Agriculture Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The first comment I want to make is that programs have to be targeted. We would like to rehabilitate people who are in prison, but we also want them to be able to make full use of their talents in society.

There are not many prisoners who move, after their period of incarceration, to work on farms. We're already recognizing, as a committee, that it's very challenging to enter farming. Prisoners face the same challenges, if not bigger ones. Basically I'm saying that we should be developing skills and talents for them to actually fit into a trade or a line of work once they leave prison, and not many of them go into farming.

The second thing is that it's not free to the correctional system. They must purchase, maintain, update, and overhaul farm equipment. There's a lot of money tied up just in the capital costs of running a prison farm, and there are six of them. It's a program that costs money. That money can be used to better fund other programs and to support better programs.

The third thing I want to say is that Mr. Easter mentioned that all surrounding farms will lose because of this, but I actually think they will gain because of this. The prisoners are working on prison farms and they probably consume most of what they produce. If those farms were not there, the prison would be buying local produce, supporting farms in the surrounding area. So I want to correct that, because I don't believe that was an accurate statement that Mr. Easter made.

Chair, there are a number of reasons that it's not considered to be in the best interest to move ahead or to continue with prison farms.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

We're going to go back to Mr. Easter on this motion. Would this be your finishing up?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, unless there's anybody else who wants to speak first.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Do you want to wait until somebody else speaks first?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Well, yes, I'll just conclude. It will only take me a couple of minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay, go ahead.

Madam Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I just want to reiterate the importance of doing such a study and the importance of ensuring that there are skills now. Mr. Lemieux mentioned there are not too many people going on to farms. I did indicate a while ago that the skills they actually obtain aren't just for farming. The important part is to make sure there are some skills there for people to access and that they're there immediately, whether it's services for counselling or whether it's assisting people in learning skills to go out into the workforce. I think those are extremely important.

I have a cousin who actually committed suicide. He had been in and out of prisons. I asked him, “What is it? What is the problem?” Of course, he had an alcohol problem. However, when he was asked to get some help, when they offered him the services that could have helped him out in life, they offered that a week before he was discharged.

As I indicated, I worked for 13 years in the criminal justice system. It's not the fact that you're going to warehouse them and then ship them out; you need to make sure you have services and programs and things of interest in order to rehabilitate them.

On a study such as this, I think it would be important to hear about the sustainability of it and the results that come from it, because on that side of the House they say that they're tough on crimes, but being tough on crimes is putting people in jail, and it's costing the taxpayers even more than if they were actually creating their own food and eating their own food as well as providing some of that food to food banks. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. But if you don't, at the end of the day, the repercussions are even greater.

I certainly hope you would look at supporting this motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Madam Hughes.

We're going to go to Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I want to follow up on Mrs. Hughes' comments.

Essentially, we aren't talking about shutting down the programming that goes on in the institutions like Stony Mountain Institution, where the farm is located. They're still going to be there getting their programming. It's still minimum security where they're at. They're still going to be living for the most part independently, cooking their own meals. They're still going to be able to go out and get training. CORCAN is still going to bring forward some of those activities rather than being involved in farming. They're going to be setting up other businesses where those individuals can go there and work and get hard skills so that they can go out and market themselves when they're released.

They're already starting to do this with a number of the inmates. They're allowing them to go and actually do on-the-job training and work at work sites off the prison with employers who are going to take them on after they leave the prison system. For that reason, I think this is something that is doable. It's making sure that they're getting all the skills and all the training that they need to be successful when they leave prison.

The farm program...although it's a great program. I've talked to inmates who have enjoyed being part of it. They know from the standpoint of animal husbandry skills that they have limited possibilities of being hired in the farming community, especially if you look at the situation in the hog industry or the cattle industry. There aren't that many jobs out there, or they live in communities where those jobs don't exist.

We have to make sure we provide them with the skills and the training so that they can go out there and transition successfully.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

Mr. Easter, for final comments on this.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On James' last point, the Minister of Public Safety and James seem to have missed the point on the fact that working with animals is probably one of the best rehabilitative things that inmates with problems can do. James went on earlier to say that maybe the farms are losing money and maybe the inmates not going out to work on farms--

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I never said that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Well, the minister has, and we can't believe him. He has never provided the evidence.

In any event, whether or not they go to work on another farm here is not the point. They come out understanding farm skills, understanding farm operations, with skills in terms of punctuality, teamwork, etc., so that they can work in another job. That in itself is important.

I think the real issue here, in terms of why these particular prison farms are closing.... I might say, Mr. Chair, that the 2007 study, “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety”, is the only study that has been done and released, and it never even referenced the prison farm. As in so much of what this government does, they move ahead on perceptions and assumptions without any real evidence. That's what we're seeing here again.

I think the real point...and the Minister of Public Safety said it in response to an order paper question tabled on October 6 on what the plans were for the land on which the prison farms currently reside. The answer was, and I quote, “Future additional capacity needs may make it necessary for some of the land to be used for prison constructions.” In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Peter Van Loan stated on October 16, “It wouldn't be prudent to dispose of the land if you may have potential plans in the future to build super regional prisons.”

So the real objective here, Mr. Chair, in closing down these prison farms, which give rehabilitative effect to inmates, which give training and skills in terms of farming, which teach a lot of skills in terms of teamwork, etc.... I think the real impact is that the government doesn't care about that. They might want to sell some of the land as an asset to cover the deficit they're driving this country into. They may want to use some of the land to build a super-prison, so we can throw more people in jail without the rehabilitative impact that provision farms can provide. That's really the whole thrust of this government.

As the Minister of Public Safety said, and it's indicative of the government as a whole in terms of everything from their agriculture policy to everything else, they really don't believe.... As Mr. Van Loan said, “We felt that money could be more adequately redirected to programs where people would actually gain employable skills...”. It's just another insult to the farming community.

For all those reasons, Mr. Chair, I believe we should do this study. I do expect the government members will likely vote against it, because if there's one thing about these government members, it's that they don't want to find out the facts.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Briefly, I think we have to remember that prisons aren't supposed to be profitable, and we understand that. I think the government has a hard time understanding that.

We talk about the skills these people gain. When we consider how many immigrants come to Canada to work on farms because the farm industry has a hard time getting people to come to work, that should be taken into consideration.

I do have a question, if someone could answer it. Since that side seems to be quite favourable to removing the prison farms, what are you planning to do with regards to the prime farmland? I'm wondering what the plans are for this prime farmland.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I have nobody else on the list of speakers. The question has been called.

(Motion negatived)

At this point, I have a couple of things to bring to your attention. For one thing, the next motion is Mr. Atamanenko's motion.

I have received some information here, one from the House of Commons. This room is available only until six o'clock. Other rooms are available past six o'clock, but they have to know now. I've also been talking to our vice-chair, Mr. Bellavance, and because I have to leave, he's willing to chair a meeting to hear witnesses. It's my understanding from the clerk that what we need to go forward would be three government members and one opposition member. That being said, if there's agreement by the committee to continue with the witnesses at 5:30 p.m., we'd have to let the House of Commons know now. And if it will take more than half an hour, we'd need another room.

Is there any discussion on that?

Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I made a suggestion. Since it is already 5:20 p.m., I agree that we should not deal with my motion immediately. We could instead hear from our witnesses right away, but my suggestion is as follows.

Because our witnesses from the Quebec-Ontario Grain Farmers Coalition have travelled to Ottawa to appear, we could hear them between now and 6:00 p.m. At the same time, because officials—of course, I'm always very pleased to hear from them and ask them questions—are here in Ottawa, nothing would prevent us from hearing from them at a subsequent meeting. They did not have to travel to be here today.

However, if we proceed immediately, we could at least hear from witnesses appearing on behalf of the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers Coalition until 6:00 p.m.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Your suggestion is that we go on right now and only until six o'clock to hear witnesses. Would we continue afterwards or simply leave it at that?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

We could hear the witnesses from the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers Coalition until 6:00 p.m., which would give them pretty much the amount of time they were scheduled for, in any case. Approximately one half-hour had been set aside for them.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Is everybody in agreement with this, if we want to get this thing rolling?

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have to leave at six o'clock, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Maybe we'll do that right at six o'clock then. I could probably stay in the chair until six o'clock.

Is it agreed that we'll bring on the witnesses and if it's all right--

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

We should ask the witnesses if they are able to stay until 6:00 p.m.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Sure.

Mr. Bellavance, you're willing to put your motion aside for now so we can hear witnesses.

Is it all right for the witnesses to come forward? Is there unanimous consent?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

My idea was that we would hear from the witnesses at the end of the meeting.