Public Safety Committee on Jan. 29th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Welcome to our witnesses, guests, and colleagues for meeting 46 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today we will follow up on our study of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

We have a slate of witnesses today, three for the first hour and three for the second hour. We've had a little delay; we've been trying to come up with a video conference from Vancouver, and I think we're connected now.

For the first hour we will have, from the John Howard Society of Canada, Catherine Latimer, executive director. Welcome, Catherine.

From the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, we will have Kevin Grabowsky, national president. Welcome, Kevin.

By video conference, from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, we will have Kim Pate, executive director.

Can you hear us well, Ms. Pate?

[Kim Pate, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies]

Yes, I can, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Great.

Each of our witnesses will have up to 10 minutes for a statement. After that we will go to our Q and A period. Of course, the briefer the opening statements, the more time we'll have for questions.

Once again, welcome, and thanks for your attendance at this committee.

Ms. Latimer, you have the floor, please.

[Catherine Latimer, Executive Director, John Howard Society of Canada]

Thank you very much. It's a great pleasure to be here on this important issue of drugs in prisons.

The John Howard Society is a charity committed to effective, just, and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime. There are about 60 front-line John Howard offices in communities across the country, offering services to promote community safety.

Many of our clients battle addictions, mental health, and both. We agree that substance abuse is a difficult problem and look forward to working with others on this challenge. It is one of the areas identified on our five-point plan to improve corrections in Canada.

Bill C-12 purports to contribute to the elimination of drugs in federal prisons by requiring the Parole Board to consider revoking a conditional release that may have been granted if a person tests positive for drugs, or refuses or is unable to provide a urine sample for testing prior to actual release. The drug user is punished by possible parole revocation.

My opening remarks are directed towards two elements: one is the proposed bill per se, and the other is effective strategies for addressing the complex substance abuse issues in prisons.

Because Bill C-12 seems to be consistent with existing Parole Board authorities, including the flexibility to assess the impact on an individual's correctional plan and risk factors of breaching the rules by consuming contraband, we have little problem with it. But we would point out that not all alcohol and drug consumption indicates a problem of addiction requiring treatment, or enhances the risk of offending. So we particularly like the fact that there is some discretion on the part of the Parole Board in this bill to take a look at individual circumstances and what that particular infraction means.

I raise that because there is also a risk posed by keeping people with addiction problems in custody until their warrant expiry without giving the benefit of the graduated and supported release that you get with parole programs and supported re-entry programs. If you have someone with an addiction, and if the response to that is simply punitive and you're keeping them in correctional facilities until the end of their sentences, they may not get the support they would need, which might ultimately reduce community risk.

A rather small problem with Bill C-12 is that it considers a failure to provide urine as equivalent to a positive result. Some medical conditions, such as renal failure and some prostate problems, can prevent an individual from producing urine and that person should not be considered to have failed the drug test. I think that taking into account a medical inability should warrant against the person being treated as though they had failed the drug test. I'm pleased that the Parole Board will have discretion to look at all of those circumstances and I certainly hope they look at that one.

Our concern mainly is that this bill will not do what its title suggests and deliver drug-free prisons. With federal prisons becoming more crowded, with fewer work and rehabilitative programs, the demand for drugs is likely on the increase. The approach to drugs in Canadian federal prisons has been really focused on supply reduction through interdiction and penalties. All the new money flowing to the Correctional Service of Canada through the national anti-drug strategy were for interdictions—sniffer dogs, enhanced security, etc.

Any effective drug strategy, including those within prisons, also needs demand reduction, so prevention and treatment as well as harm reduction are important components of any successful drug strategy.

The spread of hepatitis C and other diseases within prisons can and should be contained. As the correctional investigator's report indicates, resources available for substance abuse programs have declined. Integrated programs have been introduced to target a myriad of problems, and CSC needs more resources dedicated to treatment programs for those afflicted with addictions.

B.C.'s correctional services and the John Howard Society in Nanaimo are seeing remarkable success with their program, Guthrie House, which is a therapeutic community for people with addictions who are leaving prison. That's something the federal correctional authorities might want to take a look at to see how successful programs might operate.

While we applaud the goal of drug-free prisons, we recognize that this is unlikely to be achieved despite increased penalties and all the resources that have been dedicated to interdiction.

The John Howard Society of Canada believes there are more effective ways of keeping our communities safe and reducing substance abuse than by doubling down on supply reduction within our prisons. The Supreme Court and the medical profession see addiction as a disease, and we need to ensure that all Canadians have access to the treatment they need. Most of those in prison will be returning to communities. It will not promote community safety to keep addicts behind bars for as long as possible and release them back into communities without treatment or support and perhaps suffering from hepatitis C or other diseases contracted in prisons.

The John Howard Society urges a more comprehensive strategy for addressing drugs in prisons and promoting community safety.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Latimer.

Mr. Grabowsky, you have the floor, sir.

[Kevin Grabowsky, National President, Union of Canadian Correctional Officers]

Good morning. My name is Kevin Grabowsky, and I'm the national president for the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. I am a correctional officer, and have been for 36 years now.

When we look at this bill, one of our biggest problems is that we don't know how we see it operationalized. When an inmate is granted parole, there's usually a very short window before his release. If he comes for the urinalysis test and it's dirty, usually it takes us three weeks or longer to get that test back. Our question is whether or not it gives the board authority to pull them from the street if their test was dirty before they were released.

The other problem we see is that if a person refuses with the mechanisms, does this bill mean—again, in operationalizing it—that just the refusal itself is enough to notify the board to have them make a decision, or are they charged in internal court and it has to go through that process? Operationalizing what this is remains certainly a big concern for us. We don't know how that mechanism will work. With that, is it effective, or is this a tool that's put in our tool box that certainly doesn't mean anything but looks good? Those are really the questions which are a concern for correctional officers.

Drugs in prison? Certainly. In all my years working, for every hole we've plugged, they've found new, inventive ways to have it come in. Drones now are a big scare for us. Drugs are also put in dead birds and thrown over the fences. Bows and arrows have been used to get drugs over the fences, compromising the staff. We've seen drugs in tennis balls that get thrown over.

There is definitely a demand in there. Putting things in there to make it stop, or so there's a consequence for using certainly is one mechanism, but as I think was said, there does need to be programs for them as well.

Our greatest concern with this is operationalizing it. How will it work? The tests take a long time to get back; the inmate could already be released. In terms of the refusal, in B.C., as I recall, if you get pulled over for impaired driving and you refuse to blow, you automatically lose your licence for three months and your car is towed away; you haven't gone to court. Well, we don't think this bill, if that's what it was trying to look at, goes far enough.

Those are the concerns for correctional officers in operationalizing this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Grabowsky.

We'll now go to the opening statement from Ms. Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

You have the floor, ma'am.

[Kim Pate]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us.

I also want to thank the Edmonton Institution for Women for allowing me to do this. I'm here today for one of my visits and they were kind enough to open up their video conference process so that I could be here. It seems appropriate to be having this discussion from a prison.

As I think most of the members know, I represent the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, an association of 25 members who work across the country providing services and working with marginalized, victimized, criminalized, institutionalized, and particularly, imprisoned women and girls.

I want to start by saying that short of clarifying the authority that already is invested with the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada, Bill C-12 really amounts to a very expensive reinforcement of existing law and policy. Unfortunately, it also contributes to a belief or an assumption that I think is not necessarily always true, that drugs in prisons are completely within the purview of and generated by prisoners.

When Canada adopted the then U.S. model of the war on drugs some years ago, experts in addictions, including Dr. Diane Riley who worked with the Correctional Service of Canada and others, urged that the focus be on programs and service delivery, not on the model of more punitive interdiction techniques alone. As the committee noted and in particular as a member noted in the House debates on this bill on November 22, 2013, when members visited Norway and talked about drug strategies, that jurisdiction as well as many others in the world adopted the models and programs that Canada has actually rejected or has essentially stopped using since that time. Given that there was some interest and apparent respect for the work that was being done in Norway by those who visited, I think it underscores the importance of looking at some of those measures.

Current evidence-based research in the area of addictions is clearly identifying issues, such as social interaction in the environment in which people are present as most effective in reducing drug use. Punitive responses have actually driven up drug use. In the prisons, one of the things that Dr. Riley predicted, and in fact we have actually seen, as Mr. Grabowsky and Ms. Latimer have spoken about and others will undoubtedly speak about, is the influx of more dangerous and potentially lethal drugs, including those that involve the use of needles as the war on drugs and the interdiction techniques escalate.

In short, I would urge the committee to not continue to go down the route of reinforcing existing policy and allowing more resources to be spent on drug detection and interdiction techniques alone, given that these are being shown to be not the most effective but certainly the most expensive approach to this issue. It would be far preferable, as has already been stated by my colleagues on the panel, to instead look at enhancing programs and services and supports both within prison and upon release. All of what this bill is aiming to achieve already exists in law and policy.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pate.

We will now go to our rounds of questioning. For our first round, we will allow seven minutes.

We will start off with Mr. Norlock from the government. You have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you for appearing today.

My first question will be for Mr. Grabowsky.

Thank you for being here again, sir. I would like to start off with basic knowledge that you may have. Have you made yourself aware of the testimony given by Mr. Don Head, the Correctional Service commissioner?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

No, sir, I haven't.

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

Mr. Head informed us that there's a trial program in several of the prisons which sets out a treatment regime for all people coming into the system. He said that in this particular program, to which several million dollars has been allotted—it's encompassed in the $23 million, which is a significant increase in the treatment regime—everyone coming into the institution who has been identified as having an addiction gets a preliminary review of their circumstances.

Could you comment on that being part of their correctional plan and the fact that, for those identified as needing drug treatment, they first begin to see what's available in the prison for them vis-à-vis treatment, and as it goes throughout the system? What's your opinion of that?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Having great knowledge regarding what you just spoke about, I'd say probably 85% to 95% of our inmates have some type of an addiction that either brought them or got them into prison. That being said, every inmate is at that risk. That is always looked at for every inmate in their correctional plan. I think there's almost a standard sentence about their drug or some type of an addiction.

Overcrowding makes it harder and harder to do some of that programming. Given the gangs we have in prison and the way we divide up prison populations, it is much tougher to run those programs as openly as they were run years ago. Your time is limited. You divide up the 24 hours in a jail among seven populations rather than one, as it was before. Getting into programs is tough and getting inmates to see them through is tougher. Actually, we've seen a decline in program delivery since some of the corrections budgets have been cut.

I don't know if I'm in full agreement with Mr. Head on it being reported that way.

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

Mr. Head indicated that the budget used to be between $8 million and $11 million and now it's $22 million with the beginning of this new programming. Actually it's the reverse of what you said, and there's an increase. To help you out, I think as a leader in your organization you may want to make yourself aware of some of the changes that are occurring with regard to the treatment of people with alcohol and drug addictions.

One of the issues I know the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has been most concerned about is with regard to some of the suggestions out there that there should be a needle exchange program within prisons. Your association is also concerned that needles could possibly be used to harm your members. I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Are you saying we support a needle exchange?

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

No, I said you had concerns about it. I wonder if you could let us know what those concerns are.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Any contraband introduced into the jail is something we always chase our tail about. We're always looking for it. We don't believe an exchange program will work. We've been asking your government time and time again, I think since 2007, for drug testing on us for blood exposure. There's a big risk if we don't have something in place to protect us and then we introduce something that is harmful to us or that we run a risk from. Inmates take that needle—and we've had hostage takings in which they've had a syringe filled with blood, and they've put it to the officer's neck and said, “I'm HIV positive, and you're going to be, too”. We see needle-stick injuries from them taping needles under their desks to hide them. It's just a risk. It's another piece of contraband for us in the jail which puts us at risk.

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

Also in his testimony before our committee, Commissioner Head indicated that there were some 2,406 drug-related seizures in federal prisons, and that the rate of seizures has been increasing.

You mentioned some of the ways that drugs get into prisons. I'm very much aware of many of those. Friends of mine work at Warkworth Institution, and they fill me in on what's going on from their perspective. In other words, they're members of your union, and we have good conversations. Some of them have expressed to me that one reason we have the increase in seizures is that they've been given new tools and there is a new concentration on trying to keep drugs out of prisons.

I know you would have friends who are not members of your union, just neighbours, who would find it difficult to understand how drugs can get into prisons, and they have concerns. I wonder if you might let us know what you think are some of the reasons there has been an increase in drug seizures.

[Kevin Grabowsky]

I think part of the increase in seizures is because of more detector dogs, some more tools we've been given to find drugs. The stream of drugs coming in has always been fairly constant; we just haven't always had the tools to detect that. Now we do have some of the tools, so the increase in capturing them is coming from that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Grabowsky.

Mr. Garrison, you now have the floor, sir, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you to all three of the witnesses for being with us this morning.

I'm trying to resist going after the shell game of numbers that was played by the minister and Commissioner Head. I think it's easy to see why you might not be able to follow your way through that.

I want to talk about something Ms. Latimer raised. She talked about the results of keeping people behind bars if they continue to fail drug tests. She mentioned that would eventually result in their release at warrant expiry, and I think you said without support and without treatment.

Can you talk some more about what happens with that? I think that's a very important point. Given the statistics we have on the success of people on parole, what about those people we keep in until warrant expiry?

[Catherine Latimer]

We're seeing parole release dates later and later in the actual sentence. We know that being released in a parole regime where they are supervised and supported and where they come into contact with supporting organizations and communities makes a big difference in their recidivism rates.

It strikes me as being unconstructive to take people who we know have some pretty significant health needs because they have some addiction issues, hold them until warrant expiry, and then open the doors of the prison and let them go without the supports in place to guide them and connect them with the resources they might need in the community to help them manage their addictions.

I think there are some really strong reasons for not holding to warrant expiry people who have some needs. We want to enhance the likelihood that communities would be safer. We do that by a supported, targeted parole reintegration scheme that looks at the needs of the individual and how to support those needs.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Grabowsky, on the same topic, do you envision inmates who are held longer, maybe for failing drug tests, being either easier or more difficult for you as a correction officer to manage?

[Kevin Grabowsky]

Overcrowding is what happens.

The average Canadian doesn't care whether we put three inmates in a cell or four inmates in a cell, but for us as correctional officers, we certainly do because we have to open the cells.

The corrections model we have here in Canada is for programs, treatment, and reintegration. But although our numbers in prison may be growing, our infrastructure hasn't changed. If you have one classroom that used to be there for 200 inmates, you now have one classroom for 400 inmates. It makes it difficult to access.

Time goes on. The clock starts ticking the minute they walk in the door until the minute they are released.

There's also pressure for our wardens to cascade inmates from a maximum security level to a medium to a minimum. The idea is to cascade them and get them back out on the street reintegrated.

Are we always putting out the best product that way, with where we are right now? Unfortunately, I'm not sure we are. Keeping them in longer or releasing inmates at warrant expiry makes our job tougher, because that inmate then faces every day as if he didn't care.

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

Thank you, Mr. Grabowsky.

Ms. Pate, you're at a women's institute in Edmonton this morning using their facilities. We've had a lot of talk about additional spending on drug treatment. In your experience, would you say more resources are available for treatment of women with addiction problems, and are those resources adequate?