Public Safety Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

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

So there's no resource constraint there. It's just you're redesigning the program so they can get started earlier.

[Don Head]

Part of it is a redesign. Part of it was a resource issue. We have received some resources over the last few years to increase our program capacity, the number of program delivery officers I have. I can always use more at any given time to get more programs going, but we're moving in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the second round of questioning, a five-minute round, and we'll go to Mr. Garrison and Mr. Rathgeber.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this side, we welcome the opportunity to talk about drugs in prison. We do agree it is a public safety and a public security issue, as those whose addiction problems are not dealt with while they're in the institutions will of course return to the communities and bring those problems with them.

I'd like to thank the commissioner for his presentation and the emphasis on the two parts, their addiction and the demand for drugs in prison. I'd like to focus on that demand side.

In your presentation you talk about receiving an additional $122 million in 2008 to work on their addiction. Was there a similar increase in the budget for programming on the demand side within your operations?

[Don Head]

Yes. That's a very good question. Thanks.

Over the last couple of years our programming budget has continued to go up. We have, for example, as a result of strategic reinvestments a few years ago, received around $47 million to invest in more programs in the institutions, which include a community maintenance program, violence prevention programs, and programs specific for aboriginal offenders. As well, our normal growth number in terms of program funding has moved from $130 million two years ago for programs overall to currently, this fiscal year, $154 million. So that's a $24 million increase on the program side. This allows us to hire more program delivery staff to give those much-needed programs to inmates.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Would that increase then simply keep pace with the increase in the prison population, or is that an actual increase in real dollars per person in the institutions?

[Don Head]

Yes, it is a challenge. It's not necessarily keeping pace with the demand. We have to make some choices as to where we'll put our time and energy.

The fact that we've received those increases over the last few years has been very significant for us, because for many years we actually saw some declines in our program funding. So this has moved us to a point now where we have a level of stability, but we need to.... Part of the reason we're redesigning the programs now is to try to give us a little bit more of an edge to get as many offenders as possible in programs earlier.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I would say I'm disappointed to learn that the increase in the interdiction budget hasn't really been matched by an increase on the demand side. They're very good figures here. And I do want to acknowledge that our system is very good in terms of substance abuse programs. Those who complete them are 45% less likely to return with a new offence, and 65% less likely with a new violent offence.

You mentioned waiting lists for those programs in your presentation. Can you give me some kind of idea of what's happening now in terms of waiting lists for the addiction treatment programs?

[Don Head]

Yes. Again, it's a good question.

We've reduced the time for the waiting list by about 50% over the last two to three years, and that's primarily because of the investments. I should clarify that the $122 million investment on the interdiction side was over five years, not $122 million each year. The other moneys that I talked about, like the $24 million increase in the program, is a yearly increase. So there probably is a much closer parity between the interdiction side and the program side.

We have reduced our program waiting list times by 50%. We know we still have some work to do. We also know that for certain individuals we can deliver the program a little later in their sentence, because the level of intensity of need as it relates to their substance abuse program is less than that of some other offenders. Those who have a high-intensity need should be involved in the programs as quickly as possible; otherwise, their behaviours are going to carry on during their sentence and get them into more trouble. In terms of those with moderate or low-intensity needs, we can get by with a little more time before we get them enrolled. So we do make some very calculated choices in terms of prioritizing who goes into the programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Rathgeber, very quickly, please.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. It's good to see you, Mr. Head.

I want to talk specifically about staff. Do you have any estimations, anecdotal or otherwise, as to what proportion of contraband is being smuggled into your prisons where the conduit is actually members of the service?

[Don Head]

As I mentioned, this year we dismissed 12 staff members. That's 12 on a base of about 18,000 staff. It's a very small percentage. But even one staff member bringing it in jeopardizes the safety of my institutions.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

How were you able to determine that those staff members were involved?

[Don Head]

It usually comes about through various means. Sometimes we get the information from other staff who are indicating that there's something strange about the behaviour of another staff member. Sometimes it's information that comes from inmates. Sometimes it's information that we get from police sources because of something they're observing out in the community that was unrelated to our business, and then they find a connection with a staff member who works for us.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Those individuals, the 12 who had been dismissed from the service, do you know if any of them have been charged? Or is it simply a matter of their being dismissed from their employment?

[Don Head]

We dismissed them because that's as much as we can do. They then are still subject to criminal charges outside.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

But do you know if any of them have in fact been charged?

[Don Head]

Yes, they have.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

As you know, I've visited many prisons from coast to coast to coast, and always as a visitor. Normally I'm subject to very thorough security, always a metal detector, and whatever briefcase I might be carrying is always subject to an X-ray, but sometimes I've been subject to a sniffer dog and sometimes I haven't been. Is that only because I had some sort of status as a member of Parliament that they might have not subjected me to the sniffer dog?

I guess my question is whether, with respect to visitors, the security regimen is standard from institution to institution, or is there some variance?

[Don Head]

There's a level of sporadic-ness that's built into that so that people don't see a constant routine with some of our approaches all the time. We want people to believe that they're going to be subject to that dog every time.

Mr. Chair, I think your member has been very fortunate, because every time I go to a visit, the dog is always there to greet me and he always seems to be sitting, which is not a good sign.

Yes, there is a level of unpredictability so that people are not always seeing the routine. And at times, for example, the drug detector dog team may be already deployed down inside, so it may not be there at that time. There are some processes that are standard, others that are sporadic. Our hope and belief is that people know that any time they come in there, they're potentially going to be subject to something that's going to detect it, and if they get caught, there are serious consequences.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

What about staff? What is their security regimen when they enter the institution at the beginning of their shift? I know they have to check their personal belongings into a locker, but what about the sniffer dog, what about the X-ray machine?

[Don Head]

This is something we're looking at enhancing more than what it is now because of these very, very few cases, but we know we have to put in place some more stringent processes to deal with staff.

Over the years the approach with staff has not necessarily been as rigid as it has been with visitors or contractors, MPs, or the commissioner. This is something we're working on right now, and there will be some changes in the very, very near future.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Head.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rathgeber.

Mr. Chicoine, you have five minutes.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here.

As you mentioned in your presentation, almost half of the inmates are less likely to be put in prison again after they participate in substance abuse programs. What is the percentage? Do you have the percentage of offenders who have access to and participate in substance abuse programs?