10269 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 157 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, December 8, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 8, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 157 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 157 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 157 (Version officielle) 147 157 08 12 2014 2014/12/08 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] National Health and Fitness Day Act Bill S-211. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-211,

An Act to establish a national day to promote health and fitness for all Canadians , as reported (without amendment) from the committee. The Speaker : There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. (Motion agreed to) The Speaker : When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr.

John Weston Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, in Canada we are the true north, strong and free, but we can be much better. In that context, I rise today to present Bill S-211 for third reading, a bill designed to create a national health and fitness day, a bill intended to raise awareness about the need for healthy physical activity in Canada, a bill intended to create a platform upon which all Canadians can move to do better. The bill is the fruit of six years of work, of collaboration among legislators at all levels of government.

This has been the product of a network of coaches, parents, and sports advocates across our great nation. I am immensely proud of my Canada, a pride that crested during the Olympic and Paralympic Games, a pride that grows each time I walk into this chamber or return to the riding which I call the most beautiful place on earth. However, as wonderful as our country is, a critical ingredient of our nation's excellence is a commitment to continuous improvement in all that we do. While in Canada we are strong and we are free, we can be much better as a nation than we are today.

We have a healthy nation, but we can do better. The problem drives deep, as its roots are in our culture and wedded to the routines that we have developed in our education, our work, and our play. Canadian cultural patterns reflect an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, fuelled by our growing addiction to the Internet and video screens. We must acknowledge the need to do better in promoting the health and fitness of our people. The bill would respond to a need that touches the lives of all Canadians and literally shapes the people we are to become in future generations. We have reached a low point in our history.

Statistics Canada reports a continuous decline in sports participation, which, from 1992 to 2005, went from 45% to 28% among Canadians age 15 and older. This is the first generation of Canadians in which children may die at a younger age than their parents. There are less than 7% of young people who are physically active for six hours weekly. Obesity rates have climbed such that a third of people under 18 are overweight or obese, which means that they have 14 times the likelihood of suffering a cardiac event by age 50.

Canadians such as Whistler's Dennehy family have become increasingly concerned about a rising incidence of mental health problems in our people. Psychiatrists, counsellors, and others have a variety of solutions, but all agree that physical activity can improve mental health. Our government has responded to this need with a variety of measures to improve Canadian health care. Increasingly, our government supports pre-emptive health measures designed to put the responsibility of healthy living where appropriate, in the hands of individual Canadians, parents, and families, not in the bowels of bureaucracy.

Last month, for instance, our government announced the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit, which, next year, will become a refundable tax credit. While this credit would be a targeted measure to help Canadian families lead healthier lives, this Conservative government has taken numerous other measures: reducing taxes over 150 times, and putting $3,400 more into the pockets of Canadians each year due to tax reductions. These are measures which allow Canadians to invest in healthy physical activity for ourselves and our children.

As we move close to our new year's resolutions, I urge moms and dads across the nation to allocate these funds toward healthy physical activity, to involve their children, and to claim the tax credit. As we look forward to Canada's 150th anniversary celebration, we, as a nation, have the opportunity to pursue trails to health, to shine a light on individual Canadians, our communities, and to become the fittest nation on earth. One proposal is to celebrate the 150th anniversary with active movement on the Trans Canada Trail. We have a prosperous nation, but, again, we can do better.

The economic consequences of these sad statistics doom our ability to provide adequate health care, unless we take effective and practical steps now. Declining physical activity and increasing obesity have triggered a surge in preventable diseases among Canadians. The Public Health Agency of Canada estimates that it costs a staggering $7 billion annually to care for persons whose diabetes or cardiovascular disease relate to inactivity. In addition to direct and indirect health care costs, the quality and productivity of working Canadians would surely improve if our people were healthier and fitter.

In addition to making the lives of Canadians better, there are many economic incentives for us to promote health and fitness for Canadians. We have a nation of great volunteers, but we can do better. I thank the myriad of volunteers who have helped to bring Bill S-211 this far. Foremost among these are the dynamic duo of Parliament Hill: Pierre Lafontaine, president of Canadian Interuniversity Sport; and Phil Marsh, a senior manager at the Running Room.

Seeking to galvanize legislators as role models, for five years, Phil and Pierre have shown up tirelessly on Tuesday mornings to run, and Thursdays to swim, with MPs, senators, and our staff. Pierre and Phil have a simple message: if we parliamentarians can squeeze physical exercise into our busy lives, all Canadians can do the same. It was our great coaches who underlined the key role of local governments in promoting health and fitness. Other groups and people have rallied, operating as an informal advisory council to ensure that my work is relevant and productive.

I thank Trans Canada Trail, ParticipACTION, Sport Matters, PHE Canada, Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Movember, Canadian Tire, the Fitness Industry Council of Canada, GoodLife Fitness, Sports Information Resource Centre, Canadian Sport for Life, Canadian Red Cross, Jumpstart, Canada Bikes, and other groups that have selflessly worked with us to get the message out. We are a great country, but to remain the true north strong and free, we have to be healthier and more fit than we are today. Many volunteers in the riding I represent have also rallied to the cause.

I include Rotarians, who promote the Ride for Rescue; Fit Fellas, such as Barrie Chapman and Frank Kurucz; Ashley Wiles, of Sole Girls; Vancouver Whitecaps, former captain Jay DeMerit; and Whistler's Olympic gold medalist, Ashleigh McIvor. At this point, if members will indulge a personal insight, it has been said that behind every successful man is a surprised woman. There has been no greater supporter of my efforts to promote health and fitness than my wife Donna, a personal trainer herself, and my favourite running partner.

In fact, we met when we were running, and we have been running together ever since, in every sense of the word. I am delighted that she is with us today, as Bill S-211 nears the finish line. While it is seldom done, I would also like to acknowledge the Herculean efforts of my staff, Marilyn McIvor, Jocelyn Hemond, Jessica Faddegon, Stephanie Betzold, Sue McQueen, and others, who have been the secret in organizing Bike Day in Canada, National Lifejacket and Swim Day on the Hill, and other events that have kept national health and fitness day afloat.

We have an active group of legislators, but, again, we can do better. I am honoured to work with my friend, the great initiator of this bill in the senate, Nancy Greene Raine, Canada's female athlete of the 20th century. Revered by Canadians as an articulate champion of fitness on and off the ski slopes, Senator Greene Raine shows up again and again to advocate for the matters that mean the most to British Columbians.

Six years ago, when the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games were becoming a reality, she and I asked the people of my riding what we could do to create a legacy for all Canadians arising from that amazing extravaganza. The question was especially relevant because 70% of the Olympic sites were in the riding that I represent. Constituents told Senator Greene Raine and me that we needed to springboard from the enthusiasm for elite sport into a lasting legacy of health and fitness for all Canadians.

Over the last few years, Senator Greene Raine and I have worked hard to involve our colleagues in both Houses on this project. In the course of these efforts, something rare and wonderful has happened. A consensus grew around the House, and members of all parties have consistently shown up to participate in the parliamentary fitness initiative. It is no coincidence that members in both Houses have also voted unanimously for this bill in the past. I thank the Prime Minister , the Minister of Health , and the Minister of State for Sport for their great support.

While the Queen may formally be the first lady of Canada, Laureen Harper is first lady in the hearts of many Canadians. She has also been a consistent supporter of our efforts. Along with the consensus, personal friendships have grown. I applaud the members for Sackville—Eastern Shore , Etobicoke North , and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their efforts in promoting health and fitness for parliamentarians, and, through parliamentarians, to all Canadians. I want to say, as well, how much I appreciate the friendship that has grown among us, regardless of party, in the course of these efforts.

For my colleagues in this House, I continue to invite them to pivot from their very real need to care for their own personal health, to look at themselves as role models in approaching their constituents to get active, and to keep our people strong and free, especially our local mayors and councillors.

(1110) The passage of this bill will raise awareness and create a platform for further action. I am grateful that individuals, organizations and legislators across our wonderful land, even before the passage of Bill S-211 , have already begun to celebrate national health and fitness day, marked on the first Saturday of June each year. However, even though our local governments are engaged, we can do better. The specific goal of the bill is to encourage local governments to proclaim Canada's national health and fitness day and to define the day in some way that increases physical activity among Canadians.

It is a blank cultural and civic canvas for all of us to use. Mayors, councillors and other leaders can create an event, such as a free dance class, a swim lesson, or even open the doors of recreational and fitness facilities on a complementary basis. So far, B.C. and the Yukon territory have proclaimed national health and fitness day. I urge the other provinces and territories to follow suit. More than 156 municipalities across the country have proclaimed the day.

Among the very first proclaimers were the municipalities in the riding I represent, West Vancouver, Squamish, Sechelt, Gibsons, Lions Bay, Whistler, Bowen Island, North Vancouver district, Powell River, and the three regional districts in the riding, Sunshine Coast, Squamish-Lillooet, and Powell River. On May 30, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities added its powerful voice, voting to endorse the movement. Federation president Brad Woodside has encouraged all Federation of Canadian Municipalities' 2,000 members to proclaim the day, 156 Canadian cities strong and free, but we can do better.

I look forward to the day when every Canadian town and city has proclaimed national health and fitness day. As national health and fitness day comes into our nation's laws and traditions, it is a time when we can all focus on doing better in the area of healthy physical activity. I thank the many who have helped make this a reality. In voting for this bill on Wednesday, we in the House of Commons will all have contributed to the creation of an historic turning point, with a positive and lasting change made for our whole country. Canada is strong and free, the best country in the world, but we can do better.

With the enactment of national health and fitness day, I urge each and every one of my fellow Canadians to engage routinely in positive physical activity for themselves, their families, their communities, and their nation. Yes, we are the true north, strong and free, but we will be even better than we are today. Canada will become the fittest nation on earth.

(1115) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is very significant for us to recognize the importance of fitness. My understanding, in looking at the legislation, is that it would be the first Saturday in the month of June. The member made reference to 150-plus communities today that recognize some form of proclamation for national fitness. Could he provide some feedback as to whether the one territory, the province and municipalities are all centred around that first Saturday in June? [ Translation ] Mr. John Weston : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

It would be the first Saturday in June, and more than 150 communities have already established this day even before it has been recognized by the House. British Columbia and the Yukon have both proclaimed a health and fitness day. It is very easy for my colleague and other MPs to take a look at this proposal, which is now on my website. Members may also borrow documents in order to encourage other mayors and city councillors in every Canadian town, city and community to make a similar proclamation. [ English ] Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. I am a bit concerned about the claims he has made for the fitness tax credits. In this day and age, certainly in my riding, a lot of constituents simply cannot afford to put their kids in sports programs. The leagues, while run very efficiently by volunteers, are expensive. The government has proposed to put pennies in the pockets of people who actually need dollars in order to put their kids in sports programs and reap all the benefits. I worry about a bill of this nature.

The member has talked of extravaganza and tax credits that, frankly, are not meaningful to a large proportion of Canadians. If we are serious about getting kids engaged in sports for all the great health and social reasons that flow from that, why is the government not doing something more meaningful to put real dollars back into the pockets of people these days who do not have them so their kids can participate?

(1120) Mr. John Weston : Mr. Speaker, I noticed the member for Beaches—East York was listening attentively. I appreciate that and his support with respect to previous votes on this bill. He has raised a good question with respect to what the government can do. The government has brought in a children's fitness tax credit. It has also doubled that fitness tax credit. For the member for Beaches—East York and all Canadians, the good news is that it will become a refundable tax credit next year, which responds directly to the question of those people who are in lower income tax brackets.

However, the purpose of the bill is to encourage Canadians, mayors, councillors, and all of us to take responsibility for health and fitness somewhat on our own shoulders. The government is doing its part. We have an enthusiastic Minister of Health and Minister of Finance who have adopted health and fitness incentives in this refundable tax credit. However, we, as role models in the House, as parents, as coaches and volunteers, need to take up the torch and encourage Canada to become the fittest nation on earth. We can do it. We have all the facilities, the lakes, the mountains and the trails.

We are about to turn the corner to make us the healthiest and fittest nation on earth. [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on this Monday morning, I am pleased to rise in the House to support this bill, which aims to establish a national health and fitness day for Canadians. This bill is sponsored by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country . I have always wanted to say the name of that riding because it evokes the beauty of the region.

The NDP is supporting this bill, and I support my colleague's initiatives to encourage other members to take action and become more physically fit. Unfortunately, I have not participated in his many initiatives over the years, but I should. I do my part by walking and taking the stairs when I meet with my constituents. Unfortunately, that is all the exercise I am getting right now.

The purpose of the bill is to urge and invite provinces, municipalities and community organizations to organize their own activities to emphasize the importance of healthy lifestyles and to promote health, recreation and sports organizations in their communities. Nobody would be against making it easier for Canadians to participate in healthy physical activity, avoid sedentary lifestyles and prevent chronic diseases, such as obesity. As everyone knows, this is something we have talked about a lot in recent years. In the past 50 years, Canadians' activity levels have changed a lot.

People used to walk to work and school; now they go by car or bus. That has had a tremendous impact on our lifestyles and, of course, our health. In the past, active transportation was much more common, but now people are finding fewer and fewer opportunities to get from point A to point B safely that way. Also, families are living farther and farther from their neighbourhood schools, or they decide to send their children to schools that are farther away, so they depend on cars and buses. I would like to talk about active transportation. I lived in Ottawa for many years and I used to ride my bicycle to work.

Then, in 2004, I lived in Montreal where I also rode my bike to work. I think it has become clear recently that it is getting increasingly difficult to use this mode of transportation. Some people who chose to use active transportation and rode their bikes have died in accidents in Montreal and in many areas in Canada, including Ottawa and Toronto.

Although the bill's aim to create a national health and fitness day is laudable, I think it would be better to encourage people to make physical activity part of their daily lives, and especially to make it safer for people to get around in our cities and municipalities. Let me use Montreal as an example. Montreal is a big city that has made considerable efforts to become more bike-friendly. However, I must admit that, like in all of our large urban centres, cars still predominate, unfortunately, and therefore it is becoming increasingly difficult for pedestrians, bicycles, cars and trucks to share the road.

More needs to be done. The federal government needs to give our cities and municipalities the means to build cities and municipalities that encourage active transportation, including walking, so that people can get around safely. Instead, however, we continue to accommodate cars more and more. All levels of government—provincial, federal and municipal—are not investing enough in public transit.

(1125) People keep building car-centric municipalities and neighbourhoods with no access to nearby services. Neighbourhoods keep being built according to this 1950s model. The federal government must increase its efforts to work in partnership with the cities and provinces on building cities where there is room for active transportation, where people do not need to have a day of physical activity and where everyone can move around safely every day and be physically active. This especially affects young people because we develop healthy habits and are more physically active when we are young.

If we do not allow our children to get around safely to go to school, to hockey practice or their soccer game, and they have to get to those places by car because we have not provided enough ways to travel safely, then we are missing the boat. A number of us met the Sport Matters Group, which connects interested members from the world of sport.

According to recommendations by the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, the federal government should include an annual commitment of $925 million over three years, in partnership with the provinces, territories and the municipalities, to invest in an infrastructure program for projects focused on sports, physical activity and recreation. The federal government must put its money where its mouth is and be an active partner. Talking the talk and creating a national fitness day are not enough.

The government must do more to ensure that people engage in physical activity every day and get around safely by foot, by bike, or by other safe means. In my riding, several very active community groups promote physical activity, not just for fitness, but also as a way for youth to socialize on the basketball court or soccer pitch. It is not just about having a healthy mind in a healthy body, but also about enabling these young people to work together and establish relationships.

I am referring to the Maison des jeunes de LaSalle, an organization that could use some recurrent and stable funding in order to continue implementing its excellent soccer programs for underprivileged youth. These young people attend tournaments and reap the benefits of working together. They have the opportunity to be physically active and also to prove themselves on the pitch. I support the Maison des jeunes de LaSalle.

I would also like to recognize the Académie de tennis du Sud-Ouest de Montréal, which provides opportunities to participate in sports for underprivileged children who do not benefit from sports tax credits because their parents cannot afford to buy a tennis racquet or register them for lessons. The Académie de tennis du Sud-Ouest de Montréal provides these children with the opportunity to take tennis lessons and be physically active.

(1130) We do agree with having a national health and fitness day. However, I believe that the federal government should do much more and make sports infrastructure accessible to everyone. Above all, it should ensure that our towns and cities can promote active transportation so that there is an opportunity every day to be active in order to stay healthy. [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill. I think it is a wonderful bill. The idea of having a national health and fitness day is noteworthy.

I find it progressive, and I believe it is the type of thing it is most appropriate for us to be designating as a day. Often in the chamber we hear about recognition for a special day of the year for whatever it might be, and it is always encouraging when we do that. I am especially excited about recognizing a national health and fitness day. It is long overdue. I think it will have a positive impact on Canadians. If we handle it right in terms of an overall commitment to the day, it would be a great way for people of all shapes and sizes to engage in a tangible way. This is not about focusing on just one day.

It is about using that particular day to heighten awareness among the population as a whole. In 2005, Paul Martin was the prime minister. There was a commitment of $300 million toward the Public Health Agency of Canada. A big part of that was for looking at ways we could try to get people more active in lifestyles that would lead to more participation in indoor and outdoor activities that would improve their overall health. What we have seen over the last number of years, whether it is the Internet, Nintendo, or the Wii system, is that there is so much out there that takes people inside buildings.

They are sitting in front of computer monitors or television screens with joysticks or keyboards. People are spending too much time in front of those monitors and television screens. There is so much more we could be doing to encourage and promote physical fitness. We need to recognize that there is a substantial cost if we do not start promoting health and fitness. We can talk about additional costs for our health care system because of chronic diseases and obesity. I am not talking about a few million dollars but rather about hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of additional health care costs.

We can also talk about this from an economic point of view in terms of the loss of productivity because of issues surrounding obesity and so forth. The bill is worth supporting. The Liberal Party believes that we need to encourage and support activities in our communities. I will give the House a few examples, but before I do that, I would like to emphasize something that I truly believe takes place virtually in all communities.

(1135) We have literally hundreds of millions and up to billions of dollars of capital infrastructure in every region of our country. Is that infrastructure being adequately utilized to encourage and keep our population living longer and healthier? I would argue that the answer is no. There is so much capital infrastructure that is not being well utilized. It could be utilized much better if we provided the support and leadership necessary to capitalize on it. Let me give a couple of examples. Every morning, in Winnipeg malls, there are groups.

I go to the mall in Garden City in Winnipeg's north end or to Polo Park in Winnipeg centre. What we find is that there are seniors, every day, going to the malls, winter and summer, and what they are doing is exercising. They are walking around the malls. This is before the malls even open. It is a wonderful activity. Every Sunday and Saturday, in gymnasiums in Winnipeg, the Filipino community organizes basketball. The leadership is from the Filipino community. They make sure that there are literally hundreds of games being played every weekend.

It was just a week or so ago that I was at Garden City Collegiate, where they had several gyms full of children and adults playing basketball. A handful of volunteers put an immense amount of time into ensuring that there is an activity people can actually enjoy and participate in. We talk about the importance of coaches and community club volunteers. How do we support them enough so that they are able to have programming and ensure that our facilities are being utilized? I would suggest that we are not doing enough to promote that. There is so much more that we could be doing.

I would like to look at the first Saturday in June. I believe that over 150 communities across Canada have gotten onside with this whole idea of a national health and fitness day. It is great to see it in one province. I am surprised that we have not seen more provinces get on board. Maybe this piece of legislation would create a much greater sense of public awareness. It has to be more than Ottawa proclaiming a particular day. We have to get the different stakeholders involved, particularly different levels of government and the people who are responsible for capital infrastructure.

The range of activities is significant. We can talk about our beautiful lakes and trails, but let us not forget about organized activities, such as sports or yoga classes or anything else that incorporates any form of physical activity. Whether one is a senior who walks around a mall prior to it opening, or someone who plays tennis, or a youth who plays basketball, or someone doing a great deal of walking, as many of us in the House do, we need to recognize that physical activity is a good, healthy thing for us all to have as a part of our everyday lives.

(1140) Whatever government can do to encourage and promote that is a good thing. That is why we support the bill. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Resuming debate. Accordingly, I will go to the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his right of reply. The hon. member has up to five minutes. [ Translation ] Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from Winnipeg North and LaSalle—Émard for their comments.

I would like to talk about something that my colleague addressed, and that is active transportation, particularly in Quebec. There is a lot of leadership in the area of active transportation in the beautiful province of Quebec. Take for example, Pierre Lavoie, a champion who lost his son but changed his life by becoming an advocate for active lifestyles and active transportation. He created the Grand défi, in which many Quebeckers participate every year. It is a major cycling challenge. I am very proud that the federal government is supporting the Grand défi in its 2014 budget.

The Union des municipalités du Québec has already proclaimed national health and fitness day. Communities such as Chelsea, Quebec, have followed suit. There are people from Quebec in the House who frequently participate in the parliamentary health initiative, for example, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness , who is always in the pool early on Thursdays, not just for the sake of his own health but also to set an example for all Canadians. My colleague from LaSalle—Émard spoke very eloquently about cycling.

I am very pleased to say that we will mark Bike Day in Canada, which we established last year, on May 11, 2015. I encourage my colleague, all members of the House and all Canadians to participate in Bike Day events. Last year, nine cities participated. My dream is that one day, every city in the country will take

part in Bike Day in Canada. I enjoy participating in the GranFondo whistler, a challenge that involves biking from Vancouver to Whistler. Several thousand people take this challenge every year. Every year, I also tour my riding by bike, from one community to another, to show that it really is possible to use a bike as a means of active transportation. Eleanor McMahon, from Toronto, champions the idea of leaving space between vehicles and bikes. I commend her for that and I hope that car drivers will be aware of cyclists. However, cyclists also have to be sure to obey the rules of the road.

In conclusion, I must respond to the comments made by the member for LaSalle—Émard . (1145) [ English ] Our government has put $55 billion over 10 years into infrastructure. That is the biggest infrastructure investment in Canadian history and an opportunity to bring in active transportation. Also, the refundable tax credit does respond in part to the problem of poverty and getting people active. Again, I thank my colleagues for their very fine questions. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton): Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 10, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions. Division on motion deferred

Suspension of Sitting The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : It being 11:48 a.m., the House will stand suspended until 12 noon, the usual time for government orders. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:48 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

Government Orders Government Orders (1200) [ English ] Drug-Free Prisons Act The House resumed from June 17 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. Bill C-12. Second reading Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I note the enthusiasm of all members for my presentation on Bill C-12 , but I am not sure that will be warranted when I finish. I will say in advance on behalf of the official opposition that I will be supporting Bill C-12 at second reading. The bill has a somewhat grandiose title, “The drug-free prisons act”, which, as I hope to explain in my remarks, is a long way from what the bill would accomplish.

The bill essentially confirms what is already in place. The National Parole Board, as one of the conditions for the exercise of its members' discretion, already takes into account positive results of urinalysis or a refusal to take urine tests in making its decision for parole eligibility. Despite its title, the bill would do very little, if anything, to eliminate drugs from federal prisons in Canada. That would require an investment of money and the government following some of the reports over the years by the Correctional Investigator and the federal prisons ombudsman, as I will explain.

However, none of that is in the bill. The bill simply confirms what is already in place. Members do not have to take my word for it. I went online and looked at the National Parole Board document entitled, “Decision-Making Policy Manual for Board Members”.

Section 8, “Assessing Criminal, Social and Conditional Release History”, reads: Information considered when assessing criminal, social and conditional release history includes: ...e. any documented occurrence of drug use, positive urinalysis results or failures or refusals to provide a sample while on conditional release; The bill would do nothing but pander to the Conservative base, I suppose, and would let them have a few more talking points.

However, the crisis in our prisons, which involves substance abuse, rampant gang activity and recruitment, among other things, could be addressed far more effectively by some of the things that others have pointed out and that I hope to describe today. In short, resources for rehabilitation are wanting. I can explain that just by looking at the budget of the organization and how the Conservatives have cut the budget over the years.

The Correctional Service of Canada has admitted that $122 million of Conservative spending on interdiction tools and technology to stop drugs from entering prisons since 2008 has not led to any reduction of drug use in our prisons—zero. Talk about $122 million for naught. How come nothing has been done in light of that shocking statistic? Why have there been no policy reviews or the like? A very high percentage of our offender population abuses drugs. I have in front of me a report by Michael Crowley who is with the National Parole Board, Ontario Region. He provides a perspective on the topic at issue.

His article, “Substance Abuse—The Perspective of a National Parole Board Member”, starts thus: It is clear that alcohol and other drug problems constitute a major problem for both incarcerated offenders and those who are on some form of conditional release. It is estimated that about 70% of offenders have substance abuse problems that are in need of treatment, and that more than 50% of their crimes are linked with substance use and abuse. Those figures are shocking. Has the government invested in rehabilitation programs in the prison population to address that? The answer, sadly, is no.

What the Conservatives have done is to increase the prisoner population through their famous mandatory minimum sentences. The population in prisons is exploding in Canada, yet the crime rate has gone down consistently. Mental health is part of the problem. There has been a failure to address the growing issue of prisoners with addiction, as I have mentioned, as well as those with mental illness. The figure shocks me, but in 2011 some 45% of male offenders and 69% of female offenders received a mental health care intervention.

(1205) Despite this staggering figure, the Conservative government has still not even asked for a report from the Correctional Service of Canada on the implementation of recommendations to improve handling of prisoners with mental illness. How about Ashley Smith, who, members will recall, was a 19-year-old from New Brunswick who died while in custody? A coroner's report said that the CSC remains “ill-equipped” to manage female offenders who chronically injure themselves. What has been done? To my knowledge, nothing since the coroner's report. There has been no response from the government on that.

If it is truly interested in dealing with the crisis in the prison population and the number of people with substance abuse problems who continue to find drugs while there, the Conservative government would not pass an irrelevant bill that simply confirms the status quo; it would actually address the problem along the lines of what the Correctional Investigator, the CSC itself, and the prisoner ombudsman have all been saying for years.

An investment in rehabilitative programming would really start to address the problem of violence in prisons and so forth, and it would address the problem of victims when people are released into the community without the tools and then, still with mental illness problems and still with substance abuse, and go on and reoffend. That is where we could actually make a difference. The problem of double-bunking has been brought up over and over again, and very little has been done to address that problem. Instead, we talk about “zero tolerance” for drugs, as if saying those words will somehow make it so.

It certainly is not an effective policy. It does nothing to address the facts of crime and addiction that I have been trying to address in my remarks. Harm reduction measures within a public health and treatment orientation would be far more promising. That is what the Correctional Investigator said in his annual report of 2011-2012 at page 17. Those are recommendations by those who actually know whereof they speak. The wait-list for substance abuse programming, for example, in our prisons is shocking.

According to the CSC data warehouse, the number of offenders wait-listed to attend substance abuse programming as of a year ago, as of November 13, 2013, which does not even include the Pacific and Atlantic regions, is almost 2,000. It is estimated there are probably about 2,400 now. According to the report of the Office of the Correction Investigator, close to two-thirds of offenders were under the influence of some intoxicant when they committed the offence that led to their incarceration, and four out of five offenders arrive at a federal institution with a past history of substance abuse. What has been done?

The Conservatives, of course, have cut the budget for substance abuse programming. According to the Office of the Correctional Investigator, the CSC budget for substance abuse programming fell from $11 million in 2008-09 to $9 million in 2010-11, at the same time as the prisoner population was increased. The Globe and Mail has done excellent service on another issue in drawing the problem of solitary confinement to Canadians' attention. I was not aware of this, but Canada seems to be leading the way in solitary confinement.

Even the United States, with its practices in this area, has decreased the number of people and the length of time in solitary confinement. The Globe and Mail told the story this weekend of Edward Christopher Snowshoe of Fort McPherson, who suffered from mental health issues. He spent three years in a maximum security prison in Edmonton and tried suicide four times. He was 24 when he hanged himself in a two- by three-metre isolation cell in 2010. He had spent 162 consecutive days in solitary confinement. This man had mental health issues, yet nothing was done.

Putting him in solitary confinement, which The Globe and Mail refers to as apparently a prison management system, was all that was done. Howard Sapers, who was the ombudsman for federal prisons, has been extraordinarily critical of this agency and how it deals with mental health issues. Are members aware that the suicide rate in the federal prison population is seven times that of the Canadian population, and that there is no cap on solitary confinement? The courts have said there should be a 60-day cap. There is no response to the Ashley Smith episode. The bill, in

summary, will do nothing to address these deficiencies. It is simply pandering to the Conservative base for absolutely no benefit.

(1210) Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the issue of solitary confinement. I am sure we are all aware of the extraordinary psychological damage this does to prisoners, who are expected to be returned not just to the general prison population but to society at some point. I was wondering if the member could tell us more about his concerns over a prison system that seems more intent on punishment than on reform and more intent on looking strong than on reforming and rehabilitating.

It is a prison system that puts prisoners in harm's way, especially in light of the suicide figures that were quoted. Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Trinity—Spadina on this issue of solitary confinement. If the government really wanted to do something about what is happening in our prison population, it could join with Mr. Howard Sapers, the ombudsman for federal prisoners, and do something.

I was shocked to discover that not only do seven times as many people commit suicide in prison than in the general population, but also that rather than having a rehabilitation system, which is what the rhetoric of the CSC would have us believe exists, we have what The Globe and Mail , in its editorial of December 5, refers to as the “flagrant overuse of solitary confinement – a punitive measure so counter-productive that even the incarceration-crazy United States is putting an end to it – risks undermining the good work the CSC does.” It needs the budget and the tools to address this crisis.

It needs to deal with intake, substance abuse, and mental illness. None of that seems to be happening in this bill whatsoever. Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague can give his opinion on the link between acts like solitary confinement and the use of drugs in terms of our better understanding as we move along. Drugs are not always a choice but rather a way in which people hide from whatever pain they are suffering. In the case of people who are going through solitary confinement, how does this help them find a way off of drugs? Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr.

Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his insight. I honestly think that solitary confinement contributes nothing. It is unethical to use it simply as a management tool for overcrowded prisons. A causal link needs to be shown that putting people into solitary confinement to address problems of mental health or substance abuse would make a difference, but there is no such evidence. I have with me reports written for the Canadian Journal of Public Health by Perry Kendall, who is the former head of public health for the Province of British Columbia, which suggest that there is no such evidence.

In other words, these people come in lonely, and two-thirds of them are under the influence of a drug or intoxicant. Most of whom are confined in the prison population, and their behaviour is not changed while they are in prison. It appears that putting them in solitary confinement only exacerbates the problem and does nothing to treat the prisoner. If we are serious about rehabilitation, we should see that solitary confinement is only a management tool and one that we are using far more than our colleagues in other parts of the modern civilized world. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I too was troubled by the

article in The Globe and Mail about Edward Snowshoe. In many ways we could look at putting mentally ill people in solitary confinement as torture, and by doing so we are engaging in

an act that is reprehensible and should not be part of a civilized society. What does my colleague think about that?

(1215) Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, the compassion of my colleague from the Northwest Territories for people like Mr. Snowshoe is well known. The answer to the question is that it does very little. When The Globe and Mail reached out to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on this issue, he was not available. However, an email response stated that the government's tough-on-crime agenda amounts to “strong action...to keep our streets and communities safe.” How does the suicide of Mr. Snowshoe in solitary confinement achieve that goal?

The government talks about victims of crime all the time. How does this assist victims of crime? Where are the rehabilitation expenditures in the department? For the Conservatives, it seems that consideration is secondary to looking good to their base by saying that they getting tough on crime. They even had the audacity to title Bill C-12 as a “drug-free prisons” law. That is nonsense. We know that is not the case. All it does is confirm a power that has long been available to the National Parole Board. [ Translation ] Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12,

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act . This bill is designed to eliminate drugs in prisons. It makes it clear that the Parole Board of Canada may use positive results from urine tests or refusals to take urine tests for drugs in making its decisions on parole eligibility. We will support this bill, since it gives clear legal authority to an existing practice of the Parole Board of Canada, which we already support.

The NDP has been steadfast in our support for measures that will make our prisons safer, while the Conservative government has ignored recommendations from corrections staff and the Correctional Investigator that would decrease violence in our prisons. Since that is our main concern, I think that the only good way to reduce crime, violence and drug use is to invest in human resources, which is what I will demonstrate. I think this is very important, since the problems and solutions can be found in the prisons themselves.

All we have to do is listen to corrections staff to better understand what we can do to eventually improve the situation, because that is truly what we want. The title of Bill C-12 is misleading as this bill will do little to eliminate all drugs from our federal prison system. The government is actually making our prisons less safe by cutting funding to correctional programming, such as substance abuse treatment, and increasing the use of double-bunking, which leads to more violence.

Our priority should be ensuring community safety by preparing ex-offenders to reintegrate into society and making them less likely to reoffend. I still think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and that we need to consider all of the scenarios. That requires human resources. I recently met with staff of the Aumônerie communautaire de Québec, a community organization that promotes the social reintegration of those with a criminal record. The chaplaincy's mission is to support offenders, and their loved ones, as they reintegrate into society. It is a difficult situation for everyone.

The organization wants to help them become active members of society who obey the law. The people at the Aumônerie communautaire de Québec are doing a great job. We should continue to support these organizations, which all too often lack resources. Here is a very good example. People might not know this, but in Quebec City, from 7 to 9 in the morning, there are not a lot of places where people can go to have a cup of coffee and a chat with others who can really be excellent resources.

You cannot put a price on that because when people turn to those resources to talk and unwind, they can avoid committing more crimes and make better use of their time. That benefits society as a whole. That is why I am so grateful to the Aumônerie communautaire de Québec, which does unique and exceptional work that we have to support at all costs. According to Correctional Service Canada, the $122 million that the Conservatives have spent since 2008 to keep drugs out of prisons has not reduced drug use behind bars.

A 2012 study by Public Safety Canada reveals that drug-free prisons are not a realistic possibility. Even so, the Conservative government, wedded to its unfounded, ideological stance, continues to invest money in pursuit of an unrealistic, utopian goal for the simple reason that it wants to please its base, and that is just deplorable. I have to say there has been a very unfortunate side effect of this emphasis on interdiction, and that is that it has interfered with family visits. We know that family support is crucial for social reintegration, especially for those with addictions.

(1220) Therefore, spending the $122 million wasted money, interfered with family visits and hurt rehabilitation programs. However, such an approach is very consistent with the Conservative policy on drugs. Indeed, the Conservatives' misguided approach to public safety has resulted in more prisoners with mental illness in our prison system. A very high percentage of the offender population is struggling with mental illness.

At the same time, the budget allocated for core correctional programs, such as drug treatment, has been reduced, and the Conservative government has even closed treatment centres for inmates with serious mental health disorders. The Conservatives have failed to address the growing problem of prisoners with addiction and mental illness. In 2011 for example, 69% of female offenders and 45% of male offenders received a mental health care intervention. That speaks volumes about the federal correctional system, and that is what we should be focusing on here.

Once again, this of course comes back to the issue of human resources. We do know from testimony to the House of Commons over the past 10 years that federal offenders often have to contend with long waiting lists to access core correctional programming that includes addiction treatment. We also know that the conditional release of an offender is regularly delayed due to a lack of capacity to provide timely programs. In seven institutions surveyed in February 2012, only 12.5% of offenders were enrolled in a core correctional program, while 35% were on the waiting lists to access these programs.

This results in offenders simply being released after their time is served, with little or no treatment, and this leaves them more likely to reoffend. This should signal a red alert. Prison should be just a short stint in a person's life, not a final destination with no way out. The most important thing is that once a person gets to prison and has served his full sentence, he must be welcomed back in society and be able to integrate fully into it and become a hard-working, active member of the community. That is what we really want.

We want the offender to be able to integrate into society, but he needs to be given the tools to do so. As I said, we must also ensure that he is in optimal health so that he is able do so. The data we have show that we need to be more concerned about that and perhaps change our approach in order to be more effective. The Correctional Investigator has stated in numerous reports that the corrections system risks unintended consequences when simplistic solutions are applied to the complex issue of drugs in prisons.

He has suggested measures such as proper assessment of prisoners at intake into correctional programs to identify addiction problems and provide better access to rehabilitation programs as ways of reducing drugs and gang activity in prison. As I mentioned, making prisons drug-free is, at best, a legitimate aspiration and, at worst, just a political slogan. It simply is not a policy. We cannot have a policy to eliminate drugs from prisons. We must tackle the problems of addiction and mental health in prisons.

Once again, coming back to our party's real policies, and not the scare tactics the Conservatives like to use, the NDP has always been steadfast in our support for measures that will make our prisons safer. The Conservatives, on the contrary, have ignored recommendations from corrections staff—who are the experts—the corrections unions and the Correctional Investigator that were aimed at decreasing violence, gang activity and drug use in our prisons.

The NDP is determined to create safer communities by providing treatment and rehabilitation programs for inmates that will tackle the problem of drugs and gangs in our prisons and better prepare inmates for their release into society.

(1225) There will be less crime, less harm and fewer victims. The Conservatives' public safety policies are not effective. Inmates who are released find themselves in the same circumstances as before and thus our streets are even less safe. We have to think carefully and adopt much more significant measures than the ones being brought forward, because we have a serious problem and a critical lack of resources. We have to come up with a much more serious approach. Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague from Québec .

She raised some interesting points about how the bill contains some rather unrealistic measures. Since the Reagan years and the 1980s, it does not seem as though the zero tolerance policy has been working. Today, there are almost 2,000 offenders in our prisons—2,400 if we count those who are on the waiting list to attend a substance abuse program. That is why I believe that the government is not investing enough in programs to help offenders overcome their addictions. Approximately four out of five offenders arrive at a federal institution with a past history of substance abuse.

There is therefore a great need, and services are insufficient to meet it. Would the member care to comment on that? Ms. Annick Papillon : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. I am a very practical MP and I am in close contact with community organizations that do exceptional work with very few resources. They need more resources so that they can do more. Quebec City has many shelters, including the YMCA, the Salvation Army, Maison de Lauberivière, the Aumônerie communautaire de Québec or Maison Revivre. Many homeless people have mental health issues.

Many of them will eventually get fed up, commit a wrongful act and end up in prison. We are living in a society where we need to ask ourselves how we can improve the situation in the face of such distress. Our objective is not to fill our prisons. That costs a lot of money and does not allow those individuals to participate in the community. Sending people to prison is not good for anyone. Prisons are very short on staff to help inmates.

They need people such as chaplains and psychologists to listen to inmates, guide them and help them, slowly but surely, recover from their addictions so that they can integrate into the community and be good citizens. This requires resources, not just on the ground, but also in prisons. That is something we should consider.

(1230) Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Québec for her very enlightening speech on the Conservative government's choices. The previous question was about sending people to prison and not allocating any resources to provide the basic services they need. In Canada, the government has been passing so-called tough-on-crime bills to send more people to prison. The provinces often end up footing the bill, and there are now more people in provincial prisons.

I do not know what my colleague thinks about this, but the government makes decisions without consulting the provinces, although that is a very important part of every decision, and without regard for who will be footing the bill. Ms. Annick Papillon : Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to make laws and do everything possible to have them enforced so that every little crime in Canada is punished. I understand that, but the process costs money and inevitably requires more resources. First, we need to determine what kind of society we want. I think that far too often the provinces are left to foot the bill.

I think we need to be proactive with the issue and understand what our young people are going through, so that we can help them with clearly defined resources and prevent them from breaking the law. If we hope to identify mental health issues, we need to invest the resources. This could help prevent crime and reduce the likelihood of people going to prison. We need to address this problem proactively. When someone is incarcerated, we need to look at his or her case and provide adequate resources. Right now, all I see are punitive laws, more people in prison and fewer resources.

These people will commit the same crimes if they do not receive help in prison, and this will end up costing us a lot of money in court and prison costs. We have to be consistent and look at everything in context. [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12 , the optimistically titled drug-free prisons act.

Bill C-12 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require parole boards to cancel day parole or full parole if an offender failed a drug test or refused to provide a urine sample and if the board then considered that the criteria for granting parole were no longer met. As the law currently establishes, urine samples may be demanded on reasonable grounds as part of a random selection or as a prescribed requirement of a particular program, such as a substance abuse treatment program.

Bill C-12 would also clarify that conditions of parole or other forms of release may include conditions relating to an offender's use of drugs or alcohol. The imposition of such conditions would explicitly include cases where drug or alcohol use had been a factor in the offender's criminal behaviour. The Liberals will be recommending that this bill go to committee for further study. However, I would like to reiterate the criticisms that my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque , levelled at this bill over a year ago.

First, we would all like to see drug-free prisons, yet Bill C-12 takes an exclusively punitive approach to substance abuse in Canada's correctional facilities. Does anyone think this will be effective? In his 2011-12 annual report, Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, made the following observation: A “zerotolerance” stance to drugs in prison, while perhaps serving as an effective deterrent posted at the entry point of a penitentiary, simply does not accord with the facts of crime and addiction in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

Harm reduction measures within a public health and treatment orientation offer a far more promising, cost-effective and sustainable approach to reducing subsequent crime and victimization. Mr. Sapers' report specifically stated: —that a comprehensive and integrated drug strategy should include a balance of measures -- prevention, treatment, harm reduction and interdiction. In 2012, the Conservative government re-appointed Mr. Sapers, giving him his third consecutive term. Accordingly, one might be tempted to think that the government would take the advice of its chosen adviser. After all, Mr.

Sapers' recommendations were the product of careful and politically impartial analysis. Efficacy was the sole motivator. Why does the Conservative government not listen to the highly qualified individuals who have been hired to give good advice and who are motivated solely by the desire to give good advice? When Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien suggested splitting Bill C-13 into two bills, the government ignored him. When Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court tried to warn the government about its legal problem with appointments from the Federal Court, the government ignored her.

We all remember that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice even went so far as to slander the Chief Justice for trying to save them from themselves. This is a worrying trend, although I do not expect the government to take my advice, either. In this instance, ignoring the Correctional Investigator is stunning, or as my Newfoundland colleagues may say, “stunned”. Howard Sapers was vice-chairperson for the Prairie Region with the Parole Board of Canada, director of the Crime Prevention Investment Fund at the National Crime Prevention Centre and executive director of the John Howard Society of Alberta.

He served two terms as an elected member of the Alberta legislative assembly, including as leader of the official opposition. He is also an adjunct professor School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, and he has served as president of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. That is whose advice the government is ignoring. Instead of taking that advice, the government is opting for a purely punitive strategy. Yes, the government's only solution to drug use in prisons is to keep more people in prisons for longer periods of time.

As Kyle Kirkup wrote in the The Globe and Mail , the government's thinking on criminal justice is summed up by the slogan “Got a complex social issue? There’s a prison for that.” I suppose this should come as no surprise. Bill C-12 is business as usual for the Conservatives. It is strong on rhetoric and weak on policy.

(1235) The government consistently prioritizes optics over substance, Orwellian sound bites over logic and it does Canadians a great disservice. We see it with mandatory minimums. We see it with the failure to use evidence to formulate public policy. In its eagerness to appear tough on crime, the government goes soft on thinking. [ Translation ] Last year, Mr. Sapers shared some deeply troubling statistics with Canadians. His report indicated that Canada's prison population is now at its highest level ever, even though the crime rate has been decreasing over the past two decades.

About three out of four offenders in federal penitentiaries are considered to have addictions, and a very high percentage of those addicts also have mental health issues. Given the context, this new bill's punitive approach is clearly unjustified. Further, close to a quarter of all inmates are aboriginal, although aboriginal people make up only 4% of Canada's population. In the past decade, the number of aboriginal women in prison has increased by 112%. Aboriginal inmates are also subject to use-of-force interventions and incur a disproportionate number of institutional disciplinary measures.

In addition, aboriginal inmates are typically released later in their sentences—80% by statutory release—and are less likely to be granted day parole or full parole. Still, here we have a bill that does nothing to address the historical injustice and resultant social problems that aboriginal people are grappling with today. Instead, this bill would effectively lock up aboriginal inmates struggling with addictions for longer periods of time. (1240) [ English ] The issues plaguing aboriginal communities are reported in the newspaper, and we know those are available in this chamber.

Therefore, ask, when is the government going to address the problems facing aboriginal communities? I am disappointed by the government's approach, but I am not surprised. Just a couple of weeks ago we saw what the government did with Bill C-583 , the bill from the member for Yukon , that would have made fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, a mitigating factor in sentencing. Of course, FASD disproportionately affects aboriginal and northern communities.

Bill C-583 was a bill that both the Liberals and the New Democrats were ready to support, yet the member for Yukon agreed to turn the bill into a study, killing his own proposal. One could reasonably infer that the government pressured the member to do this rather than risk being seen—Heaven forbid—as soft on persons with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. However, I digress. Speaking of this bill, we need to consider what the Correctional Investigator said in his 2013-14 report. Specifically, he was critical of the government's continued refusal to develop a comprehensive program.

I emphasize the word “comprehensive”. To respond to continued drug use in penitentiaries, he said: Interdiction and suppression in the absence of a more comprehensive range of treatment, prevention and harm reduction measures will not eliminate the demand (or supply) of contraband drugs or alcohol. Mr. Sapers also criticized how the government had undermined a key correctional services program on addiction, specifically, its 10% funding cut to the prison methadone program. Mr.

Sapers said: I question the appropriateness of reducing investment in a program that delivers sound public policy benefits from both a health and public safety standpoint. I could not say it better, and I would strongly urge the government to heed the advice of its chosen advisers by developing a more comprehensive strategy than what this punitive bill represents. Again, Mr. Sapers set out what that strategy would look like. It would involve an integrated link between interdiction and prevention, treatment and harm reduction.

It would involve a comprehensive public reporting mechanism and would involve a well defined evaluation, review and performance plan to ensure efficacy. Finally, when the bill goes to committee, I would especially urge the government to take seriously any constructive proposals for amendments that emerge. We currently have a punitive bill that would not solve the drug problem in Canada's prisons and that would exacerbate aboriginal incarceration rates. Frankly, we need to do better, and we can do better. Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. In fact, there are programs in place in prisons to deal with addiction and drug problems because of this government. I think it would be hard to argue, even for members opposite, that serious crime in Canada has gone down since we have put in our policies. What we are doing, which I think Canadians recognize, is ending the revolving door of the Liberal justice system.

We are ensuring that people who commit serious crimes actually stay in jail, receive the rehabilitation they require and then are released when it is appropriate. However, we will not release someone back into society that has a serious drug problem. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that if someone has illegally accessed drugs and has tested positive, that person will not be paroled back into society.

Does the member agree that is an important principle, or does he feel that someone who has possibly been in jail because of crimes connected to serious drug use or organized crime should be released when still using? Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, I agree it is an important principle. However, the approach of the government is this. When the only thing one has in one's tool kit is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a rock. While it is an important principle, it is more complex than locking people up and throwing away the key. That is the problem.

It is absolutely the case that we need to reduce the amount of drugs in prisons, but this is a nuance problem and requires a comprehensive approach. As the Correctional Investigator has said, simply locking people up and throwing away the key, which seems to be the answer for everything in the government, is not working, and it will not work. It is high time the government listened to the advice of the good people it has hired to give it impartial advice.

(1245) Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : 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? Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, that is an entirely fair question. Drug testing is already available to the authorities under multiple circumstances, including random drug testing and drug testing where there is reasonable cause to demand one.

Drug testing in the case of compliance with a probation order of the terms of release include in them conditions with respect to drug and alcohol use. Therefore, all those things are presently in effect. This bill calls for drug testing on someone after he or she has been approved for release or parole without the necessary governor or reasonable and probable grounds to demand such a test. It would add one more instance in which drug testing could be made available. However, the member has an entirely fair point that drug testing within the correctional system is already quite prevalent. [ Translation ] Mr.

Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-12 . I will refrain from repeating the title, so as not to embarrass the members across the aisle, given their ridiculous attempt to appeal to their base for campaign cash. The truth is that there is absolutely no connection between the bill's title and its objective. This is not to say that the NDP does not support the bill, for we would like to see it go the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for further study.

I wish the Conservative Party would stop treating the House of Commons of Canada like a PR firm. First of all, $750 million has been spent over the years on government advertising, sometimes for legislation that has not even passed yet and now for embarrassingly amateur marketing ploys for a simple bill. Come on. We all need to behave like adults.

Before speaking further to the major differences between the philosophy of the NDP on prevention and rehabilitation and that of the Conservative Party on repression, I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Alfred-Pellan for their excellent work on public safety files. I could not be more proud of these two individuals, who devote so much of their talent, energy and intellect to coming up with intelligent, fact-based public policy that takes into account recommendations by experts in the field.

The NDP certainly does not have all the answers, but it knows how to listen to the experts in various areas under federal jurisdiction. That way, we end up with public policies that will generally not end up before the courts, which is the Conservatives' way. I would like to begin by pointing out the incongruity of the title of the bill: the “drug-free prisons act”. This is not a government policy. It seems more like a legitimate aspiration that we all share as parliamentarians, but it is not public policy. The real problem is addiction in prisons.

Did members know that 80% of those who go to a federal penitentiary have drug or alcohol problems? That is huge. Instead of listening to the many recommendations made by the 20 or so witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety when it was studying alcohol and drug use in federal penitentiaries, the government is just formalizing an existing practice of the Parole Board of Canada. Nothing more, nothing less. Its only plan is to give the bill a catchy title worthy of a feature film featuring the late, great actor and comedian, Leslie Nielsen.

Then the young, zealous staffers in the Prime Minister's Office will ask the Conservative Party base for donations because the Conservatives are such good public administrators. I can say three things about Bill C-12 . Once again, as is the case with the work of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and several House of Commons committees, I see that the party in power does not value committee work and that the efforts made by parliamentarians every day in these committees are brusquely rejected out of hand.

The Correctional Investigator has stated in numerous reports that the corrections system risks unintended consequences when simplistic solutions are applied to the complex issue of drugs in prisons. Bill C-12 is limited in scope and is only a tiny step in the marathon that will lead to a reduction in addiction problems in prisons. Frankly, I have a hard time believing that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is not the slightest bit embarrassed to participate in this public relations scheme that does not in any way constitute effective public policy.

Strangely enough, the government has not made any mention of the fact that the Correctional Service of Canada has admitted that the $122 million dollars the Conservatives have spent since 2008 on interdiction tools and technology to stop drugs from entering prisons has not led to any reduction in drug use in prisons. None. Oops. It has not reduced the use of drugs in prisons. Oops. It is not that difficult to come up with public policy that makes sense.

The Correctional Investigator has suggested measures such as proper assessment of prisoners at intake into correctional programs in order to identify their addiction problems and give them better access to rehabilitation programs. This would help to reduce drugs and gang activity in prison. The following is a quote from the Correctional Investigator's annual report: A “zero-tolerance” stance to drugs in prison [is an aspiration rather than an effective policy. It] simply does not accord with the facts of crime and addiction in Canada or elsewhere in the world.

Harm reduction measures within a public health and treatment orientation offer a far more promising, cost-effective and sustainable approach to reducing subsequent crime and victimization.

(1250) It seems to me that it is rather easy to ignore an annual report with a quote like that one and then to introduce a weak bill like Bill C-12 . The John Howard Society also supports Bill C-12 and the Parole Board of Canada's discretion on parole eligibility. It believes that this bill will not eliminate drugs from prisons and that this is just a tactic by the Conservatives to ignore some of the real issues in prison, such as mental illness, double-bunking, and inmate self-injury and suicide. I want to quickly go over some of the government's contradictory public safety policies.

If the Conservative government were serious about combatting drug addiction in our prisons, it would not have cut the budgets of correctional programs such as substance abuse programs, for example. It would certainly not have increased double-bunking. The government is just not able to walk the talk when it comes to public safety. The Correctional Service of Canada budget cut announced in 2012 was $295 million—10%—over two years. Breaking the numbers down, we see that between 2% and 2.7% of its budget is allocated to core correctional programs, including substance abuse programs.

Because of the cuts, that core operating budget will shrink too. According to the Office of the Correctional Investigator, CSC's budget for substance abuse programming fell from $11 million in 2008-09 to $9 million in 2010-11. It is clear to me that these legislative measures, like mandatory minimum sentences, are increasing the prison population even as the government is shutting down certain correctional institutions. We are currently seeing an unprecedented spike in Canada's prison population. What does all of this add up to? Correctional Service Canada has normalized double-bunking.

In December 2012, the prairies were double-bunking at 21%, Ontario at 16% and now Quebec at 10%. Correctional staff and the Correctional Investigator have repeatedly stated that this practice leads to increased violence and gang activity. The Conservative government's record is not improving; ultimately, inmates are leaving prison without treatment and are more likely to become involved in their previous criminal activities. The figures support that hypothesis.

According to the Correctional Service of Canada data warehouse, the number of offenders waitlisted to attend substance abuse programming as of November 13, 2013—excluding the Pacific and Atlantic regions—is 1,962, meaning that there are likely far more than 2,000 on wait lists now. We should keep in mind that there are approximately 15,000 inmates in federal prisons. That means there are a lot of people on the waiting list. What it comes down to is that there is no vision and, more importantly, these weak measures are being implemented simply to fill the Conservative Party's coffers.

In contrast, the NDP has a common-sense proposal. Unlike the repressive logic of the party opposite, the NDP is determined to make communities safer with treatment and rehabilitation programs for inmates. As a result, we will be able to better address the drug and gang problems in our prisons. Moreover, inmates will be better prepared to be released into the community. We also want to protect the safety of correctional staff by eliminating the practice of double-bunking and making sure that resources are put into treatment for offenders with addictions and mental illnesses.

The best way to address addiction problems in our prisons is by treating those addictions and not by wasting $122 million on sniffer dogs and technologies that have proven ineffective. If Bill C-12 , with its ridiculous title, is the only thing this government and its pals in the Prime Minister's Office plan to do to fight drugs in our prisons, then clearly, they are not smoking the same cigarettes I am. (1255) [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, to clarify the record again, the NDP member talks about prison populations exploding, and that is in fact not the case. That was predicted by many in the media and by the NDP opposition party, and it is absolutely not the case. Again, only the NDP would think it is bad thing that someone who commits a crime actually ends up in jail. On this side of the House, we believe that if someone commits a serious crime against a person, society, or communities, they should serve appropriate sentences. Our policies are working. Serious crime rates in Canada are down.

I want to ask the member the same question that I asked the Liberal member who spoke previously. The member from the NDP spoke about it, indicating that many who are serving serious time in jail right now are people with addiction and alcohol problems. If this is the case, and people are still getting drugs and alcohol in the prison system, should they be released on parole if they have serious drug or other illicit substances in their blood?

I am asking the member that question because on this side of the House we do not think that is a good idea, especially considering that many of the crimes were committed in conjunction with drug and alcohol problems. [ Translation ] Mr. Pierre Nantel : Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague across the aisle, I will try to avoid lapsing into the old partisan ways that usually dominate this debate here. This tendency to suggest that we do not take crime seriously and that we do not want to put people who commit crime in prison is just so low. It reeks of cheap, pathetic partisan politics.

I would like to point out something that simply does not make sense. I am referring to a front page showing a weapon that has been made easily available to people. It is shameful. This does not please the Conservatives' little friends, the ones who fund the party. (1300) [ English ] Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point from correctional support staff because they often get overlooked when we are dealing with legislation of this nature.

The government approaches legislation of this sort with a simplistic attitude, that not having alcohol or drugs in any form whatsoever within our prisons would cure the problems. I have had the opportunity to have discussions with correctional officers in the past, and they want to have as much harmony as possible within the cellblocks and the ranges because not only is it better for the prisoners, but it is also a safer environment for them. Does the member believe that the passage of this legislation would help to facilitate a safer working environment for correctional staff? [ Translation ] Mr.

Pierre Nantel : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Obviously, we are recommending that this bill be studied in committee because these measures have merit. The fancy titles for these measures, however, do not, because although the measures are certainly a good addition, they do not really address the problem. The Conservatives add these catchy titles to appeal to their law and order supporters. Clearly, there is no real commitment here. [ English ] The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Bruce Stanton) : I would remind hon. members that in the course of debate it is usually frowned upon to use props, if they are used in that manner. Members will use documents from time to time and refer to them, but when something is used as a prop to support an argument, that is something that is well to avoid. [ Translation ] Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague and especially to the parliamentary secretary across the way. I sometimes get the impression that the government takes this country for the set of a John Wayne movie, where there are good guys and bad guys.

Unfortunately, there are rarely any grey areas in this government, but reality is full of grey areas. I heard my colleague's speech. When I think of the outstanding work he is doing to save Radio-Canada, I feel like taking the Conservatives, pulling them out of their John Wayne world, and putting them directly into a world that helps us better understand the federal prison setting, namely the excellent show Unité 9 .

This show helps us understand how important it is to have human resources to better serve inmates and especially to ensure that they do not end up back at square one, that they make progress and become better citizens. What does my colleague think about that? Mr. Pierre Nantel : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Québec for her question. She is quite right in saying that some shows can provide insight into the reality of law enforcement and peace officers at Correctional Service Canada. Their work is extremely difficult and full of challenges, and they constantly face danger.

It is sad to see that we are again going to get caught up in partisanship. Christmas is approaching. I hope that we will hear more than just the partisan messages the Conservatives want to see in their householders. Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : 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.

(1305) 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. (1310) [ English ] 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,”.... [ Translation ] 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.

Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, NDP) : Madam Speaker, the holidays are approaching, so it would be good for Canadians to see that we are not always engaged in partisan fighting here in the House. This bill offers few improvements, but it is a positive bill. I would like to ask my colleague if she is hopeful that in committee we will be able to build on what this bill has to offer. Ms. Hélène LeBlanc : 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. (1315) [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for her speech. However, as I listened to it, I kept hearing the phrase, “It is a tragedy”. It is a tragedy about the prison population.

It is a tragedy over double-bunking. It is a tragedy over confinement. I wish the NDP opposition member would actually show that same empathy when it comes to the real victims of crime, the same victims of the individuals who are actually incarcerated in jail because of the crimes they committed.

The question I would ask the member is this: If someone is convicted of a crime, and other members in the house tied that to the fact that many have addiction and alcohol problems, and that individual is still accessing illegal drugs in prison and has tested positive to an illegal substance in his or her system, does the member feel that the individual should be released on parole or kept in jail, because they committed another crime? Is that actually a tragedy as well? [ Translation ] Ms.

Hélène LeBlanc : 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.

Mrs. Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when I first found out about this bill, I was pleased to debate a bill that would get rid of drugs in prisons. Imagine my surprise when I realized that this bill does nothing to address the drug problems in our prisons. I know that this is an election year and that the Conservative Party needs to look good in the eyes of its voters, but using legislation to deliver a misleading press release is not right. We were not elected to take people for idiots and broadcast a completely false message. This is simply unacceptable.

As for the bill itself, again we have something that is incomplete. This Conservative government makes grand announcements, but never follows through. It is disappointing. Here we are assembled today to talk about a drug-free prisons bill, which, let us admit it, has a very narrow scope. In fact, the bill states that in making its decision for parole eligibility, the Parole Board can take into account positive results for drug tests or a refusal to submit samples for urinalysis. The Board already does that, but the law does not spell it out clearly. The bill will clarify this and that is good.

It is true that alcoholism and drug addiction in our prisons are major obstacles to correcting inmates' offending behaviours. Giving the board the authority to reject applications for parole from offenders who have not overcome their addictions is promising. The problem, however, is that nothing is being done to help or encourage inmates to rid themselves of their addictions. The government has a zero tolerance stance on drugs. Its highly idealistic aim is to have drug-free prisons.

What the government does not understand is that the only way to eliminate drugs from prisons is to have no more people with drug problems. Let us look at two things. First, tougher minimum sentences for drug users mean that more people with drug problems end up in our jails. Second, without substance abuse programs in our prisons, how can we make a dent in the prevalence of drugs in our prisons? Inmates who want to keep drinking and taking drugs in prison can do so. They just need to have money and find a supplier. When something does not get into a prison, it is because the door is not big enough.

Why not take a different approach to the problem through education? Why not give people with substance abuse problems an opportunity to break free of their addictions through programs that would significantly reduce the prevalence of drugs in prisons? I know the members opposite like to say that the NDP is soft on drugs, but to me, taking measures to directly tackle the addiction problems in our prisons is not being soft. On the contrary, it shows that we understand the problem and care about public safety. In Canada, 80% of those who end up in federal penitentiaries have drug or alcohol problems.

Drugs also contribute to the spread of infectious diseases and make it difficult to rehabilitate inmates.

(1320) They have a much higher risk of HIV and hepatitis C infection because inmates usually inject drugs with needles that are shared and not sterilized. Most inmates serving sentences in Canadian federal prisons will return to their communities and take with them the diseases contracted in prison. In the end, that can affect all of us. The Conservatives like to say that, on this side of the House, we do not care about the safety of Canadians and that we do not have good solutions, such as prison needle exchange programs.

I do not want to focus the debate on this program, but given that the Conservatives constantly misrepresent it to justify their correctional policies, I feel it is necessary to set the record straight. This program would simply protect inmates, and by extension our communities, against infection. As we have heard in the House in this debate, drugs in prison are a scourge. Even though it has spent $122 million since 2008, the government has not managed to eradicate this scourge. The needle program is a necessary hygiene health measure for inmates.

Currently, inmates who are addicted to drugs use unsterilized syringes and can contract diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as I mentioned. When they return to their community, they are still struggling with addiction and illness. When we protect the health of inmates, we also protect the health of the communities they will be returning to. I would now like to talk about another point in this debate, and that is mental health. In 2011, 69% of women in prison and 45% of men in prison received a mental health care intervention.

Despite these staggering data, the Conservative government still has not asked for a report from Correctional Service Canada on the implementation of recommendations to improve the handling of prisoners with mental illness. The Correctional Investigator's report on women who self-harm or commit suicide stated that Correctional Service Canada remains ill-equipped to manage female offenders who chronically injure themselves. The NDP has consistently supported measures to make our prisons safer.

On the other hand, the Conservative government has ignored recommendations from Correctional Service Canada, corrections unions and the Correctional Investigator aimed at decreasing violence, gang activity and drug use in our prisons. In addition to ignoring those recommendations, the government is cutting budgets, which is only resulting in more double-bunking and the closure of treatment centres for inmates with mental health disorders.

It is alarming that the Conservatives are saying that they are making our streets safer when I do not see how that can be true since they are cutting programs that would prevent recidivism and reduce violence. They do not have a plan to prepare former inmates to reintegrate into society by helping them break the vicious cycle of drugs, which includes trafficking, use and addiction. Finally, before I conclude my speech, I would like to remind members that committees do not conduct studies for the fun of it. We have the mandate to examine, analyze and legislate to improve our society.

What is the point of having committees and spending weeks listening to witnesses and their recommendations if those views are not taken into account? The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security conducted a study on the use of drugs and alcohol in federal penitentiaries. The committee made recommendations. I think it is dishonest for the Conservative government to introduce a bill that does not even take those recommendations into account.

The NDP has consideration for experts, and if the government did as well, we would not be here today discussing a bill that is so limited in scope. (1325) [ English ] Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, from listening to the speech by the hon. member across the way, there appears to be a common thread in all the speeches by the NDP. I will get back to that in just a moment. First, I want to touch base specifically on what the New Democrats said about taking addictions out of prisons.

They want to implement a needle exchange program in prisons so that inmates can continue using illegal substances. That does not make sense. The common thread I have heard is that the bills we put forward in the House are aimed at appealing to our base. Since the Conservatives have taken office in 2006, among all of the other good things that have taken place, serious crime rates have gone down and our communities and families feel safer. If we are appealing to our base, which appears to be law-abiding citizens, I would like to know who the NDP is trying to appeal to. (1330) [ Translation ] Mrs.

Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. However, I would like to correct one thing, since she seems to have misunderstood what I said. Perhaps it was because of the English translation. First, with respect to the needle program, it is not a question of offering needles in order to encourage inmates to use and abuse drugs. It is a question of hygiene. It has been scientifically demonstrated the world over—and perhaps this escaped my colleague—that when we protect these people, we are also protecting our communities. She also said that the NDP is lax.

I would not say that. We are proposing solutions that get to the heart of the issue. It makes no sense to put a Band-Aid on a gaping wound, nor does it make sense to throw money at this without actually considering the recommendations coming from those who work on the front lines. We need to be taking their recommendations into account, not the recommendations coming from on high. [ English ] Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, to add to my colleague's response to the parliamentary secretary's question, the NDP appeals to the innate human nature and humankind of Canadians.

That is the base we appeal to. I was trying to find some independent statistics on the number of individuals who are lifers in prison. The numbers I have found range from 15% to one-third, which means that two-thirds or more of these individuals will be leaving prison at some point. It seems to me that the money would be better spent on making sure that once these individuals leave prison they have the support they need to ensure that they do not reoffend, that they do not end up back in the system, and that they do not create new victims.

In my view, this is a way that we can protect our society and make sure that Canadians are safe. I wonder if my colleague would care to comment on that thought. [ Translation ] Mrs. Djaouida Sellah : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very relevant comment and question. Studies have shown that prevention and a reintegration policy would encourage more people to reintegrate into society than a policy focused on enforcement. As my colleague said, even though people are in prison for a certain period of time, they will eventually return to their community.

That is why it is better to focus on prevention and have a reintegration policy as opposed to one focused on enforcement. I also want to say again that this bill has a very limited scope because it does not really get to the heart of the matter. Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C- 12, which has the pompous title of “drug-free prisons act”. In fact, it will never have this effect. The measures contained in this bill will not get rid of drugs in prisons.

At the outset, I would like to say that I have nothing against this bill, but it is a bit much to say it will get rid of drugs in prisons. There is nothing new in this bill. It says that the Parole Board of Canada can decide on eligibility for parole on the basis of a positive urinalysis or a refusal to provide a urine sample for drug testing. However, the Parole Board already does this. The bill will set out in legislation a practice that exists already.

That is all right, but it is a bit strong to say that it will get rid of drugs in prisons, when this goal has not been achieved since the Parole Board started using urinalysis or a refusal to undergo a test as a basis for parole decisions. That being said, there was a fear that this bill, which will actually only confirm what the Parole Board is doing already, would reduce the Board’s powers. In fact, this government has a habit of giving more and more discretionary authority to various ministers and less and less authority to our judges and board members for them to do their job properly.

Fortunately, this is not the case here. In fact, with this bill that does not add anything to the tools we already have, the government is trying to make its electoral base happy without dealing with the crux of the problem and without implementing measures that would actually do something to reduce it. For instance, the government has still not followed up on the reports published by the Correctional Service in 2006 and in 2008 on strategies to deal with the problem of street gangs in prison. We know that drugs and gangs are related issues. This concrete measure would reduce the problem of drug use in prison.

In addition to not doing certain things that are necessary, the government is implementing measures that make the problems in our prisons even worse. There are more and more minimum sentences and justices are not allowed to judge. That is their job. Even though Canada’s crime rate is the lowest it has been for decades, as is the case for murders, the offender population is increasing. We are adopting policies that were used by the Americans, even though the Americans have realized that those policies did not work and have changed them.

While the prison population is going up, funding has been cut by 10% over two years. This is a significant cut. It leads to double-bunking, even as correctional staff and investigators staff keep reminding us that this results in increased gang activities and violence. Prisons become a kind of crime school, not to mention the negative impact on the safety and security of correctional staff. Services that would support reintegration and help prevent recidivism are also being cut back. The government is constantly saying that it wants to take care of the victims.

We agree completely, but why not work to reduce the number of victims? Preventing recidivism is key to doing this, as these people are at risk of reoffending.

(1335) We could work with the offender population to prevent recidivism, but instead the government is eliminating these kinds of services as well as substance abuse programs. It has been noted that 69% of women and 45% of men in prison suffer from mental illness; I mention mental illness because it often goes hand in hand with drug addiction. These numbers doubled under the Liberals and they did nothing. The Conservatives have not done anything either. In fact, the Correctional Service of Canada says that it does not have the resources it needs to do the work that must be done in this regard.

The results have been disastrous. The outcomes and particular incidents have made headlines and they are really very sad. I am thinking about Ashley Smith or Edward Snowshoe, for instance, about whom many of my colleagues have spoken. Prisons do not have the resources they need to manage these problem cases. Edward Snowshoe was in solitary confinement for 162 days. Often, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg when someone dies or when certain incidents make newspaper headlines. This situation appears to be reflected at all different levels.

More specifically, what are we doing to reduce drug addiction in prison and ensure that people do not fall back into this rut? It is difficult to have a clear view of this situation, because Correctional Service Canada does not keep any data on the issue. By the way, this information should be kept; this would be a first step. If we want to reduce drug use, would it not be smart to keep data, statistics and information on addiction in prison? Before we try to solve a problem, it is essential as a first step that we try and understand it.

Evidently, understanding has never been this government’s strong point, as it prefers to move ahead on the basis of general impressions, what the neighbour said or something of the kind. All the same, it is necessary to have more information about the problem. We do not have any information, such as statistics, studies or analyses, but over the years in Parliament we have heard many witnesses say that inmates must wait a long time before having access to core correctional programs, such as addiction treatment. In February 2012, seven institutions were examined.

It was noted that 12.5% of inmates were enrolled in a core correctional program, but that 35% were on the waiting list. The cuts will not allow for any improvement in these numbers. For years with the Liberals, there were complaints that the waiting lists were too long. Now, rather than correcting the mistakes made by the previous government, the Conservative government is only making matters worse. However, these programs are essential to ensure that people do not leave prison without having resolved their fundamental problem with drug abuse.

According to the Office of the Correctional Investigator's 2011-12 annual report, nearly two-thirds of inmates were under the influence of an intoxicant when they committed their crime. It is absolutely essential to get to the root of the problem and find a long-term solution, especially if we want to prevent people from reoffending. Saying that someone was clean for a few days before giving a urine sample is not good enough. Four out of five offenders who end up in the federal prison system have a history of drug abuse. This is further proof that drug use is a major factor.

It is important to work with the prison population. The people are there and we can help them. When we help them, we help everyone. We also help Canadians because when those people get out of prison, they will be more likely to reintegrate into society and not cause any more problems. The last point I would like to make is that Correctional Service Canada's budget for substance abuse treatment was cut from $11 million in 2008-09 to $9 million in 2010-11. That says it all.

(1340) They cut services, and then they expect substance abuse problems to disappear as if by some miracle. [ English ] Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have heard the opposition complain about what the former Liberal government did in trying to search out root causes, which is fine, but it also did not hold people accountable for their actions. We are trying to change the system, so people will be held accountable for wrongdoing. It has clearly been effective because the crime rate for serious crimes is going down. Crime rates are dropping.

The other thing that opposition members complain about is that what we are doing is crass politics because it is appealing to the Canadian public. If it is appealing to the Canadian public, could it not be that we are doing the right thing? [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière : Mr. Speaker, I think the member seriously misunderstood what I said. First of all, I did not criticize the Liberals for working on the root causes. On the contrary, I criticized them for not investing enough in rehabilitation, the fight against drug addiction and prevention, just like the Conservatives.

I think that my colleague really misunderstood me on that point. As for holding people accountable for their actions, I completely agree, but that is not enough. Again, that is their simplistic approach to the situation: let us get offended and hold them accountable. We also have to make sure that people do not reoffend. Punishment alone is not enough; we also need prevention. Also, I did not say that Canadians in general agree with the government's approach. As we are seeing more and more in polls, the vast majority of Canadians disapprove of this government's policies. (1345) [ English ] Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member talks about rehabilitation and then asserts blame, whether it is on the Conservatives or, from a personal point of view, even on the Liberals. Then she talks about how important it is that we work toward prevention in the first place. I come from Manitoba, and addictions to everything, from crystal meth to other types of drugs and alcohol, are a severe problem that is taxing communities, some more than others. Manitoba has not done well.

Provincial governments need to play a leadership role in providing proper programming, something that the NDP has failed to do in Manitoba. My question for the member is this. Does she not agree with the Liberal Party that we need to get the different stakeholders working together, meaning Ottawa working with provinces, to ensure that good solid programs are developed in communities so we can fight addictions head on, hopefully then preventing crimes from occurring in the first place? [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène Laverdière : Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague on that.

It is imperative that all levels of government work together to address this problem. Often more than just correctional services need to be involved. In my riding health services, police services, municipal governments and the Government of Quebec all work together to deal with crisis situations in the city linked to mental illness, drug abuse and public safety issues. All stakeholders come together around the same table. A group called EMRII is made up of law enforcement and health care personnel who work together to deal with very specific kinds of crisis situations. [ English ] Mr.

Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill C-12 . Bill C-12 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, in effect, do what is done in practice now. It would give clear legal authority to an existing practice of the Parole Board, which we support, and that is urine testing for drugs when making decisions on parole eligibility.

What makes me crazy is the way the Conservative government holds up a piece of legislation like this, which would do an important yet fairly mundane thing by ensuring that current practice is maintained, and dubs it the drug-free prisons act . We know that the government is doing, frankly, nothing about dealing with the question of addictions in our prison system. It is an utter shame.

Estimates are that nearly half of the male population in prison and over two-thirds of the female population in prison have some form of mental illness and an addiction associated with it, yet the government continues to cut back on rehabilitation programs and other tools and strategies that could properly be used to treat and help focus the individuals who are facing these particular challenges. Here we are. The government is going to make sure that it is able to find out whether someone has been using drugs.

It has been able to do nothing about the fact that prisoners can access illegal drugs in prison, but it is going to ignore its absolute, dismal failure on that end of things. It is going to throw them back into prison. There are no programs to help them deal with the addictions. What is the government going to do? Is it going to keep firing people back into jail, keep the doors locked, and keep throwing other people in for the same kinds of problems and never deal with them? How is that keeping our communities safe?

How is that dealing at all with the problem that exists, to a lesser degree, but is nonetheless a problem? It reminds me that there is a service in my community of Dartmouth run by the Freedom Foundation, which is a recovery house for men. They have 14 beds. The foundation provides services to men who acknowledge that they have addictions and are committed to dealing with them, and it does so at a fraction of the cost that would be faced if there were any programs in prisons.

Certainly the cost of warehousing people in prison is a fraction of the cost that would be spent if the government invested in programs like the Freedom Foundation to help men make this transition to a drug and alcohol-free life. The foundation has served over 1,000 men over the past 25 years and has helped them become drug and alcohol free. It is a remarkable program.

It supports the kinds of issues the government would if it were truly concerned about drugs in prisons and in society, if it were truly concerned about helping Canadians deal with addictions, which, in far too many cases, are associated with incarceration. Then once and for all we would begin to deal in a substantive, productive, and constructive way with the issue of making our communities safer and more productive.

(1350) [ Translation ] Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : 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? (1355) [ English ] Mr. Robert Chisholm : Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree with the member.

We have stated on more than one occasion in the House that the New Democratic Party is in favour of programs and policies and support to help make our communities safer. We understand that to do that, we need to deal with the situations in our communities that are creating the problems, whether it is poverty, mental illness, or addictions. We need to make sure that people understand the consequences of their actions. We need to deal with those clearly and without hesitation. We also have to understand that these are complicated issues and that people need support to get through issues like mental illness.

They need treatment to deal with their problems. Whether it is through pharmaceuticals or therapy, we need to make sure