44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/25/22 5:26:30 p.m.
- Watch
It being 5:26 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Drummond.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:27:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:27:28 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be responding to a point of order and a question of privilege. One of them will take longer than the other.
I am rising on a point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on September 26, 2022, respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Mirabel. I will not comment on the substance of the proposal, but I would like to put forward a submission that the bill would seek to authorize spending for a purpose that is being significantly altered.
In 2005, when the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was promulgated, it was accompanied by a royal recommendation. The royal recommendation was required because it set the mandate, purpose, objects and qualifications for a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector.
In 2006, Parliament adopted a bill that amended the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers, including through the creation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. The creation of the tribunal and its mandate was seen as a new and distinct charge upon the consolidated revenue fund and was accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection regime. The first change relates to whom the regime applies. Section 2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act defines “public servant” as:
public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive.
Bill C-290 would add an entire new class of persons who would be subject to the regime. Subclause 3(3) of the bill states:
public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive.
Even the factual summary of the bill acknowledges that this proposed change represents an expansion of the mandate. The summary states:
This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants
Allow me to highlight other changes proposed in Bill C-290 that would alter the mandate of the regime and the duties and functions of the commissioner and the tribunal.
Clause 6 would extend the protections provided under the regime to former public servants, which is not contemplated in the act.
Clause 4 of the bill seeks to expand the types of wrongdoings to include new elements, namely the abuse of authority and political interference, and removes requirements such as the individual applying in good faith.
Clause 30 would remove the definition of “investigation”, which is set out in section 34 of the act. It states:
If the Commissioner is of the opinion that a matter under investigation would involve obtaining information that is outside the public sector, he or she must cease that part of the investigation and he or she may refer the matter to any authority that he or she considers competent to deal with it.
By proposing to remove section 34 of the act, the bill seeks to expand the mandate of the commissioner to obtain information that is outside the public sector, which, under the act, is clearly outside the scope of the commissioner's duties and functions.
Bill C-290 also seeks to amend subsection 19.3(1) of the act to remove the ability of the commissioner to refuse to deal with a complaint if the complaint has been adequately dealt with or could be more appropriately dealt with according to the procedure provided for under an act of Parliament other than this act or a collective agreement, or if it was not made in good faith.
Clause 24 would add a new responsibility for the commissioner to assess internal disclosure procedures in organizations and to review disclosure procedures upon request or on his or her own initiative.
Clause 19 of the bill would also add a new function for the tribunal by removing a power conferred upon the commissioner in the act. Clause 19 states:
A complainant whose complaint is dismissed by the Commissioner under section 20.5 may apply to the Tribunal for a determination of whether or not a reprisal was taken against him or her and, if the Tribunal determines that a reprisal was taken, the complainant may apply for an order respecting a remedy in his or her favour and an order respecting disciplinary action against any person or persons...who took the reprisal.
Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection scheme and the duties and functions of not only the commissioner but the tribunal in a manner not authorized under the act or any other act of Parliament.
Page 834 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.
I believe this is the case with Bill C-290. The amendments proposed would significantly alter the objects and purposes of the public servants disclosure protection regime in a way that exceeds the royal recommendation originally obtained when the statute was enacted and the royal recommendation attached to amending legislation.
979 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:37:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am responding to the question of privilege raised on Friday, October 21, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle respecting comments made by RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki.
There is a long and important tradition of the House to take members at their word. The Minister of Public Safety has consistently stated that neither he nor his staff ever directed RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to ensure the release of the models of firearms that were used in the mass casualty incident that took place in Nova Scotia.
The weight of the member opposite's argument is that the RCMP commissioner noted she had a text message from the Minister of Public Safety that he would like to speak with her and that she knew exactly what the minister wanted to discuss with her. This is simply conjecture. The RCMP commissioner is a highly qualified individual but she is not a mind reader.
This clearly demonstrates the weakness of the argument put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The Minister of Public Safety has confirmed in this House that neither he nor his staff directed the RCMP commissioner to do anything. The RCMP commissioner has testified that she was never directed to do anything by the minister or his staff.
What the member has brought to this House is nothing more than conjecture and innuendo. There are no facts that contradict statements made by the minister or by the RCMP commissioner.
As a result, I submit that conjecture should never be a sufficient ground to find a prima facie question of privilege. I believe that is the case in this situation. I therefore submit that this matter is a question of debate not supported by facts and that it does not reach the high bar required to find a question of privilege.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate your time, and that is it with regard to my points. The only thing I would add is that I suspect you might find it is the will of the House to call it 5:41 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.
356 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:37:33 p.m.
- Watch
I want to thank the hon. member for the information provided. We will certainly take it into consideration.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:41 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): We have a point of order from the Minister of International Trade.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:38:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during the vote to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I inadvertently voted in favour. I had intended to abstain, and I wanted to inform the House of this information. I would ask for unanimous consent to change my vote to an abstention.
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:38:24 p.m.
- Watch
We have heard the hon. minister. All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It being 5:41 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-283, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (addiction treatment in penitentiaries), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, as this is my first time making a speech in the House since a tragic incident in British Columbia, I would like to first take a moment to pay tribute to the RCMP constable whose life was sadly taken while serving in Burnaby in the line of duty. The late constable was a member of the detachment’s mental health and homeless outreach team, and she served in the role for three years. I have no doubt of the immense impact she had in her community.
I am here today to rise and speak to my first private member's bill, Bill C-283, the “end the revolving door” act. This legislation proposes to amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to expand the sentencing options available in our justice system and to assist those whose lives have been ravaged by addiction.
When I was first elected, I knew I wanted to do something for those suffering from mental health challenges and/or addiction. My team and I researched this topic, looking for possibilities within federal jurisdiction to make a difference. Thanks to the member for Kootenay—Columbia, I was able to pick up his work and research where he left off at the end of the previous Parliament. I thank him for his prior work on this legislation and for speaking to it today as well.
The effects of the revolving door in our justice system for those with mental health and addiction issues are felt in communities across Canada. There is surely not one member in the House who would not consider this an issue in their community.
In Kelowna—Lake Country, desperate people suffering from severe addictions and mental health challenges are entering and exiting our justice system without the proper curative treatment they need to heal. As a result, they return to my community, and others across the country, only to repeat the same cycle of behaviour that, for many, will see them re-entering the justice system and those same penitentiaries again and again. The effects of this have been widespread. Residents have valid safety concerns, businesses deal with crime and safety issues and first responder resources are strained.
Crime numbers show law enforcement spends a lot of their time focusing resources on those with mental health and addiction. Courts are backlogged with reoffender cases. Small businesses have to foot the bill for damage. People are injured, or worse, and families are torn apart.
We do not know if my private member's bill, Bill C-283, would have made a difference in each situation, but we need to do something. If we get the actions proposed in this legislation implemented and there are differences being made in people’s lives and in communities, surely this could be expanded in other ways.
The need for legislative action is imperative. A 2015 study by Correctional Service Canada showed that, at admission to federal custody, 70% of men and 77% of women offenders had a substance use issue. Similarly, a review of the National Parole Board files revealed that about 73% of offenders who were returned to custody had abused substances while on release. They also revealed that substance use had contributed to the termination of their release.
Municipal leaders are calling for action, including the BC Urban Mayors' Caucus. They state that their cities' businesses are “facing break-ins and other challenges, as a result of increasing social disorder and challenging behaviour from people in crisis.” We need to do something, and we need to take action.
This need for legislative action on mental health and addiction for those in the justice system is clear. Parliament has already taken action to focus on recidivism, in other words, the revolving door. The House of Commons came together to unanimously pass legislation from my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, to establish a framework to reduce recidivism in Canada. Bill C-283 seeks to continue this work by assisting addiction treatment in federal penitentiaries where people in need can receive the curative treatment they desperately need.
We know that the heroic work of addiction professionals already within penitentiaries operating under existing programs is vital, but the results show more focus and additional action is needed to heal those suffering from mental health and addiction problems. The ability to sentence offenders into a dedicated addiction treatment facility operating inside an existing Correctional Service of Canada facility would help support their work.
No one piece of legislation can serve as the panacea for those with addiction who enter the criminal justice system. I believe this legislation can offer an important tool to help reduce recidivism, address our mental health and addiction crisis and improve the public safety of our communities.
In that effort, my bill would first empower the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to designate all or part of a facility as an addiction treatment facility. Such a facility would need to come together with the government's support and with input from experts in addiction and recovery. I do not seek to prescribe the shape of how this facility should operate, as this would be up to the experts who work in this field.
Second, this legislation would amend the Criminal Code of Canada to support a two-stream sentencing process. While both would have the same sentence time, certain convicted individuals who demonstrate a pattern of problematic substance use and meet certain parameters at the time of sentencing could have the judge offer them the choice to be sentenced to participate in a mental health assessment and an addictions treatment inside a federal penitentiary while they serve their sentence. Through this sentencing process, offenders would still receive meaningful consequences for their actions but would also receive curative treatment, leading to a path of reducing the risk of reoffending; in other words, ending the revolving door.
This year I have had the pleasure of speaking with many stakeholders who work in addiction treatment and criminal justice reform. I want to take a moment here to thank them for those eye-opening meetings and for the important work they undertake every day. Some work directly with addicts on the streets; some work inside in the prisons; some are affected by the actions of those being incarcerated, and some are trying to help others simply because of their own lived experience.
There is a lot of support to move this end the revolving door act forward to be studied at the Standing Committee on Public Safety. I want to share just a few comments.
Marlene Orr, the chief executive officer of Native Counselling Services of Alberta, which works to heal the disproportionate number of indigenous Canadians in our justice system, states that the introduction of Bill C-283 is important, as it is a firm step forward in addressing the issue of addiction and its relationship to crime and recidivism. She says equipping Correctional Service Canada with the legislative authority to address the drug crisis in an institutional setting provides the service with meaningful tools to help Canadians address addiction and its relationship to crime.
Anita Desai, president of the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, an alliance of Canadian groups dedicated to the work of criminal justice reforms, said that substance misuse, dependence and criminal justice are quite linked and Canada is in serious need of more tools in the tool box. She went on to say she believes Bill C-283, the end the revolving door act, has the potential to create some of those tools.
Teri Smith, president of the Business Improvement Areas of B.C., says that as the organization that represents more than 70 downtown and main street districts across B.C., collectively comprising hundreds of thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of employees, they are supportive of Bill C-283, and that this private member's bill serves to address one component of the broader issue of safety, crime and vandalism by supporting critical addiction treatment supports and services for individuals in need within federal correctional institutions.
These are businesses in the ridings of members of Parliament from all over British Columbia, including from downtown Vancouver and on Vancouver Island, who have federal elected representatives across political party lines in the House. Let us all work together to address the complex mental health and addiction crisis here in Canada by reforming sentencing, improving addiction treatment in penitentiaries and offering a message of hope to communities, families and those suffering. I ask for support from all members of Parliament for my private member's bill, Bill C-283, the end the revolving door act.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and for her work on this issue. I know that she is coming at this from a genuine place of concern for those with addictions and substance abuse issues.
I wonder if the member could explain to the House why she chose to exclude certain individuals from being included in what she sees as treatment options when they enter prison.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure, specifically, what the member is referring to. Maybe we could talk at a later date.
Basically, the way the legislation works is that it would be up to the judge at the time of sentencing to determine, based on someone's past track record, if they would be eligible for this type of option.
I also just want to point out that it would be up to the individual who is being sentenced to approve of that. This is something the person would have to agree to in order to go down that path. The feedback I have had from many people who work in the criminal justice system is that they say quite often there are a lot of individuals who want to go down this path, but as of right now there is just not the opportunity.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for trying to bring forward solutions to the crisis we are facing, the mental health care and substance use crisis the country is facing.
We know the United Nations' Nelson Mandela rules provide that the quality of health care provided to incarcerated persons must be equivalent to that available to the general population. That is not happening right now. That is clear.
I am also concerned, as my Liberal colleague was, about the fact that this bill might prevent people who want help from accessing it. In its current form right now, the bill proposes to exclude individuals convicted of certain offences, including drug trafficking offences, from its scope. This ignores individuals who have substance use disorders who become involved in substance trafficking.
Maybe my colleague could explain why they are excluded in the current form of this bill, because it excludes a lot of people who need help.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his concern on this important issue.
I think that comment is really important for the committee. That is why it is really important to get this legislation to committee. That is something that certainly could be looked at in more detail, as to what we have in here so far and perhaps what other opportunities there are. I look forward to those further conversations.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the great speech and an awesome bill.
I am just wondering about small businesses and whether you did some outreach on the effect this would have on small businesses and what they are encountering today with the challenges we are having with the opioid crisis, the damages and things like that.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:52:31 p.m.
- Watch
I just want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair, not directly to the member.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, absolutely, that was part of the premise when this came up. We have a lot of issues in our communities that are more prevalent than they were even five years ago. We have these situations that are playing out in our communities. We need to take a step back and look at potentially why and what we can do to make a difference. As I have said, we have done a fair amount of research at the federal level. There are only certain areas that we could go down. This is one area that is very concrete and is within federal jurisdiction.
Hopefully it could make a difference to those individuals, and then also the communities that they go back to. As I mentioned with some of the statistics in my intervention, there really is a revolving door. That is also why we chose to call it this. There is a lot of recidivism. If we could help those people, it would also help the communities they go back to.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to join the second reading debate of Bill C-283 regarding addiction treatment in our prison system. Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for bringing this legislation forward and for recognizing the role that addictions play in crime.
I want to start by letting the member know that the government will not be supporting her legislation, but I will go into details of that now. Having met with the hon. member, I know that she is extremely well intentioned in bringing this legislation forward, and I do give her my personal commitment that I will work with her to ensure the ideas that she wants to bring forward are looked at.
Substance abuse must absolutely be treated as a health and social issue. Any Canadian who uses substances should be able to access the services and supports that they need. Anyone incarcerated in Canada's federal institutions should have access to quality, safe, person-centred and holistic care, regardless of institutional placement or type of offence. Indeed, these programs exist, and they are comprehensive and available to all offenders. They exist as part of the Government of Canada's broad and concrete approach to strengthen public health support for all Canadians.
Included in the 2021 Speech from the Throne was:
To build a healthy future, we must also strengthen our healthcare system and public health supports for all Canadians, especially seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, vulnerable members of our communities, and those who have faced discrimination by the very system that is meant to heal.
This is a key part of the mandate letters of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and the Minister of Public Safety.
The December 2021 mandate letter asked the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to:
Advance a comprehensive strategy to address problematic substance use in Canada, supporting efforts to improve public education to reduce stigma, and supporting provinces and territories and working with Indigenous communities to provide access to a full range of evidence-based treatment and harm reduction, as well as to create standards for substance use treatment programs.
The mandate letter asked the Minister of Justice to “Secure support for the swift passage of Bill C-5 to reduce reliance on mandatory minimum penalties and promote non-criminal approaches to drug possession”.
The mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety requires the minister to:
Develop a Federal Framework to Reduce Recidivism in consultation with provinces, territories, Indigenous communities, Black communities and other stakeholders. As part of this work, [the government] consider how to ensure that federal correctional institutions are safe and humane environments, free from violence and sexual harassment, and promote rehabilitation and public safety.
As mentioned, in keeping with its public health-centred approach to addiction and the opioid epidemic that has affected families and communities across the country, the government introduced Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, in December 2021. The bill proposes specific amendments that would repeal all mandatory minimum penalties in the CDSA and require police and prosecutors to consider alternatives, including diverting individuals to treatment programs instead of laying charges or prosecuting individuals for simple drug possession. It would also require that all past and future convictions for the simple possession of controlled drugs be kept separate and apart two years after the bill received royal assent.
Our efforts have also been focused on addressing the opioid crisis. Budget 2022 proposed to provide $100 million over three years, starting in 2022-23 to Health Canada for the substance use and addictions program. The program supports harm reduction, treatment and prevention at the community level, and it builds on the $116 million provided in budget 2021 and the additional $66 million in the 2020 fall economic statement for the program.
I would also like to highlight that in June 2022, the government published its federal framework to reduce recidivism. The framework outlines the strategy that Canada will take working to address the barriers identified under each of the thematic priorities of housing, education, employment, health and positive support networks.
The framework identifies harms related to substance use among offenders as an urgent issue and states that more programming inside and outside of the institution to aid offenders in managing addiction will be beneficial. It highlights that the gains made during in-prison treatment programs can only be maintained if an offender is provided with sufficient aftercare supports and community treatment upon release.
Given all of these actions, let us look at what the bill proposes.
It proposes to isolate substance use treatments from existing integrated services and to enact them on their own at designated treatment facilities. It proposes an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide that a court, on request by a person sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary, may make a recommendation that they serve part or all of their sentence in a penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary that has been designated as an addiction treatment facility, provided that they meet certain conditions.
These conditions are, more specifically, where there is evidence of a pattern of repetitive behaviour indicating that substance use has contributed to the offender's involvement in the criminal justice system; that the offender consents to treatment; the court is satisfied that such an order would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing; that the offence was not prosecuted by indictment for which the maximum penalty is 14 years' imprisonment or life; and, finally, that the offence was not prosecuted by indictment for which the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment and the offence resulted in bodily harm or involved the use of a weapon, or involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs.
The Correctional Service of Canada would be required to fulfill such recommendations and adjust their rehabilitation model, which currently provides addiction treatment to all offenders who demonstrate substance use and addiction treatment needs.
Additionally, the bill proposes that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended to provide authority for the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada to designate a penitentiary or area of a penitentiary to be an addiction treatment facility.
The bill would also amend the definition of “health care” in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to include “care that is provided as part of an addiction treatment program in a designated facility”.
It would authorize the Minister of Public Safety to enter into an agreement with a province “for the provision of addiction treatment programs to offenders in a designated facility and for payment by the minister, or by a person authorized by the minister, in respect of the provision of those programs”.
Under this bill, offenders that serve part or all of their sentences in a designated addiction treatment facility would still serve their required penalty of imprisonment.
I would point out that currently, these facilities do not exist.
The court-ordered penalty would still be served but with a focus on addiction treatment within a designated treatment facility.
At this point, I would like to outline our objections to the bill.
First, isolating those treatment services could create negative outcomes for offenders. People living with substance use disorders are not necessarily ready for active treatment. A spectrum of supports, which is not limited to active addiction treatment, must be explored and available to offenders living with substance use disorders.
The government also opposes the proposed bill because it would introduce amendments that could have a number of unintended negative consequences, including for overrepresented populations in the federal correctional system, such as indigenous and Black offenders. Further, the government recognizes that more needs to be done to support people experiencing harms from substance use.
That is why our government will continue to work with provincial and territorial governments, partners, indigenous communities, stakeholders, people with lived experience with substance use, and organizations in communities across the country to work toward reducing substance use harms.
My sense is that the federal framework to reduce recidivism is the place where the hon. member’s ideas can be explored. I thank her again for bringing this bill forward and for meeting with me to discuss the issues that she is concerned about. As I said earlier, I commit to working with the hon. member on this issue.
1421 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 6:04:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-9
Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C‑9, an act to amend the Judges Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad that we are here to discuss Bill C‑283 today. This bill reminds me of Bill C‑216, which was introduced by our colleague from Courtenay—Alberni not so long ago. We supported that bill, but unfortunately it was not supported by the majority of the House. I hope this bill will go a little further this time around.
Bill C‑283 makes certain amendments to the Criminal Code, including, for example, a provision that would allow a federal inmate to be sent to an addiction treatment facility if the court finds the inmate eligible.
The bill also amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to allow a penitentiary to be designated as an addiction treatment facility. When a court recommends that a person serve his or her sentence there, Correctional Service Canada will be required to ensure that the inmate is placed there as soon as possible.
In Quebec, we have long decided to favour rehabilitation. However, in 2014, 50% of prisoners in federal penitentiaries had a drug addiction problem. According to experts, drug addiction is what drives most of those people into committing a crime, which brings them back to prison, where drugs are very easy to get, despite what people might think.
In 2021, Frédérick Lebeau, president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers for the Quebec region, said, “There's a major issue, a problem of delivery [of drugs and other prohibited items] inside the penitentiaries. It's too easy. It's got to get harder.”
With the advent of drones, it will be easier than ever to deliver drugs into prisons. By 2020, officers at Donnacona's 451-inmate maximum-security penitentiary had detected 60 drones, but they estimated that was just the tip of the iceberg.
penitentiaries will have to implement new drone detection technology in November, but the union is under no illusions. Drugs will continue to come into prisons. In short, incarceration does not solve drug abuse problems, quite the opposite.
We must also take into consideration that recidivism rates among drug addicts is very high. When they get out of prison, many immediately try to obtain drugs and often turn to crime to finance their purchases.
Federal penitentiaries do a poor job of rehabilitating inmates, so this bill could be the step in the right direction that we have been waiting for.
According to a study by the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations published in 2019, Quebec is an example to the world when it comes to rehabilitating inmates. According to the study, Quebec's reintegration programs for inmates in Quebec-run prisons reduce the risk of recidivism and perform significantly better than elsewhere in the world. These reintegration programs, which are not only aimed at drug addicts, reduce the recidivism rate from 50% to 10% among participating prisoners.
Quebec's drug treatment courts have existed since 2012 and have been so successful that they served as a model for a pilot project to address recidivism among drug addicts in France. By comparison, federal penitentiaries are failing miserably at the rehabilitation of inmates. According to the 2020 annual report of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, inmates in federal institutions do not receive useful training or work experience during their incarceration and do not have access to necessary care. In short, they are very poorly equipped to reintegrate into civil society.
Another fact to note is that indigenous people are overrepresented in federal penitentiaries. They represent less than 5% of Canada's population, but 32% of the prison population.
Worse still, according to the Office of the Correctional Investigator of Canada, women represent 50% of this prison population. Addiction issues and the absence of effective programs to treat them probably go a long way to explaining why indigenous peoples are overrepresented in our prisons.
In committee, during the study of the various bills that were passed previously, including on the issue of mandatory minimums, we saw that the need to curb the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples among inmates is a major concern for the government.
We did not agree that abolishing mandatory minimums would help reduce the percentage of indigenous people in prison populations. In my view, there is no logical corollary. The existence of mandatory minimums does not lead to more indigenous inmates.
The problem lies elsewhere, and this may be our chance to correct it. Bill C-283 would allow for an addict to be placed in custody and receive follow-up care in a place that specializes in treating addictions, which could reduce the risk of recidivism for the inmate and improve their chances of successfully reintegrating society.
Under this legislation, the onus would be on inmates to ask the court to put them in an addiction treatment facility. Inmates would thereby acknowledge their addiction, which we all agree is the first step toward healing. The court would then determine whether the inmates could serve part or all of their sentence in such a facility. The Bloc Québécois sees only benefits to this.
The Bloc will therefore vote in favour of Bill C‑283, just as we did last spring for Bill C‑216, which was introduced by the member for Courtenay—Alberni.
The bill, as it is worded, is not perfect, of course, so it needs amending. I am sure that the members of the committee tasked with studying it will be very eager to improve it.
927 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague who tabled this bill for bringing it forward and for recognizing that we must do more to support people dealing with substance use disorders.
As we know, Canada is experiencing multiple crises: a mental health crisis, a toxic drug crisis, a housing crisis and a worsening affordability crisis. There are links between these crises, and they are impacting the quality of life for Canadians in communities across the country. It is incumbent upon us, as parliamentarians, to present and debate solutions so we can move forward in the best interests of Canadians.
In developing possible solutions, I believe it is critical to listen to both experts and those with lived or living experience. Last year, I was honoured to be named the NDP critic for mental health and harm reduction. I promptly tabled Bill C-216, the health-based approach to substance use act. This bill was aligned with the recommendations of the expert task force on substance use that was commissioned by Health Canada to make recommendations on federal drug policy.
Earlier this year, as I travelled across the country to speak to Canadians about Bill C-216, I had the opportunity to meet with many individuals directly affected by the toxic drug crisis, either personally, through someone they love, or because they were working on the front lines. I consistently heard that we need more supports for people struggling with mental illness, trauma, problematic substance use and housing precarity.
I also heard that there is no silver bullet. We know these are complex issues that require multi-faceted solutions, such as investing in the social determinants of health like housing and income security, increasing the focus on prevention and early prevention, and making a full range of mental health and substance use supports available on demand.
While Canada is facing an intersecting crisis, we are not making adequate investments into urgently needed solutions. Relative to the disease burden caused by mental illness, and compared to some of our G7 peers, Canada is underspending on mental health. France spends 15% of its health care budget on mental health, whereas the U.K. spends 13%. By comparison, mental health spending makes up between 5% to 7% of health care budgets in Canada, depending on the province or territory, so underinvestment in prevention and evidence-based care has come at a tragic cost to our communities.
Canada has now lost more 30,000 lives since 2016 because of drug poisonings, in addition to more than 44,000 hospitalizations. This public health emergency has been escalating for seven years, yet the government has only committed $800 million to date for its substance use and addictions program. Meanwhile, the expert task force on substance use found that current ineffective policies are costing us billions every year in health care, policing and criminal justice expenses.
I appreciate the bill's intent. It seems to provide a route of access to treatment for those with substance use disorders and reduces the impacts of problematic substance use on individuals and their communities. However, I have some concerns about some of the assumptions that may have been made in formulating the bill, and I cited some of them earlier, as well as how it may play out in practice if passed.
In doing research and consultation on this bill, a theme that has come up consistently is that prisons are currently places of punishment and not care. The United Nations Nelson Mandela rules provide that the quality of health care provided to incarcerated persons must be equivalent to that available to the general population. However, concerns have long been raised about the quality of care in Canadian prisons and inherent conflicts that arise when correctional authorities are responsible for delivering health care.
Catherine Latimer, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, has explained this conflict as follows, “Whenever you have correctional authorities delivering health care, there’s going to be irreconcilable conflict between the institution and the health-care needs of the individual”. She continues, “Security issues will always trump the health needs of the individuals.”
Emilie Coyle, the executive director of the Canadian Association of the Elizabeth Fry Societies, echoed that perspective in conversation in my office and commented that, if we try to insert care into prisons, people will continue to be harmed by our overly punitive prison systems.
Today, my office spoke with an individual with lived experience of opioid use disorder and criminal justice involvement. This individual is now doing advocacy work in recovery and shared the perspective, “Prisons do not breed success.” Indeed, the shortcomings of mental health care in federal penitentiaries has been well documented, such as reports by the correctional investigator and the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Before establishing a regime of designated addictions treatment facilities in penitentiaries that will necessarily require significant investments, it is important to pause and ask: Where can someone get the best care? Where will they receive care that is evidence-based, trauma informed and culturally appropriate? Where are they most likely to achieve their treatment or recovery goals?
The answer we have heard consistently from those working with incarcerated individuals or with lived experience is that people are better served by accessing mental health and substance use care in their communities. Unfortunately, across Canada, there are barriers to accessing community-based mental health and substance use services, such as stigma, out-of-pocket costs, lengthy wait-lists, admission criteria and lack of detox facilities. Last year, the Expert Task Force on Substance Use recommended that the government make significant new investments to provide supports to people who use drugs, but that call has not been heeded, and the level of funding committed to date remains inadequate to meet the needs in communities across the country.
I welcome the opportunity to work with the member on initiatives that will remove barriers to substance use treatment and recovery services so that all Canadians can get the support they need in their communities. No one should have to go to jail to get help. That is just a fact.
I am also concerned that the bill may prevent people who want help from accessing it. In its current form, the bill proposes to exclude individuals convicted of certain offences, including drug trafficking offences, from its scope. This seems to ignore the fact that some individuals with substance use disorders become involved in subsistence trafficking. Exclusions in the bill could create barriers to accessing treatment in federal prisons.
Indeed, the individual with lived experience I spoke of earlier would not have benefited from the bill, having been convicted of trafficking. He was, fortunately, able to access treatment prior to sentencing and while in recovery, he has remained gainfully employed and involved in community service. After reviewing the bill, he asked how many people serving federal sentences might benefit from the bill, given the excluded offences. It is a good question, and a question that needs to be answered.
While I appreciate the bill's intent to create pathways to treatment, I think we must be careful to avoid introducing new barriers. We must also think about where we can make criminal justice reforms and investments in substance use services that will increase the likelihood of successful outcomes.
I really want to thank the member for prompting this debate. I look forward to further dialogue with my colleague and other colleagues in the House. We have to work together. This is a parallel crisis right now, which we have been dealing with throughout COVID, and the government has not paid enough attention to it. It has not acted with a sense of urgency. People's lives are at stake. This is impacting our communities, our health care system, penitentiaries, policing and the judicial system. Most of all, it is impacting people's lives and those of their families.
Again, I look forward to working with all members in the House to try to provide solutions so that we can tackle this crisis. It does require a sense of urgency and immediacy.
1370 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
