This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Steven Blaney Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House resumed from consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The hon. member for Winnipeg North had sixteen and a half minutes remaining for his remarks, and of course he will have the usual ten minutes for questions and comments.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to address issues inside the House of Commons, and it is a privilege to do so.
In the legislation we have before us today, I started by talking about the name of the bill and the impression it is attempting to leave with people. I find it difficult to accept it at face value. What is the real motive behind the government bringing forward this legislation?
I represent a wonderful riding, as all MPs no doubt proclaim they do. However, there are many different challenges that our country faces as a nation. One of the greatest challenges we have is related to the issue of addictions. Addictions are very serious. Because we are not aggressively pursuing ways we could deal with that issue in a very proactive way, I believe we are doing a disservice.
Given the very nature and the seriousness of addictions, I believe there is a need for strong federal national leadership to work with the different stakeholders, in particular the provinces, to come up with some solutions to those problems. I do not believe there is anything within this legislation that would do that. It is not addressing the problem of addictions.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, the Liberal Party critic for health care. She is exceptionally knowledgeable about the issue of addictions. I have had the opportunity to listen to her on numerous occasions as she has described the issues surrounding addiction.
I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as she is on this addictions file. I want to bring it to the table from a constituency level, from the average person who is working and quite often has a difficult time managing, the middle class. We have not talked enough about the impact that policies and discussions have on our middle class and whether we can do more. I believe we can and we should be doing more.
Bill C-12 is all about addictions and what we are doing for a prisoner who is released from a penitentiary and returning to a public environment. The legislation talks about instituting some requirements, testing to find out whether there is substance abuse prior to release. There will be a lot of debate about that. Whether it is a justice critic or a health critic, both of them will contribute to that aspect of the debate at great length.
My frustration is that I do not believe we are doing enough outside of our prisons to deal with this issue. I would challenge the government on that. It needs to take a more holistic approach to dealing with abuse of drugs and the negative consequences.
Our prisons have literally thousands of people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol prior to their entering those institutions. Many would argue that it might even be the cause of them being in those institutions. That is just a small percentage of what is in our communities.
From what I can tell when I look at the legislation, it would do nothing to deal with the issue of addiction. That is what is so disappointing. If the Conservatives are serious, they should develop the necessary programs so that when people are leaving our federal or provincial detention institutions they go into an environment that is going to assist them in staying away from these addictive drugs. I see the consequences and the impact it has on our communities far too often.
We were talking earlier about other legislation regarding safe injection sites. Here is a good example of where government says there is a problem and it is going to attempt to deal with the problem. It is that approach that the Conservatives need to start considering in terms of resolving many different issues that face our society, whether it is in prison or outside of prison.
What has happened in terms of the injection site is to first identify the problem. In prisons, there is a great deal of alcohol and drug abuse. We know that. It is a high percentage. I will go through some of the numbers shortly, but well above 50% of the prison population experience some form of abuse of alcohol, drugs or other chemicals. That abuse does not necessarily originate from within the prison walls. It comes, in most cases I would suggest, from the communities prior to the inmate entering prison. What are we doing in regards to that?
Let us use the example of another piece of legislation. Remember the injection site? Canada has one injection site. That is not something that was thought of out of the blue, to establish it and put it up in Vancouver. That was not the case. There were numerous individuals who recognized that Vancouver had serious issues surrounding addiction and that if they could have a safe injection site they would be able to assist in preventing crimes, assist addicted individuals, and ultimately make a safer community for people to live.
I was very sympathetic to that. I would rather see the paraphernalia that comes with some of these heroin injections in a controlled environment, as opposed to inner city back lanes or schoolyards. It is not just inner city; it even happens in the suburbs. I have seen what I believe were exchanges of drugs in parking lots, which I have been told by constituents to watch out for. There is proper notification that it is prevalent, and not just in the inner cities.
The damage that is caused is horrendous, not only to the individuals who are using the drugs, but also to the environment in which they are injecting these chemicals into their systems. That is not to even mention what might be happening in order for them to acquire the drug itself.
We have these stakeholders who identify an issue and then they work on the problem with the different levels of government, including Ottawa, the Province, the city and different stakeholders. I am suggesting that we need to use that mentality of co-operation in working with the stakeholders, including the provinces, to try to deal with problems.
I would point out that this was a specific problem outside the prison system and we saw a solution. We had great co-operation, and something was put into place as a direct result. In speaking with the critic for health, she took great pride in this. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and others, as I said the provincial and municipal leaders and many different stakeholders, turned it into a reality. They addressed the problem.
I would suggest that is what we should be doing in dealing with our prisons. We need to identify what the problem truly is. We already have a good sense of that. There have been many reports and many debates.
I do not think anything I am saying this afternoon is earth-shattering. A lot of it is common sense. The people I represent apply common sense to a lot of the issues we have. We might need to start talking a lot more in terms of common sense inside the House of Commons.
We need to start recognizing that there are some simple things, along with some fairly complicated things, that need to happen within our prison systems. It is not just that someone has been found guilty and that because the person has some sort of addiction issue by putting him or her in jail the issue disappears.
If we believe that is the case, we should start talking to some of the correctional officers. These are people on the front line who have not broken any laws. They are protecting our communities and providing a service to all Canadians, even people within the institutions. If we took the time to talk to the correctional officers, they would acknowledge up front that there are serious issues in dealing with drugs and alcohol within our prison system.
I started my comments before question period on this issue about the title of the bill. It makes me wonder why the government has chosen to bring forward the legislation. It is Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It sounds like a reasonable name for a bill. Of course, the Conservatives brand their legislation. I call it the stamp of approval from the PMO.
The stamp of approval on this piece of legislation is the drug-free prisons act. It builds up this huge expectation and causes a great deal of concern in terms of how the government might attempt to do this.
We probably have stakeholders from around the world who would say it is not possible to make a prison completely drug-free or alcohol-free. It would be interesting to hear witnesses who come before committee provide their input as to why they think that might be possible. We do not think it is.
I believe what we want is a government that is proactive or aggressive at dealing with the issues of addiction within our prisons. That is really what we want. I am all for protecting potential future victims from crime. Trust me, I would debate that issue any day with anyone, outside or inside the House. However, I am also interested in debating the issue of substance with regard to drug and alcohol addictions.
If we can come up with programs that are solid and sound and that we can deliver within our prison system, I tell the House that we will have less crime on the streets of our cities and municipalities of all sizes. The challenge is to come up with the right types of programs to make a difference. It might not get us the headlines we want, but it will have a real, tangible impact in terms of decreasing crime in our communities.
That is what I am interested in. That is what the Liberal Party of Canada wants. We want fewer victims, and the best way to achieve that goal is by ensuring that we have programs that will have an impact.
Where, in Bill C-12, is there any movement toward a program that is going to deal with that issue? That is not something we see in the government's legislation. One would ultimately ask, why not? However, the direction the government is taking is moving us away from that.
Again, I will emphasize that I sympathize with and I will fight for victims of crime, but I am also going to fight to prevent victims. With good, strong, healthy programs, we can make a difference. This is something on which the Government of Canada needs to be challenged to start producing, because it has fallen short in providing substantial programs that will make a difference in the communities we live in and represent and make them safer places to be. That is the challenge.
We have the name of the bill. We will see what happens when it goes to committee. I look forward to getting feedback from our health critic and our public safety critic. I look forward to what ultimately happens with the bill.
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Speaker, I certainly heard the hon. member's comments, as I have heard many thousands of words of comments in the House over this last while, and I do appreciate his concern and his apparent knowledge on almost everything. However, he mentioned a keyword that I find a little bit disturbing in that I happen to have a great deal of regard for it, and I would hope that he would too. That keyword is common sense.
He said that we must use common sense. Where is the common sense in supplying needles to addicts in a penal institution? Where is the common sense in going to an aboriginal elementary school and promoting the legalization of a controlled substance that is clearly illegal?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, one of the privileges that I have had is the opportunity to serve for about 20 years in the Manitoba legislature. I was afforded the opportunity to play many different roles, such as justice critic, education critic, and health critic over the years, so I have had the privilege to get a fairly good understanding of the types of policies and issues that affect people on the streets in our communities.
I believe that when I get the opportunity to share that experience with members, it is important that I do so, especially by emphasizing the extent to which Liberals recognize the importance of having proactive, strong, healthy policy. I am talking about policy based on facts and science as opposed to policy based on ideology, which is the only kind of policy the Conservatives tend to develop.
We can use marijuana as an example. We recognize that millions of dollars go to gangs as a direct result of marijuana. If we want to try to fight gang activities, there are other ways that we can look at it. The Conservative government has absolutely failed. The number of people participating in gangs has skyrocketed, and the number continues to grow.
The leader of the Liberal Party comes out with an announcement that is going to take tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions, out of the pockets of these gangs, but the Conservatives want to support these gangs receiving this illegal money. We are not talking about a few dollars. We are serious about fighting gangs in Canada because they are wreaking havoc in every region of our country.
The key is opening the mind to good, solid policy ideas that are going to make a difference. It could even be Conservatives. We have a Progressive Conservative who—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, let us look at drug related problems. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend they do not exist. British Columbia has clinics where people can go to get their drugs.
It seems as though it is a crime to do that. At least, that is what the Conservative government seems to think.
Does my colleague agree that if we acknowledge the problem, two things could happen? First, we would stop the spread of disease. Second, we could work with these people to help them deal with their problems. That is a possibility.
If we stick our heads in the sand in order to avoid the problem, it will persist. Instead, we must help these people.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful to see us as a House do a study on the safe injection site and what has happened in Vancouver. If we conducted something of that nature, I believe we would get a really good understanding of many of the consequences and have good, solid policy ideas moving forward.
I want to conclude my remarks by referring back to the whole marijuana issue. That is because I read the story in regard to the Conservative member of Parliament who went to a school and said that he supports legalizing marijuana.
I realize that is a bit outside of the PMO bubble, so he is now probably going to be punished as result of making that statement. However, at the end of the day, I suspect that if we canvassed the Conservative members and they were allowed to be outside the PMO bubble, we would find that there are legitimate arguments for it, such as taking millions and millions of dollars away from gangs and using that money to minimize the addiction issues that Canada faces today.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's sensitivity on the issue of marijuana, but I would like to get back to the question at hand.
As my colleagues have indicated, we will be supporting the bill moving on to second reading, but we are concerned that this will do very little to actually deal with the problem of drugs in the prison system. In fact, as I think others have said, it shows a lack of action and commitment not unlike what we saw from the Liberal government when it was in power.
There is so much to do and it is so important that we focus our attention. We have talked a lot about the public safety approach that will actually reduce recidivism rates and prevent more victims, and we have talked about other measures that will get to the problem and begin to put some solutions down.
As the member wraps up his time in this debate, would he indicate what kept the Liberals, when they were in government, from moving forward and taking action on this issue, as was the case with so many other issues?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with the member. After all, this injection site has been highly acclaimed. Even members of his own caucus have recognized that what is happening in Vancouver at InSite shows that it is an excellent program.
That program is a Liberal initiative. When the member says that the Liberal Party did not do anything, all he has to do is talk to the members who have been talking so wonderfully positively, and rightly so, about the InSite program.
Is there a need for more? Absolutely. I would love to see a high number of competing ideas brought forward to the House of Commons. I think we need to do a whole lot more. The Liberal Party critic on health care said to me, “Kevin, we should have this bill going before the health committee, not the public safety committee.”
There is a lot of merit in that idea. Why, indeed, is it going to the public safety committee, as opposed to the health committee? The issue of addiction is huge. Maybe we need to have some of those stakeholders from Vancouver come and make a presentation and talk about the success stories of that initiative that Mr. Chrétien and others were involved in a number of years ago.
Let us get a competition of ideas to deal with the issue of addiction. If we do that and we are successful, I would argue that not only will we be saving lives but we will be making the communities we live in safer and better places to be.
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Speaker, today I am going to be sharing my time with the hon. member, a very capable member, I might add, for Medicine Hat.
I rise today as a former police officer and as a person with five institutions in my proximity: Millhaven, the former Kingston Penitentiary, Joyceville, Warkworth, and Pittsburgh. Today I rise with some personal knowledge about the very challenging issue of drugs in federal prisons.
Our government has worked diligently to establish Canada as a country where those who break the law are held accountable for their actions and where the rights of victims are respected. This ensures that we have a strong correctional system that actually rehabilitates prisoners. To this end, we have taken strong action to tackle the problem of drugs in prison, which is, obviously, a significant roadblock to correcting the behaviour of prisoners and to the safety, of course, of correctional officers.
The reality is that prisoners should not have access to illegal drugs or substances while serving their sentences. While the NDP seems to disagree, unfortunately, and would have us provide needles to prisoners, Canadians agree that drugs have absolutely no place behind bars.
The Correctional Service of Canada has a wide range of interdiction measures in place to search out, seize, and detect drugs in institutions, and it has had some successes. However, we can certainly always improve, and that is why our government is drawing a firm line with this bill.
Almost 1,500 drug seizures take place in prisons each year, and more than 1,700 institutional sanctions have been imposed on prisoners for positive drug tests or a refusal to take drug tests. These numbers underscore the drug problem in prisons. It cannot be underestimated. Not only does the sale and use of drugs in prisons adversely affect our chance of correcting criminal behaviour, it certainly poses a threat to the safety of the staff. That is why our government, in its 2011 election platform, made a strong commitment to do even more about this problem.
We set the bar very high when we made three key promises. Number one was that every federal inmate would undergo drug testing once yearly. Is that too much to ask? Number two was that prisoners in possession of illegal substances would face additional and appropriate charges. Is that too much to ask? Number three was that parole applicants who failed these drug tests would be denied parole. They should not be rewarded for illicit, illegal actions.
We have moved forward with these measures to help us achieve these ambitious goals. We have made much progress, particularly with respect to addressing the first two promises.
We have invested heavily in broader interdiction measures. In 2008, we provided $122 million over five years for interdiction efforts, efforts that included drug detector dogs, security intelligence capacity, and perimeter security. Obviously, institutions are less safe and secure when there are drugs and other contraband, so this has turned out to be a very smart investment.
More recently, we complemented this investment with important changes under the Safe Streets and Communities Act that enshrined in law the role of the prisoners' correctional plans. The Safe Streets and Communities Act also introduced two-year mandatory minimum penalties for trafficking drugs in prisons or on prison grounds.
The CSC has recently brought in a number of vital institutional measures that are under way at present. It has increased random monthly urinalysis testing of prisoners. That is amazing. That is one of our most effective detection measures, by the way, and it has increased from 5% to 10%.
CSC is improving data collection on drug use in prisons. It is preparing regulatory amendments to increase fines for inmates possessing or using illicit drugs, with further increases for repeat prisoners. It has also introduced mandatory reporting of all serious incidents of drug possession to the appropriate law enforcement agencies in those jurisdictions.
In an effort to augment CSC's interdiction efforts, Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, proposes an important legislative change, another step in our improvement, one that will allow us to fulfill the third of our 2011 platform commitments, which is to deny parole to those prisoners who fail drug tests.We want to provide members of the Parole Board of Canada with additional legislative tools to deny prisoners parole in cases involving failed or refused urinalysis tests. Two changes are required to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in this regard.
The first is an amendment to add specific authority to cancel parole based on failed or refused urinalysis tests. This means that between the time a prisoner has been granted parole and is released, the CSC would be required to get information on urinalysis to the Parole Board. The Parole Board would then have an opportunity to change or modify its decision and to change or cancel the parole should the new information alter its assessment of the prisoner's risk to the community.
The second is an amendment to include specific authority for the board to impose a special condition requiring the prisoner to abstain from drugs and alcohol. This would apply to prisoners for whom substance abuse had been long identified as the leading factor in that prisoner's criminal behaviour. This would focus the board's attention on this factor, and when the condition was applied, it would create an opportunity for parole to be revoked if the condition was violated.
By striving toward a drug-free environment, we hope to create a number of beneficial outcomes that contribute to successful rehabilitation, that ensure the safety and security of Canadian institutions and communities, and that further support our commitment to hold prisoners accountable for their actions.
We are taking the necessary steps to equip the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada with the tools they need to tackle drug use in our prisons. We are proud of the substantial progress we have made in respect of our 2011 commitments. We are confident that the drug-free prisons act would take us another step even further down the road in addressing this significant societal problem.
While members of the other parties have pushed for relaxed laws on drugs, on needles in prisons, and promoting drugs in schools to our youth, we will continue with these common-sense measures. Canadians expect absolutely nothing less.
I am thankful for the opportunity today to express what is not only a platform and a party policy but a personal passion. I live and work in the areas where these kinds of illegal activities certainly contribute to the decline of what it means to be a respected Canadian who respects our laws, our challenges, our traditions, and the health and safety of our citizens.
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out in his speech that the government allocated $122 million back in 2008 for the prison interdiction program. I want to ask what the result of that was, but I know that the member will not respond to that. Therefore, I will give him some facts.
The result was that the prisoners were tested in 2008 and then tested three years later. We spent $122 million of taxpayer money, but the results showed no difference. The number of prisoners who tested positive for drugs in 2008 was the same in 2011. These facts come from the Correctional Service of Canada itself. I was on the committee that studied drugs in prison, and it was the head of the Correctional Service of Canada who pointed out those figures.
Would the member not agree that spending $122 million was a waste of taxpayers' money, as it showed no effect on the number of prisoners with drugs in their blood?
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Speaker, the answer is absolutely not. Granted, we have an equivalency. I believe that the rate was roughly 80% 10 years ago and it is roughly 80% now. However, the member is not thinking of the enormous amount of work we have put into identification. We now we have increased urinalysis. We now have sniffer dogs. We have more checks. We have increased areas of scrutiny through the entire system. We have now identified significantly more opportunities for measures where people have been abusing this privilege.
It might be like the member suggesting that if there were a number of police officers on the highway and then we took some of those officers away or left them the same but put another 5,000 vehicles on the highway, there would not be any difference in the level of infractions. That is wrong. The problem is still there. It is huge. The only way we can tackle it is one step and one issue at a time, and this would be a great step forward.
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, as usual, I did not get an answer.
The facts are very clear. We spent $122 million on drug interdiction programs in prison. The result was zero. There was no difference in urinalysis before the money was spent and three years after the money was spent.
We know what works. We heard from experts. We heard from the Correctional Investigator. We heard from many stakeholders throughout the community. The best way to deal with drugs in prison is on the demand side.
There is a law of diminishing returns. We can spend as much money as we want on the interdiction side, but we will not get results for our investment. The best way to deal with what is happening in our prisons is on the prevention side, on the rehabilitation side. However, we have seen long waiting periods for people to get into these programs.
What is the government doing to address the real issue on the demand side? That is what needs to be done. What has the Conservative government done to decrease the wait list for prisoners for the programs that will actually help them?
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Speaker, where I will agree with the hon. member across the way is that this is not a panacea. This will not cure each and every problem we have with illicit drug use in the prisons. However, I can assure the hon. member, from having been there, done that, watched, seen, and worked with these people, that if we eliminate this kind of approach, we are simply acting with one of our hands tied behind our backs.
We need rehabilitation. We need interdiction. We need everything that is there. As I mentioned before, it is not a panacea, but it is one positive step along the way.
I am pleased, quite frankly, that the member's party, and other members of this House, have tentatively agreed to support this bill, in principle, moving forward. They recognize that it is a move that would make a difference. For that, we thank them, and we look forward to continued support as this bill moves through the House.