is it?

    Mr. Speaker, once again I will reassure Canadians that they can trust their institutions. We will share, once again, what happened at the justice committee last week.

    When it was asked if it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister and officials to discuss the matter with the Attorney General, the Attorney General confirmed that those kinds of conversations would be appropriate.