House of Commons prison farm debate – Dec. 1, 2010
To view the original document, please visit http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=4833879#SOB-3609970
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, presented to the House on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, be concurred in.
It is an honour for me to move this motion and to have it seconded by the member for Malpeque, and I will be splitting my time with the member for Malpeque on this issue.
If we look at the content of the motion that is before the House, it asks something that is pretty simple. It asks that before we close down the prison farm program, a farm program that has provided invaluable effort to rehabilitate inmates over the last hundred years, the government should provide some modicum of evidence that the program was not working.
In committee it was fairly startling to learn that the Correctional Service of Canada is keeping no statistics when it comes to the effective rehabilitation of inmates who complete programs. It also keeps no statistics on whether those individuals were able to get jobs when they were released. Further, it keeps no statistics even on the costing of the program. The Conservatives refused throughout the debate in committee to provide what exactly was the cost of the prison farm program and how much money we would specifically save.
This motion asks that, before the government moves forward, in each of those areas they demonstrate that the program was not effective. Here is the reason. As I and our critic for agriculture had the opportunity to travel the country, we came to see really the most effective program that we have in corrections at helping inmates rehabilitate.
At the end of their sentence, just before they are released, inmates are given the opportunity to work in the prison farm program. It is a program that lets them work with animals and develop empathy. It lets them build the compassion that comes from working with another living thing. As we have seen in research from other jurisdictions, this type of work is now on the leading edge of making sure that when inmates are released they do not reoffend. At the bottom line, is that not what public safety really is all about, making sure that crimes do not happen either in the first place, or in this case, when somebody is being released from prison, that it does not happen again?
I had the opportunity to meet with the men who went through the prison farm program, to look into their eyes and see the difference it made in their lives, how transformational it was. I heard from a gentleman who was in a terrible situation. No one can excuse his crime, but it was not an easy situation. He was 19 years old. He had a step-parent who was abusing his mother, and through a confrontation when alcohol was involved, there was manslaughter. He took the life of the person who was abusing his mother, a crime he deeply regrets, but a situation that was deeply regrettable.
He talked about how the prison farm program changed him as a person, made him stronger, not just how it built empathy but the process of voluntarily, and understand that this program is voluntary, getting up at five in the morning and going to a farm and putting in 10 hours of work. They get to know the dignity of a job well done and understand the structure of work. For individuals who never really had that structure in their life before, it becomes transformative. In so many different ways, this individual was able to articulate how it made a difference in his life.
Then I talked to correctional officials, people who have been working in the prison farms in many cases for longer than 30 years. They told us there is no more effective program in corrections than the prison farm program. In every instance where I talked to a correctional official, they said when it came to the prison farm program there was not a single incident of violent recidivism. It is absolutely stunning that the government would axe a program that is that effective.
Its rationale ostensibly was twofold; one was the cost. Let us look at the cost.
The government is embarking on chasing after California, spending tens of billions of dollars on megaprisons, locking people up for longer and longer following a Republican model that leads to less safe communities and turns prisons into crime factories. It turns them into crime factories specifically because people go in for crimes, and instead of getting better, they face reduced or cut back programs. Conservatives are willing to spend billions of dollars on all these new prisons, but when it comes to a program that is effective and is proven to work, a model internationally, they do not have the dollars. How much are we talking about? The government tells us it is $4 million, but it will not give us a breakdown of that $4 million.
The Conservatives tell us no one is being laid off as a result of these closures. They tell us that they are now going to have to go to market to buy the milk and eggs that the program now provides for Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. Yet, they say that somehow there is a mysterious $4 million to save, on which they cannot give us any information.
Even if it does save $4 million, that represents two fake lakes. That is barely more than a second of G8 and G20 spending in a weekend. It is a pittance compared to how the government blows money.
The second rationale, aside from cost, is that agriculture is a dead industry, if members can believe it. Conservative ministers have stood up and said that agriculture is a dead-end, that people do not need to learn those skills as there is no future in it. I think a lot of Canadians would find that offensive. It also misses a fundamental point.
I have visited most penitentiaries in this country. For example, I have visited a literacy program in a penitentiary. I talked with those going through the program. We do not expect most inmates to become writers, but we do understand that the basic skills of literacy are an essential component to getting a job and having a future. Similarly, I have visited prison programs where inmates sew pockets onto materials to be used by our soldiers, or sweep floors. I do not ask how many will get a job sewing pockets on garments. I do not ask how many will get a job sweeping floors. Instead, I ask about the base skills they are getting. For those inmates who have not had the opportunity to find the structure of work and the pride that comes from putting in a full day's work, this type of experience is one that makes a huge difference.
I cannot help but reflect upon something the member for Malpeque once said to me. He visited a prison farm and there was a cow that had foot rot. In normal circumstances the cow would have been put down. He reflected upon the fact that it was the inmates who asked that the animal not be killed and that it be protected. They had become so close to that animal and had built so much empathy through that process that they had rallied around the animal. They wanted to nurse it back to health and take care of it.
I cannot help but think that if somebody is about to be released from prison, that would be the kind of person we would want the person to be when he or she walks out those doors. Let us remember that more than 90% of those who go to prison come back out. Shutting down programs like this is a travesty.
This is just a continuation of other things the government is doing.
Take a look at the fact that the crime prevention budget has been cut by more than 70%. Groups such as the boys and girls clubs and churches have been providing services to youth trying to get them to turn away from a dark path and not commit those crimes in the first place and not wind up in prison. The Conservatives have slashed money to those programs.
Similarly, the victims of crime initiative has had a 42% slash of its budget. This is a program that helps break cycles of violence and victimization. Often the people who commit crimes themselves have been victimized in their lives. By cutting funding there, the government is refusing to break that cycle of victimization that can so often happen.
The government is slashing from things that stop crime, that keep communities safe, and is dumping more and more money into prisons with fewer and fewer programs.
If that were not enough, the government has now announced it is going to violate international conventions to which Canada is a signatory and proceed with double-bunking. The government says there is nothing wrong with double-bunking, despite the fact that in many provincial facilities double-bunking is not only happening, but it is becoming the norm. In some cases, it is triple-bunking.
I talked to provincial corrections officials in some provinces where they are literally transforming the library into prison space. Prison guards are stepping over inmates at night to count them.
One could say, who cares? “Stack them on top of each other”, the Conservatives would say. “Make the conditions as deplorable as possible”.
The problem is, they get out. People will come out of that system that is broken, that has no focus on rehabilitation, that stacks inmates on top of each other and cuts all of the programs, or never invested in them in the first place, that cuts prevention programs and programs that help victims. And what type of people do the Conservatives think will walk out that door?
When I was in St. John's, Newfoundland, I went to Her Majesty's penitentiary and took a look at the deplorable conditions that so many people with serious mental illness are also facing. This point is just further illustrated.
We dealt with this in the public safety committee. The government sees no problem with solitary confinement. Inmates who are suffering from mental health illnesses are put into isolation where their condition degenerates and they get much worse. Our prisons are not hospitals so they are kept there. The disturbing thing again is that they are just released on to the streets. Because they are mentally ill and their condition has become even worse, and because the government puts no money into proper facilities to help deal with those mental illnesses, we end up having high rates of recidivism.
Where is all this leading? It is not as if this is all just conjecture on my part or the part of just about every expert in the country. The reality is this has been tried before, this cancelling of effective programs, building of mega-prisons, double-bunking, stuffing people in with each other. It was tried in places like California and other states in the United States. The result there was that it sucked like a vacuum money out of health care and education. It sucked money away from infrastructure and for helping those who were in need. What it left was a recidivism rate in California of over 70%.
We need programs like the prison farm program. We have to take action.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure for me and my colleague to tour quite a number of prison farms in the Kingston, Ontario area, New Brunswick, Manitoba and other areas.
I wonder if he could elaborate on the dairy herd at the penitentiary farm in Kingston. What was enlightening was the pride the inmates took in looking after the dairy herd and in providing milk and other food products to other institutions in Ontario and Quebec.
My colleague met with the mayor and town council in Kingston. He also met with people who are part of the group, Save the Prison Farms. I wonder if he could expand a bit more on what it means for the community to support the continuation of prison farms.
Madam Speaker, I will start with where the member finished, and that is with the Save the Prison Farms coalition. This is a grassroots group that started in Kingston but spread across the country. This group is largely responsible for people knowing what prison farms are and the difference they can make in people's lives. We owe this group a tremendous debt for standing up against the actions of the government. Many members are correctional employees who risked their jobs to stand up for what they believe in. They were willing to put their livelihood on the line because they believed what the government was doing was fundamentally wrong.
We had the chance to meet with the mayor and council in Kingston who talked about how important this program is. We also had an opportunity to speak at rallies in Kingston and just north of Winnipeg, where literally hundreds of people rallied behind this program because they know how well it works. They have seen first-hand the effect that it has on inmates.
The member is absolutely right to point out the pride that was taken in that dairy herd. Imagine these inmates, many of whom have never had a pet in their life, are now talking about this dairy herd, which is one of the best and most productive in the province. They were proud to take us around and show us the milk production and the poultry operations. We could not help but see that these people get it. They understand what this program means.
The member for Beauséjour was with us when we were in New Brunswick. We were able to see that pride. We had an opportunity to talk to people in the construction industry and elsewhere who wanted to hire these people because they did good work and had an excellent work ethic after having gone through the program.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for moving the motion.
I, too, had the privilege of visiting Rockwood prison farm back in the spring. In my opinion, that was a very successful program. In fact, the authorities were on the verge of closing it down and selling the herds and land. The member is absolutely 100% correct that this is a wrong-headed move on the part of the government.
How does he propose to turn back the clock on this? Once the land and the herds have been sold, how do we resurrect the program?
Madam Speaker, when the Liberal Party of Canada gets to the other side of this House, when we come into power, we will restore the prison farm program. We will undo the damage that was done here.
I say to those people who are disgusted with what the government has done on the prison farm program, who have gathered across the country, who have fought so hard and who are so disappointed that their voices were not heard, they have been heard. We will have a vote in this place. We will send a message to the Conservative Party that its actions are unacceptable and that the prison farm program, a program that works and is effective, is coming back.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this concurrence debate. I want to expand on some of the comments made by colleague from Ajax—Pickering.
A lot has been learned since the government first decided, against all facts and common sense, to close prison farms. Its agenda is to go the American way and emphasize punishment over rehabilitation. Punishment is an American system that has proven to be one of the worst in actually fighting crime and rehabilitating people.
Let me ask a question. If members were to walk the streets in many of the big cities in the United States or in many of the big cities in Canada, where would they feel safer? I think they would feel safer walking the streets in a Canadian city.
However, when we look at Canada and the United States, in terms of their incarceration rates, the United States incarcerates about six times per capita as many people as Canada does. The United Sates incarcerates them and has a system that is based on punishment. It has a system of private jails. It has a system of super prisons. However, it is a system that is recognized around the world as one that is not working in terms of preventing crime over the long term, because it does not emphasize the rehabilitation of people.
The government likes these short bills talking about fighting crime. However, what it avoids at all costs, at all times, is facts that would back up its arguments. In fact one of the reasons it has closed down the mandatory census is that it really does not want to have to deal with the substantive facts. The government wants to believe what it wants to believe and does not like arguments based on facts going against it.
However, where the borrow-and-spend government sitting across the way is going with regard to the prison system in this country is that it is looking at spending another $9 billion or $10 billion on building more super jails. One of the biggest failures in getting there is closing the prison farms. The excuses the government has used, in terms of closing the prison farms, are really unbelievable.
When the announcement was made to close the prison farms, the former minister of public safety told the public safety committee that, in the view of the government, the funds directed toward the prison farm program could be better used if the resources were “redirected to programs where people could actually gain employable skills, as virtually nobody who went through those prison farms ended up with employable skills...”.
There are several problems with the point that the former minister of public safety made.
There is a great need in the farm community itself for those employable skills learned on the farm. There is a huge shortage of labour in much of the farm community, and we have to bring in people from other countries with those skills to work on those farms. It was a miserable statement to make against people who worked on farms, as if their skills were not of value.
The fact of the matter is that working on prison farms is not just about getting a job on a farm, as Conservative members at the public safety committee tried to make it out to be by asking the Correctional Service Canada people how many people got a job on a farm. They did not dare ask how many people got jobs. That is what working on these prison farms is all about. It is about learning life skills. It is all about rehabilitation. It is working with others. That is what it is all about.
In terms of rehabilitation, and my colleague mentioned it earlier, there is just nothing like working with livestock to give one a better sense of life.
I recall at the prison farm in Kingston I ran into an old gentleman who was in prison for life for some very serious crimes. When I talked to him, he told me he had been in trouble all his life, both inside and outside the institutions, and that he had revolted all his life, even inside the institutions, until he came to this farm. He put his hand on a cow and he said that these animals made him recognize what life is all about. He was rehabilitated as an individual. He said himself that he actually became a human being because he was working with livestock. He understood and loved those animals.
My colleague mentioned earlier how they cared so much about an animal with foot rot that really, from my perspective as a farmer, should have been put down. But they cared and they wanted to bring that animal back to life. They wanted to give her life again, where she could walk and be productive again. When I went back to that prison farm eight months later, that cow had healed. That is rehabilitation and working with animals, and I make those points to point out how important working with livestock and working on prison farms really is for the rehabilitation of individuals.
I want to come back to the facility itself. A case study of the Frontenac facility indicates that the program has been successful. The program that the government wants to close down was successful, and I have to ask why it wants to close them down. Why does it want to misrepresent the facts relative to these institutions? Why do the Conservatives not want to rehabilitate inmates so that they can get on to producing in the economy again in a productive way?
The Frontenac facility has been in operation since 1962 and it operates on 455 hectares of class two farmland. The facility houses 130 cattle and produces 4,000 litres of milk per day, which places this facility within the top 20% in terms of productivity in the province of Ontario.
In 2005, this prison farm operation won Frontenac County's most improved dairy herd award, and when we walk in the facility we see the breeding, the genetics that are in that herd. That herd has been around since the turn of the last century. There are genetics in that herd that just cannot be replaced by going out and buying another herd. The facility supplies milk and eggs to Corrections Canada institutions in Ontario and Quebec.
The training program provides, through the prison farm, as follows. Inmates receive training on heavy equipment maintenance related to farm machinery. Inmates receive training on operating tractors, loaders, corn planters, harvesters, ploughs and spreaders. Inmates working in dairy operations can receive third-party certification for learning to operate and maintain the industrial pouch filler. They learn welding skills in the repair of farm equipment. They learn how to operate a variety of hand and power tools. They learn about environmental stewardship, which includes nutrient management and composting. They are trained in crop management and how to maximize yield and feed values. They receive training on feed management as it relates to milk and egg production. They learn how to grade eggs to meet industry standards. They learn how to operate a major poultry operation. They learn about animal care and welfare, including proper management and breeding techniques.
They learn a lot in these institutions, including management skills for the herd, administrative capacities in running computers and clerical skills. All those are important and, with the loss, with the closing down of the prison farm system, the ability to learn those skills in a farm setting where they get rehabilitation as well is lost because of this ridiculous decision by the Government of Canada. It is a decision not based on facts but based on an attitude toward people who have gone to prison, yes, to pay a price for a crime. However, the prison farm system actually rehabilitates them in a way that makes them better persons in society when they get out. That is what we need. The government should be ashamed.
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP):
Madam Speaker, the then minister of public safety and national security was quoted, at the time when the announcement was made of the closings, that none of the prisoners ever worked in farming and, for that reason alone, the prisons were useless. He did not seem to understand, and this is what I want my friend to comment on. He had no appreciation whatsoever of the rehabilitative aspect of working in that setting and all of the other talents.
I know my friend just ran out of time, so I would like him to comment on the lack of understanding, lack of knowledge really, on the part of the minister of the day.
Madam Speaker, the minister's understanding of the issue relative to rehabilitation when he was the minister in charge of public safety, in charge of the RCMP, in charge of CSIS, in charge of prisons in this country, is almost beyond belief.
The problem though, and the reason the minister does not understand, is that he never walked in the doors of one of those prison farms. We need to walk in the prison farm, go in and see these inmates working with the livestock, whether it is the cattle in a dairy operation, the beef in a beef operation or the poultry. We need to see them working in the machinery shop.
What the minister should have seen is the pride of these inmates when they worked in the dairy operation and provided food for other institutions across the country, but that is one of the failures of the minister and the government. They do not want to know the facts. They will not go and look at the facts, because they want to believe what they want to believe even if it is wrong, and in this case, they are very much wrong.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the member brought some great evidence to this House, certainly anecdotal evidence, which we did not get from the other side in any way, shape or form, but I do want to ask him about some of the statistical evidence, if available, that provides credence to the argument that these programs should continue.
Madam Speaker, one of the difficulties on the statistical side is that the government did not provide us with the documentation we asked for. It claims that the prison farms are losing $4 million. I do not believe that for a minute.
Where is the food for these institutions going to come from in the future? Is it going to be American food? Is it going to come from Chile? Is it going to come from Argentina? It is not necessarily going to be Canadian, under our system, but let me point this out.
The government is adopting the American system, but the United States now is recognizing how valuable prison farms are and it is reinstituting some of them. In California, it is a crop operation.
Here is a headline from the Associated Press: “South Carolina's largest dairy will be at prison”. The article goes on to explain it. It says, “Others take away a work ethic”. In a quote from this, a Mr. Dew says, “They are learning that for everything you do, it takes effort. You get up, you go to work, you do your job and you go home.”
The Americans, which the government likes to follow, it seems, are now recognizing that prison farms are of value, and the government is throwing away an opportunity for feeding our own prison system from within and rehabilitating inmates in a way that they are more productive in society. That is a shame.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Madam Speaker, at outset, I find this debate extremely disappointing.
We have heard today, and in days previous, that the most important priority for Canadians, and certainly the most important priority for this government, is jobs and the economy. Rather than debating the budget, rather than moving forward with the priority not only of this government but all Canadians, the opposition today decides to waste three hours of House time debating prison farms.
The opposition, and particularly the opposition Liberals, has continuously stated in the House that they are concerned with the priorities of Canadians. Only the Liberals, it seems, can speak out of both sides of their mouths, while trying to wrap themselves in a cloak of sanctimony. They have no intention of dealing with the priorities of Canadians.
I have no option then in trying to refocus this Parliament on the true priorities, which is jobs, the economy and our budget. Therefore, I move:
| That the debate be now adjourned. |
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie): Call in the members.
* * *
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 133)
|
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):
I declare the motion lost.
Public Safety and National Security
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House and engage in this important debate. A majority of parliamentarians have just sent a message to the government that a debate around prison farms needs to take place in the House. We represent Canadians who view the continuation of prison farms as key to the work we do in corrections, to the work we do in terms of rehabilitation, and to the work we do as a country in our treatment of people in our correctional system and how we move forward as communities and as Canadians.
I represent an area where people often fall through the cracks and end up in a cycle of violence. They sometimes end up in the correctional system in a much more disproportionate way. The way that we work with these people to rehabilitate them and bring them back to our communities is critical, especially to my part of the country, which is northern Manitoba.
I am part of a generation that has seen the U.S. crime and punishment policies fail. The U.S. has invested billions of dollars in a correctional system that has not been found to be successful when it comes to reducing crime rates and rehabilitating people.
Many of us find it extremely problematic that our Canadian government is carrying on with such ineffective policies when it comes to corrections and public safety. These policies are completely ineffective and are not based on factual information, which is disturbing.
I have had the honour of speaking out, along with many of my NDP colleagues, on the importance of prison farms in our correctional system. Whether it was at committee, at hearings across the country or at community meetings, the message from Canadians was clear. They understand in a big way that prison farms are a key part of our correctional system.
Beyond the specific skills that are taught to inmates at prison farms, numerous other benefits also accrue. I would like to list a number of ways in which the prison farm system is valuable to our correctional system.
Inmates receive vocational training while working on a farming operation, whether it is meat-cutting or equipment maintenance or other direct skills. They are taught a strong work ethic. They wake up early and work long and hard hours. These are skills that they will take back into their communities after they leave the farms.
Working with animals has well established therapeutic value, helping to teach inmates empathy and providing a mutual avenue for caring and affection, something that was perhaps missed in their upbringing, as is often the case.
Inmates learn to work as part of a team and towards common goals, providing direction and motivation that is usually lacking in a prison environment.
Prison farms provide wholesome, locally grown food to correctional institutions and surrounding communities at discount prices. This provides an important link with local communities outside the correctional system.
Prison farms have donated thousands of dollars worth of food to local food banks, which nobody can dispute as not being beneficial.
Prison farms are an avenue for community involvement in our prison system. One successful example is the Wallace abattoir partnership in Kingston.
The prison farm system offers many benefits. To discount those benefits, and certainly to hear the government disregard those benefits and put them aside, truly speaks to the lack of key information that holds this kind of system, this system towards rehabilitation, in place.
Echoing some of the discussions that have taken place in this House already on this important issue is the fact that what we are seeing here, the attack on prison farms, the attack on a rehabilitation policy that has been effective, is truly an ideological attack on the way we ought to be dealing with inmates, with people who have done wrong, but certainly, in many cases, people who want to go through a system and build better lives for themselves, for their families and for their communities.
It is disappointing to let people down who are willing to take that step. In many cases, as we know, prison farms are the best kind of work for inmates and it is not until their record within a correctional institution is a positive one that they get that chance to work on a prison farm.
Many have noted that a prison farm system is one that motivates inmates to do better, to improve while they are in prison. Certainly it builds a system where they hope to get into prison farm work. To lose that kind of motivation, that reason they ought to perhaps do better, is truly damaging in terms of creating incentives, of creating safer places within our correctional system, and of course, it is letting down prisoners who are committed to furthering their skill set but certainly to improving as human beings as well.
A friend of mine works in a correctional system and did work at Stony Mountain prison in my home province of Manitoba, and she spoke of the challenge that rehabilitation systems across the board have faced in terms of lack of funding. She noted that, for many people, while they signed up for a life skills program or a program that would help them, the lack of funding meant that the waiting lists were so huge that people actually finished their terms before they could access this kind of programming.
To me, that is absolutely unacceptable. Here are inmates who recognize that they need to engage in improving, that they need to prepare themselves to get out into society, and the system lets them down. By starving these programs of proper funding, the government is letting them down. We are truly setting them up to fail, to go back into communities without the skills that would help them. Therefore, we see the re-creation of this revolving door that certainly the Conservative Party likes to speak of, but with these kinds of steps, it is certainly encouraging that revolving-door policy in the justice system.
I would like to point out as well my particular exposure to the Rockwood facility in Manitoba. I had the opportunity to speak with people who were associated with this institution and I saw first-hand the good work that took place there. I was also speaking with my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, who had the opportunity to visit this facility and he shared how powerful it was and how clear it was that such facilities are absolutely essential.
A friend of mine in Northern Manitoba, elder Dave Sanderson, who works in the justice field, spoke of the aboriginal healing programs that took place at Rockwood. We know that our correctional facilities have a disproportionate number of aboriginal, first nations and Métis peoples in them. To get rid of the facilities that allowed for aboriginal-specific programming to take place on their territory, on their grounds, is unbelievable, knowing who is in the system and what kind of help they need. Once again the government is shutting down the capacity for aboriginal people to rehabilitate, to get back into society and get back into contributing to their families and to their communities in a productive way.
There is much debate as to exactly why these prison farms are being shut down. I had the opportunity to visit rural Manitoba and talk about the importance of prison farms. The area that I was in was heavily agricultural. It was shocking to many people that the initial statement that was made about why the Conservative government wanted to shut these prison farms down was because agricultural skills are somehow not needed in Canadian society anymore.
I cannot think of anything more offensive to one of the founding industries of our country than that statement. In Manitoba, across the Prairies and across Canada, we know the agricultural industry is key to our economy and the employment it generates is key to our communities and our regional economies.
We also know there has been an increased demand for temporary foreign workers. Here we have an opportunity to train people who could go back and work on these farms, who could contribute to this economy, and we are throwing that opportunity out the window. At the same time, we are certainly bringing offence to the hard work that people in the agricultural industry in our country engage in day in and day out. That is simply not right, especially coming from a party that claims to stand up for people working in agriculture, for farmers and agricultural communities.
Another critical dimension to this debate is how we are approaching the important discussion around food security. We have heard from many witnesses at committee and across the country about the contribution of prison farms to the food security in the prisons themselves, by way of producing food and the livestock necessary for feeding the inmates, but also the contribution to the surrounding communities, either through the food banks or through the different linkages they have created.
I know in Manitoba work was being done in terms of fertilizer contribution to neighbouring communities, and certainly the agricultural work that happens in the Interlake area. To lose those kinds of linkages is not just damaging in the context of the prisons and the surrounding communities but also speaks to the failure of the government to truly devise a real framework when it comes to establishing food security across the board.
We have seen the government's attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. We have seen the government's attack when it comes to establishing food security in northern areas and the imposed changes on the food mail program. We have seen the government turn a blind eye to the demands made by agriculturalists and producers across the country with respect to the challenges they are facing.
We as Canadians need a government that steps in and says that we have such wealth in terms of resources across our country that we should be looking at making sure that Canadians have food security that they can depend on, that the linkages are serving our communities, that we are supporting local farmers and farming families and are not breaking down these linkages that support these communities and this economy in the name of, well, we are not quite sure what it is in the name of, because the government's decision on prison farms, similar to other agricultural policies, has lacked some factual foundation. And I would use the Canadian Wheat Board example once again.
There is that need for the government to stand up for our communities and for these community linkages, as my area knows quite well.
Increasingly, we do not have a government that stands up for Canadians, no matter what they are going through, to say that what we are facing is not right. I use the most recent example of the need for the federal government to step up and work to protect jobs in the community that I am in, in Thompson, when it comes to mining, for example, the same as we see when it comes to agriculture across western Canada.
When it comes to prison farms, we see the approach to agriculture, at the smaller scale, to be very much in the same vein. The government is pulling back and saying that somehow it does not have a role to play to support these kinds of skills and truly to support Canadians who are on the margins of society. In this case, we are speaking of inmates who, in many cases, made wrong decisions, who want to make a change, who want to come back to contribute to our communities and to our country. As New Democrats, we believe the government has a role to play. It should stand up for these Canadians. It should stand up for implementing effective crime and public safety policy and for protecting prison farms—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Aboriginal Affairs.
If the hon. member wishes to conclude before questions and comments, she has three and a half minutes left.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude.
As a final point, I would like to look at the government's wrong-headed approach to crime and justice. On one hand, we have the eradication of the prison farms that contribute in a great way to employment skills, to the local food economy, to rehabilitation, the value of which we cannot quantify. On the other hand, by getting rid of that, we are taking away contributions in values of money that we cannot even begin to assess. We compare that to the commitments that the government is making in building new prisons and the kind of money that going to bricks and mortar to house more people in prisons, which clearly will not have the needed rehabilitation programming.
We have heard figures of $9 billion to $10 billions to be spent on building new prisons. That money could be spent on extending programming that would serve to rehabilitate people and build healthier communities. Instead, billions of dollars are being applied toward crimes that we cannot imagine or cannot calculate.
A statement was made in recent months that without responding to figures of criminality, when we know crime has gone down, really speaks to the lack of information or fact that is behind the government's policy when it comes to the correctional system and everything that goes with it. It speaks to the failure of putting real priorities on the table, looking at prioritizing prevention, for example.
As I mentioned, I come from northern Manitoba and I have the honour to represent those communities. In those communities young people grow up with no recreation facilities. First nations have substandard schools infested by mould. Young people face levels of poverty that are shocking to most Canadians.
Last night I watched a film, hosted by the Assembly of First Nations, called Third World Canada. I and so many others live in that kind of Canada. Instead of recognizing the root causes of crime, whether it is poverty or lack of access to opportunity, and instead of saying we need to build healthier communities, the government is pulling away from its responsibility to first nations. It is pulling away from government programs that support people on the margins of our society. It is getting rid of valuable rehabilitation programming for people who end up in the correctional system. Not only that, it is spending a gross amount of money on building prisons that will serve nothing more than to make our society less secure and less healthy.
On that note, I—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Denise Savoie):
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauséjour.
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Churchill gave what I thought was a very compelling intervention in this important discussion. I certainly share a lot of her concerns about the wrong direction the Conservative government is proposing on the corrections and justice policy areas.
My colleague from Manitoba knows her province has one of the prison farms that is slated for closure. Could she return to something she said about the lack of the Conservative government's attention toward rehabilitation programming, which I thought was very interesting? It seems to want to focus on punishing offenders once somebody has already been victimized. Yet in communities like Churchill, Manitoba or in New Brunswick, which I represent, there are cuts and reductions to community-based programs.
Could the member for Churchill elaborate on some of the closures or reductions in prevention and community programs designed to help youth at risk and give communities and local institutions the tools they need to prevent crime, not simply focus on punishing offenders once a crime has already been committed?
Mr. Speaker, that important question outlines the failure of the government to look at preventing people from reaching these institutions. It claims to have real problems with criminality and sees the value of punishment, but why do we not save ourselves the money and hassle of sending more people to prison and deal with supporting community programs?
I invite members of the government to my region, some of which have already visited, to hear from people in communities like Shamattawa, where young people could not use the arena when it was first built. Because it received so little money from the federal government and it was built below standard, it filled up with mould right away. When the community made an application for money under Canada's economic action plan, it was turned away. Only the provincial NDP said that it viewed preventive recreation programming in communities as a way of having healthy communities.
People who come from some of those communities end up in the correctional system. Let us support people before they get there.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, one of Correctional Service Canada's principal concerns is the need to rehabilitate criminal offenders back into society with marketable skills. It has been found that almost none of the convicts spending time on prison farms are finding employment in the agriculture sector.
In order for prison farms to remain open to provide marketable skills to convicts who have paid their debt to society, employment opportunities must be available. On that basis, I wrote to many farmers in my riding last summer when the prison farm closure was pending. I asked if there was any way they would consider offering employment on their farms to someone who had paid his or debt to society. The president of the local National Farmers Union said it was a crazy idea.
Does the member opposite know anyone in her riding who would offer employment to an ex-convict who had honed his or her skills on a prison farm?
Mr. Speaker, first, I welcome the member to hear directly from people in my riding. We recognize that people who have gone through the system are people who have come from our communities. They have families and they are part of a broader network of which we are all part. Not only do they have the right to work, some people believe that rehabilitation extends after they leave the correctional system and that we all have a role to play. I believe that is a fundamental value we have as Canadians.
On a discussion around marketable skills, it has come up numerous times. I listed off the value of the work that inmates were doing in prison farms, and they extend far beyond specific agricultural-related skills. We have mentioned these many times. Clearly, they are being disregarded by the government. Instead, we have heard there will be other options available to them. There has been no real plan presented with other options. Coming from a part of the country where there have been shifts in industry and the need to look at skills development, IT or trades, these things come up quite often.
However, inmates are looking for, as should all Canadians, a real plan that serves to support them so they can come back to our communities, whatever they are doing, and become productive members, something that will not happen as a result of getting rid of prison farms.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill and the member for Malpeque gave excellent speeches on this motion. Taxpayers are already on the hook for costs as a result of the closing of these six prison farms. Evidently the cost of replacing the milk that the prison farms produce in Ontario alone to 11 facilities is pegged at around $990,000. I assume that would be on an annual basis.
Prison farms also have a very valuable role to play in the Kingston area because there is a slaughterhouse and it is the only one between Montreal and Toronto. Many farmers in that area are concerned that they will lose the slaughterhouse facility. There are many ramifications that the government has not considered in taking on this measure, totally a wrong-headed measure and a measure that hopefully we can reverse once we get rid of the government.
Mr. Speaker, the discussion around costs has been recurring in the discussions around prison farms. It has been a challenge to have the real costs discussed. However, one thing many people have noted is the value of effective rehabilitation of prisoners and how we ought to consider that.
On the note of costs increasing already, many of us question who will pick up the slack when it comes to providing food and the resources to prisons. I certainly have those questions. Who is going to be benefiting from these contracts? We already know that providing food to the prison system is a pretty good business and a pretty sure business as well. Supporting that business model instead of supporting Canadians who want to make their lives better is a pretty shameful approach.
Mr. Brian Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Westmorland Institution in Dorchester, New Brunswick was closed down. This is a quote from the Moncton Times &Transcript, and I would like to have the member's comment on it. It said that this decision was:
| —a lightening rod for addressing the Conservative Party's generally short-sighted policies on farming, food and justice. The decision to shut down this successful rehabilitation program symbolizes our government's lack of understanding of what actually makes the public safe, and their failure to recognize the value of a restorative approach to justice... |
Does the member agree with that?
Mr. Speaker, that statement is applicable entirely, not only to this, but to so many of the proposals put forward by the Conservative government when it comes to crime and justice. We are asking to hear from people on the ground and from people in the system. We want to hear not only from inmates, but also from people who, at great risk to their safety, work in the correctional system. We want to hear from the communities around them, the agricultural community, the labour community. We want to hear from people who have said that prison farms and the work they do are integral to the way we move forward as a society, as Canadians. Let us listen to them and make decisions based on what they say. After all, that is who we are here to represent.
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to stand today and perhaps answer some of the questions that have already been put forth. However, we are here as a result of a motion put forward by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. That motion calls for the Minister of Public Safety to halt any steps to close the farming operations in Canada's federal prisons in order to allow a panel of independent experts to be assembled to study the farm program.
To give members some background on how the decision to close the farm program came about, I will first remind them of the government's strategic review exercise that was undertaken in 2008. As members know, government programs are reviewed on a four-year cycle with a view to determining whether they are the right kind of program and whether they are being delivered effectively. The Correctional Service of Canada participated in the 2008 strategic review, which was an excellent opportunity for the service to bring its programs, and indeed its priorities, in line with the government's direction for a federal correctional system.
The government's first priority to Canadians is their safety. To that end, the government provides resources and programs that assist in the rehabilitation of federal offenders to facilitate their transition into law-abiding citizens once released into the community. We are committed to ensuring that the resources for rehabilitation programs are in place and are allocated in a manner that provides the best possible results for offenders and for public safety.
The government offers a wide range of correctional programs to federal offenders. With new ideas and changing offender demographics, we must be adaptive so as to provide the most effective rehabilitation programs, including those that enable the offenders to learn employability skills that enable them to obtain and retain employment upon their release into communities. We know that offenders who have been provided with employment experience and skills are less likely to re-offend and are reintegrated into society far more effectively.
We also know that our success relies on ensuring that the skills the offenders are learning are reflective of the skills that are in demand in labour markets, not only today, but in the future. Canada's prison farms have a long history of imparting skills that have enabled some offenders to find employment in the agricultural sector. However, the government believes that it must move forward and provide programming that meets the needs of the 21st century.
In the last five years, less than 1% of federal offenders released into the community have successfully attained employment in the agricultural sector. I believe we can do better and that we have done better. Through CORCAN, a special operating agency of the federal government, offenders are provided with essential employment experience. CORCAN provides employability skills that can be applied to any number of jobs, and offenders learn job-specific skills.
Offenders work in jobs in CORCAN's manufacturing services and construction and textile industries. As well, they are employed in our correctional facilities and other work programs, such as maintenance and kitchens. In all, in 2008-2009, CORCAN and the Correctional Services of Canada provided 27,715 work assignments for 15,123 federal offenders. This is in comparison to the approximately 300 offenders involved in the prison farm program.
As I have stated, in order for the acquiring of employment skills to have the desired effect of securing offender employment upon release, our programs must be representative of the labour market outside the walls of our institutions. Canada's agricultural sector simply does not supply enough employment opportunities for offenders to aid in their successful reintegration into society. The government wholeheartedly supports our farmers and our farming industry, but with respect to the utility of the prison farm program to offender employment, the jobs are simply elsewhere.
An economy must evolve with the changing times, as must the economy's industries. Employment for all Canadians is affected by this evolution, and this should be reflected in the employment programs we offer throughout the rehabilitation process of federal offenders.
The Correctional Service of Canada has formed, and continues to form, partnerships with businesses and other government departments with a view to developing alternative employment programs in order to gain maximum employability skills for offenders.
Of equal importance to the rehabilitative aspect of this topic are the issues associated with the commercial aspect of the prison farm program. Indeed, this is not only a rehabilitative program for offenders, but the prison farm produces consumable goods. Of CSC's total food budget of $27 million, food valued at $4 million was purchased from CORCAN prison farms by the correctional service for consumption by inmates in 2008-09. This amount accounts for approximately 15% of the food procured during that time. Moreover, beef, pork and chicken purchased from CORCAN were generally more expensive than products that could be purchased from private commercial vendors.
I do not believe it would be difficult for private business to step in and fill this small 15% vacuum left with the closure of the prison farms, through the normal tendering practices. In fact, CSC is expecting to provide food to offenders at a lower price to taxpayers through economies of scale. This will bring CSC in line with the government's national strategy to use a procurement process that is more consistent for all government departments, thus providing better use of Canadian taxpayers' money.
Finally, I would like to bring to members' attention that, in dealing with the provision of agricultural products, there are some issues of liability that should be considered. The health of livestock, the potential contaminants to producers and land and environmental concerns, which go hand in hand with the agriculture industry, should not be a potential concern for CORCAN and Correctional Services Canada. Unlike private industry, with profit as a motive and such liabilities considered as a cost of doing business, it would not be desirable to subject government to such liability. The primary concern of CORCAN and Correctional Service Canada with employment programs should be their effectiveness in rehabilitation.
We have heard the success stories of prison farms; we have heard the criticism of the decision to close the prison farms. Change is not normally seamless; there will always be bumps on the road. The decision to close the prison farms is a necessary one and one that reflects the reality of the times. The government believes in the rehabilitative benefit of work experience provided by CORCAN, but prison farms do not give enough value for the money.
I would like to continue with some important arguments that do need to be heard.
Members have heard the rationale for the closure of the prison farms and have been informed of the successful employment programs under way for offenders in our federal correctional system. I would like to enlighten them today on the impetus that was behind many of these changes.
In 2007, the government mandated an independent review panel to recommend changes to our federal correctional system. This panel carefully scrutinized the service's operational priorities, strategies and future business plans. In October 2008, the review panel put forward 109 recommendations, the implementation of which will be significantly important in guiding Correctional Service Canada towards fulfilling its mandate of public safety.
In order to adhere to and build upon these recommendations, in budget 2008, this government committed $122 million over the course of two years, effectively endorsing the assessment process. This process takes place at the commencement of an offender's federal sentence.
We have heard many people say that we do not care about rehabilitation. I would like to suggest that there has been a lot of work put into thinking about what is appropriate rehabilitation. This is not about not providing the appropriate services. When I look at the opposition members, I wonder sometimes why they are just so reluctant to look at change. We put a program in place and it seems as if the opposition can never stand to see anything change. It is important to change, and we have to be willing to change with the times.
Enhancements included earlier placements in correctional programs that are aimed at addressing the factors that caused the individual to offend and quicker diagnosis of mental health needs. We certainly know that mental health needs are a huge issue in our prison system and we need much more effective ways to deal with them.
At the opposite end of the offender's sentence, upon release into the community, the service has strengthened its community corrections capacity, formed relations with new community partners and established new criteria for operating correctional community centres and parole offices.
Phase two, which unfolded in March 2009, focused on the creation and implementation of more detailed and sensitive forms of programming. This comes at a time when Correctional Services Canada was dealing with a more diverse and complex federal offender population.
We have heard many times public dismay at the overrepresentation of aboriginals in our federal correctional system. In an effort to improve the opportunities of aboriginal offenders to become law-abiding citizens, Correctional Services has done many things.
I would like to continue by sharing with the House that we have expanded the availability of culturally sensitive programs for these offenders and have continued to form relationships with aboriginal communities to provide support to aboriginal offenders.
To facilitate these initiatives, changes have also come in the form of a more diverse and representative workforce who receive culturally sensitive training, therefore placing them in a better position to interact with aboriginal offenders in an institution and in the community.
As phase two has been successfully completed, these and many other initiatives have been fully incorporated into CSC's regular operations across the country and are being applied each and every day.
While the agenda as a whole remains relatively young, there is no denying the efficacy of the CSC's transformation agenda and the sincere dedication of the service's staff to enact the kinds of policies that afford offenders the opportunity to turn their lives around and successfully reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens.
I would like to continue by sharing with the House some of these initiatives that CSC has implemented.
By enhancing offender accountability, the onus of offender rehabilitation is shifting and being squarely placed on the shoulders of the offender. Now more than ever, federal offenders are being held accountable for developing, embracing and following through with the correctional plan developed for them by the members of their case management team. If the offender fails to embrace this accountability and participate fully in the rehabilitation plans, it will be clear proof upon reaching eligibility for some form of conditional release that the offender is not deserving of an opportunity to return to the community and is certainly not intending to do so as a law-abiding citizen.
This government wants offenders to understand that being given an opportunity to reintegrate into the community is a reward for good behaviour, for completing the necessary programming and for showing victims, correctional staff and Canadians a sincere desire to change. It should be seen as a privilege, not a right.
The Correctional Service of Canada has also made great strides toward eliminating drugs in its federal correctional institutions, by implementing an enhanced anti-drug strategy with an intensified focus on prevention, intervention, treatment and enforcement. Correctional organizations around the world recognize the difficulty of achieving drug-free institutions, but regardless of the challenges, the service remains committed to working toward eliminating drugs from its institutions.
To do so, the service has put in place a number of improvements. There has been an increase in the number of drug-detector dog teams, an increase to its security intelligence capacity, improved security equipment such as x-ray and ION scanners, and enhanced perimeter security.
As illicit drugs are too often a contributing factor to criminal behaviour as well as a prime means of spreading infectious diseases through shared needles, it is vital for the service to do everything in its power to combat contraband items by reducing the supply and increasing the awareness of the consequences of drug use. Once again, there are clear signs that this initiative will further enhance our efforts and results.
To conclude, I would simply like to reiterate the fact that sound government policy, like that under which the Correctional Service of Canada operates, enhances public safety and at the same time provides federal offenders with opportunities to improve their potential to become law-abiding and contributing members of Canadian society.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to draw some of the connections here. The member talked about the fact that the government wants to put the emphasis now on responsibility for the particular person incarcerated, in jail, for the sake of rehabilitation.
On the other hand, it has written off this program in several ways, one of which was it was not gaining employment in the agricultural sector. Therefore I do not see how the two relate.
I am honestly asking this question. Did the government consult with the officials on the ground and even the rehabilitated prisoners themselves as to where they would like to be involved in getting that responsibility and why this program was so bad?
Mr. Speaker, I hear that the member is puzzled, but I wonder if he actually has been listening.
We have a changing world. Sometimes with a changing world, we have to change with the times. We have to provide opportunities within the prison system for skills, whether they be mechanical, woodworking or carpentry skills.
There are many opportunities for employment when people get out. I think I heard some comments earlier. Truly, the opportunities are not within the agricultural system.
People should not be afraid to change. We need to move forward, and this is a great plan for moving forward.
Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo made very intelligent comments about the prison farm system and why we are changing it.
As the member knows, there is little uptake of the skills the prisoners learn by working on farms because farmers are not hiring them. They need skills that are actually going to be useful in a general workplace, so that they can find employment once they get out and reintegrate into society.
I had an opportunity to visit our local prison in Abbotsford. I saw prisoners picking up new skills and new trades, such as heavy duty mechanics. Those are the kinds of skills they need.
Unfortunately, I do not think there is enough time for a response. Perhaps the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo could discuss it with the member for Abbotsford while the bells are ringing.