Bill C-12 (Historical)

Drug-Free Prisons Act

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Parole Board of Canada (or a provincial parole board, if applicable) to cancel parole granted to an offender if, before the offender’s release, the offender tests positive in a urinalysis, or fails or refuses to provide a urine sample, and the Board considers that the criteria for granting parole are no longer met. It also amends that Act to clarify that any conditions set by a releasing authority on an offender’s parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence may include conditions regarding the offender’s use of drugs or alcohol, including in cases when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender’s criminal behaviour.

Drug-Free Prisons Act

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. I listened very carefully, in fact. It would be inaccurate to suggest otherwise.

I would like to ask him if, instead of Bill C-12, it would have been more useful to provide Correctional Service Canada with resources to measure how effective existing programs are at fighting drug use in our prisons.

It is something that was suggested, I believe, by the Correctional Investigator, something that is not sufficiently in place presently. I wonder if my colleague would care to comment.

I think that approach would have been more useful than the measures in the current bill. As my colleague mentioned in his speech, drug tests are currently in place now and are used by the system.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, a number of measures could have been taken to improve the situation in our prisons. For example, Correctional Service Canada could develop an intake assessment process to accurately measure the level of drug use by inmates, and then provide adequate programs for offenders in need. That might be a solution.

Without treatment for drug use or education and reintegration programs that will help them when they are released, offenders unfortunately risk going back to a life of crime and, ultimately, preying on new victims.

The experts floated some interesting ideas. Unfortunately, none were retained in this bill. We hope that the work done in committee will result in improvements, and amendments, to the legislation. The onus will be on the committee to do this work a little further along in the process of consideration of this bill. Our party nevertheless intends to support the bill, with the hope that it will be made better.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the resounding applause and the very warm welcome. That was very kind of them. As the cow said to the farmer every morning, “Thanks for the warm hand”.

I want to speak to Bill C-12, and I want to talk about this in the context brought up earlier by my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and talk about drugs in prisons.

The structure of the drug-free prisons act dictates that this is, as the expression goes, on target but wide of the mark. It is on target in the sense that it could potentially clean up a situation we have when it comes to people getting out of the system. However, when it comes to freeing the prisons of drugs, it is wide of the mark.

I believe that in this case, and on this particular bill, it is a little too narrow in scope to deal with a much broader issue, which is drugs in prisons, and not just federal prisons but provincial ones as well. The proliferation of drugs in prisons still exists, as studies have shown.

This particular bill, as I mentioned, is fairly narrow. I want to speak to the contents of the bill, but first I want to say that with a title such as this, it is a little disappointing that we did not have broader consultation and the broader discussion that would have followed if we had started talking about elicit drugs penetrating our prison system across this country, in particular in the federal prisons.

The summary of Bill C-12 states:

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Parole Board of Canada (or a provincial parole board, if applicable) to cancel parole granted to an offender if, before the offender’s release, the offender tests positive in a urinalysis, or fails or refuses to provide a urine sample, and the Board considers that the criteria for granting parole are no longer met. It also amends that Act to clarify that any conditions set by a releasing authority on an offender’s parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence may include conditions regarding the offender’s use of drugs or alcohol, including in cases when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender’s criminal behaviour. It is about transitioning from within prison to outside and checking to see if that person is abusing particular drugs when in the system.

The title of the bill, as I mentioned earlier, is the unfortunate part, because we could have had the opportunity to partake in a much broader discussion to hopefully achieve some grander solutions brought forward by people who have been involved in the prison system: former prisoners, counsellors, therapists, prison guards of course, wardens, and officials with Correctional Service Canada. The title of the bill focuses very prescriptively on one part and one area, which I will talk about through the clauses in just a few moments.

In his 2011-12 annual report, the Correctional Investigator made the following observation with respect to the prevalence of drugs within our federal prisons. Here is what he had to say:

A "zerotolerance" stance to drugs in prison, while perhaps serving as an effective deterrent posted at the entry point of a penitentiary, simply does not accord with the facts of crime and addiction in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

Bill C-12 targets individual offenders by imposing requirements for the provision of urinalysis tests subsequent to having obtained parole, statutory release, or unescorted temporary absences. The legislation does not make any reference to or address the problem of offenders with drug and alcohol addiction problems or in any manner address the access to and prevalence of drugs within the federal institutions, which I mentioned earlier.

Currently under the act, where staff or authorities have grounds to suspect a violation by an offender with respect to drug use on parole, work release, temporary absence, or statutory release, they can order a urinalysis test. These tests are conducted to ensure that the conditions upon which release was granted are respected and adhered to.

Within institutions such tests can be ordered on a random and collective basis, unless individuals are, again, suspected on reasonable grounds of the use of illegal substances.

Bill C-12 does little to contribute to what the Office of the Correctional Investigator called for in his most recent annual report. He said, “I note that a comprehensive and integrated drug strategy should include a balance of measures—prevention, treatment, harm reduction and interdiction.”

There we find the crux of the issue, the harm reduction that we talked about in the last debate regarding injection sites. We go back to this aspect again because harm reduction is a policy that we should adhere to simply for that reason: the health of individuals who find themselves addicted to drugs and who in many cases are unable to find the help to wean themselves from a particular abuse.

The prison system does not address this issue through legislation. It addresses it through several reports, but it turns out that we are not addressing it correctly through legislation, which is the outcome we would like to achieve.

Bill C-12 has taken an exclusively punitive course of action, targeting individuals and offenders who have been granted parole and those who have been granted statutory release or unescorted temporary absences. They are transitioning out from the prison. The tests take place, and if the results are positive, then of course we have an issue.

The requirement is that prior to release, the offender who has been approved for release, in the case of parole, must provide that urine sample. There is nothing in the legislation related to what appears to be the wider systemic problem. We have problems across many provinces in many of these prisons, as demonstrated by some of the examples cited earlier by my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl regarding the prison in St. John's.

Bill C-12 is a measure that at best can be said to address the symptoms of a serious correctional service problem without contributing anything of substance to resolving that problem, the overall problem that I talked about. We may be in agreement as to the specific transition of a person who has been released from prison, let us say in the case of parole. The testing involved in that is certainly worth discussing, which is why I personally would favour sending this bill to committee to find out about that. However, to call this part of a larger discussion about drugs in prison is really deceiving, because we are not addressing how to clean up prisons and get people off drugs through measures such as treatment or harm reduction in addition to these greater policing efforts.

The legislation will target those who have been granted parole or statutory release. According to the 2011-12 annual report, the Correctional Investigator says that almost two-thirds of the current prison population of approximately 15,000 federal offenders, meaning an estimated 10,000 offenders, were under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants when they committed the offence that led to their incarceration. That is from the very beginning of committing the crime, so we can see that for many of these offenders, the base of the problem started before entering prison.

What is more disturbing is that a very high percentage of the offender population that abuses drugs is also concurrently struggling with mental illness. That is another factor for people seeking treatment that we have to address within our prison system. Again I return to the term “harm reduction”, a term that we pay less attention to these days. Again I refer to the model of harm reduction from 2003, the safe injection site in Vancouver that was mentioned in a prior debate.

The issue of drug prevalence and use within federal institutions is a complex problem. The Correctional Investigator has acknowledged that “the problem of intoxicants and contraband substances in prison is difficult to measure and monitor.” That too deserves a conversation. It deserves debate and witness testimony. Probably only the tangents and margins would be addressed in witness testimony, but this aspect really requires a broader conversation. Unfortunately, the bill is far too restrictive and prescriptive in what it wants to do.

In August 2008, the Minister of Public Safety announced a five-year, $120-million investment in Correctional Service Canada's anti-drug strategy. The investment contained the following four components: expansion of drug-detector dog teams, hiring of new security intelligence officers, new detection equipment, and more stringent search standards. The results of these measures, according to the Correctional Investigator, appear mixed and somewhat distorted.

For example, while there has been an increase in the amount of drugs seized, the scope of the problem is difficult to determine. With respect to the results of the random urine tests administered, there has been, on the basis of these results, a decline within institutions. However, it goes on to say that:

after correcting for the removal of prescription drugs, the rate of positive random urinalysis has remained relatively unchanged over the past decade despite increased interdiction efforts.

Don Head, Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, confirmed this conclusion in testimony before the public safety committee in December 1, 2011.

Correctional Service Canada's current anti-drug strategy, according to the Correctional Investigator, lacks three key elements.

First is an integrated link between interdiction and prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Second is a comprehensive public reporting mechanism. Third is a well-defined evaluation, review, and performance plan to measure the effectiveness of these investments to be made, ways to curtail to drug use within prisons. Technology plays a large role in that, but what needs to play a much larger role, of course, would be the aspect of prevention, treatment, and harm reduction.

What might have been of value prior to Bill C-12 is that these elements would have been addressed by CSC to determine the efficacy of the programs currently in place and on which Bill C-12 is trying to build. Again, it only builds on a very small part of some of the recommendations that were put forward in many reports.

Given the reality of the prison population with respect to a history of substance abuse prior to entering correction facilities, the scale of which is massive, according to the Commissioner of Corrections, and given the fact that the CSC's substance abuse programming has been declining, the reality is that many of those eligible for parole, temporary release, or statutory release may well be ill-equipped to achieve a substance-free test result, the result being little or no treatment and a definite longer period of incarceration.

Without treatment and harm reduction, this could present a problem when it comes to the administration of Bill C-12 and what Bill C-12 hopes to do. This is something to discuss in committee, and I certainly look forward to that.

With respect to the provisions of the bill, and these are the specific provisions of the bill, let us take a look at clause 2. It is a new provision, restriction requiring the provision of a urinalysis, which would be imposed prior to release but after an offender has been granted parole.

Even though the PBC has satisfied itself that an offender meets all the criteria it has imposed and required, the offender would have to meet an additional requirement outside the normal parole process.

Also, the stipulation would affect all those seeking parole regardless of any cause. No offender being granted parole need be informed of any justification, nor can any offender granted parole refuse.

It appears cynical, true, but by imposing this requirement after parole has been granted, the government appears to have changed sections 56 and 57 of the act, which require officials to provide to the offender the basis upon which that demand for a test is based.

Interestingly, less than 23% of full paroles sought are granted. Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview 2012 cites that as a statistic. Again, that is 23% of full paroles sought are granted.

Clause 3 would amend section 124. It is a new paragraph after 124(3). If the PBC is informed on matters contained in Clause 2 with respect to a positive urine test or refusal of the offender to provide a urine sample, the board is empowered to refuse to grant parole on that basis.

Not only is it the positive test, but it is also the right to refuse that test.

Clause 4 would amend subsection 133(3) of the act, which currently states:

The releasing authority may impose any conditions on the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender.

The subsection would be amended to the following:

The releasing authority may impose any conditions on the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the offender’s successful reintegration into society. For greater certainty, the conditions may include any condition regarding the offender’s use of drugs or alcohol, including in cases when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender’s criminal behaviour.

It would appear on a literal reading that the addition contained in clause 4 is redundant to the existing section. It would add rhetorical flourish to the powers already granted to releasing authorities to any condition deemed necessary. There seems to be redundancy here in this bill, which is one of the other things that we need to discuss.

We have seen this on many occasions in bills in the past, where the government is out there and in an attempt to look and act tough on crime, it puts forward penalty measures from the authorities in legislation that really already existed. It is trying to impose what is seemingly a new way of getting tough on crime but, in fact, already existed in many cases.

Clause 5 would amend subsection 156(1) of the act by adding to the existing section, mandating that the Governor in Council or cabinet make regulations applicable to this part requiring regulations, including:

...defining terms that are to be defined in the regulations for the purposes of this Part...

Let us talk about the key stakeholders. The Office of the Correctional Investigator has been highly skeptical about this kind of initiative, which would rest on punitive initiatives without setting those efforts within the context of increased treatment efforts.

If there is one thing that I would like to bring up in this debate, and I know that it has been brought up before, it is the issue of treatment and harm reduction within an environment where the proliferation of drugs is rampant. Yes, we agree that there should be technical measures and technological aspects of looking at prisons and guarding them so that the entrance of drugs into these institutions is cut down. There is no doubt about that.

However, let us be honest with ourselves. There is a reason why they are going in. That is because of the addictions of the inmates. People who are addicted are in there for the wrong reasons. They are in there for committing crimes, and they continue to commit crimes in this case. At the same time, every element of crime requires a treatment and requires harm reduction when necessary in order to curb that type of behaviour in the future.

This is not a way of saying, in many cases, that we want to go easy on criminals. We do not want that. However, if we want to solve the problem of the crime itself, we have to address the whole issue and not just a part of it. If we want to pretend to be tough on crime and only that, then we are missing the point. The point is that people who are victims of crime do need treatment and justice. The people who commit these crimes do need to be punished but, at the same time, treatment must be available to curb this behaviour in the future.

All modern democracies, and any democracy that puts itself centre stage of the right things to do in justice and justice legislation, will tell us that it must go hand in hand with treatment and harm reduction. What this bill would not do is address that in a more holistic way. That is what I would call, as other people have called it, an opportunity missed.

At the same time, for the merits of this particular bill and the transition from a prisoner to outside through, for example, paroles or temporary absences, we should address testing them for drugs upon release.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my Liberal colleague's remarks.

We all know full well that this bill has a misleading title, and that it will do nothing, in reality, to truly eradicate drugs from our federal prisons. Moreover, Correctional Service Canada said that this was a pipe dream, and that what the Conservatives are seeking to do is unrealistic. I know that when the Liberals were in power, not much was achieved either.

Now, I would like to ask my colleague a sincere question, since we in the NDP believe in a correctional system that provides effective rehabilitation programs, continuing education and drug treatment programs, as well as support for programs that promote the reintegration of inmates and ultimately help make our communities safer.

Does my colleague agree with the NDP's point of view when it comes to public safety, reducing recidivism rates and preventing new crimes from being committed?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, not just the hon. member's party, but I think many parties in this country would agree. I would not single out any party, but the ideology is such that we have to have both coming together, there is no doubt, but I think what we are doing here is living up to a standard that has been set in many jurisdictions.

As a matter of fact, in her question she talked about the treatment facilities and how we need to do this and need to go hand in hand with all these institutions. Of several jurisdictions in the United States that pursued tougher penalties, many of them would now agree that tougher penalties were one thing, but because they put less importance on the treatment, it did not serve in their favour.

Many of the most right-wing ideologues even agree with that as well. I do not mean that as a disparaging remark against my colleagues across the way; I meant other right-wing ideologues.

The point is that the evidence is clearly there among all the practitioners. People who deal with prisoners on a daily basis and deal with drug addictions agree on what she pointed out about the treatment that needs to take place, not only on the outside but on the inside of these institutions and before they even get to prisons, because they are a high number. There are 15,000 inmates, and 10,000 of them, according to a report here, may have been exposed to that type of drug use.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his enlightening remarks.

We have learned over the last number of years that the government likes to characterize anyone who does not agree with its crime legislation as being soft on crime while it is tough on crime.

We have learned from our American friends and our British friends that in fact the dichotomy is not tough or soft on crime; it is smart or dumb on crime. Right now the Conservatives are being dumb on crime. The remarks and the suggestions by the opposition and the third party Liberals are being smart on crime.

I am wondering if my friend might talk to us a bit about why they are being dumb, in this legislation, as opposed to being smart, having had the opportunity to be so.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am always reticent to diminish the intellectual capacity of others but, nonetheless, this gives me a golden opportunity do just that.

What the Conservatives are doing, in the case of much of the legislation they put forward, is, instead of chasing the solution, they are chasing a headline. Whenever it comes to legislation, instead of starting a conversation, the sole attempt is to start an argument. That is unfortunate because they see the end in sight without testing the way to get there, in other words, to find the people who are experts.

That is another component I did not mention enough in my speech. I am glad the member for Guelph was smart enough to realize I needed to make that point.

The point is that the evidence is there and the government chooses to ignore it because there is so much evidence compiled that is not contained within legislation. Time and time again, evidence-based solutions within legislation have suffered greatly over the past little while.

There is nothing wrong with reading the data that is put in front of us. There is nothing wrong with interpreting it. We pay millions of dollars for people to interpret the data that we receive in order to make this into decent legislation, yet the government chooses not to do that in many cases.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Her Majesty's Penitentiary, the provincial prison in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador does not have a federal prison. It has a provincial medium security prison. It is 165 years old. It needs to be replaced. There are problems when it comes to drug abuse, riots and mental illness. The rehabilitation that is needed at Her Majesty's Penitentiary is not happening.

What will this so-called drug-free prisons act, although it will not make prisons drug free, do to alleviate problems at prisons such as Her Majesty's Penitentiary and federal prisons across the country?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we could probably spend a whole day discussing the problems with that penitentiary, a provincial one, lacking a federal one in Newfoundland and Labrador, which in itself is a contentious issue that I will not get into it.

We missed that golden opportunity to talk about how this would be dealt with over the next little while. We find ourselves in a situation where we have had a fairly good debate here. We have talked about how the statistics show a proliferation of drugs in the prison system across the country and how we can curtail that.

I only cited one report, which was the correctional report. It states that the idea of treatment has been sorely overlooked, to the point where we all need to get on board. This is just in this legislature. Imagine the evidence that could be brought forward if we had public hearings based upon the amount of drugs in the system and profiled the people currently in prison who are addicted.

It is one thing to talk about the entrance of illicit drugs into the system but, again, they are there because the demand remains fairly high.

We can punish them and give them an extra add-on to their sentence, but that will not stop this. What will stop this is the right treatment, which is happening in jurisdictions such as in the southern United States.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say a moment ago regarding the InSite project.

When reading Bill C-12—which seeks to address the drug problem in our prisons—I cannot help but compare it to Bill C-2, which was the subject of discussion just a few short hours ago.

I would like to ask my honourable colleague from the third party what he thinks about the war that the Conservatives are currently waging against all things drug-related. Does he think that their approach is working, or that they are way off track at this point?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleagues for the sudden interest in what I was talking about. It is very kind of them.

I want to talk about the member's question, which pertains to the war on drugs. There is a way to do it and a dumb way to do it, which is to ignore the treatment part of it and just go after the traffickers and the people who buy the drugs. Yes, the penalties have to be stiff to act as a deterrent, and there is nothing wrong with that, but the treatment part of it is completely ignored.

The member brought up Bill C-2 earlier. Evidence proves that what happens at an injection site actually works. It is improving the situation. It is not perfect, but it certainly is working. With the reduction of 35% in drug abuse in that area, it shows that treatment for harm reduction has positive effects. Yet, it seems we overlook this because we want to go after that headline to be tough on crime, which is unfortunate.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am very appreciative of the fact that we are discussing Bill C-12 today. I appreciate how enthusiastic the members are about my speech, at 11:45 p.m.

To begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I am sure that his speech will be excellent.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. From now on the speeches will be 10 minutes, and the question and comment period will be five minutes.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges will understand and that he will be able to give his excellent speech after mine, whenever he sees fit.

It is truly an honour for me, as the official opposition's deputy public safety critic, to speak to Bill C-12, and there are many reasons for that.

To begin, I would like to mention that members on this side of the House will be supporting Bill C-12 at second reading. I think it will be interesting to see what happens in committee. I am looking forward to inviting various witnesses to come and discuss the different provisions included in Bill C-12.

We can summarize this bill quite easily. It is designed to add a provision to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act confirming that, when deciding whether someone is eligible for parole, the parole board may take into account the fact that the offender tested positive in a urinalysis or refused to provide a urine sample for a drug test. The parole board already uses this practice, which we support.

The board already takes into account the results of drug screening tests when it holds hearings and determines the inmates' eligibility for parole. That is why I think a title like “drug-free prisons act” is a little too much. Indeed, nothing in Bill C-12 will make prisons drug-free because the provisions for that are simply not there.

Correctional Service Canada has serious problems. In my riding, Alfred-Pellan, there were until very recently three federal correctional facilities on the property of Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. There was Leclerc Institution—which was closed as a result of what I thought was a very unfair decision by the Conservative government—and we still have Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre.

Since my election, I often visit the correctional facilities in my riding in order to understand the reality of the correctional system, as well as what the staff has to go through every day in that system. I can tell you that their work is not easy.

I invite my colleagues in the House to visit the federal correctional facilities in or near their ridings to see and understand the reality of our correctional workers.

Right now, there is a lot going on. They are very worried about the decisions made by the Conservatives regarding the correctional system. I will mention a few. First, double-bunking in our prisons is a glaring problem. It is difficult for correctional officers to do their job properly. Many do not have the means to their job properly. It is harder for them to ensure activities within our institutions are properly carried, and this is very unfortunate. Their health and safety are compromised because of these decisions. We see more and more double-bunking, and even triple-bunking, which is very unfortunate. Correctional staff also condemns this situation.

They also condemn another measure that goes directly against Bill C-12, namely the cuts to Correctional Service Canada. Over the past two years, the budget has been reduced by 10%. This affects many programs within Correctional Service Canada. That is also being condemned by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, because the officers see the inmates' reality daily in these facilities. They see the deteriorating quality of life, and they see that these individuals will be reintegrated into society without having the necessary tools to avoid reoffending. This shows the importance of our programs.

Many programs deal with the detoxification of inmates. Let us not forget that two thirds of people who commit a crime are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is estimated that four out of five inmates in our prisons have substance abuse problems. This is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed.

I heard Conservative members ask questions about the $122 million investment in technology to detect drugs inside our prisons.

Unfortunately, this investment did not work. It is very sad. It is also sad to see the other side tell us there should be zero drugs in our prisons. In a perfect world, it would be great if we did not have any drugs in prisons, and if everyone was clean.

However, it is impossible and I am not the only saying that. Correctional officer Howard Sapers, also says it. So does the John Howard Society. Moreover, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which works really hard, also tells us it is impossible and we must implement measures to tackle this issue.

I reiterate my support to the hard-working personnel in prisons. We on this side can say that we support them every day in their work. Like them, we want to propose real solutions, so that inmates do not return to society without having had access to rehabilitation and anti-drug programs.

In our prisons, addiction is also related to mental health, unfortunately. It is sad to say, but we have to face reality. The government has not only made cuts to addictions programs, but also to programs that address mental health problems. Both are closely linked. We must pay attention to that. In recent months, the case of Ashley Smith has resurfaced and shown that people working in our prisons are not equipped to deal with serious problems such as mental health problems.

I hope we can have a productive discussion in committee about the best solution for dealing with addiction problems full force. My colleague from Sherbrooke mentioned this in his speech when we began talking about this. It is a question of doing intake assessments, as correctional investigator Howard Sapers is calling for, and ensuring that inmates have access to all the necessary programs for overcoming their drug or alcohol problems.

Keeping our communities safe is important to all members in the House, as is reducing recidivism rates as much as possible and giving people the tools they need to reintegrate into society. Let us not bury our heads in the sand and suggest that we can round all these people up somewhere, lock the door and throw away the key. They will eventually be released. If we want them to become good citizens and if we want fewer victims in Canada, we must give people the right tools.

The numbers back me up. When people have the tools they need and reintegration works, recidivism rates drop. We need to ensure that rehabilitation is done properly, and we need to come up with some real solutions. We are sick and tired of hearing that mandatory minimums will miraculously turn everything around. Mandatory minimum sentences have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In closing, I would like to say that we intend to support the bill. I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss it further and make some real changes to it to tackle the issue of drug use in our prisons. I would be happy to keep discussing the issue if anyone has any questions.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question about something that is of interest to me.

It is odd because there is a provincial prison in my riding and it is the Orsainville prison that is in the news these days. When I was a young girl, my parents and our neighbours called it “the sieve”. Unfortunately, not much has changed.

We know that a lot of drug traffickers are sent to prison. They end up in prison. When it comes to drugs, there is no prison system that almost totally prevents contact with the outside world. A lot of drugs find their way into prison.

Can my colleague talk more about the fact that the Conservatives are increasing prison time, depriving individuals of their rights and increasing minimum sentences when we know that this does not address any of the problems?