Public Safety Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd also like to thank the two witnesses for sharing their expertise, especially on the security information. I would like to ask one of them a question.

We've talked a lot about systems that have been put in place in recent years, including sniffer dogs and other systems to detect the drugs that might be found in prisons. Some witnesses have said that there are fewer drugs in our prisons. Others have some doubt about the effectiveness of these systems.

Could you please talk about the effectiveness of these detection systems? Should more resources be dedicated to them?

[Darcy Thompson]

I will answer, if I may, Warden Markowski.

I think our tools are excellent tools. For example, our drug dog is an excellent tool, but a drug dog is not foolproof. A drug dog alerts on the scent of the drug, but it's not as if it can tell if a person has drugs on him. It depends on the type of drug, whether it's pharmaceutical or a THC product, and on how it's packaged. For 95% of our visitors who come in, it's most likely that the contraband is concealed in the body cavity. Well, how long has it been there? How much scent is emitting off of it?

Our tools aren't foolproof, but they're very, very good tools. Our ion scanner for testing visitors entering our institution is an excellent tool, but that tool is not going to tell me if the individual has drugs on him or herself. It's just going to tell me if the person has been in recent contact with drugs.

So, yes, I think there's a lot of technology out there. For example, at the Correctional Service of Canada, we don't utilize full-body walk-through scanners like you see at the airport. I think that would be an excellent tool, which we could utilize at our principal entrance. I've heard there's some controversy over it, that it may be too intrusive, but it works well at the airports and it would work well at our institutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you have a comment, Ms. Markowski?

[Andrea Markowski]

I would agree very much with what Darcy said. In the end, it comes down to staff. The tools are excellent. The staff need to remain vigilant, and they do. They're well trained and do a good job. And I'm not just talking about correctional officers; it's everybody's responsibility. The key is the funnelling of the information into a central point for security intelligence, so that we can intercede and prevent or deter folks from wanting to bring drugs in.

When I look at the urinalysis results at the women's facilities, for example, they are significantly lower than at the men's facilities. I think we have a different dynamic in the women's facilities. It's less organized and less prevalent. The women are very highly motivated to get the help they need. We have a significantly lower rate for positive testing, which suggests to me that we've made significant headway with the resources we've been given to prevent drugs from coming in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have two more minutes.

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

Of all these measures, which ones are the most effective in terms of expenses? Which ones cost the least? Dogs or scanners? What's your opinion on this?

[Darcy Thompson]

I think any new technology that helps assist in detecting drugs entering institutions is money well spent. As Warden Markowski said, our staff are very vigilant and are very well trained in trying to stop drugs entering our institution. The more drug dogs and scanners we can have on site, I think, the better for creating a safe and secure environment.

[Andrea Markowski]

I feel that the key is really to have a multi-pronged approach. I think we've made significant investments on the security side. We've shown very good results there. We've made significant investments on the treatment and prevention side. That's also showing very good results.

I would agree with Darcy. I think the money has been very well spent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Ms. Young.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I'd like to echo my colleagues in thanking you both for your comprehensive and excellent presentations.

I'd like to ask you a little bit about outcomes. Obviously, with the investment of the $122 million over the past three years, we've heard from other witnesses that this has led to a decline of drugs in prisons, from 12% to 7.5% in testing.

Would you agree that there is a downward trend? I think you did mention it earlier, but because of your two different institutions, I just wanted to hear it directly from you.

[Darcy Thompson]

Ms. Markowski, would you like to comment on that?

[Andrea Markowski]

Sure.

Sometimes I find it easier to look at women's facilities somewhat separately and to look at the history. For the most part, I think the rate of positive urinalysis in these facilities is probably quite a bit lower than at the men's facilities—but certainly it has been falling based on the efforts we've been making.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I notice in your presentation, warden, that you don't specifically state what that percentage is. Could you share that with us?

[Andrea Markowski]

If you want, I'll compare the most recent data from the last fiscal year. It's a calculation per 100 inmates.

The national average, which includes all facilities, for positive urinalysis testing is 7.43%, and the average among the women's sites is 2.4%.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Wow.

[Andrea Markowski]

It's much, much lower.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

That is significantly lower, as you said. That's cause for celebration, in some ways.

Would you attribute that to the infusion of investment into the prevention programs that happened, the $122 million that we've been referring to?

[Andrea Markowski]

I believe that has certainly helped. You just need to look at the women's facilities somewhat differently and recognize, I think, that the numbers have always been lower, which in part is because we have less drugs coming in for the reasons I've already explained.

Sometimes, though, when women are getting involved in drug abuse within the facility, it may be the use of prescription medications they are receiving from other inmates, which would not necessarily show up on some of the testing we do. Some of the self-medicating that may be going on would be in a different form, and that may be part of the reason we see the lower number.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Could I ask you, then, for a comparator. What is it lower number than? I ask because we don't have that other figure.

[Andrea Markowski]

That I'll have to get for you. If you are looking for trends over the last five to ten years, let's say, of positive urinalysis rates in women's facilities, I know that the folks in parliamentary relations will pull that data for you and get it to you. I'll arrange that.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you so much.

I'd like to turn to you now, Mr. Thompson, and ask you to reply to the same questions.

[Darcy Thompson]

We also look at this with a multi-pronged approach, with prevention, intervention, treatment, and interdiction, but also disruption. Drumheller Institution has been quite well-known for its high rate of positive urinalysis—although, yes, we've been seeing a decline.

I don't have the actual statistics on our actual rates in front of me now, but I'd be pleased to get back to the committee, if that's required.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

I would then I ask both of you to think about this question around leveraging—and Warden Markowski you can answer first. We've now heard that with this infusion of extra funding, you've been able to expand and provide a comprehensive and multi-level series of treatments and programs and services, which I think is quite wonderful. It's led to these great results. However, how are we leveraging this, or is there any thought around leveraging this to go steps further?

Let me give you one example of some ideas or thoughts that I've been chatting about with other people. Tell me whether you think this is viable or not. We've talked about a lot of the successes in regard to family visitors in both men's and women's prisons, and that these visitors are a source of drugs coming into prisons. Are there educational and/or short little videos shown to new guests in particular to inform, educate, and warn them about what happens if they bring in drugs, or how they can support their loved ones when they are still in prison and when they come out?

In other words, what are we doing around second-level information and education program support services?

[Andrea Markowski]

We have a program for visitors. Before they're allowed to come in for the first time, they watch a video, and we educate them about the rules and some of the risks and how they can reach out for help if they find themselves being pressured or feel that their loved ones are in danger.

There are significant consequences to bringing drugs into the facility. I can tell you from personal knowledge of the sentences I've seen imposed on folks who have done it that they are lengthy and the penalty they pay is very high.

If you're asking if we can do more to work with our population, I would guess there's always room to do more. The family visits, though, are integral to the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration. So we always have to strike a balance. Crucial to our success are our partnerships with the community and the folks who come in and engage with the women and help them transition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Sandhu.