Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our two witnesses for being here.
I'll say at the outset that given the lack of consensus we've heard in terms of the needle exchange as a harm reduction strategy, it would be our government's position that the safety of both staff and inmates remains an absolute priority for our government.
We heard testimony a month ago from a front-line correctional officer who was asked that very question. The testimony wasn't so much that he didn't support the needle exchange aspect of it, but it came from a position that I found very interesting. Outside of the programs—the actual core programs or programs that are designated for individuals based on their needs or risk—the officer indicated that he felt the correctional officers themselves were actually part of a program, or they were the program. What he meant by that is that the front-line staff interact with the inmates on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis.
We did hear a bit of testimony today from Corrections Canada that the inmates are evaluated after they take programs. Officers provide feedback on willingness to participate through progress reports and day-to-day interaction with the inmates, to connect what the counsellors or program case managers see of their participation in a program and then the demonstration of behaviour for the remainder of the day.
That officer talked a lot about being an integral part of motivating positive behavioural change, demonstrating pro-social behaviour, and interacting with inmates moment to moment—sometimes on very informal levels, talking about life and hobbies and interests. Having very positive interactions and encounters with the inmates has a positive influence.
We posed the question about needle exchange to that officer, and he thought that would be a major setback in terms of officers being able to work closely with the inmates. It would create a barrier that would be more security-oriented. It would put them at a disadvantage, as the officers would be concerned about their safety.
If we put things in place in the institutions that challenge the sense of safety for staff and the other inmates, we would be creating significant additional barriers, which would impact a critical program. I don't think we acknowledge enough that the interaction between officers and inmates is a critical element to motivate positive behavioural change and see significant change in the inmate population. That's just a comment on that.
I also want to say that we heard a bit of testimony about the needle exchange and the complaints you had indicated might be coming about clean tattooing as a harm reduction. We talked to one of our witnesses who acknowledged that tattoos do have some association to gangs and there is a proliferation of messaging through tattoos.
One in six men and one in ten females in the correctional environment right now have gang association. While I appreciate the idea of harm reduction in the spread of disease and HIV, in terms of doing needle exchange for cleaner tattooing, if that translates into a proliferation of gang messaging or gang symboling, that's another avenue that puts our staff and inmates at risk. It starts to create yet another barrier between staff and inmates.
Finally, when we move to the double-bunking issue, our government is looking at investments in additional prisons for additional prison space, which would allow us a safer and cleaner environment. From the Yukon experience, I know they're about to move into a new correctional centre in 2012.
I've had a number of occasions to tour that facility. What I see is a facility geared to single-bunk but built to double-bunk and to meet all the standards of the room and space that some single-bunk facilities might not have. What I also see is a new facility that's going to create a more positive environment.
If you have any comments about additional prisons to accommodate, that would be great.
