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.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident—Chapter 15.

Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)—Chapter 16.

Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits)—Chapter 17.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—Chapter 18.

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act—Chapter 19.

Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 20.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act—Chapter 21.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,—Chapter 22.

Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 23.

Bill C-63, An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24.

Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 25.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 26.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts—Chapter 27.

Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence)—Chapter 28.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Chapter 30.

Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—Chapter 31.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—Chapter 32.

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations—Chapter 33.

Motions in Amendment

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives came to the committee study of this bill with their minds already made up. They said that we absolutely had to pass this bill in its current form without any changes, otherwise the process would take too long, especially with the upcoming election. Everyone in the House knows that we will be having an election soon, but the Conservatives had four years to do something.

The member even said in his speech that this bill was overdue and that it was needed. Of course this bill is long overdue, because the Conservatives waited four years before they introduced anything. Bill C-12 disappeared completely, and some reviews of PIPEDA simply fell through the cracks because the Conservatives did not act. They could have voted in favour of my bill, Bill C-475, and the legislation would already be amended.

Why did they adopt that attitude at the committee meetings? How can they justify such an undemocratic attitude towards this bill?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my sincere thanks to my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who just delivered a very important speech. She worked very hard on her own bill on this topic, and I think her bill should have been passed. In my opinion, her bill was far superior to Bill S-4.

I share the sentiments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He, like the member for Terrebonne—Blainville, said that all the opposition parties thought that in light of the work that went into the current bill and all the others, such as Bill C-12, the government might make the effort to take a collaborative approach with the other parties. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Here we are, looking at Bill S-4, a bill that comes to us after, as we have heard from other members, a convoluted process, a bill that died on the order paper, a superior private member's bill that failed when the Conservatives did not support it. It is an effort to bring up to date the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, otherwise known as PIPEDA.

This is, of course, a very significant area of citizen and consumer concern. PIPEDA was passed in 2000, and a lot has changed in the world of digital information, privacy concerns, and information held by Internet providers, banks, and a great number of organizations to which Canadians trust their private information online.

Bill S-4 should have been an attempt, and may in fact have been an attempt that failed, to adequately balance the privacy rights of Canadians and the important facilitation of commerce in Canada. That would certainly be the expectation.

The larger context around which the bill comes to us is one in which we have had some rather spectacular accidental breaches of the privacy of Canadians through the release, through various errors, human errors, of health information, consumer information, and banking information because of breaches in the system.

One would have thought, especially in the specific context of the last year, that in drafting the bill, the government would have been very cognizant of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in June 2014 in the Spencer decision. That was a decision written by Mr. Justice Tom Cromwell, one of my former friends and professors from my time at Dalhousie Law School, a brilliant legal mind and someone who has, within the Supreme Court of Canada, written a number of critical and important decisions. The Spencer decision is one of them.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Spencer, came down very clearly on the side of the privacy rights of Canadians. Mr. Justice Tom Cromwell wrote in his decision:

...the Internet has exponentially increased both the quality and quantity of information that is stored about Internet users. Browsing logs, for example, may provide detailed information....

He went on to note that users would never really know when their information was forming some sort of pattern that resulted in a review, and users, consumers, would not know when their information might be becoming accessed. However, in entering into agreements with ISP providers, the Supreme Court of Canada, through Mr. Justice Cromwell, noted that there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information”.

There is no denying that Bill S-4 would do some things that are fairly universally approved of by those who are leading critics in this area. The Privacy Commissioner for the Government of Canada, and of course, the Privacy Commissioner is an officer of Parliament, saw a number of significant improvements.

The Privacy Commissioner started his review by turning his attention to the purpose of PIPEDA in the beginning, back in the year 2000, noting:

The purpose...is to establish, in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the circulation and exchange of information, rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information in a manner that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances.

Given the fast-changing world of digital communications, with the Internet, the cloud, and all the various ways in which we now store information online, fortunately Parliament saw fit in the year 2000 to include a five-year mandatory review of PIPEDA so that we could keep up with the ways in which technology moves so rapidly.

Generally speaking, some of what is being done here has met with universal support. The risk-based approach that would allow organizations to assess each incident on a case-by-case basis was supported by the Privacy Commissioner, at least. The Privacy Commissioner would have an opportunity to enter into compliance agreements, but while the Privacy Commissioner found this acceptable, numerous other commentators did not. They did not feel it went far enough or actually protect privacy information adequately.

The things that met universal approval I will list briefly. The improvements in Bill S-4 include the additional qualification and clarification of what is meant by the standard of consent, the extension of a deadline to take cases to the Federal Court, and of course, the expansion of the powers of the Privacy Commissioner to publicly disclose information related to findings. These were things the Privacy Commissioner liked.

Leading critics include, and my friend from Terrebonne—Blainville has already pointed to one of the leading critics in this area, Professor Michael Geist, advisers, and a very exceptional group of lawyers who now work a lot on information privacy law at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, where, in the 1980s, I was also associate general counsel. However, in those days, believe me, we did not have open files on Internet data and privacy, because we were mostly dealing with trying to advocate in areas of technology that now seem very outdated. In any case, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre has stayed on top of the technology.

We had from the Canadian Bar Association, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Professor Michael Geist, and of course, members of opposition parties a rich group of substantive and helpful amendments that would have led to universal support for this bill at that moment. Unfortunately, those amendments were all rejected.

I want to look at three aspects in the time I have left this afternoon: compliance agreements, the expansion of voluntary disclosure, and transparency reporting.

Compliance agreements are a source of concern. The way in which they are drafted in Bill S-4 would have been acceptable had they been strengthened and had penalties or had an order-making power been available to the Privacy Commissioner, but they have none of those things. The Canadian Bar Association brief made this point about it:

Our principal concern is that while entering into such an agreement with the Privacy Commissioner stays any court enforcement by the Commissioner, it does not have any effect on any affected individual’s right to go to court against the organization for the same matter under investigation. This omission means that there is a much lower incentive for organizations to enter into such agreements. Also, it is not consistent with the regime in other similar schemes.

Despite recommendations to improve this, no improvements were made.

Second, the expansion of voluntary disclosure is probably for me the most significant failure of Bill S-4 and is quite inexplicable in that it runs directly counter to the Spencer decision I referenced earlier. This needed to have much more rigour to ensure that there was no warrantless access. This is the key issue. The task force should have come down harder for privacy rights.

Last, in transparency reporting, there should have been reforms to require organizations to publicly report on the number of disclosures they make without knowledge or consent and without a judicial warrant.

This information should have been disclosed on a regular basis for transparency, and organizations should have been required to notify affected individuals within a reasonable time of any accidental disclosure.

With that, I regretfully conclude that Bill S-4 does not meet the standard this Parliament should expect of an update to PIPEDA.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Indeed, the way this bill was examined is very problematic. From what I remember, and someone will correct me if I am wrong, this is the only time a bill has been sent to committee for study before second reading. In such a situation, one might think there are changes to be made, otherwise why would we do that? Furthermore, this exceptional measure would allow the committee to put forward amendments that go further than the strict substance of the bill, and it is therefore a good opportunity.

We were not able to seize the opportunity, however, because the Conservatives came into the committee room saying that we should just accept the bill, otherwise there would be no changes at all to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA.

Yes, we are running out of time. We understand that. However, the Conservatives had many opportunities to amend this legislation. They waited for years to review PIPEDA as they were supposed to do, given that under the existing legislation, the act is supposed to be reviewed every five years. We could have passed my bill, Bill C-475, which could have become law. Bill C-12 disappeared. In short, they had many opportunities.

Instead, they dragged their feet for years. When we were hearing evidence and during the study in committee, they said that time was running out and we had to accept the bill as is. Well, that is no way to operate, especially in a democracy like ours.

Drug-Free Prisons Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for her excellent speech on Bill C-12. Today I would like to share some thoughts about this bill in particular with the House of Commons.

First, I would like to say that the title of Bill C-12 is misleading, considering the content. It is misleading to say that Bill C-12 will eradicate drugs from our prisons. Unfortunately, nothing in this bill will address the problem of drug addiction in our prisons.

I expected better from the federal government. I wish it had handled this issue with greater respect. Unfortunately, it did not. As my colleague pointed out in her speech, that is always the problem whenever it comes to issues associated with drug addiction and mental health. Nothing in this bill tackles the problem directly. There is nothing here that will help the men, women and first nations people coping with drug addiction, which, sadly, is so widespread in our prisons.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 seeks to add a provision to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that makes it clear that the Parole Board of Canada may use positive results from urine tests or refusals to take urine tests for drugs in making its decisions on parole eligibility.

This gives clear legal authority to an existing practice of the Parole Board. I support that and so I support this bill, since it simply places something that already happens in practice into the act.

Since we are talking about a provision that is rather straightforward and relatively uncontroversial, I want to take the time to talk about related issues that I believe need to be addressed, so I will take the time that has been allotted me to do so.

The government is making our prisons less safe by cutting funding to correctional programming, such as substance abuse treatment, and increasing the use of double bunking, which leads to more violence. That is not only dangerous for inmates but also for those who work in correctional institutions. It also does not promote rehabilitation. This is an issue that we all need to be concerned about.

Our priority should be ensuring community safety by preparing former offenders to reintegrate back into society, and by helping them overcome their addictions and become less inclined to reoffend.

A report from Correctional Service Canada in 2011 states that there ought to be improved access to medical professionals and medical health services and a continued focus on the role of substance use and self-harming behaviours as coping mechanisms, and that there are several issues regarding the implementation of programming specifically related to the availability and accessibility of programs, the frequency with which programs are offered, and the wait lists of these programs.

The prison population is increasing at the same time as the Conservative government is closing institutions, and this has resulted in directive 55, which I am sure all of my colleagues are aware of, from Correctional Service Canada, which establishes a procedure to normalize double bunking. In my province of Quebec, that has led to double bunking at 10%. Staff and the Correctional Investigator have repeatedly stated that this leads to increased violence and gang activity.

Further, I want to underline that according to Kim Pate from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the rise in women serving federal sentences is directly related to cuts in social services, social programs, health care, education—all the programs that traditionally help level the playing field for those who are most impacted. By “those”, we often mean, of course, indigenous peoples, women, poor people, and those with mental health issues.

According to Correctional Service Canada data published in 2011, 27% of women incarcerated were convicted of a drug-related offence.

According to the Office of the Correctional Investigator's 2011-12 report, almost two-thirds of inmates were under the influence of an intoxicant when they committed the offence leading to their incarceration.

I want to raise the fact that we are looking at people being incarcerated who need to deal with this issue.

I also want to state that the majority of women incarcerated—86%, to be specific—report having been physically abused at some point in their lives, with two-thirds of the women, 68%, reporting that they had been sexually abused throughout their lives. When we talk about using drugs as a coping mechanism, especially when incarcerated, we need to keep this in mind.

A zero tolerance stance on drugs in prison is proving to be a completely ineffective policy. Meanwhile, harm-reduction measures within a public health system and treatment orientation offer a far more promising, cost-effective, and sustainable approach to reducing subsequent crime and re-victimization. That is from the report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator in 2011-12.

According to a report looking at policy for offenders with mental illness published in 2010, compared to the general population, the rate of mental illnesses among jail detainees is almost twice as high for women, and detainees with a serious mental illness have co-occurring substance abuse disorder.

That is why we are talking about both these things right now. We are talking about mental health and drug use as being correlated and as being major issues that need to be dealt with within the incarceration system, not only for the betterment of the detainees and their reintegration into society, but also to reduce violence in the future, to reduce violence within prisons, and also to make correction officers' workplaces safer ones.

Individuals with mental illnesses are not only disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, but they are also disproportionately likely to fail under correctional supervision. In 2011, 69% of female offenders received a mental health care intervention. When we are talking about their being more likely to fail, we are talking about 70% of the women who are currently incarcerated being those who are more likely to fail. Those are staggering numbers.

To really tackle this problem, we must also tackle the problem of substance abuse in prison. To that end, we must first implement an intake assessment process to accurately measure the level of drug use by inmates, and then provide adequate programs for offenders in need. We talked a lot about that today. We have to ensure that these women have access to these programs and services because, as I mentioned, a large percentage of incarcerated women suffer from mental health or substance abuse problems, as do these men. Without drug addiction treatment, education and proper reintegration upon release, offenders run the risk of returning to a life of crime and claiming new victims. We want to avoid that at all costs.

We should strive to have a correctional system that provides effective rehabilitation programs such as ongoing education, substance abuse treatment and support programs, in order to foster the social reintegration of offenders when they are released. That is the only way to reduce the rate of recidivism.

The last point I would like to make is the following: we want to ensure that prisons are a safe workplace for the people who work there. As I mentioned earlier, we can start by eliminating the practice of double-bunking and ensuring that resources are allocated to the treatment of inmates with substance abuse or mental health problems.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is all very interesting, and I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I talked about this in my speech. The basic problem is clear. Everyone says so. I do not understand why the Conservatives do not get it. CSC has produced a number of reports about how inmates with mental health issues make up close to 50% of Canada's federal prison population.

Right now, there is no plan, no budget, no system to adapt the programs and support services available. Bill C-12 is a drop in the bucket compared to everything that needs to be done.

Can my colleague tell us about some of her solutions to this problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating at third reading Bill C-12, which adds a provision to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act enabling the Correctional Service of Canada to eliminate drugs from prisons. I must say that this is quite ambitious given that we know that there is not one correctional service in the world that has been able to do this.

This title, which again is reminiscent of a newspaper headline, does not reflect the content of this bill, which actually makes an amendment that is very narrow in scope to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

This amendment makes it clear in law that the Parole Board of Canada may use the positive results from drug tests or refusals to take drug tests in making its decision on parole eligibility. Note that the board already does this.

The amendment also makes clear that the Parole Board can impose conditions on the use of drugs or alcohol, once again a practice that is already in place.

In the case of a positive drug test when an individual is on parole, the discretion remains where it should be, with the Parole Board of Canada.

That is why we support the bill. The Parole Board of Canada is independent and is in the best position to judge individual cases and determine the consequences when someone fails a drug test or violates the conditions of parole.

Let us talk a little about the Conservative government's approach and its zero-tolerance approach to drugs. The Conservative government has dedicated a lot of time and resources to eliminating drugs in prison, with little success.

Correctional Service Canada has admitted that the $122 million spent on tools and technologies to eradicate drugs in prisons has not led to any reduction in drug use in our prisons.

According to a 2012 Public Safety study, we know that drug-free prisons are unlikely to be achieved in the real world, yet the Conservative government continues to pander to their base, as always, by investing money with the aim of achieving this unrealistic goal.

The Conservative government's faulty approach to public safety has resulted in more prisoners with addictions and mental illness in our prison system.

The NDP has been steadfast in our support for measures that will make our prisons safe, while the Conservative government has ignored—yes, you heard me correctly, ignored—recommendations from corrections staff, corrections unions and the Correctional Investigator that would decrease violence, gang activity and drug use in our prisons. The government has not only ignored these recommendations but it has also made budget cuts.

In 2012, the government announced that it planned to cut the budget of Correctional Service Canada by $295 million by 2015, and that is what it did. The budget for Correctional Service Canada was cut by over 10%, while during that same period, the prison population grew from 14,000 to 15,000 inmates.

The consequences of these cuts include more double-bunking and the closure of treatment centres for inmates with serious mental problems. This has resulted in increased violence. The Conservative government has also failed to address the growing problem of inmates with addictions and mental illness.

In 2011, 45% of male offenders and 69% of female offenders received a mental health care intervention. Despite this staggering data, the Conservative government still has not asked for a report from Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, on the implementation of recommendations to improve handling of prisoners with mental illness.

Rather than focusing its efforts on a narrow bill, the government needs to invest in rehabilitation programs to limit violence and the use of drugs in our prisons. Our priority should be a corrections system that can deliver effective rehabilitation programs, such as continuing education, addiction treatment and support programs to assist in reintegration. That is the only way to reduce recidivism rates and effectively tackle the issue of repeat offenders.

To truly address the issue of drug use in prison, CSC must have a proper intake assessment of an inmate’s addiction and then provide the proper correctional programming for that offender. Our priority must be to keep communities safe by preparing ex-inmates for reintegration into society once freed from their addiction and thus less likely to reoffend. Without addiction treatment and proper reintegration upon release, a prisoner will likely return to a criminal lifestyle and possible create more victims.

Before I conclude, I would like to say that committee work is not just for kicks. Our mandate is to examine, analyze and legislate to improve our society. I think that the Conservative government is being disingenuous by introducing a bill that does not take into account witnesses' recommendations even though they are the people on the ground. Several witnesses have said that Bill C-12 will not do what the short title says, so the Conservative government should show some common sense and stop its electoral propaganda.

The NDP is the party that listens to constituents, experts and the people on the ground. This bill, like so many of the Conservative government's bills, ignores the real needs on the ground.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to rise today to discuss Bill C-12.I would also like to respond to a few comments by my honourable colleague fromWinnipeg-Centre, who talked about co-operation between the Liberal party and the provinces.

In 1995, the Liberal federal government decided to cut millions of dollars in transfer payments to the provinces in order to balance its budget. That is exactly what the Conservatives are doing. In matters of federal-provincial co-operation, therefore, I am not sure we can count on the Liberals to work with the provinces and offer more services to Canadians and to Quebeckers.

We are talking here about a bill that my Conservative colleagues consider crucially important. In general terms, the bill seeks to introduce a practice that is already in common use. Some government members would like to tell Canadians that this bill is going to work miracles, but that is untrue. This bill merely adds to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act the possibility for the Parole Board to base its decisions respecting parole eligibility on positive drug tests or the refusal to provide a sample.

Yet the board has been doing that for years. Writing it into law is a good objective, but I doubt very much whether this bill will succeed in eliminating drugs from our prisons, as the Conservatives claim. Are they implying that there is a problem with the board itself? That is another question. However, this bill covers only a page and a half. Accordingly, as far as details are concerned, they will get back to you.

The bill is therefore misleading, because it will not do much to eliminate drugs in the correctional system. The solution it proposes is a practice that has been carried out for years, and unfortunately has not solved the problem. I therefore do not see how writing it into law will make it possible to solve mental health problems and eliminate drugs from our federal penitentiaries.

In my speech, I will be giving some ideas for a solution, but I will also raise a few priorities that the Conservatives refuse to consider, preferring to invest elsewhere and put money in the pockets of the wealthiest or the large corporations.

All the witnesses who spoke in committee told us that the bill would have little or no effect on drug use in prisons. We know that the government is using this legislation to cater to the wishes of its electoral base or do some election campaigning, instead of proposing real solutions to a real problem.

The situation is very different in our federal prisons. In connection with the study we are concluding in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Correctional Investigator of Canada came to tell us that over 45% of the federal prison population is dealing with mental health or neurological problems. That is nearly 50% of the population.

In general, unfortunately, these people use drugs. Therefore, is requiring them to take a urine test in order to be eligible for parole going to solve problems at the source, including their mental health disorders? I repeat that nearly 50%, not just 1% or 5%, of all offenders in federal institutions have mental health problems.

We have a problem here and Bill C-12 will do absolutely nothing to help these people. The bill offers them no tangible support. Instead, it cuts the budgets for programs to treat addiction and to provide support for people with mental health problems.

However, they say that enshrining in legislation that someone will or will not be eligible for parole is going to prevent that individual from taking drugs. That is ridiculous. I will give an example: many of my colleagues here have children. When you want a child not to do something, you educate the child, you offer them support, and you talk to them. You do not leave the child with no support and then tell them that unfortunately they have made a mistake and it is their problem. That is not how you solve a problem at its root. If we do that, we have failed in our role as legislators and as a society: to help the most vulnerable people, for example, people who unfortunately have mental health problems or neurological problems.

This is very interesting because the mistaken perspective adopted by the Conservative government when it comes to public safety has multiplied the prison sentences imposed on people with addiction or mental health problems, for example, through mandatory minimum sentencing. I will come back to this later in my speech. Many individuals who are addicts or are dealing with mental health problems find themselves in prisons. The Correctional Investigator of Canada has told us that the correctional service unfortunately can no longer offer specialized services tailored to these people because the Correctional Service of Canada does not necessarily have the resources to detect and diagnose these problems.

At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are doing a study on FASD, or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. There are no precise statistics because these individuals cannot be diagnosed, but for the moment it is said that they represent about 5% of the federal prison population. According to testimony we have heard at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, 55% of people who have problems caused by fetal alcohol exposure have addiction problems. What is specific to FASD is that these people have a low capacity for understanding the consequences of their actions, a low capacity for analyzing situations and a low capacity for learning from their mistakes. It has been proven that these people should not be in the prison system because they are not necessarily responsible for their situation. What do we do with these people? Is Bill C-12 going to help them? Is the fact that the government has decided to put it in the bill that they will or will not be eligible for parole going to help them? No. On its face, these people will not receive the help and support they need to overcome their addiction problems.

I would like to talk about the fact that the Conservatives have never acted on the many reports from the CSC in 2006 and 2011 and from the Correctional Investigator of Canada in 2008. Those reports could be used, for example, to tackle the problem of gangs in prisons. The Conservatives are closing down prisons and there is double-bunking in the cells. It has been shown that this leads to more crime and more gang activity, and so to more drug trafficking.

To solve the drug problem at the source, we have to offer support to people who are incarcerated and to correctional officers, so that they are able to do their job properly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as for the political party that the member will be running for in the next election, all one has to do is maybe do a little search on Google to find some interesting comments from its former leader, Jack Layton, in regard to the issue of legalization of marijuana. The member might find that quite interesting if she takes the time to investigate it.

In relation to Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, I will read a specific quote, which I made reference to earlier, from the 2011-12 annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator. The following observation was made with respect to the prevalence of drugs within our federal prisons:

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.

I think that the bill might make a modest move forward, but at the end of the day, we need a much more comprehensive approach to deal with drugs in our jails and prisons.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do with respect to Bill C-12 is go over the summary of the bill, provide a few specific quotes, and then give some observations.

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.

In reading the summary, it is obvious why the bill will likely receive support for its passage from all parties in the chamber.

I would like to take a different approach to debating Bill C-12. Let me start off by talking about the short title. I have often talked about where these short titles come from. I have suggested in the past and will continue to maintain today that when the government comes up with legislation, it goes directly to the Prime Minister's Office where the individuals there come up with the short title. The short title of this bill is the drug-free prisons act. If we think in terms of the implications of making a title of a bill, what sort of impression are we giving to Canadians?

I would like to focus on the 2011-12 annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, which made the following observation with respect to the prevalence of drugs within our federal prisons:

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.

One of the biggest issues I have with the Conservative government is the type of propaganda and political spin it puts on the legislation it brings to the House of Commons. We see this yet again with Bill C-12. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister are trying to give the impression that if we pass this legislation there will be drug-free prisons. If the Conservatives were honest with Canadians, which is a rarity with this government, they would acknowledge that achieving a drug-free prison is not as easy as just saying it in the title of a bill and then having 308 members of Parliament voting in favour of the legislation.

I have had the responsibility of being the justice critic at the provincial level. As a justice critic, I had the opportunity to tour a number of prisons in the province of Manitoba, such as the remand centre, where individuals will often be brought to stay overnight or while awaiting trial, and the Headingley Correctional Centre, which is a provincial jail where prisoners with sentences under two years are sent. I have also had the opportunity to visit federal penitentiaries such as Stony Mountain. I believe that the government has not done its homework with respect to dealing with our correctional institutions, jails and prisons. I suspect Manitoba is not that unique and that the issues I am referring to with respect to the province of Manitoba are applicable no matter where one goes in Canada, and even beyond Canada's borders, as we have been told by our professionals, which is that drugs are a reality in our prisons and that there is a need for the government to do more.

The Office of the Correctional Investigator said that a comprehensive and integrated drug strategy should include a balance of measures: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and interdiction. That is in the 2011-12 annual report. The information is actually there. If the government really wants to deal with the issue, there is plenty of information to assist it in bringing forward legislation.

Also, especially today, when we are talking about crime and prisons, things which Canadians are very much concerned about, the budget will be released in a few hours from now and the government is going to set its priorities. Would it not be wonderful if we saw a government that had the common sense to understand that it takes more than just the Prime Minister and his minister who is responsible to wave a wand and to improve the system. There is an obligation to meet with the different stakeholders. There is an obligation to work with the provinces and the provincial ministers who are responsible for the administration of justice in those jurisdictions.

We need to look at how we can work with our correctional officers. I would suggest that our correctional officers are one of the greatest assets we have as legislators in terms of being able to deal with the issues in our prisons. When we ignore the potential of consulting and working with those correctional officers, we set ourselves up for what I would suggest is a situation that could ultimately cost lives.

When I was an MLA, there was a riot in the Headingley jail. A number of factors were involved. I cannot say 100%, but I would be surprised if drugs were not involved in one fashion or another in terms of what took place in that riot. I suspect if we took the time to meet with our correctional officers, we would get a better understanding of why drugs continue to be such a significant factor in our prisons today.

We have not seen that. We have not seen this goodwill from the majority government. It comes right from the Prime Minister's Office. Many times we have been critical of the Prime Minister because he does even recognize the need to have first ministers' conferences. What message does that send to his ministers about having ministerial conferences? To what degree has the Minister of Public Safety met with the attorneys general or ministers of justice in different provinces? After all, the Prime Minister feels he does not have to meet with the premiers on a regular basis. He is the first Prime Minister in a generation plus that has ignored the need for a meeting with first ministers. I suspect that has a lot to do with the same attitudes that the ministers across the way have.

The Minister of Public Safety is not working with our provincial ministers. If he worked and consulted with the different stakeholders, including the provincial ministers, I would suggest that we would be debating better legislation than what we have today. We are getting close to an election. The Prime Minister's motivation for a number of years has been how to get re-elected. It is all about power, but at the end of the day, what we want to see is good governance.

The Prime Minister more than his predecessors has been found wanting in being able to deliver to Canadians solid programs that will make a difference. The Conservatives want to talk about drugs in jails. Yes, we and our constituents are concerned about drugs in jails, but the Liberal caucus is concerned about what is being done to prevent crimes in the first place. These are the types of issues which I believe Canadians want us to debate in the chamber, as opposed to a piece of legislation that is meant to do one thing alone, which is to make a couple of modifications. The PMO has come up with a wonderful short title, the drug-free prisons act, to give the impression that the Conservatives are really tough on crime, tough on convicts and that they are going to get rid of drugs in prisons.

I have news for the Prime Minister. His plan is not going to work. Canadians are seeing more and more the degree to which the Conservatives talk a lot but their actions have been found wanting. Canadians have a higher expectation of government. They want government to deliver on the issues that are important to them. We will get a very good sense of that today when the budget comes down. Where is the government's emphasis going to be?

The other day I was here and we were talking about the exploitation of children. Cybertechnology was the issue. The Internet's impact on the exploitation of children in Canada continues to grow. The Conservatives again had a piece of legislation which tried to give the impression that they were actually doing something on the issue, but the reality is that the RCMP that was tasked with the responsibility of dealing with the issue was underspending its budget by 10%. Millions of dollars were not being spent in order to create a false impression that there will be a balanced budget.

It is the same principle here as it was there. On the one hand, we have legislation that talks tough, but the actions in the budget will say something entirely different. What was so horrendous about that private member's bill is that we were talking about children who were being exploited through the Internet, and the government was underspending on the RCMP which was investigating and trying to lock up individuals who were doing that exploitation.

On the legislation before us, to what degree have the Conservatives done their homework?

I am only making an assumption, but sometimes that could be a big mistake in itself especially if it is related to the Conservative government, but have there been any members other than the Minister of Justice who have visited the prisons? To what degree have the Conservatives visited some of our prisons in Canada? They could gain a lot by going out and taking the time to get a better understanding of what is actually taking place in the real world. That applies to more than just prisons.

I have had the opportunity to talk to Correctional Service officers. They are very much concerned about the issue of safety, not only the safety of the prisoners but equally, and in the minds of many, more importantly, the safety of the institution and the guards themselves.

We have seen double-bunking and triple-bunking take place. To what degree is the government bringing in programs that will take some of the pressure off convicts who are taking drugs in prison?

What kind of action is the government prepared to take? Do we, for example, have drug detection dogs going through prisons? What about new detection equipment? If we talk to correctional officers, they tell us about the need for searches and how important they are. However, they will also tell us about the importance of being able to look at the issue in a holistic approach.

When I think of a holistic approach to deal with our prisons and jails, it is not just Ottawa that is responsible. The administration of justice goes beyond Ottawa and incorporates our provinces as well. They play a vital, critical role with regard to what happens in our jails, as do other stakeholders, whether it is law enforcement officers or the different groups out there.

The message I have for the government is that it is great to see this bill, but I question the motives of the naming of the bill. I would sure love to see some resources allocated that will make a real difference for Canadians in dealing with—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this House to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay.

The bill we are debating today, Bill C-12, the so-called drug-free prisons act, is a perfect bill for a Conservative government in the last tired dying months of its senile reign. It meets the three main criteria of a Conservative crime bill.

It has a bogus title that they would somehow create drug-free prisons, when their own studies say they are never going to deal with that and they need to come up with other solutions.

As a classic Conservative bill, it would not change anything. It is a windmill that the Conservatives are going to run at with their fake spears because the provisions already exist. They are saying they are going to ensure that the drug tests are brought before the Parole Board to stop these bad people from getting out. The Parole Board already has those powers. They are tying up more time in the House of Commons.

However, there is a third element that makes it a definitive Conservative crime bill, because these guys are not tough on crime, they are dumb on crime. It is more wasted money. Do members know, and the folks back home, the terrible financial record of the current government that will blow money on anything that suits its ideology, like the F-35s that it was going to spend incredible amounts on?

The Conservatives have spent $122 million on this program already, claiming that they are going to stop the drugs in prison. “We're going to get tough on those prisoners”. After $122 million, they have come up with nada, zero, doughnuts. They have not delivered on anything. Rather than going back and figuring out what they are doing wrong, they will just come up with another fake bill, with another fake title, offering very little.

Why this is of concern is that this is a government that has run on its so-called tough on crime agenda with one bill after another without ever coming forward with focused, coherent legislation that, number one, can meet the test of the charter and is not a waste of money. Our present justice minister has had more recalls than the Ford Pinto, in terms of his legislation. It costs Canadian taxpayers about $100,000 a year to incarcerate a prisoner. That is an enormous amount of money that is being wasted in prisons.

I am not saying that we do not need prisons to hold people. However, if we are going to spend up to $100,000 a year holding each of them, we could certainly divert a lot of that money toward smart crime prevention, which is to keep people out of the prison system. The fact that we do not factor in is the enormous financial, emotional and psychological damage that happens to our society when someone gets into the system in the first place.

We need to look at where solutions exist, where good grassroots solutions exist, so that we can actually find ways to cut the recidivism rates and ensure that we are pulling people out of the prison system and out of the nightmare of drug addiction and drug trading.

I have seen a few really good models at the grassroots level of how we could actually be smart on crime. For example, just recently in Timmins we launched a fentanyl task force. Fentanyl has become a major problem. It has replaced what was the OxyContin epidemic. I have noticed, in many of the communities that had never dealt with opiate addictions before Oxy became very street available, that a lot of people got caught up in Oxy who would not normally have got caught up in Oxy. It created a market for heroin synthetic opiates. Now, with the Oxy market being squeezed off, fentanyl has become the new drug of choice. Fentanyl is extremely dangerous. It is a patch that is meant to deliver a synthetic heroin over a three-day period. If people cut it up and smoke it, they might end up getting the full shot in one go, which will stop the heart. I have seen young people who have died from fentanyl, and these were good young people. These were people with their whole lives ahead of them who thought this was a party drug, and it is not.

In the city of Timmins, as they have done in so many other communities, we have started a grassroots response of bringing people together, asking, “How do we learn from each other? How do we start dealing with the trade in fentanyl?” However, we obviously need the federal government involved because we need a way of tracking the fentanyl patches. It is not simply a matter of someone taking their uncle's or their grandmother's patch off them when they are getting cancer treatment; there is a trade that is going on in fentanyl that is much bigger.

The impact here is that we have the demand of people who are being brought into addiction, thinking that it is a party drug and this drug could actually kill them. We have to do the public awareness on that, but there is the supply issue. If it is a lucrative enough market, we are going to get into the gangs and a very illegal trade by people who do need to be put away. However, we need a way of tracking them and working with police.

At the grassroots level, what we have done in the Timmins area with the fentanyl task force is try to find ways to come up with smart solutions from the grassroots up so that we are, first of all, preventing the casualties, deaths and overdoses that are costing our families terrible emotional strain, as well as costing the medical and prison systems. We are also trying to find a way to track these patches back to the source so that we can cut off that trade. We need the federal government to show some leadership on this. That is one important element.

I was at a very fascinating conference just this past week in Timmins, led by Brent Kalinowski, who spent 27 years on the Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, police force. Brent was bringing to Timmins a program that is working very well in North Bay, and it is working in Saskatchewan and some other communities, where they create a community hub. Brent explained this really well when he talked about the years that he had spent in policing, going after the bad guys after the fact, after the damage had been done, and after the families' lives had been ruined. At that point, what can we do with these characters except put them in jail?

We are dealing with enormous costs to the medical system, to the prison system, and to families who might never recover if it is an act of violence. Brent said that after 25 years of doing this, he felt that there needed to be a smarter way of getting people before they get too far into the system. That is a really important issue. There is nothing soft or namby-pamby about diverting people out of the prison system. When we put someone into the prison system, we are putting them into a university of humiliation and a university of crime. That is not where we want our graduates coming from, so whoever we can divert from that, we are making smart, grassroots responses.

The hub response that is working very well in North Bay and that we have talked about bringing into Timmins is one where we bring the key organizations together, including the school boards, the addiction experts and the police, and identify individuals. We do not give the person's name, but we could say that we have a 13-year-old female who overdosed twice and was in the emergency ward, and we think that this may be the scene of a need for greater intervention. The school would say that it has her and that she has been missing school five, six, or seven days in a row. One of the counsellors would say that they have been dealing with her and what is actually happening is that a boyfriend has moved in and it has become an abusive situation.

All of the little pieces of the puzzle around this hub become identified. We have a problem here. This could end up flaming into a much more serious condition. They put a team together to go and meet the family, the mother and daughter, and say “How can we help?” It might seem like an extremely simple solution, and it might seem that it would not work, but it is amazing, they say, how quickly people are willing to open their door and say “Thank God. Come in. Can we make you a coffee? How can we divert our child from this crisis?”

It goes all the way up through various issues. We start to see the symptoms in someone who is starting to miss school when they are young, starting to get in trouble, or starting to appear again and again in the emergency ward. These are people who either become victims of violence or victims of crime, or become criminals themselves. Once they have identified someone who has had months of skipping school, certain schools would say that they will just suspend them permanently. They are suspended, they are out there and they are not being helped. The emergency ward just puts them back out on the streets.

We need a smarter way. If we are going to get them to the prison system and waste $100,000 a year, plus all of the other costs that the system incurs, and then spend $122 million to stop them doing drugs in prison, there has to be a smarter way of doing this. We are seeing some really good grassroots models coming from police and community organizations. That is where the House of Commons needs to start working to say that we can be a lot smarter on crime, rather than always spending the enormous amounts of money after the fact and after it is too late.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-12.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I will therefore be speaking rather more briefly, but there is no harm done, as I will be leaving the floor to others.

As my colleagues have pointed out, we are going to support this bill. However, we see it as a little piece of paper that does not really solve the problem. It is a little something, but the drug problem in the prisons is a very large one. What is before us today is only a small part of the solution.

This bill provides for ineligibility for parole following a positive test or a refusal to provide a sample. I emphasize that this is already common practice. Drug tests and the refusal to provide a sample are already taken into consideration. That does not change much. It is nevertheless a step in the right direction. At least we are talking about the problem, which is a start. However, we believe the important thing is to create a safer environment for correctional staff, and one in which inmates or ex-inmates can be reintegrated into society and into the community. We have to create an environment in which they can take part in detoxification programs, one with programs and resources for inmates who are unfortunately drug-dependent.

It is also important that we address the problem of street gangs in prisons. It is often street gangs that produce drugs or alcohol inside prisons or arrange for drugs to be smuggled in. Obviously, the result is that the problem spreads and proliferates.

Street gangs and drugs can increase violence in prisons. This concerns me greatly because in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, in the riding of Terrebonne—Blainville, there are three federal prisons. Many of my constituents work in one or other of the three. I have spoken to prison workers who are extremely concerned, because their working conditions are unsafe. The environment is not safe because we are not dealing with the problems of violence and street gangs. We are cutting budgets, resources and detoxification programs. We are also increasing the number of prisoners in the cells, with double-bunking, which can increase violence and the spread of gangs within prisons.

Ultimately, it creates a more dangerous work environment for corrections officers. We need to think of those people. They do an extremely difficult job. Not just anyone can do this job in a pressure-filled environment. These people work with prisoners and help protect society. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do our best to ensure that our prisons are free of drugs and violence. We have a duty to reduce the presence of—if not eliminate—street gangs in prison.

This bill may have started with good intentions, but the government made our prisons less safe by reducing the budget for drug addiction programs by $295 million, which is 10% of the total budget. This will obviously affect the programs, which are often the first targets of cuts to public safety.

However, these programs are essential to helping prisoners rehabilitate. If we want them to become productive members of society, we need to give them a chance to take part in drug treatment programs and free themselves of their addiction. If they have mental health problems, we need to give them the opportunity to participate in proper programs in order to receive care and get their condition under control. Unfortunately these programs fell victim to the Conservatives' budgets.

The government invested $112 million in tools and technology to tackle the problem of drugs in prisons, but failed to achieve the hoped-for results. Now the Conservatives are trying something else. That seems logical to me. This bill might be part of that, but it lacks substance. All it does is reiterate what is already being done, such as screening.

To get to the root of the problem, we need to look at the big picture. If these people have addictions, we need to treat them. If drugs are available in prison, we have to tackle that problem. If drugs are banned in prison, why are they there? If it is because of street gangs, we need to go after street gangs. That seems logical to me, but unfortunately, that is not what is being done.

I talked about the importance of having programs that meet inmates' needs so that they can be reintegrated into the community and become productive members of society. However, the government reduced funding for these programs from $11 million to $9 million even as the prison population grew. That is not enough.

Another thing I wanted to point out, which the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers also pointed out, is that we all want to get rid of drugs in prisons. That is a sincere objective shared by us all. However, we need to be realistic. The union and many other witnesses said that completely ridding prisons of drugs is not a realistic goal. That is important to remember.

The bill's short title is the “drug-free prisons act”. We all want to get rid of drugs in prisons. That is not the issue here. However, we have to wonder if that is realistic. The experts say that it is not. Once again, we need to reframe the debate. Maybe that way we could achieve something.

I want to talk about programs again. I talked about how the budget for drug addiction programs and anti-gang programs was cut from $11 million to $9 million. In seven institutions surveyed in February 2012, only 12.5% of offenders were enrolled in a core correctional program, while 35% were on the waiting lists to access these programs. The waiting lists continue to grow, but institutions do not have the resources needed. It is critical that we address these problems.

In closing, I wish to reiterate our support for the idea of eliminating drugs from prisons, but I want to emphasize the need for resources and programs so that correctional officers can work in a safe environment.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, carrying on with the theme of the budget that is coming up this afternoon, I know a lot of seniors are concerned about the pensions they are getting. This is another topic I have heard about many times in my community, where seniors are living in poverty. However, I am going to stick to the topic at hand, Bill C-12.

I was glad to see a Conservative member get up to actually ask a question. However, rather than asking a question, the member went on a rant about the title. He did not provide the answer to the question we have been asking all morning: How does the title relate to the actual content of the bill? The title includes the words “drug-free prisons”. However, what we have heard in the House from member after member of the official opposition is that the bill will actually do very little, if anything at all, to curb drugs in our prison system.

The government has an opportunity to invest in rehabilitation and treatment programs in the prison system. I know that most are not very optimistic that the government will take any sort of leadership role, which it has failed to do in the last nine years.

My question is to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Is this a trend with the government in regard to fancy titles for hollow legislation that does not actually address some of the very issues we need to address in this House?