Hélène LeBlanc

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, December 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

The many urban parks in the Montreal area are not really interconnected and, unfortunately, there are not that many natural areas.

However, there are still some special spots, particularly in my riding, that run along the St. Lawrence River. For example, there are the Lachine Rapids and the adjacent Parc des Rapides.

I find the Rouge Park initiative very interesting. We need to think about the long-term protection of these particular areas, which will also be outdoor schools. This will enable urban residents to enjoy nature and give them access to interpretation centres focusing on these ecologically rich and historical areas.

Could the member talk about the importance of a park such as the Rouge Park for the greater Toronto area?

[Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act, December 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and his last remarks in response to a question. As an agronomist, I worked to improve the quality of water in agricultural environments. It is crucial to recognize the importance of protecting our blue gold. We have a huge resource in Canada, and people do not realize this. Also, what is important about watersheds is not just the river, but all the waterways and the whole area they flow into.

In his speech, he also emphasized the fact that the current government is not at all committed to conservation or the protection of water and the environment. I would like him to say a little more about the government’s lack of commitment to environmental protection.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, her passion and her commitment to her family and her community in her riding.

She very clearly mentioned that all of this is reflected in her deep beliefs, as it is a matter of ensuring the safety of the community and of all Canadians and of being engaged within our communities. It is also a matter of ensuring this balance among all the values that we hold dear, that consist of keeping our land not only strong, but free.

However, how is all this reflected in the member's very diverse riding? How do her constituents feel about the importance of public safety and the protection of rights and freedoms?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, her eloquence and her passion.

One has to be passionate to be the Member of Parliament for Québec, so I congratulate her on defending her points of view loud and clear. During the incident last October, I was in my riding. That was of great concern to my constituents, who wondered where we were and what was going on. We cannot deny that security is important, whether it be on Parliament Hill or somewhere else in Canada. However, as our national anthem says, we need to keep our land not only strong, but free.

Could my colleague tell us whether Bill C-44 has reached that balance?

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who has a lot of experience in Parliament and in his home province of Nova Scotia. When a government introduces a bill, does it not have to have clear objectives?

I have noticed today that only the official opposition and the opposition have spoken about a government bill, even though the member tells me that it should be a priority for the government and it should speak to these priorities.

Does the member truly believe that this bill contributes anything new to the existing procedure, or was it introduced simply to win votes?

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose presentation has left me speechless. He really underscored some of the points we are trying to make.

I would remind the Conservatives that we in the official opposition support prevention so that Canada does not have any more victims. That is really what we want to stand up for.

We have a great deal of sympathy for what victims of crime go through, and we cannot help but do so. We want to make sure that appropriate resources are made available to victims so that they can start enjoying life again.

We support prevention so that there are no victims. We also support prevention when it comes to drug use and addiction, but proper resources need to be in place.

Would my colleague like to talk some more about some of the measures taken in the Halifax and Dartmouth area to prevent substance abuse, so that people can access rehabilitation programs and communities can be safer?

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, December 8th, 2014]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the question.

At no time in my speech did I ever say that using illegal drugs, whether inside or outside of prison, is a good thing. However, I do not want to see any more victims in Canada, which is why I believe that strong rehabilitation and addiction programs will help keep communities safer and serve as a way to prevent future crimes. That should be our objective.

In Canada, we want to ensure that there are no victims of crime in general, of violent crime, of crime motivated by addictions or any other kind of crime. I do not disagree with the Conservatives regarding the need for strong monitoring programs to prevent illegal drugs from entering our prisons. This absolutely must be controlled and we have to make sure that drugs do not enter the prison system.

We also need to bring in substance abuse programs, as well as programs like industrial workshops to help offenders acquire skills, for example. After all, they will be released one day and will have to reintegrate. We need to make sure that they have the tools they need to avoid reoffending. That is a laudable goal. It is unfortunate that my colleagues believe that we in the NDP do not care about victims. That is completely untrue and I hope that Canadians will see that for themselves.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, December 8th, 2014]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his question. I will leave it to our very capable critics to do the research and propose amendments, if need be.

I believe that there will be plenty of witnesses from civil society who will testify about the difficulties they encounter in Canadian prisons, including overcrowding and lack of resources. They will also be able to recount how dangerous this is. This bill impedes prevention and rehabilitation.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This title clearly spells out the bill's objective. However, as usual, the Conservatives have added a completely misleading and disingenuous title: the “drug-free prisons act”. Some Canadians may not believe it, but it seems that this is a scourge in Canadian prisons.

I would first like to remind members that the official opposition, the NDP, and I have three main objectives when it comes to this type of bill.

First, we must ensure that correctional staff have a safe workplace. Second, we also want to build safer communities for all Canadians through treatment and rehabilitation programs for inmates. Third, we want to ensure that victims have the resources they need to get their lives back on track.

Those are the NDP's three major messages for these three groups.

Right now, under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and regulations, urine samples can be collected. This must always be done in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but this practice is already in place in order to prevent drug use in prisons. When it comes time for an inmate to be released, he must meet certain criteria so that he does not reoffend and he demonstrates that he wants to change.

There are conditions for collecting urine samples. First, there must be reasonable grounds since inmates' rights must still be protected. Random checks can be done under certain conditions.

Urinalysis can be required for participation in activities. If an inmate tests positive for drugs, he can either be prohibited from participating in certain activities or he can enrol in a drug treatment program. What is more, controls are in place to verify whether inmates are complying with conditions to abstain from consuming drugs or alcohol, for example.

There is already a system in place, which is why I was questioning the usefulness of this bill. There should be a good reason to introduce a bill in the House of Commons. We have to wonder whether this bill truly adds anything to this issue or whether it is simply an electioneering tactic to call the bill the “drug-free prisons act”.

The amendment made by this bill makes it clear that the Parole Board of Canada has the power to impose a condition regarding the use of drugs or alcohol by stating that the conditions may pertain to the offender’s use of drugs or alcohol, including in cases when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender’s criminal behaviour. However, this does not add much in reality.

I would like to talk about how we can prevent drug use. We can crack down on drugs and controls can be implemented. That is important. As I mentioned, we want to ensure that corrections staff and inmates are safe. We also want inmates to have the chance to rehabilitate.

Some people who committed crimes may have been addicts. Once they are imprisoned, they should have access to drug treatment programs. In 2008 and 2009, the government spent $11 million on drug treatment programs in jails. In 2010 and 2011, that figure dropped to $9 million, which shows that this government does not want to make our prisons safer or drug-free.

The ombudsman also put out a troubling, timely and appropriate report. I would like to share a quote from it. The report followed some troubling cases, including the suicides of Mr. Snowshoe in the Northwest Territories and a young woman, Ms. Smith. They had been imprisoned in absolutely inhumane conditions. They had been put in solitary confinement.

I would like to quote an article in today's Globe and Mail:

One out of every four inmates who cycled through federal penitentiaries last year spent some time in solitary confinement, an extreme form of incarceration that is undermining efforts to rehabilitate offenders, Canada’s prison watchdog says.

Segregating a man or woman from the rest of the population is supposed to be used sparingly as a last resort, Howard Sapers, the Ombudsman for federal prisoners, said in an interview on Sunday. But the agency that runs Canada’s 47 federal prisons and community corrections centres is increasingly turning to solitary confinement to manage institutions that are crowded and lack sufficient resources to deal with high-needs inmates....

“It’s become a default population-management strategy,”....

It is a tragedy. Cells are overcrowded, creating explosive situations in Canadian prisons. Canada is a G7 country, a developed country. Successive Conservative government bills have imposed mandatory minimum sentences, eliminated rehabilitation programs and ensured that community crime prevention programs are underfunded. Community groups are fighting to keep youth from joining gangs. All of that is being underfunded.

I am somewhat perplexed about this bill, which, in my opinion, does not add much to what is already in place. However, it gives me the opportunity to point out the country's overwhelming need in terms of crime prevention and rehabilitation in particular.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech and I want to ask him a question. I believe he is one of the members who sits on the justice committee. I want to ask him about what is not already in place. What is the added value that this bill would bring about, or is it, as usual, a bit of window dressing from the government?

When I look at the legislative summary of the bill, there are already a lot of conditions in place that would address the concerns. He has mentioned the title of the bill. Would the bill really change anything significantly, or, again, is it just window dressing?