Public Safety Committee on Dec. 1st, 2011

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Let me read this for you:

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

This is what is in the report in 2008-09.

[Don Head]

That's right, in 2008-09. I'm talking about the more recent figures we have.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Okay. I'm looking at the recent figures from the last three years, the reports from 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The urinalysis rate has not changed. It's gone from 7.16% to 7.43%. Since the program has been implemented, there has been no change in increase or decrease in urinalysis of the prisoners.

[Don Head]

It continues to move in the right direction.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

I'm looking at the numbers here. It's gone from 1.6% to 7.43%, so it hasn't changed. In fact, it's increased by a small percentage.

[Don Head]

Sure. It's in the right direction. It is down. It is continuing to go down. And we're continuing to implement the rest of the interdiction measures, which won't be complete until 2012-13.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Head.

We're a half a minute over.

Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the witness, thank you for coming, Mr. Head. To the other witness, we'll certainly be speaking to you in our next round, at least I intend to, should I be given the opportunity.

Mr. Head, in my previous occupation I was very much involved with the encouragement of participatory management. For those who may not know, that's where you talk to the people who actually do the work. You're in senior management. You talk to the boots on the ground, the people who do the work, about working with you to achieve certain results. We used to call it management by results.

I have a couple of questions. If you wouldn't mind, you can expand on them. Do you encourage input from various levels of your staff to achieve the goal as much as you're able for drug-free prisons? Do you look to other agencies, both domestic and foreign, to see if there are best practices that Corrections Canada can adopt? To the best of your knowledge, and no one would know more than you, have other agencies come to Canada to adopt some of the policies and procedures we have?

Would you address those, please.

[Don Head]

Thank you very much.

In terms of the participatory management approach, this is truly the approach we take within the organization. From our perspective, it's very clear: in order to move the yardsticks on any issue, whether it's in relation to drugs, programs, or any of the other matters we deal with, we need to have processes to engage our staff, at all levels.

Through ongoing dialogue with the six unions that represent the majority of our staff, we have discussions along these lines. As a matter of fact, some of the discussions we've had with the unions have led us to explore some of the technology we've purchased.

At the local level, again, if Mr. McLauchlan were able to speak, he could talk about the kinds of discussions and dialogues that occur on a daily basis in the institutions, through what's called the morning briefing meetings, looking at what happened in the last 24 hours, the ongoing management meetings, and the labour management meetings that go on in the institutions.

As a result of the input we get from staff, we're able to move the yardstick. I'm extremely proud of my staff because they're always looking for solutions to the problems that come up. As I think I've testified in the past, when we find one avenue and start to choke it off, offenders have a lot of time on their hands and they are looking for other avenues. But through the knowledge and experience of my staff, they're able to pick up on that and bring forward solutions.

This is one of the discussions we have almost any time we meet with other jurisdictions. I just finished meeting with my Asia-Pacific colleagues a month or so ago, in Japan. This was a major topic of a discussion amongst the 24 participating countries. Every one of them is pursuing some of the things that we are, to one degree or another.

There are some interesting approaches in other countries that we're interested in looking at, including some technology. There are some things they do that we're not interested in, and we'll be avoiding those.

We also have countries from the European Union coming to look at our overall approach, which includes our approaches to prevention, treatment, and interdiction, building their approach in that integrated way. Dialogue with the Netherlands, Belgium, and the U.K. is ongoing.

As well, we'll be hosting a meeting in the new year with the Organization of American States. One of our key discussions will be on the issue of drugs in correctional facilities. Again, there's a lot of interest in what we're doing. We'll be looking at what member states of the OAS are doing as well, to see if there are some things we can beef up.

When most of the countries look to us as it relates to the issue of drugs, they are looking at our treatment programs and the programs we offer. This is where they want to strengthen their integrated strategy.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have a little more time, if you want.

Go ahead.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

I an wondering if Mr. McLauchlan has any input on these three questions.

[Christer McLauchlan]

Certainly. As a security intelligence officer, one of my primary roles is to provide advice and recommendations to decision-makers, including my senior management team. My advice is both valued and utilized by them because I see decisions being made based on those recommendations. We see that even at a higher level.

Now that we're expanding the security intelligence program, we're bringing in new procedures. The security intelligence officers on the front lines are currently involved in discussions as to our best practices and things we could be improving.

I certainly feel, as a front-line officer, that my input is valued by my management team.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

I'm just going to interject here for a bit. We have a little more time on Mr. Norlock's question.

One of the reasons we as a committee wanted the commissioner and Mr. McLauchlan to come back was to explain the chart that we all have before us. I'm hoping some questions will come from our committee in regard to the chart.

I don't know, Mr. McLauchlan, whether you have this chart with you today. I know our commissioner has it. In the bottom left-hand corner is a little rectangle reading “Correctional Service Canada, Strategic Intelligence Analysis & Monitoring”.

In your testimony, Mr. Commissioner, you talked about the hiring of 250 new personnel for positions in intelligence and for intelligence-gathering. Can you tell us a little more about what they do? Is there special training for these 250 who will be coming in? Are they existing correctional officers who will get a little different training? Will it mean that there will be one in each institution? Give us a little bit on how it works.

Those are things to keep in your mind. We are out of time on this turn, but those are some of the questions our committee members may be prompted to follow up on. I know it may be what we want to have in our report.

I'll move to Mr. Scarpaleggia, please.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, I would like to follow through on Mr. Sandhu's point, to make sure I understood it correctly. Mr. Sandhu is saying that this decrease of positive urinalysis results from 13% to 7% is due to a decreased consumption of prescription drugs. Is that what...?

[Don Head]

Yes, part of the problem we had in the early days of analyzing the positive test results was from individuals who were on prescribed medications; those would be showing up.

The random testing approach we use is such that every month the names of 5% of the offender population are randomly generated. Those individuals are then tested. A positive test might come back showing that they are positive for something. But when we did further analysis, we found that a portion of those positive tests were linked to individuals who were on prescribed medication.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Is Mr. Sandhu correct in saying that there has really been no change, because once you factor out the prescription drugs, the level of illicit drugs found through urinalysis has not changed? That seems to be the point he was driving at. It seems to me to make logical sense, and you seem to confirm that there was a need to factor out prescription drugs. So is Mr. Sandhu correct, that there has really been no change?

[Don Head]

If you look purely at the numbers, as I said, they have levelled off, if you factor that out. But our seizures of drugs are going up. So it's a combination of issues that we're looking at.

Although you may want to draw the conclusion that nothing has changed by way of positive results as they relate to interdiction, the fact that we're stopping more drugs coming in is not moving that number up. Ideally, as we finish implementing the rest of the investments that we receive over the next year and a bit, we are expecting those numbers to drop.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

As a matter of fact, that brings me to my next point. One thing you said you would be instituting is cellphone jamming.

[Don Head]

This is something we're looking at. As you are probably aware, there are a lot of rules and regulations around this. We're looking at what it might be possible to do in that regard. We're engaged in discussions with Industry Canada, because there are some very specific regulations that govern anything like that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

What regulations would prevent you from going ahead with that plan? It would seem to me that communications is the key to the whole system, really. If you cut that off, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

You see obstacles to your plan in the current regulations. What would some of those obstacles be?

[Don Head]

Some of the things we're exploring to see how far the regulations can be pushed before proposing anything to the minister for consideration include issues around.... Right now, the way the regulations are being interpreted to us is that anything we would apply for by way of cell jamming has to be for a specific reason, for a specific period of time.

For us, that doesn't necessarily work. We are looking at something that would be ongoing, to just basically eliminate the use. We have found some new technologies and are exploring how they can be used, whereby certain phone numbers that are properly registered wouldn't be jammed, but everything else would be.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

It seems to me that when we're talking about a penitentiary—am I correct in saying this?—there should be no cellphone traffic coming through the walls or over the walls. It's a pretty clear thing: there shouldn't be any. Inmates can call on regular phone lines. Wouldn't it just be a question of saying that in the regulations and the telecommunications regulations we need an exemption for penitentiaries?

[Don Head]

From my perspective, that would be the simplest solution; however, there are a couple of other factors.

One is that we have some managers, for example, who use BlackBerrys, so that would block them. As well, depending on the kind of device you use, if you got spillover, for lack of a better word, beyond your walls—and in the case of some of our penitentiaries, such as the one Mr. McLauchlan works in, there are communities basically abutting right against our fences and walls—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You could be harming them.