Evidence of meeting #16 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was institutions.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Don Head  Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada
Christer McLauchlan  Security Intelligence Officer, Stony Mountain Institution, Correctional Service of Canada

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Good morning, everyone. We want to welcome you back to our committee.

This is meeting 16 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Thursday, December 1, 2011. Today we're going to continue our study on drugs and alcohol in prison.

In our first hour we will hear from our final witnesses, and in our second hour we will go in camera to discuss instructions to the table on the formulation of the draft report on this study.

Today we have appearing before us from the Correctional Service of Canada, Commissioner Don Head—welcome back—and by video conference from Stony Mountain, Manitoba, Christer McLauchlan, a security intelligence officer.

Canadians who have been following the proceedings of our study will know that both of these witnesses have already appeared and testified before our study. This committee appreciates very much the dedication of our witnesses. Canadians appreciate your willingness to continue to assist our committee. We're indeed fortunate to have had the Commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada appear three times and generously contribute to our deliberations.

I mentioned when I walked in that he's been here so often, now that we're in December, I expect to go home for Christmas and Don Head is going to be there. We do very much appreciate your willingness to come before this committee.

I know that the last time you both appeared you brought an organizational or a subculture model chart to our committee, as well as some pictures. I know that all members of this committee from all parties were very open and wanted you to come back to continue to explain parts of that chart and of the strategy of keeping drugs out of our prisons.

Commissioner, thank you again, and if you have an opening statement we'd love to hear it. Then we'll move to Mr. McLauchlan, please.

11 a.m.

Don Head Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members, and good morning. Thank you for inviting me back to discuss how the Correctional Service of Canada manages the issue of drugs within our federal penitentiaries.

As mentioned, I'm joined again today by Christer McLauchlan via video conference from Stony Mountain Institution.

As I mentioned at my previous appearance, CSC takes a three-pronged approach to managing offenders with a substance abuse addiction: prevention, treatment, and interdiction.

Today, I'm pleased to update you on some successes we've achieved since my last appearance. I'd also like to discuss in greater detail how we control the supply of and demand for illegal substances inside the walls of our penitentiaries.

Mr. Chair, since my last appearance, employees of the Correctional Service of Canada have continued to do exceptional work in detecting and intercepting illegal substances that others try to introduce into our institutions.

In the six weeks since I last appeared in front of this committee, CSC employees across the country have intercepted drugs and other contraband with an institutional value of almost $200,000. This figure comprises nine major seizures of tobacco, marijuana, and other drugs, all because of the great work of my staff and the tools we employ to detect and intercept drugs.

The largest of these seizures occurred at Cowansville Institution in Quebec, where staff recovered a package along the institution's perimeter. This package contained ecstasy pills, marijuana, tobacco, and rolling papers, with a total estimated value of over $85,000.

In all of these cases, CSC staff work very closely with the police force of jurisdiction to lay criminal charges against those who attempt to introduce contraband into our correctional institutions. We have zero tolerance for those who seek to disrupt the safety and stability of our penitentiaries.

CSC has a wide range of tools at our disposal to detect and interdict any attempts to introduce drugs into our institutions.

Mr. Chair, you may recall that at my last appearance I noted that we would be hiring more security intelligence officers, similar to Mr. McLauchlan, over the coming year, and we expect to have 250 staff in place by the end of 2012-13. We're also increasing our complement of drug detector dog teams. In fact, just three days ago we welcomed Minister Toews to a very successful demonstration of our detector dogs in action at Stony Mountain Institution in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Beyond these measures, CSC is actively seeking out and piloting new technologies that can help us control the flow of drugs. We recently installed radar/infrared external threat detection systems in two of our institutions. These systems allow us to track and image individuals approaching our perimeter day or night, in all weather conditions. Similarly, we have provided all of our maximum and medium security institutions with night vision and thermal imaging goggles for enhanced perimeter surveillance.

To combat attempts to smuggle drugs in body cavities, we have installed body orifice scanning system chairs, commonly referred to as BOSS chairs, at a number of our sites. And we conducted a trial of a millimetre wave body scanner at one of our institutions in the Ontario region, which is the same type of device you now see in the security screening areas of airports.

We have also upgraded our existing equipment, such as the baggage X-ray systems, our walk-through metal detector systems, and our ion scanner drug detection machines to improve their reliability and life cycle. Furthermore, we are continuing to upgrade visit and correspondence areas with newer devices that assist in detecting drug transfers. We are also upgrading wooden tables to glass-top tables, which make it easier for my staff to detect drug hand-offs between visitors and inmates.

Finally, although not specific to drugs, I'd like to highlight our ongoing efforts to detect and locate contraband cellphones, which can be used to plan and carry out drug throw-overs. We are also investigating how we may employ cell-jamming technologies in our institutions in the future.

These are just a few examples of the tools we have to keep drugs out of the hands of our offenders, and they only scratch the surface of what is a complex, integrated approach to drug interdiction within federal institutions.

Beyond reducing the supply of drugs inside our institutions, we must similarly attack the demand for illegal substances and intoxicants. To this end, we offer integrated programming for offenders to help them leave their addictive, criminal behaviour in the past and to return to society as productive, law-abiding citizens.

Correctional programs enhance public safety results by making offenders accountable for their behaviour, changing pro-criminal attitudes and beliefs, and teaching skills that can be used to monitor and manage problematic behaviour.

Mr. Chair, I'm proud that CSC is recognized as an international leader in the development and delivery of correctional programs designed to rehabilitate offenders and improve public safety. That being said, I realize there's concern about offenders being wait-listed for programs and that the perception is that we are not addressing their criminogenic behaviours in a timely manner. I'd like to offer some clarification. When we refer to a wait list in the correctional system, we are not referring to wait lists in the same context as being wait-listed for surgery. In our case, a wait list refers more to the schedule of when an offender will receive programming. This is determined by a number of factors.

For example, those who have an upcoming release date will be prioritized over someone who may not be eligible for parole for a number of years. It is true that in the past few years, CSC has found it challenging to deliver programs to all offenders, given the trend towards shorter sentences. However, I'm pleased to inform you that as a result of our transformation agenda and strategic reinvestment, we have invested over $30 million more towards programming in the past three years. The vast majority of these funds were dedicated to hiring more staff to deliver programs to our offender population.

Because of these investments, our capacity to deliver programs has increased dramatically, as have our program enrolment figures. In the last year alone, correctional program enrolments increased by over 24%. Not only did enrolments increase, but thanks to the hard work of my staff, more offenders completed the programs they participated in and started those programs earlier in their sentences. In addition, we focused resources on being able to provide certain programs to offenders as soon as they arrived at intake. This includes substance abuse programs, one of our most prevalent need areas.

I'd also like to point out that CSC has recently introduced a new program delivery model called the integrated correctional program model or ICPM for short. The new model enables offenders to take programs earlier in their sentences, addresses core substance abuse issues, and also holds offenders accountable for such things as violent behaviour. We expect that ICPM will produce positive results that will help address offenders' criminogenic factors and thereby help them successfully reintegrate into the community.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, every day CSC employees across the country are working to ensure safe, drug-free institutions that will promote offender rehabilitation and create safer communities for Canadians. I'm proud of the work they do every day, and I'm proud of our efforts as an organization to address this very serious public safety issue.

Mr. Chair, I would welcome any questions you may have for me at this time.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

I don't believe Mr. McLauchlan has an opening statement, but he is certainly here to give us that hands-on right from Manitoba. We'll move into our first round of questions and we'll go to Mr. Leef, please. You have seven minutes.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and once again, thank you to our two witnesses for returning to the committee. Great to see you again.

Mr. Commissioner, you spoke to us early in your presentation about the BOSS chair system. Could you describe that for us in a little more detail?

11:10 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

Yes. It's a device that we became aware of through the work that our counterparts were doing in the United Kingdom, as were some of our colleagues to the south, in the United States.

Basically, it's a chair that an individual would sit in. They would place their hands and arms on the rests, and through the technology the chair would be able to...not penetrate in a significant way, but penetrate at least a few inches into the body to determine whether somebody has secreted packages in a body cavity. We've been trying out this chair. We've had some success in some places. In other places we haven't, so we're still working with the technology. It's just another tool for us to be able to quickly determine whether somebody has secreted something in a body cavity.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Do you know what one of those systems costs, approximately?

11:10 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

I'd have to get back to you on that. I'm not exactly sure what the cost of the chair is right now.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

In terms of the effectiveness of it, what are the challenges that are making it difficult? Is it clothing or...?

11:10 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

No. One of the challenges is the size of the package and how deep it may be in a body cavity. We do know that the smaller the package, and the deeper it is in the body cavity, the less likely it is that this technology will be able to help us. But if somebody has secreted something of a substantial size, and not too far into a body cavity, we have found it's been able to detect the package.

We also know that this tool has been handy for us, because we've had individuals secret things other than packages of drugs in their body cavities—weapons—so from that perspective, this tool is useful for that as well.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Is this technology employed on the inmate population only, or is it something that visitors are subjected to?

11:15 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

At this point, we're only subjecting the inmates to this technology, as we're still learning its capabilities and restrictions.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Are the same parameters and conditions around the use of that chair...? Are the authorities to utilize that chair similar to what you would be required to have for a frisk search or for strip search provisions?

11:15 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

Yes, we've been able to use the provisions in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that govern non-intrusive searches. So for us, we're treating it in the same way as though somebody walked through metal detectors.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Okay, interesting.

Skipping ahead now to the additional information we've seen here on the transformation agenda and strategic investment, the $30 million toward programming in the past three years, I think it's great news. We've certainly heard a little more testimony in regard to the programming you've been able to deliver in CSC, which I think is fantastic.

When we look at the effects of drugs specifically, and delivering these programs, can you give us a little more detail on how you see the presence of drugs in the institution affecting the front-line delivery of these programs?

11:15 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

Sure, I'll speak a bit, and I'll ask Mr. McLauchlan to comment as well from what he sees on a day-to-day basis in the institution.

From our perspective, the issue of drugs or any contraband is part of the underground economy, and when you have inmates who are making a demand, and you have others who can supply that, this underground economy takes on a very significant nature in an incarcerated environment.

What we see happening at times are issues of muscling: individuals being pressured to bring things in, or to carry things between areas or between people. So individuals feel that their personal safety is at risk.

For us, the whole issue of tackling drugs in the institution is as much about creating a safe environment, because if inmates do not feel safe coming out of their cells, they're not going to come out of their cells to go to recreation, but they're also not going to come out of their cells to go to programs, and I need them to go to programs. Canadians need them to go to programs in order to return to the community as law-abiding citizens. So as long as they feel that their personal safety is at risk, or that their family members may be at risk and being pressured outside, then that has a potential negative impact on delivering good, rehabilitative programming.

If you don't mind, I'll invite Mr. McLauchlan to add his observations.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Mr. McLauchlan, please.

11:15 a.m.

Christer McLauchlan Security Intelligence Officer, Stony Mountain Institution, Correctional Service of Canada

I would agree with Commissioner Head in regard to the fact that the presence of an underground economy and the associated muscling makes all programming difficult. But in addition, I would specify that when we have drugs present in the institution, any type of substance abuse programming is compromised by that.

As I testified previously, I've actually had inmates approach me and say they are addicts and that if they have these drugs available to them, they are going to use them. They say that they need to be in a drug-free environment so they can have the time to take this substance abuse program, to take the lessons they have learned and be able to apply them. So there's a direct result on that.

In addition, in our cognitive base programming, we have things like our treatment base programming, our methadone treatment, or individuals who are on, for instance, anti-psychotic medications. They may be muscled into diverting their legitimate medications, which can be used for illegitimate means.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you very much, Mr. Leef.

We'll now move to Mr. Sandhu, please, for seven minutes.

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair

And thank you to the commissioner and our guest from Stony Mountain for being here today.

I want to go back to our preamble, the usual preamble, that we, as New Democrats, believe we need to take a balanced approach, that being prevention, treatment, and also interdiction. We've heard over the last number of meetings how the urinalysis rate has gone down from 13% to 7% over the last decade. I believe Mr. Head has stated in his previous testimony that over the last decade the urinalysis results having gone down is proof that interdiction is working.

I'm looking at a Correctional Service performance report from 2008-09, and I just want to read this:

The percentage of offenders testing positive during random urinalysis tests has decreased from 13.0%...in 2007-2008 to 7.9%...in 2008-2009.

That's around when we injected the $122 million into interdiction programs in the prisons. The reason for the drop from 13% to 7.9% is, and this CSC performance report says:

This reflects removal of legitimate prescription drugs from the test results. Without this change, the results remain at 13%.

In other words, Mr. Head, would you agree that the change from 2007-08, the reduction from 13% to 7.9%, is a result of the prescription drugs not being tested? If the prescription drugs were part of the test, the rate would remain at 13%.

I'm looking at the performance report from 2010-11: in 2008-09 the urinalysis rate remained around 7.16%; in 2009-10 it remained at 7.36%; and in 2010-11 it was 7.43%.

Given that this information is from your own correctional report, can you explain to us how one could come to a logical conclusion that the new investment in interdiction is the actual explanation for a reduction in the urinalysis?

11:20 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

It's a very good question. I think there are a couple of components to that.

When we go back to the 2008 report, which was at the time we were just starting to get the investment return in terms of starting to hire some of the drug-detector dog teams, security intelligence officers, etc., there wasn't as much of a gain being accrued. Now I'm quite confident in saying that the gains we are accruing are partly attributable to that investment, but not entirely. Some of it as well is linked to having offenders participate in the programs. There's no question that when offenders feel comfortable and safe going out and getting into the programs, some of them are starting to turn their lives around, and we continue to move forward.

So there are many different factors in terms of looking at those numbers. You're absolutely correct in terms of your observation around the discounting of prescription meds in the earlier number, but as we go forward we truly are seeing a reduction in the drugs.

One of the things that is evident for us is the types of drugs that are being used. The more effort we put into the interdiction, some of the more serious drugs—all drugs are serious in my mind, but I think you'll appreciate what I'm going to say here—are not showing up in the positive tests.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC

We've heard this number many times from my colleagues and we've heard it from a number of people. Would you agree that the drop from 13% to 7% in 2008-09 was a direct result of the removal of prescription drugs? It had nothing to do with interdiction.

11:25 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

No. I'm saying at that time, for those two numbers that you talked about, the answer is yes.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC

Without the changes, the results would remain at 13%?

11:25 a.m.

Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Don Head

They would have if we had not implemented the interdiction methods that we put in, in the last three years.