November 5, 1979

PC

Duncan M. Beattie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Beattie:

To answer the hon. member's question, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) asked about and agreed with the terms of reference at the meeting last Thursday. Certainly until the private members' hour is changed, it does a disservice to the more important matters that could come before the House. 1 was pleased, however, to hear him mention the good work and results achieved by the committee.

1 concur with him in that regard. I had the opportunity to have a discussion with two former members, Mrs. Holt and John Reynolds, in Vancouver on Saturday night. They were not only more than pleased to have sat on that committee but pointed out the great work that had been done by the chairman of the committee. That is as far as 1 will go in support of the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby.

1 think it is worthwhile before looking at the report or the motion to look at the situation that caused these recommendations. The relative peace before 1970 ended in that year and between 1970 and 1976 the number of cases of hostage taking, violence and murders in the Canadian penitentiary system increased alarmingly. In the 42 years between 1932 and 1974 there were 65 major incidents in federal penitentiaries. Yet in the two years 1974-1976, before the subcommittee was struck, there were 69 incidents which included 33 hostage takings, 92 victims and one who was killed. The whole process of violence in federal institutions was not just increasing but rapidly accelerating. This situation was judged by the House of Commons to be unacceptable. The matter was referred to the justice and legal affairs committee which set up the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada.

The situation had deteriorated so far that it just was not an intellectual argument of prisoners' rights or a simple matter of a few troublemakers. It was a question of credibility, credibility not only of the institution and the inmates but also of the institution and the general public. There was deep concern, and let us not forget this point, as to who was really running the institution in the minds of many average Canadians. The public could not be sure if the violence was the result of too much suppression and oppression from the security guards or because there was too little supervision and control being exerted.

With Canadians in that sort of quandary, action had to be taken to bring back some sense of order to the penitentiaries in

Penitentiaries

the minds of the citizens. The problem of credibility between the institution and the inmates was a totally different matter. Here it was not just a matter of perception or of public relations, but a question of intense frustration and anger at the lack of change in the institution. Mistrust had been allowed to developed which brought the inmates and staff to a state of anarchy. This whole attitude and situation reflected the state of the whole penitentiary system, not just one or two of the institutions.

The committee's work was intensive. It interviewed more than 2,000 inmates and staff, toured 24 institutes-seven of them outside Canada-and also held 72 formal meetings, lasting over 200 hours. The job done by the committee was just magnificent. The important thing about the 65 recommendations which came from this all-party subcommittee was that they were unanimously endorsed.

The recommendations covered a wide range of topics, from different types of rehabilitation to requirements for staff, to prisoner grievance procedures, to types of permissible treatment of prisoners, to reorganization of the system, and to new structure for the bureaucracy running institutions. The breadth of the recommendations, I think, represents the seriousness and the responsibility with which the sub-committee undertook in its task.

While one may have disagreements with any or all of the recommendations, it is an obvious fact that the 1970-1976 violence has definitely subsided. That is the important thing. Since that time only 17 hostage takings have occurred, which represents an over 60 per cent decrease just since the process started, therefore before any of the recommendations were implemented. The credibility of the system both in terms of the public and inmates has improved. Most Canadians today not only know who is running the correctional system but also feel that the rehabilitation process is much more effective than it was before 1976. Certainly with less violence one has to believe that the inmates have less outright hostility than they did prior to that time.

It is only natural in a penitentiary system that violence will occur from time to time. The important thing is that the violence which does occur is isolated and is associated with individual problems, not over-all grievances regarding the total correctional system. With the success of the sub-committee recommendations one would feel that on the whole they are moving the correctional service in the right direction.

However, to ask now as this motion does today for a permanent reference on the implementation of the recommendations is like shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted. The process of implementing the proposals is not starting but finishing, and not only is it finishing but it is doing it with a guarantee of co-operation from our new Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence). He is not ducking the issue, as the hon. member suggests or shirking his responsibility. On the contrary, the Solicitor General is being very open and, indeed,

November 5, 1979

Penitentiaries

very supportive of the wishes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

This motion by the hon. member for Burnaby, while in principle acceptable, is really not needed. The hon. member knows that it is not needed, at least not at this point in time. The Solicitor General and, indeed, the two previous solicitors general have over the past two years regularly reported on the progress of the implementation of the report to the House. They have informed, as they should, the members of this House, the legislator of the land, of their department's action.

I listened to the Solicitor General last Thursday in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs detailing the remaining recommendations which have not as yet been acted upon. Of the remaining 14 recommendations, nine have been accepted in principle, and only five at this point in time will not be implemented. The reasons for the delay or the rejection of the recommendations were explained at that time. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Burnaby insisted on going through with this motion today. It is not a motion which threatens to implement any of the rejected recommendations but only asks this House for what is already taking place.

The frankness and the openness of the Solicitor General should be welcomed, not ignored, by this House. This motion rejects implicitly the reasons for not implementing the other five recommendations. The reasons range from jurisdictional problems to a belief by the minister that other, more appropriate changes have taken place and will suffice, and to where the Solicitor General feels he should remain responsible for his department and therefore, directly to Parliament, rather than shifting that responsibility to a committee which would report to him on the activities of the correctional services. Like many other programs in Canada's federalism, the recommendations will have to be negotiated by province.

To conclude and to reiterate, private members' hour is an important and valuable time period if used in the proper manner. This particular motion, in my opinion, is a useless occupation of hon. members' time in a parliamentary session which has much more to offer in terms of sensible legislation.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. David Kiigour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, as did the last speaker. I regret that my address will not be as helpful to people who have not read the MacGuigan report as it will to people who have, but I will try to make it as clear as I can, bearing in mind that many people here probably have not read the MacGuigan report.

My remarks will deal with four aspects of the problem. First, I will review some of the events leading up to the MacGuigan report. Second, I will give some ideas on the penitentiary system. Third, I will discuss some of the principles underlying the recommendations in the MacGuigan report and the difficulties involved in maintaining a prison system. Fourth, I will give an indication of the progress of the implementation of some of the recommendations.

By way of background, between 1932 and 1974 a total of 65 major incidents occurred in Canadian penitentiaries. In 1975

and 1976 a total of 69 such incidents took place, including 35 hostage takings. This prompted the House of Commons to establish the sub-committee about which we have been talking today. That committee did very thorough work. It held 72 formal meetings. There were 407 witnesses. The committee conducted informal interviews with more than 2,000 inmates and staff. It toured seven U.S. institutions. The result of the inquiry was the MacGuigan report containing 65 recommendations.

The response of the government was an implementation committee which was established in the Department of the Solicitor General. To date, 51 of the 65 recommendations have been or are on the verge of being implemented. Five have been rejected, and nine are under review. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) were present the other day in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when the new Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) explained why at least some of those five were rejected.

A word about penitentiaries. "Penitentiaries" is an American term for an institution which was started in Philadelphia in about 1789 as a more humane alternative to the harsh punishment of the day.

Mir. Peters: What is the matter? Did you get the pages mixed up? That sounds like the beginning, not the middle of it. You should have come to that first.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kiigour:

The thought was that imprisonment under conditions of isolation-

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
NDP

William Arnold Peters

New Democratic Party

Mr. Peters:

Re-number the pages from now on.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

Geoffrey Douglas Scott

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):

Order, please. I think the courtesy of the House should be extended to the hon. member who is now speaking so that he can carry on.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
NDP

William Arnold Peters

New Democratic Party

Mr. Peters:

He is not speaking. He is reading.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kiigour:

I will put my notes down.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
NDP

William Arnold Peters

New Democratic Party

Mr. Peters:

It will be a better speech.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kiigour:

The original idea was that penitentiaries, by offering isolation and opportunities for work, would provide an enlightening atmosphere, which would render people convicted of crimes penitent and reformed. The original reason for penitentiaries was a benevolent one, but unfortunately it did not work out that way.

Charles Dickens, after a visit to a penitentiary, wrote, and I will have to read this:

-I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body; and because its ghastly signs are not so palpable to the eye-and it exhorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore, I the more denounce it as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay.

November 5, 1979

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

Gerald William Baldwin

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Baldwin:

That sounds like the NDP caucus.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

I never saw you at one.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kilgour:

Since Dickens' condemnation of the prison system, there has never been a time when the correctional system did not appear in need of rapid and substantial change. David Rothman, the historian, wrote the following:

Each generation discovers anew the scandals of incarceration, each sets out to correct them and each passes on a legacy of failure. The rallying cries of one period echo dismally into the next.

Actually, there has been a great deal of change in the last years, and prisons in Canada are very different now from the first Canadian penitentiary in Kingston in 1835. Large scale reform took place in 1960 as a result of MacLeod Committee's Correctional Planning Report. There were improved work programs, training and education were introduced, facilities were improved, new buildings were constructed. Two major changes were brought about: first, regional offices were established, and second, prison staff was unionized, becoming part of the Solicitor General's component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

If there is any inadequacy to my speech, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the flu from which I am suffering. I am afraid I have come from my sick bed this afternoon.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Don't be away tomorrow night.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kilgour:

The MacGuigan report argues that the two changes which 1 have just mentioned have led to a breakdown in authority, creating a confusion of roles and responsibilities which, when coupled with more militant inmate attitudes, have produced the violent upheavals that have been the chief characteristics in the 1970s.

Two important principles expounded in the MacGuigan report are: first, that the purposes of imprisonment are the protection of society and the denunciation of criminal behaviour. Imprisonment is a legitimate measure as a last resort where a wrongdoer, having been given the opportunity, has wilfully failed to comply with other, more constructive and less severe alternatives to imprisonment. Second, protection of society as a purpose of imprisonment includes not only protection during a term of imprisonment by the physical removal of a person who is dangerous or who has failed to respect values that are protected by the criminal law, but also the protection of society after his release by means of a prison system designed to assist him toward personal reformation.

These principles were fully accepted by the new Solicitor General who has expressed before the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the hope that the future attention of the committee will be focused on the provision of alternatives to incarceration.

Let me discuss these two principles in terms of the penitentiary system. In prison terms, protection of society means the collective control of violence. The MacGuigan report was undertaken with the understanding that the aim of prison

Penitentiaries

systems is the collective control of violence. In practice, the control of collective violence has been achieved by constant supervision and regimentation with elaborate systems of rules and regulations. In the past, some of these have gone to excesses. The maintenance of custody and order, the prevention of riots and escapes, have overshadowed every other consideration.

The MacGuigan report has properly recognized that to control collective violence, successfully, four conditions must be met: first, justice; second, alternatives to boredom; third, socialization; and fourth, good management.

The second principle refers to the idea of the prison system reforming the offender. The concept of rehabilitation is a fairly modern one which was not accepted in the past. Lor example, the last warden of New York's Sing-Sing prison believed that the aim of prison was to change inmates' behaviour rather than their character-to make them, if not better, at least more obedient to the criminal law. In his view, this was the only reform which society could expect.

In Canada the idea of rehabilitation arose in the 1950s in the Archambault and Lauteux reports, and stayed in the 1960s in the Ouimet report. It was to replace the "warehousing" approach which sought only to accomplish the task of keeping prisoners away from the public. The rehabilitation model caught on and was justified on humanitarian grounds and on the idea of transforming reformable criminals into law abiding citizens. But rehabilitation has proved to be a failure.

The MacGuigan report has also rejected this model. It believes that the incentive model is superior. It bases this on the principle that only the wrongdoer can bring about reform in himself, but the penitentiary system must be structured to give positive support to his efforts at reform by providing essential conditions. These conditions, as mentioned before, are: justice, work, and socialization.

Under the heading of justice, the condition of achieving justice in penitentiaries as stated in the MacGuigan report is based on three principles, which are, first, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court constitutes the punishment. People who work in the penitentiary system have no authority, right or duty to add to those penalties. Second, the rule of law must prevail inside Canadian penitentiaries, and third, justice for the inmate is a personal right and also an essential condition of their socialization and personal reformation. It implies both respect for the person and property of others and fairness in treatment. There must be clear rules, fair disciplinary procedures, and the provision of reasons for all decisions affecting inmates.

I cannot stress enough that these principles have all been accepted by the new Solicitor General. The rule of law is an axiom of common law. The concept that justice must prevail in every place and in every situation in Canada includes prisons. Indeed, someone has said that you can judge society not by what goes on outside prison walls but what goes on when someone has had liberty denied them. Where prisons are unjust, hatred is encouraged, and this ultimately leads to violence and the loss of control.

November 5, 1979

Penitentiaries

A number of steps have already been taken in the area of inmates' rights. First, as a result of recommendation No. 36 regarding inmate grievances, a new grievance procedure has been implemented which features speed in handling complaints, inmate involvement, and outside review. There is also a new system of a pre-grievance procedure. Second, in response to recommendation No. 29 which urged that the commissioner's directives be consolidated into a consistent code of regulations, a project was started to implement this recommendation. A project which involves rewriting the commissioner's directives that deal with the custody, treatment, training, employment and discipline of inmates, has also been begun and it should be operative by the spring of 1980. Also, all maximum and medium security institutions now have legal materials from which inmates can borrow on request.

I would like to say a word now on work and socialization. "Activity carries within itself the seeds of its own reformation", as was stated by Samuel Johnson. John Carlyle stated that "work is the grand cure of all maladies and miseries that ever beset mankind". Whether Carlyle and Johnson had prison in mind when they made these comments is certainly open to speculation, but these sentiments fit the second and third conditions in the MacGuigan report, that is, alternatives to boredom, and socialization, which the MacGuigan report believes are necessary.

The Solicitor General has assured the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last Friday that, to his knowledge, every able and willing inmate is employed. Apparently, facilities for printing, audio-visual and microfilming now exist in several federal prisons. There is a new system of inmate pay, which is not at the rate that a lawyer or someone else might be paid, but it is being developed to provide an economic incentive to develop training skills. Farm production, kitchen gardening, horticultural programs, dairy and meat production are being increased.

Social interaction is another concern expressed by the MacGuigan report. According to the Solicitor General it is now a reality. 1 should like to give some examples. Common dining now has been established in nearly all institutions. Contact visiting has been made available. All inmates except those in dissociation and some in protective custody, of which I concede there are far too many, are now out of their cells for the greater part of the day and evening.

In response to the recommendations concerning socialization of inmates, new ideas such as the team concept, living unit and various treatment programs have been introduced into prisons. These are part of the concept of the incentive model recommended by the MacGuigan report. It goes without saying that his model is not necessarily popular with all inmates. The incentive model is based on the belief that the undesirable behaviour of others can be changed, even if this is done through somewhat coercive means. This coerced cure may be an advance in the prison system, as long as we keep in mind

the words of Norval Morris, director of the Centre for Studies in Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago. He said:

Rehabilitation, whatever it means and whatever the programs that allegedly give it meaning, must cease to be a purpose of the prison sanction. This does not mean that the various developed treatment programs within the prisons need to be abandoned; quite the contrary, they need expansion. But it does mean that they must not be seen as purposeful in the sense that criminals are to be sent to prison for treatment. There is a sharp distinction between the purpose of incarceration and the opportunities for the training and assistance of prisoners that may be pursued within those purposes. The system is corrupted when we fail to preserve this distinction and this failure pervades the world's prison programs.

I should like to make a comment on staff. Much of the MacGuigan report concerns itself with the inability of the staff of penitentiaries to function as a self-regulatory force to control the actions of a minority of offending guards who have contributed heavily to the atmosphere of confrontation in prisons. These negative impulses which affect the prisoner once incarcerated are the crux of the problem facing penitentiary services. The social problem has been at the root of the difficulties facing penal reform. The MacGuigan report succinctly points out, with regard to past programs of reform, that the changes which have occurred have failed to break down the core of repression upon which the system was built. With regard to this, and with reference to the correctional staff, the MacGuigan report sets forth principles five and six which read as follows:

(5) Ways must be found to enlist the commitment, the reservoir of correctional expertise, the basic humanity and the capacity of the custodial staff to act as successful role-models for inmates in a co-operative effort to accomplish the great tasks that lie ahead of the Canadian Penitentiary Service.

(6) A staff that is well-selected, well-motivated and well-paid is a key to any program of penitentiary reforms. Penitentiary work should be a professional career service modelled as far as practicable on the RCMP.

According to the MacGuigan report the incentive approach also should be applied to the staff. The idea of a professional attitude on the part of prison staff is stressed. I see the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has returned to the chamber.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Mark R. MacGuigan

Liberal

Mr. MacGuigan:

Just to hear the hon. member's comments.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kilgour:

He stated in a speech to the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges in Halifax:

Only professionalism can guarantee the existence of strong staff attitudes which will both prevent collective violence and offer the possibility of reformation of inmates.

The MacGuigan report lays particular stress on recommendation 26 which suggests the following:

. . . penitentiary service under the board must be an independent agency of the government and not subject to the Public Service Employment Act or the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It should resemble the RCM Police in its discipline and professionalism. Employees should be subject to discharge for misconduct or incompetence.

As expressed in the recommendation itself, the MacGuigan report had two reasons for this recommendation: the achievement of proper discipline among the employees, and the development of professionalism in the service.

The Solicitor General told the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that a special task force has been developed to meet the recommendations dealing with the two reasons I have just mentioned. The primary objective of the

November 5, 1979

task force is to remove correctional service from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Employment Act. This will be achieved by referring to provisions in the Penitentiary Act which were rescinded by order in council in 1969. A schedule has been established for the continued work of the task force and the implementation of the recommendation involved. It is anticipated that by March, 1980, a new separate employer status will be created, along with the benefits which accrue to that status.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

Geoffrey Douglas Scott

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

Gary Michael Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) with all respect for the importance of the issue and for the sincerity of the hon. member. 1 do this after reviewing the status report offered as evidence that in fact the recommendations put forward, with the exception of the five which have been considered unacceptable for complicated reasons, are acceptable. After suggesting that he will maintain an openness and availability to the committee, the minister in fact has fulfilled his responsibilities, and plans to continue doing so.

I should like to comment on several issues contained within the minister's report. 1 applaud several of them, but I should like to comment on one in particular. Because of the shortness of time, I will deal with the one which 1 hope we will expand slightly. I am referring to recommendation 62 which promoted the concept of a special institution to be established in British Columbia for the exclusive treatment of drug addicts. At this time the federal Department of National Health and Welfare is conducting a national study into the problem of drug dependency and addiction in Canada. The results of this study are not available as yet and when available should be carefully considered, especially after the recent British Columbia experience, before this recommendation is acted upon.

I have had personal representations from persons from Alcoholics Anonymous who have grave concern regarding the treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics within the penitentiary system. On this point in particular 1 plan to make personal representations to the minister. It is clear from my experiences in medical practice that in fact we are inadequate, in the penitentiary system and throughout society, in our ability to deal with alcohol and drug problems. Other people who are much more qualified than I are looking into this area and developing reasonable policies to bring us to a point where we can deal in a more meaningful way with alcoholics and people who are dependent upon drugs. But particularly within the prisons system there is a circumstance where people who enter into the system with an alcohol or drug dependency problem, are perhaps worse when they come out.

The conditions within the penitentiary system do not allow for the normal interflow which can occur outside prison, especially with the association of Alcoholics Anonymous. If

Customs Tariff

there was an opportunity for this association to deal directly with prisoners in penitentiaries, it might improve the ability of the system to deal in a meaningful way with people who have been convicted. I plan on making personal representations to the minister in that regard.

There are several other matters that we could comment upon, but may I call it six o'clock?

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink
PC

Geoffrey Douglas Scott

Progressive Conservative

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):

The

hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   PENITENTIARIES
Sub-subtopic:   IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


November 5, 1979