Bill Siksay

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the government could take tougher action. If it feels constrained by the legislation, then it could bring in new legislation. I am sure there would be lots of goodwill in this place to get those changes immediately and quickly through this place so we could address this obscene gesture, these obscene bonuses.

I am saddened that the Prime Minister seemed to excuse these outrageous bonuses at a time when the fund lost so much money. He was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, “I actually noticed, by the way, that the board, in fact, did drop a total compensation for its executives by 31 per cent last year”. That 31% down in bonuses to almost $7 million is really hard to believe. It points out the need to address this, and Canadians would really want Parliament to deal with that issue.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek talked about the private member's legislation on which he is working. This legislation will address many of those issues. I would encourage the government to steal his work. I am sure he would be thrilled if the government stole some of those ideas, took them off the order paper and introduced them as government legislation, as an omnibus bill to deal with pensions in Canada. I am sure we would all be thrilled if some of the work of the previous speaker from the Bloc was taken by the government on how we could improve the pension situation of Canadians.

I do not think we have extended or plumbed the depths of how Canadians can work together to support our seniors and ensure they have security in their old age. I do not think we have plumbed the depths of how appropriately we can support pensions and ensure they allow people to live with dignity in their retirement. We need to do that work as a Parliament.

I hear there is support in all four corners of the House for these kinds of measures and this kind of resolution. It is a great idea. It is a good sign about how we work together in the House. It is not every day we see that kind of consensus built in this place. I am glad we have found that way today, where we can work on an issue together that is of major concern to many Canadians.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate today on an NDP opposition day motion regarding pensions.

At the outset, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I want to pay tribute to my NDP colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for bringing forward this motion today. It is very timely. When we consider the worries of Canadians during this economic crisis, at the top of the list we have to put seniors, who are very concerned about their retirement incomes.

I want to review the text of the motion, so folks are clear on what we are talking about in this debate. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, in light of the legitimate concerns of Canadians that pensions and their retirement security may not be there for them in their retirement years, the Government of Canada should begin to work with the provinces and territories to ensure the sustainability of Canadians' retirement incomes by bringing forward at the earliest opportunity, measures such as:

(a) expanding and increasing the CPP/QPP, OAS and GIS to ensure all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement;

(b) establishing a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans in tough economic times;

(c) ensuring that workers' pension funds go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings;

(d) in the interest of appropriate management of the CPP that the Government of Canada immediately protect the CPP from imprudent investment practices by ceasing the practice of awarding managers performance-based bonuses; and

(e) take all necessary steps to recover those bonuses for 2009, ensuring managers in the future are paid appropriate industry-competitive salaries.

This is a very comprehensive motion and it comes from the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek's work on this issue and his work across the country with seniors and pensioners to discuss the issues that are important to them. It places him clearly in the long line of New Democrats and CCF members who worried about pension income, income security and dignity of our seniors, people like J.S. Woodsworth, who was around for the creation of pension programs, and Stanley Knowles, who spearheaded the fight to protect pensions, to expand and improve them and to ensure that there was dignity in retirement, that there was dignity for seniors and that there was income security for them in their later years and in their retirement.

That is a long tradition from folks in this corner of the House, and the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek stands firmly in that tradition.

The first component of the motion today centres on expanding and increasing the CPP, OAS and GIS to ensure that all Canadians can count on a dignified retirement. It is very clear that many seniors in our country require stronger support measures than are currently offered through these very important programs. We want to ensure that people do not live in poverty in their retirement. We want to ensure they have comfortable lives, that having worked hard all their lives, they are provided for in their retirement. These pension programs are a key way that Canadians collectively seek to support each other as we age.

It is very important that we regularly review and improve these programs. They were not cast in stone. They can always be improved, according to the situations of the day.

It is also important to remember that in this time of economic crisis, where we talk about measures to stimulate the economy, improving CPP, OAS and GIS has a major effect in terms of stimulating the economy. We know that every dollar put into these programs will actually be spent in the economy, that seniors living on pension incomes spend their incomes in the communities in which they live. They purchase services and goods. This money goes directly to support our communities and support other working people in those communities. It is a very effective way of ensuring that, dollar for dollar, we get good value for any kind of stimulus package. This corner of the House has always maintained that this should be part of any economic stimulus program.

It has been said in the debate this morning, and in other fora, that a $1 billion increase in OAS and GIS would virtually eliminate poverty among seniors in Canada. Now, $1 billion sounds like a lot of money, but I think in the context of having the outcome of eliminating poverty for seniors in Canada, it would be well worth that expense. I believe there is that kind of room in the government's planning. It would mean not going ahead with some of the corporate tax cuts that it has announced for down the road.

We could easily find that $1 billion a year to dedicate to our seniors and to get economic value for that kind of investment. This is eminently possible should we have the political will and the wherewithal to move down that road. The benefit is huge.

Another aspect of expanding this kind of pension and old age security coverage would be to ensure immigrant seniors could qualify sooner for the old age security program. We know the 10-year wait for immigrant seniors often causes great hardship. Again, it is a hardship that is inappropriate in our society. Should they have that money in their pockets, we know that would go into our communities and would be well spent. That is another area where we could ensure an appropriate expansion of the old age security program.

The second element of the motion today would establish a self-financing pension insurance program to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans in tough economic times. We have heard major concerns about the viability of pensions, given the economic situation. We see that as being a major factor in negotiations around support for industries that are suffering in this economic decline.

There are some fairly straightforward solutions to dealing with that concern. Just like we have taken measures to ensure bank deposits, through measures like the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, we could take similar measures to ensure the viability of workplace sponsored plans through a pension insurance program that followed that same model.

This has been done in other countries. It has been done in the United States. We have that model. It has also been done in Japan, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany. It is not a new idea, nor is a radical one. It is an idea that would give people a measure of security for their pensions and could be a significant measure for relieving some of the worries about the ongoing viability of our pension plans. We already employ a particular model around savings in banks and it could easily be applied in this circumstance as well.

The third element of the motion today would ensure that workers' pension funds would go to the front of the line of creditors in the event of bankruptcy proceedings. This is something New Democrats have pressed for regularly in this place. In a recent Parliament measures were passed on the wage earner protection plan, which features some of these kinds of measures. Legislation was passed in Parliament and became law to put workers' wages at the front of the list in the event of a bankruptcy and at the front of the list of creditors when back wages were owed at the time of a corporate bankruptcy. It seems only fair, and I am glad it passed Parliament at that time. The argument is very clear that workers should have their wages paid in those circumstances.

This is a place where pensions need to be factored into the equation. We need to ensure that people's pensions and their pension plans are at the top of the line at the time of a bankruptcy.

Finally, on the practices of the CPP Investment Board over the last 10 years, if it had invested prudently, even in government bonds, it would have earned $13 billion instead of losing $24 billion in this past year alone. The practice of paying huge bonuses to the managers of that fund, $7 million in bonuses in a year, when they lost $24 billion, when they lost the equivalent of four years' contributions to the plan, is inexcusable. I think all Canadians are offended by that.

The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek called it an obscene situation. As parliamentarians, the government has to address that situation and ensure the practice stops. There is no excuse, particularly at a time when the management of the fund has been so colossally unsuccessful. We need to address that quickly and soon so people have confidence in the management of the CPP.

[Income Tax Act, June 11th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-417, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (inborn error of metabolism).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a private member's bill, seconded by the member for Ottawa Centre, to establish a medical expense credit for people who require special diets due to inborn errors of metabolism.

This bill would allow people with inborn errors of metabolism, who have been certified by a medical practitioner to require a low-protein diet, to claim the extra cost of purchasing specialized food products as a medical expense on their tax returns. The cost of this diet as compared to the cost of a standard diet recommended by Canada's Food Guide is significant. Under current rules, these people must absorb this extra cost themselves.

This situation was drawn to my attention by Stephen Kelen, a social worker, and Dr. Sandra Sirrs, the medical director of the adult metabolic diseases clinic at Vancouver Hospital. Dr. Sirrs notes that this bill would be an enormous help for those patients and their families whose survival depends on very expensive low-protein food products. She points out that these patients cannot survive on a normal diet, that paying for low-protein foods they need just to stay alive has been a terrible burden on them and their families, and that this bill will ease that burden.

A similar medical exemption already exists for people living with celiac disease. People living with inborn errors of metabolism should benefit from a similar provision. I hope that members will support this measure.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her contribution to the debate and for her service to the community as a police officer for 18 years.

In that regard, I would like to ask the member if she could tell us what crimes related to terrorism would not be covered by the current Criminal Code. It is my understanding that any crime that we could possibly think of related to terrorism is already a serious crime under the provisions of our Criminal Code and one that is dealt with very seriously should it ever go to prosecution in our criminal justice system.

For instance, the crime of conspiracy already exists under the Criminal Code, so anyone planning that kind of terrorist attack is already committing a crime. They do not actually have to commit the crime before they could be found guilty of a criminal activity. We also have hate crimes legislation, so if the crime that is being planned targets a particular group, that is already covered by our Criminal Code.

Could the member tell us exactly why these special measures are needed when the Criminal Code already deals very seriously with all the issues related to terrorism?

[Truth in Sentencing Act, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it would not be the first time I have disagreed with the current government in British Columbia on an issue.

I want to see evidence that this legislation will improve the safety and security of citizens before I vote for it, and I see no evidence. I do not believe any evidence was presented to demonstrate that. It is incumbent on me as a member of Parliament to look for that kind of evidence before I indicate support for a measure that is being brought forward.

I do not doubt that there are many people who believe that this is a great idea, just as there are many people in Canada who believe that capital punishment is a good idea. I would not be able to support that kind of measure. I am glad that the last time that issue came forward the House did not support it, despite massive public opinion in favour of that option. There was no evidence that it makes people safer, that it does anything to improve the security and safety of our communities and our families. I do not see that in this legislation either. I do not see how this is going to improve the system.

Again, if it had done something about actually addressing the problems that gave rise to this two for one credit system, then maybe it would be supportable, but I do not see any evidence that there has been any attention whatsoever paid to that.

I do have real difficulties with this legislation. I do not think it will accomplish the goals that even the government has proclaimed it attempts to address.

[Truth in Sentencing Act, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this third reading debate on Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody). The Conservatives have given this bill the nickname of the truth in sentencing act, which can also be used to refer to the act.

I have many problems with this piece of legislation. I do not think that will come as a surprise to anyone. I have often had great difficulty with crime and punishment measures put forward by the Conservative government. This bill certainly fits the kinds of concerns that I have expressed since I was elected in 2004.

This legislation would give people, before they are found guilty or sentenced for a crime, who are held in a pretrial remand centre, extra credit for the time they spend in jail before being convicted. This bill puts a limit on that. We have seen over the years in Canada the process develop where regularly, almost automatically, people are given two for one credit for their time in pretrial custody before they are convicted. This bill would limit that to one day for every day served in pretrial custody, and in certain exceptional cases it would be allowed to go to one and a half days for one day.

I have trouble with that. The key reason goes back to one of the fundamental principles of our justice system: the presumption of innocence. We have to maintain our belief in some of these very fundamental issues that have been developed over many centuries in our justice system. I believe that the presumption of innocence is one of the very key and fundamental principles of our legal system.

This bill is a direct challenge to that. It says that folks held in custody before they are convicted of a crime are not eligible for any consideration for the time spent in jail before they are found guilty or sentenced for the crime they are alleged to have committed. We need to keep in mind the principle of the presumption of innocence. When people are held before they are given the opportunity to face their accusers and the charges in a court of law, we are delaying justice, and we know that justice delayed is not justice served.

I am also concerned that this is another attempt to limit judicial discretion. We have often heard from Conservatives their disdain, that is the only word to use, for judges having any discretion when it comes to sentencing. I happen to believe that it is needed in the system. We can be armchair judges and react to decisions by judges on sentencing, but when we have not sat through the full trial, followed the case from beginning to end, heard all of the evidence or made the judgments about the accused, it is altogether too easy to decide that some judge has let someone off with a light sentence.

I believe, for the most part, that judges do their jobs well, and judicial discretion is crucial in their ability to do that important work on our behalf. It is important for us to have a measure of judicial discretion built into our system. This bill takes aim at that by trying to put a limit on the ability of judges to recognize time spent in jail and remand centres before someone is convicted of a crime or has gone to court. Those are two very important principles that this legislation challenges.

The practice of allowing two for one credits for pretrial custody arose from concerns about conditions in our justice system, specifically conditions in pretrial centres. The people who have taken a look at our prison system in Canada know that pretrial centres are among the worst in the country. Conditions are often unbelievably horrible. One of the reasons the system of two for one credits has come to be is the problems in the remand system.

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, when he was speaking at second reading on this bill, quoted a story from The Globe and Mail. It was an article, an op-ed piece, written by a Toronto lawyer which appeared in the April 1 issue.

That lawyer described the pretrial conditions for one of his clients, a man named Pavel. Here is what he said, and I think it bears repeating:

Pavel slept on the floor next to the toilet. He was smaller than his cell mates, and most nights he didn't dare challenge them for one of the two bunks. He spent 20 hours a day locked with other men in a 12 by 8 cell designed for one. The staff was on strike, so his cell was not cleaned for two months. Because he was too small to fight for space at the table, he ate his meals on the toilet. Living in filth, he developed a skin disease. His hair fell out in patches, but he was lucky, at least he hadn't caught the tuberculosis that was spreading throughout the detention centre.

That is a graphic example, and maybe it is a particular example given the particular circumstances in that detention centre at the time. I believe it was in the Don Jail, but I could be wrong about that.

We know that overcrowding is a regular feature. Certainly in the pretrial centres in British Columbia, double bunking, triple bunking is the usual practice. We know the conditions in the pretrial centres in British Columbia are absolutely unconscionable. They go against everything Canada has committed to under international agreements in terms of its obligations to a standard of one prisoner per cell with full facilities.

I think most of us can appreciate why that would be the best circumstance for someone in custody in our country. We are not making that standard in many jurisdictions in Canada. I think that is why the practice of two for one credit largely has become automatic. It has been tested in the courts. The member for Hochelaga read from the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on two for one. The judges noted that it came from a concern about conditions. He also noted they were concerned about being too rigid and cutting back on the ability of judges to exercise discretion given the circumstances of the case before them.

I think we need to really pay attention to conditions in the remand centres and in our prison system. We know there are no programs in provincial remand centres. Given the harsh conditions, given the fact that there are no programs for people, this is a very difficult place to be incarcerated. It is not that this should be easy, but this is particularly troubling given our hopes for standards in those areas and given the kinds of conditions that have developed in this country.

The federal correctional investigator, Mr. Howard Sapers, has expressed concerns about the situation in our federal penitentiary system, the system people go to after they have been convicted, after they get out of a pretrial centre if they have been held prior to their sentencing. We know the situation there is not much better. There are many concerns about what is going on in the federal system once people get out.

Mr. Sapers recently told the committee that was looking at this bill:

It bears noting that the pervasive effects of prison crowding reach far beyond the provision of a comfortable living environment for federal inmates. It stretches the system beyond its capacity to move offenders through their correctional plans in a timely fashion. It has negative impacts on the protection of society itself, as offenders are incarcerated for a greater portion of their sentence, only to be released into the community ill-prepared and then supervised for shorter periods of time.

He continued:

As it stands now, offenders have to contend with long waiting lists for programs; cancelled programs because of insufficient funding or lack of trained facilitators; delayed conditional release, because the lack of capacity to provide programs means offenders cannot complete their correctional plans; and more time served behind walls without correctional benefit. This situation is becoming critical. More and more offenders are released later in their sentences too often not having received the necessary programs and treatment to increase their chance of success once in a community.

That is the situation in our federal system after people are sentenced and incarcerated. It bears repeating that much of what Mr. Saper is talking about is not even a consideration in the pretrial system. That gives rise to the very serious concerns that people have had about pretrial incarceration and the conditions people face in those systems.

There were issues raised at the committee when it was looking at this bill about how this legislation would affect particular groups in our society.

Mr. William Trudell, the chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, brought a particular example of how this law might affect women in Yukon and women who are in the criminal justice system. He reported on what a member of the council had reported was happening in Yukon, how this two for one credit was being applied there and why it was important. This is what the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers representative said:

Let me just share with you what our Yukon representative said. This kind of puts it in perspective. Men in the Yukon receive 1.5 to one and women receive two to one. This is because they are housed together in one jail. Because the majority are men, the men have access to any programming that is offered--very little, the library, the yard access--whereas women are kept separate and usually get one hour out of their dorm in a day. In addition, there is only one halfway house that provides bail beds, and they do not accept women. Therefore, women have less opportunities for bail than men.

That example makes it quite clear that there is a necessity for taking into account the conditions that women in Yukon face when they are held before trial. The situation is very different from that of men in Yukon. Therefore, the system has developed where there is a different credit for time being served pretrial in Yukon. When there is little or no programming, and the programming in this case was access to a library and an exercise yard and the women did not even really get that, it shows some of the problems that arise when we try to put hard and fast limits on the sentencing provisions, on the two for one credit, and the discretion of judges to respond to the conditions in the system.

We need to consider these particular situations. Aboriginal people are often overrepresented in our criminal justice system and therefore, it is logical to assume that the kind of situations we are discussing in this legislation are more likely to affect aboriginal people in Canada. Certainly we have heard time and time again how the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our criminal justice system is something that needs to be addressed, it is something that extends from deeply entrenched and systemic racism in this country, and yet this legislation takes no consideration of those factors in looking at the situation of our criminal justice system.

Although we recognize that the application of two for one is often automatic, it is not universal. In the Khawaja case, the judge made a very deliberate statement of not applying any presentencing credit for the time that Mr. Khawaja served in jail and was very clear about why he felt that would be inappropriate. I have to say that the discretion can go the other way, as well. Certainly, Justice Rutherford in that case took it upon himself to make that kind of decision in that case. It is another example about why judicial discretion is an important factor in all of this.

There was an attempt to amend the legislation at second reading but, unfortunately, none of the amendments were accepted by the other parties. I want to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for making a valiant effort to do that.

We could be doing other things to fix the system. We could be trying to ensure a speedy trial for people who are charged with a crime. Prosecutors are overloaded. The provincial government in British Columbia took steps recently to reduce funding for prosecutors, which was absolutely the wrong direction in which to go. If anything, prosecutors need more resources so that they can do their work in a timely fashion and ensure that the system is supported through their able advice and work. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many of our jurisdictions. There is nothing in this bill that would increase the resources available to provinces to ensure appropriate prosecution, to ensure the timelines of that, or even to improve conditions in provincial remand centres.

We have seen the difficulties with legal aid in many jurisdictions. In Ontario legal aid lawyers are taking a very strong stand against the remuneration they are paid. It is another example of a flaw in our system that complicates the system unnecessarily and could be addressed if governments would provide appropriate resources for that. How many people are in pretrial because they are not getting the appropriate legal advice they need and do not have the kind of access they need to a legal aid lawyer who could properly attend to their situation and their case.

Another concern is that the legislation itself may increase backlogs by its very application. The concern is that if we are removing discretion and making the process of getting increased credit for time spent presentence and that a more formal application process for that time is required, that will require more detailed sentencing hearings in the process. Witnesses would need to be called. That process in itself would make certain cases go longer.

This is something that has not been thought through particularly carefully. Also, there is the concern that if we are removing the possibility of this kind of credit, there will be fewer guilty pleas in the system and it will cause the need for more trials and longer and more complicated trials just because of that.

That is another crucial factor we need to take into consideration with the bill before us. It seemed like a good idea until it was fully implemented and some of these problems came to the fore. It does not have the desired effect of making the system fairer or of speeding up the system. Surely one of our goals in terms of the delivery of criminal justice in Canada is to make sure that people have timely access to that, and that the time, if they are being held before their trial, is very limited, that they proceed to trial and have a decision on their case as quickly as possible. I do not think we do enough to ensure that actually happens in our current system.

Maybe if the legislation had said that we might take measures to reduce the credit offered for pretrial sentencing conditionally, if progress was made about how long it takes to go to trial in Canada, if progress was made on conditions regarding overcrowding and programming in pretrial, if there were specific criteria established to judge the circumstances of the criminal justice system and say that the standard that is developed for very good reason has been two for one and because of the conditions, it has almost been automatic, but if certain benchmarks are made in the system, we might consider reducing that.

That might have been a better piece of legislation, to make it conditional on our performance in delivering a fair and just criminal justice system. This bill once again makes an arbitrary decision about what would be appropriate in these circumstances and limits the discretion that is available in these circumstances. I am not sure that is the appropriate direction in which to go.

Across the country there have been stories about people who deliberately delay their trial so that they can take advantage of this two for one sentencing offer. A lot of these stories are anecdotal. There was little hard evidence produced at the committee to support that it was going on. Many lawyers said they would see that as misconduct if they were recommending to a client to do that, or if they themselves were delaying a trial just to take advantage of that sentencing option.

That is the reason for moving on this. We need to see some clear evidence that that is going on. Until then, I cannot accept the fact that it is. I have real problems with this. I have real problems with the conditions in our prison system and in our pretrial facilities. I will not be able to support this legislation.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her kind words.

I have a clear commitment to harm reduction and to neighbourhood participation. I have to say, the downtown east side of Vancouver is an incredible neighbourhood. People often think of it as a terrible place. Anyone who has any familiarity with it will know that it has some of the best qualities of a neighbourhood that we would find anywhere in Canada, the way people co-operate with each other, take care of each other, look out for each other and try to plan for the needs of that community.

When that community was discussing ways to address the drug issues in the community, I was a member of a church in the downtown east side. My partner was the minister of that congregation, the First United Church at the corner of Hastings and Gore, a central corner of the downtown east side. When the community was looking for a place to house a safe injection site, the people of the First United Church congregation, the people who run the mission at First United Church, were there to say that they wanted to participate in that.

They were willing to house that safe injection site, knowing that it was outside the law and that it was likely an act of civil disobedience to do that, but they knew the importance of that facility. They knew the importance of harm reduction. They knew that facility was going to save lives. It was eventually established not in the church but down the street, but the evidence and studies have shown that it does do all those things and that it has saved lives of people who live on the downtown east side.

Sadly, the government removed harm reduction from its approach to dealing with drug issues. That was a mistake. The community in Vancouver knows that I believe, in my riding of Burnaby--Douglas, there is a different approach that is needed. I hope that someday we will come to that. I do not have much hope that it is going to happen in this Parliament, with the current government and with this kind of legislation, but we need to come to that kind of appreciation.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have made it very clear in the House that I oppose drug prohibition. I have cited examples of countries that have gone down that road.

The other day in debate at report stage I talked about a study that was recently done about the situation in Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2001. That was nine years ago, and it has been a success in every category. In every area of empirical measurement, it has been a success. Drug use is actually down in Portugal since decriminalization. Crime is down. All these issues have been addressed, and they included serious drugs such as heroin and cocaine in their decriminalization.

I think it is a model that the Conservatives should study. At least there is evidence. At least there is a plan. At least there are laws in place. At least there is a system of regulation in place that has been proven to be effective.

Portugal is the only country of the European Union that has decriminalized all drugs and done so successfully. I think that is an example that we should all take very, very seriously in this place, because it would improve the quality of life in our communities. It would give us dollars to spend in the appropriate places, instead of on enforcement and incarceration. It would improve the lives of people who are addicted to drugs and it would improve the lives of our communities.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have to say, it is great that members of the community, organizations in the community, and the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton are prepared to be involved in these kinds of programs. We need to do that.

However, it strikes me like the old argument: Would it not be great if someday we did not have to hold bake sales for education but that the armed forces would have to hold a bake sale to have funds for carrying out war?

It would be really nice if governments could fund treatment appropriately so that these individual organizations did not have to do this kind of fundraising to support their programs, that we had programs on such a scale that people could get into them when they needed to, rather than having to wait.

When Chief White from Ottawa appeared before the committee, he talked about how programs were failing, how we were failing people with addictions because we did not have treatment places for them to go to as soon as they needed them.

We know that is true in Vancouver as well, where we are failing people who have made a determination that they need to deal with their addiction issues but they cannot get into a treatment program. When they wait, they backslide and the determination sometimes fails. We have to get those people into those programs immediately.

We also have to make sure that, when they come out of programs, they have transitional housing. Housing is a crucial issue around the issues of addiction. We need to make sure that people have decent housing to go to, housing that is probably not associated with their former routines and former neighbourhood and perhaps their former friends, so that they can make a clear break and establish themselves in a new pattern of life.

There are a number of issues related to all of this.