Public Safety Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2021

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you. By the way, let me congratulate you. I've been a long-time fan of the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard societies. Thank you for the courageous work you do.

A little over 10 years ago, I had the privilege of being public safety critic when we undertook a study at this committee about the addictions and mental health problems in Canada's federal corrections system. If my memory serves me correctly, we found that about 70% of every inmate in the federal corrections system has a mental health or addictions issue. To you and to Mr. Bragdon, I'm wondering how important you think it is for us to recognize that fact, both while people are serving at Her Majesty's pleasure, as they say, and after they leave, and to attack that?

A corollary question would be what you think about conditions that are attached to these people—usually to stay away from alcohol or drugs; if they have an underlying health addiction, that makes it very difficult for them to do so—as a contributor to recidivism.

[Catherine Latimer]

It also very much compromises certain indigenous people who may be going back to communities that are rife with substance issues. It's very difficult for them to keep away from it, because it's in the same household they've been paroled to. It's a huge problem, and it's one that we really need to tackle, particularly the continuity of care.

John Howard's position is that there should be a provincial health care system that provides support for the prisoners so there's no gap between their release from prison and coming back into the communities.

It's particularly challenging for people with mental health issues. They're released with two weeks of prescription medication, and it takes much longer to get lined up with a psychiatrist who can continue to fill those prescriptions. We're sending people out into very difficult circumstances without appropriate continuity for mental health care, and it's a challenge.

Similarly, with addictions, far too many people are coming out of prisons and ending up overdosing, because the realities of the demons they fight are not being appropriately addressed. They're not getting the kind of counselling and support they need to successfully and safely come back into the community and deal with some of these issues in a constructive way.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Bragdon, do you want to add to that?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Sure. Ms. Latimer gave a solid, comprehensive answer. Thank you.

That again speaks to the absolute importance of effective partnerships in the after-time-served aspect. That's what this bill is endeavouring to address. It's not a one-size-fits-all. It's going to sometimes take a contextualized approach, making sure we're working effectively with various sectors, including job opportunity placements.

With so many, when they come out, they have a criminal record. They have such a hard time being able to crack into the workforce. However, if you have those organizations and others that work with them, or potential employers who will say they want to be part of this person's journey, there are some real bright spots out there.

We're hearing some great news stories. We need to accentuate that, build around that. Some of the organizations doing this great work, like John Howard and others across the country, and, of course, with what we've seen so effectively done through the Texas Offenders Reentry Initiative...inspiring models that we could perhaps contextualize to the Canadian context, to say that this is how we can make sure people have an effective bridge back to the community.

It's not just one particular sector; it's multiple sectors working together. It can be done. We're seeing the models work. The stats are there. The effectiveness in reducing recidivism is incredible, plus the pathway to wholeness. We're addressing the needs of the whole individual, not just one aspect. I think that the comprehensive approach is the best.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, we're going to have to leave it there.

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

[Graydon Nicholas]

I have to apologize, Mr. Chair. I have to leave for another one.

I want to wish all of you well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, we're all Zoomed out.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholas.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, thank you.

Colleagues, I'm in your hands. It is now 10 minutes to six, 20 minutes past the usual adjournment time of this committee. We have to deal with amendments. I'm open to having another round of questions, or we can go directly to the bill itself and the amendments that might be proposed.

Can I see some sort of consensus as to how we should proceed?

Jack, go ahead.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, Chair.

I'm happy to move to amendments, except I would like to raise something. I don't know whether it has been raised, because I was busy talking to other people on Skype—some of those present colleagues—on another matter.

The issue I have an amendment to is related to what happens in the prison and accessibility to programs in prison.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, before you do that, I have to get, if you will, the permission of other colleagues to allow you to ask a question before we move to amendments.

Is it acceptable to let Mr. Harris proceed to ask his question?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Sure, Chair. Then, are we going to go straight to clause-by-clause? Is that the plan?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That would be the idea.

Is that fine?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Jack, you're the only thing that stands....

Oh, we have Shannon.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Given that the proponent of this important legislation, which we all agree is so crucial, had to wait through the discussion that started off the meeting, including a witness who is still here with us, I think we should do another round of questioning. I think we owe that to the witness and to the proponent, if they're willing, given the importance of this legislation and the fact that an entire meeting that was supposed to be allotted to them was not.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay, so are we reversing ourselves here?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I don't know how everybody else feels.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chair, in the past you've done a shortened round. I think that would be appropriate in the circumstances, but I agree with Mrs. Stubbs. Certainly we have tremendous people around the table here who have a lot to offer, and I think it is incumbent upon us to give them the opportunity to share.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

So if I do five, five, two and a half, and two and a half, would that be acceptable? Does everyone agree? That would be 15 more minutes of questions.

Mr. Bragdon, you're fine with that, and I assume your witnesses are fine with that. This is making it up on the fly, I have to say.

I think Mr. Van Popta is up next, and perhaps we could have some indication as to who the next Liberal might be.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have five minutes.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon, for bringing this very important bill forward.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here and sharing your wisdom with us.

Mr. Bragdon talked about an effective framework being multi-faceted, with many organizations coming together, bringing effectiveness to programs that way.

The first question is for Ms. Naidoo. Are there any programs that have proven to be better than others that Canada could emulate? I listened with great interest to your testimony about your organization and its working together with the HUD—housing and urban development—program. Perhaps you could flesh that out a little bit more. Is that something that is adaptable to the Canadian scenario?

[Tina Naidoo]

Thank you, Mr. Van Popta.

What I can add to that conversation, to help with some insight, is that we are a faith-based organization, or we started as a faith-based organization. To then step into government entities and collaborate, 17 years ago, was new to us. There is separation between church and state. As we're jogging alongside, we're finding common threads, and one common thread was the housing issue that returning citizens were facing. Our local housing authority had specifically written in its policies that persons who had a criminal background were not allowed to apply for any type of government-subsidized housing.

We had a brilliant CEO on the local level, who looked at the definition of special needs and expanded it to include returning citizens. Once that was accomplished, it took my clients to the top of the list, and the list had 14,000 people waiting for subsidized government funding.

We've been doing this now for about 13 or 14 years, working with landlords at a grassroots level. Landlords, even if they have a paying tenant, believe it or not, still don't want them. We had to convince them and have these conversations.

The relationship that we had as the intermediary—which is what I consider us to be—was with the government entity but also with the private sector, the landlords and the people on the local level, to garner trust. Lots of times I explain to my clients that it's kind of like co-signing for credit. I have good credit; you have bad credit, and you need me to co-sign.

This is how we did that job on a local level with housing. I hope that answers your question.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

It does, in many ways, but I have just one follow-up question.

You're saying there is a 65% recidivism rate in the U.S.A., and 35% in Canada. What is your organization's history with recidivism?