House of Commons Hansard #22 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prison.

Topics

Firearms RegistryOral Questions

Noon

Scarborough Centre Ontario

Conservative

Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, we accept the decision of the Supreme Court. We will continue to bring forward measures to keep our streets and communities safe and we will continue to treat law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters with the respect that they deserve.

Public Service of CanadaOral Questions

November 22nd, 2013 / noon

Independent

Brent Rathgeber Independent Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, in 90 minutes the House will debate amendments to Bill C-461 dealing with public sector salary disclosure. For weeks, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has become quite fond of saying that on that side of the House the Conservatives will always stand up for taxpayers, and I want to put that theory to the test.

Will the government support amendments to Bill C-461, fully supported by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to lower the salary disclosure bar for public servants from the ridiculous $444,761 to a more defensible sum, and that is the salary of a member of Parliament?

Public Service of CanadaOral Questions

Noon

Mississauga—Erindale Ontario

Conservative

Bob Dechert ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the NDP and the Liberals voted against this legislation in the first place. In fact, every time we bring forward new measures to increase government transparency, the opposition parties vote against them.

The fact is that all salary ranges for public servants are already disclosed. Our amendments would ensure that information about the top earners in the public service is revealed.

After 13 years of Liberal scandals, we brought forward the Federal Accountability Act. We take no lessons from the opposition parties when it comes to accountable government.

Notice of MotionWays and MeansRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Edmonton—Sherwood Park Alberta

Conservative

Tim Uppal ConservativeMinister of State (Multiculturalism)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I have the honour to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2) I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Navigable Waters Protection ActPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present.

The first petition asks the House to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Cowichan River on Vancouver Island in B.C. has experienced dangerously low water levels in recent years. The situation poses a significant health risk to salmon stocks. The Cowichan River supplies drinking water and recreation opportunities to thousands of residents.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-495 and to reinsert the Cowichan River into the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

TaxationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to support Bill C-201, which would allow tradespersons and indentured apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so they could secure and maintain employment at a construction site that would be more than 80 kilometres from their home.

That bill was presented by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Genetically Modified AlfalfaPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, in my final petition, the petitioners call upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa to allow proper review of the impact on farmers in Canada.

Mining IndustryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of my constituents in Guelph on the regulation of Canadian mining companies operating abroad.

The petitioners are concerned about the impact of mining activity on indigenous and non-indigenous communities. Their concerns range from environment destruction, weak environmental assessments, the failure to fully and adequately secure the consent of local communities, complicity in human rights violations and the use of government sanctioned militias as security forces.

The petitioners call on the federal government to implement binding legislation that would regulate the activities of Canadian mining companies overseas to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and promote long-standing Canadian values of respect for the rule of law, good governance and democracy.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 24.

Question No. 24Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

With regard to Correctional Service of Canada (CSC): (a) how many adults serving custody sentences in the federal correctional system previously served in the Canadian Forces (CF) and RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (b) how many of these adults specified above served their custody sentence in (i) federal minimum security prisons, (ii) federal medium security prisons, (iii) federal maximum security prisons; (c) how many offenders on conditional release previously served in the Canadian Forces and RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (d) what is a breakdown on the types of offences committed by adults with previous service in the CF and RCMP for those serving custody sentences in federal correctional facilities and offenders on conditional release from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (e) has CSC determined a re-conviction rate for adults who previously served in the CF or RCMP from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; (f) what is a breakdown of the types of rehabilitative needs adults who previously served in the CF and RCMP accessed while serving their custody sentence or conditional release (including psychological, social, or occupational training opportunities) from 2001 to 2013 inclusive; and (g) how many adults serving their custody sentence or conditional release with prior CF or RCMP service were treated for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder or Operational Stress Injuries from 2001 to 2013 inclusive?

Question No. 24Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Lévis—Bellechasse Québec

Conservative

Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, CSC does not formally track information pertaining to federal offenders who may have served in the Canadian Forces and in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a result, a manual case-by-case review would be required in order to accurately respond, and this cannot be completed within the time frame provided.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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.

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

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?

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

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—

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

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.

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

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.

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

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?

Drug-Free Prisons ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

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.