Debates of June 17th, 2014

Drug-Free Prisons Act

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we could probably spend a whole day discussing the problems with that penitentiary, a provincial one, lacking a federal one in Newfoundland and Labrador, which in itself is a contentious issue that I will not get into it.

We missed that golden opportunity to talk about how this would be dealt with over the next little while. We find ourselves in a situation where we have had a fairly good debate here. We have talked about how the statistics show a proliferation of drugs in the prison system across the country and how we can curtail that.

I only cited one report, which was the correctional report. It states that the idea of treatment has been sorely overlooked, to the point where we all need to get on board. This is just in this legislature. Imagine the evidence that could be brought forward if we had public hearings based upon the amount of drugs in the system and profiled the people currently in prison who are addicted.

It is one thing to talk about the entrance of illicit drugs into the system but, again, they are there because the demand remains fairly high.

We can punish them and give them an extra add-on to their sentence, but that will not stop this. What will stop this is the right treatment, which is happening in jurisdictions such as in the southern United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say a moment ago regarding the InSite project.

When reading Bill C-12—which seeks to address the drug problem in our prisons—I cannot help but compare it to Bill C-2, which was the subject of discussion just a few short hours ago.

I would like to ask my honourable colleague from the third party what he thinks about the war that the Conservatives are currently waging against all things drug-related. Does he think that their approach is working, or that they are way off track at this point?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleagues for the sudden interest in what I was talking about. It is very kind of them.

I want to talk about the member's question, which pertains to the war on drugs. There is a way to do it and a dumb way to do it, which is to ignore the treatment part of it and just go after the traffickers and the people who buy the drugs. Yes, the penalties have to be stiff to act as a deterrent, and there is nothing wrong with that, but the treatment part of it is completely ignored.

The member brought up Bill C-2 earlier. Evidence proves that what happens at an injection site actually works. It is improving the situation. It is not perfect, but it certainly is working. With the reduction of 35% in drug abuse in that area, it shows that treatment for harm reduction has positive effects. Yet, it seems we overlook this because we want to go after that headline to be tough on crime, which is unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I am very appreciative of the fact that we are discussing Bill C-12 today. I appreciate how enthusiastic the members are about my speech, at 11:45 p.m.

To begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I am sure that his speech will be excellent.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. From now on the speeches will be 10 minutes, and the question and comment period will be five minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges will understand and that he will be able to give his excellent speech after mine, whenever he sees fit.

It is truly an honour for me, as the official opposition's deputy public safety critic, to speak to Bill C-12, and there are many reasons for that.

To begin, I would like to mention that members on this side of the House will be supporting Bill C-12 at second reading. I think it will be interesting to see what happens in committee. I am looking forward to inviting various witnesses to come and discuss the different provisions included in Bill C-12.

We can summarize this bill quite easily. It is designed to add a provision to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act confirming that, when deciding whether someone is eligible for parole, the parole board may take into account the fact that the offender tested positive in a urinalysis or refused to provide a urine sample for a drug test. The parole board already uses this practice, which we support.

The board already takes into account the results of drug screening tests when it holds hearings and determines the inmates' eligibility for parole. That is why I think a title like “drug-free prisons act” is a little too much. Indeed, nothing in Bill C-12 will make prisons drug-free because the provisions for that are simply not there.

Correctional Service Canada has serious problems. In my riding, Alfred-Pellan, there were until very recently three federal correctional facilities on the property of Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. There was Leclerc Institution—which was closed as a result of what I thought was a very unfair decision by the Conservative government—and we still have Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre.

Since my election, I often visit the correctional facilities in my riding in order to understand the reality of the correctional system, as well as what the staff has to go through every day in that system. I can tell you that their work is not easy.

I invite my colleagues in the House to visit the federal correctional facilities in or near their ridings to see and understand the reality of our correctional workers.

Right now, there is a lot going on. They are very worried about the decisions made by the Conservatives regarding the correctional system. I will mention a few. First, double-bunking in our prisons is a glaring problem. It is difficult for correctional officers to do their job properly. Many do not have the means to their job properly. It is harder for them to ensure activities within our institutions are properly carried, and this is very unfortunate. Their health and safety are compromised because of these decisions. We see more and more double-bunking, and even triple-bunking, which is very unfortunate. Correctional staff also condemns this situation.

They also condemn another measure that goes directly against Bill C-12, namely the cuts to Correctional Service Canada. Over the past two years, the budget has been reduced by 10%. This affects many programs within Correctional Service Canada. That is also being condemned by the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, because the officers see the inmates' reality daily in these facilities. They see the deteriorating quality of life, and they see that these individuals will be reintegrated into society without having the necessary tools to avoid reoffending. This shows the importance of our programs.

Many programs deal with the detoxification of inmates. Let us not forget that two thirds of people who commit a crime are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is estimated that four out of five inmates in our prisons have substance abuse problems. This is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed.

I heard Conservative members ask questions about the $122 million investment in technology to detect drugs inside our prisons.

Unfortunately, this investment did not work. It is very sad. It is also sad to see the other side tell us there should be zero drugs in our prisons. In a perfect world, it would be great if we did not have any drugs in prisons, and if everyone was clean.

However, it is impossible and I am not the only saying that. Correctional officer Howard Sapers, also says it. So does the John Howard Society. Moreover, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which works really hard, also tells us it is impossible and we must implement measures to tackle this issue.

I reiterate my support to the hard-working personnel in prisons. We on this side can say that we support them every day in their work. Like them, we want to propose real solutions, so that inmates do not return to society without having had access to rehabilitation and anti-drug programs.

In our prisons, addiction is also related to mental health, unfortunately. It is sad to say, but we have to face reality. The government has not only made cuts to addictions programs, but also to programs that address mental health problems. Both are closely linked. We must pay attention to that. In recent months, the case of Ashley Smith has resurfaced and shown that people working in our prisons are not equipped to deal with serious problems such as mental health problems.

I hope we can have a productive discussion in committee about the best solution for dealing with addiction problems full force. My colleague from Sherbrooke mentioned this in his speech when we began talking about this. It is a question of doing intake assessments, as correctional investigator Howard Sapers is calling for, and ensuring that inmates have access to all the necessary programs for overcoming their drug or alcohol problems.

Keeping our communities safe is important to all members in the House, as is reducing recidivism rates as much as possible and giving people the tools they need to reintegrate into society. Let us not bury our heads in the sand and suggest that we can round all these people up somewhere, lock the door and throw away the key. They will eventually be released. If we want them to become good citizens and if we want fewer victims in Canada, we must give people the right tools.

The numbers back me up. When people have the tools they need and reintegration works, recidivism rates drop. We need to ensure that rehabilitation is done properly, and we need to come up with some real solutions. We are sick and tired of hearing that mandatory minimums will miraculously turn everything around. Mandatory minimum sentences have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In closing, I would like to say that we intend to support the bill. I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss it further and make some real changes to it to tackle the issue of drug use in our prisons. I would be happy to keep discussing the issue if anyone has any questions.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question about something that is of interest to me.

It is odd because there is a provincial prison in my riding and it is the Orsainville prison that is in the news these days. When I was a young girl, my parents and our neighbours called it “the sieve”. Unfortunately, not much has changed.

We know that a lot of drug traffickers are sent to prison. They end up in prison. When it comes to drugs, there is no prison system that almost totally prevents contact with the outside world. A lot of drugs find their way into prison.

Can my colleague talk more about the fact that the Conservatives are increasing prison time, depriving individuals of their rights and increasing minimum sentences when we know that this does not address any of the problems?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles goes to the heart of the problem. The Conservatives would have us believe they are tough on crime, but their war on drugs is not working at all.

In recent weeks, my colleague witnessed the unrest that followed the events at Orsainville. This is another illustration of the Conservatives' laissez-faire attitude. They should have acted a long time ago on the issue of flying zones above provincial institutions. This is unfortunate.

As for federal prisons, several correctional officers told me that since the new provisions were passed, our prisons are increasingly overcrowded, double-bunking is frequent, and budgets and personnel have been cut. This is turning our prisons into schools for crime.

It is unacceptable. It complicates the rehabilitation of inmates, at a time when we seek to make our communities safer.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleague and Conservative members the comments of Michael Parkinson, the community engagement coordinator for the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. I mentioned in an earlier debate the task force that it came up with.

Parkinson starts by saying that, “The United Nations estimates that substance abuse costs society about $700 billion globally every year”. He goes on to say that, “...incarceration...can't fully deal with the issue of substance related crime”. He elaborates by saying that as a government, “It costs a minimum of $80,000 to incarcerate someone in Canada”. He goes on to ask, “...are they likely to get any treatment for the addiction? Not likely”. He goes on to say that, “...there are no prison systems internationally that have eradicated drugs internally”.

This task force looked at the actual prison systems.

He then comments about the criminals, “And then they’re popped back out into society and the root cause of the criminal behaviour has yet to be addressed”.

I would like the Conservatives on this side, many of whom represent the Waterloo region, to listen and collaborate with the stakeholders in their regions who are telling them their approach is wrong.

We are going to support this legislation at second reading but we believe that the scope of it is very narrow. It is trying to address a wicked problem with insufficient solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges made a very relevant comment, especially since once you read Bill C-12 you can see that it has nothing to do with its title, which would have us believe that it is making our prisons drug free. No prisoner or would-be criminal is going to refrain from using drugs for fear of losing their freedom. That is not how it works.

The government is sticking its head in the sand and is giving us this dog and pony show with something that already exists.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Environment

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight regarding a question I asked on June 3. On that day, I asked about traffic jams in Toronto and the fact that the C.D. Howe Institute says that they cost the economy $11 billion a year. I asked why the government is investing so little in sustainable transportation infrastructure right now, in fact in infrastructure in general right now.

The minister answered in an over-simplified way, if I could just be kind and gentle. He said simply, “Because you are wrong”. That was all he said. Really. We can see from the video of those proceedings how entertaining the answer was to Conservative MPs. Therefore, the first thing I would like to say is that I hope the government takes the opportunity during these adjournment proceedings to explain how the minister could even answer a question in front of Canadians that way.

Let me talk now about infrastructure. Infrastructure spending is being held back. We know that, without even looking at the numbers, from the experience of Canadian municipalities that are looking to access federal money to work on infrastructure projects that are ready to go. My community of Kingston and the Islands has infrastructure projects that are ready to go. That is because of program delays and low levels of funding from the new building Canada plan in the first few years, funding that has been pushed back to make sure that there is a balanced budget for the Conservative Party's 2015 election campaign.

David Dodge, former governor of the Bank of Canada, says that now is the time to invest in infrastructure, because in many parts of Canada, such as Ontario, there is plentiful labour, extra industrial capacity, and most importantly, right now interest rates are very low.

Let us look at how much it costs Canada to borrow money. According to the Bank of Canada, the long-term interest rate for Canadian government bonds in June 1984 was 14%. That was the yield on the bonds. In 1994, it went down to 9%. In 2004, it went down to 5%. This year, Canada sold 50-year bonds for a 2.86% yield. That is under 3%. Canada can borrow money for 50 years and pay an interest rate under 3%. What does that mean?

In my original question to the minister, I said that the C.D. Howe Institute said that the economic cost of traffic congestion was $11 billion a year. Let us just take $1 billion a year, one-tenth of that. If we could borrow at an interest rate of 2.86%, we could service the interest payments on $35 billion of infrastructure investment. That is two times the new building Canada fund, which is only $14 billion.

To conclude, just one-tenth of the annual cost of traffic congestion in Toronto could cover the interest payments needed to pay for two of this government's new building Canada plans. That is how unambitious the government is.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend mentioned traffic congestion in Toronto. I am from the Toronto area and I certainly understand the problem. It is probably the number one problem facing the community. Every day we all spend far too much time sitting in traffic. One of the things it does is create a lot of air pollution. There is a contribution to climate change, of course, and I would like to tell my friend what our government is doing about climate change.

Internationally, Canada is a constructive participant in the United Nations negotiations toward a fair and effective post-2020 climate change agreement. Canada is also playing a leadership role on a number of collaborative international climate change initiatives outside of the United Nations. For instance, our government is working with international partners through our chairmanship of the Arctic Council and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to address short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon and methane.

Domestically, our government is implementing a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic competitiveness. We have started with the electricity and transportation sectors, two of the largest emitting sectors of the Canadian economy.

In the electricity generating sector, Canada already has one of the cleanest systems in the world, with 77% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gases. In 2012, we took steps to make it even cleaner. Our government introduced tough new regulatory performance standards for coal-fired electricity generation that make Canada the first major coal user to ban construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. These regulations will help contribute to reductions of 46% in this sector over 2005 levels by 2030.

In the transportation sector, our government collaborated with the United States to develop standards for regulating greenhouse gases produced by passenger automobiles and light trucks. We have done the same for heavy-duty vehicles. As a result of the Government of Canada's actions, it is projected that by 2025, light-duty vehicles will consume up to 50% less fuel and produce about 50% less greenhouse gas emissions than 2008 model year vehicles. For heavy-duty vehicles, greenhouse gas emissions from 2018 model year vehicles will be reduced by up to 23% compared to vehicles manufactured prior to that regulatory period.

Our approach is generating results. It is estimated that as a result of the combined actions of all levels of governments, businesses, and consumers, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 will be 734 megatonnes. That is 128 megatonnes lower than where emissions would have been in 2020 if no action had been taken since 2005.

Our government is working to ensure that we achieve results for Canadians and the environment. Our approach will result in real emission reductions, while maintaining Canada's economic competitiveness and supporting job creation opportunities for Canadians.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the world community would agree that Canada is taking leadership on the problem of climate change. It is a problem that requires countries around the world to co-operate.

I would also say that the so-called sector-by-sector approach still has not really been implemented. We are still waiting for what the oil and gas sector is going to do. We have been waiting for many years. In fact, we are way past the time at which the government said it would have these rules in place. As my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party has stated himself, and I want to thank him for being here at this late hour to answer these questions, he and millions of other people are very well accustomed to sitting in traffic in the Greater Toronto Area, wasting energy, time, and money.

That is why I think it is time for the federal government to help out all of the areas in the country where better investments are needed in sustainable transportation infrastructure. We have the money to pay for it, especially now when money is so cheap and interest rates are so low. As I said before, one-tenth of the economic cost of traffic congestion in Toronto could service the debt on twice the amount of the government's new building Canada plan.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will know, our government has put more money into transportation infrastructure across Canada, especially in the GTA, than any government in Canadian history, and quite a bit more than the former Liberal government that his party was part of. In fact, in the GTA, the government has put over $500 million into GO Transit, which moves millions of people every day in the GTA. We put $83 million into the Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit Project, which is under construction and about to be completed. We put $660 million into the Toronto Transit Commission in building new subways. We put money into the flow transit system in York region.

We are getting the job done for Canadians: taking cars off the roads and reducing greenhouse emissions and pollutants in our air.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra not being present to raise during the adjournment proceedings the matter for which notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:10 a.m.)