Public Safety Committee on Jan. 29th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sapers.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Leef. Certainly you have some personal experience in this matter, and obviously you're filling in for our parliamentary secretary, who is away today.

You have the floor, sir.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses today. This is certainly an interesting discussion.

I heard all of the witnesses in the first round, and now in the second round, and a lot of what has been said makes a tremendous amount of sense. Of course, we are here looking at Bill C-12, and we do have a tendency as a group—all of us participating in this, witnesses and members of Parliament—to look at a piece of legislation as though it's the panacea for all the challenges that face us. It exposes a wonderful array of discussions, but we tend to start to detract and distract from the tenets and the merits of the bill rather quickly when we do that. It's not to say that we shouldn't engage in some of the wonderful conversation we've had that exposes the challenges that lay before us, but it does start to move us away from the merits.

I know a couple of points have been made that we need to appreciate and understand that we can't see this bill as the one piece of legislation that will provide drug-free prisons in our nation. Clearly, I don't think anybody on our side or across the table thinks that two and a half pages of legislation will provide drug-free prisons in Canada.

[A voice]

The short title says so.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Let me say this: it appears that the opposition and some of the witnesses have a greater problem with the short title than the actual merits of the bill.

The bill itself, really as Mr. Sapers indicated, is designed to put into legislation what's already done in practice, and I would say, just a piece with it, and it does speak to a bit of the presentation that Mr. Sapers gave, that I think is worth clarifying. I would say it's a bit of an unfair characterization that Bill C-12 is about punishing illicit drug use in prison. When we actually look at the bill itself, first off, parole is a reward that should be worth working for. It's not an inherent, guaranteed, absolute right of prisoners to be granted parole. It should be something that they want to work toward, and if they're eligible they're granted parole.

In that respect, I view the bill not as that proverbial carrot, not as an opportunity to incentivize a person's release, but as an objective that each prisoner in our country would want to work toward and that, as you've all articulated, is something worth working toward. We have a role in facilitating their successful opportunity to achieve that.

From that lens, I don't look at providing these conditions for the parole board as a punishment, as something to revoke from them, because I view parole as a reward for good behaviour, for successful reintegration, for positive opportunities within the community to become a productive and healthy citizen. I think we could run the risk of characterizing what we're trying to achieve here as a tool of punishment. But I see this as a tool of allowing the parole board to legitimize, in a formal way, the successful release of an inmate into the community, which they have a defined responsibility to do.

In that vein, Mr. Sapers, when you look at the merits of this and the tenets of it, we've built into proposed section 123.1 some of the conditions around how they go about this sample and if they've not yet been released. But proposed subsection 124(3.1) says, and it's quite clear, that the parole board can use a positive test but then look at paragraphs 102(a) and (b) and assess whether or not that failed drug test has any impact on the offender reoffending or posing undue risk to society, or whether the release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by fulfilling reintegration.

There's a lot of flexibility still in the hands of the parole board; so in fact this legislation isn't forcing or imposing anything directly on the parole board. It's really just giving them a legitimized, formalized legislative tool to do what they largely are already doing, but still requiring them to assess all of the real parameters that we'd expect them to assess when an inmate is released into society.

When we look at it just in that regard, I don't doubt that this isn't the panacea for drug-free prisons, but you must admit this is a fairly sound piece of legislation that allows the parole board a tremendous amount of flexibility.

[Howard Sapers]

I had the privilege of being vice-chair of the parole board for the prairie region earlier in my career, and I can tell you that my colleagues on the parole board and I were never shy about imposing abstinence conditions. It's a matter of policy and training for the parole board. Legislative authority isn't required.

Also, both institutional parole officers and community parole officers generally do a very fine job in discharging their responsibilities, in using their authorities and their discretion in terms of what kinds of breaches they want to bring to the attention of the parole board for review.

In that regard, I don't think this legislation is actually going to make an operational difference for the parole board. Those reviews are already done, and this legislation does not in any way fetter the discretion of the parole board to consider whether or not a positive drug screen is grounds for a revocation or a cancellation of parole. It's still highly discretionary.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

On that vein, because it's discretionary, don't you think there is some value, though, to providing a formalized legislative and transparent mechanism for the parole board to do that, so it's not just ad hoc and a policy operational decision but a warranted and legislative authority piece that is clear to the inmate, the institutional setting, the organization, the parole board itself, and the public?

[Howard Sapers]

I think the truth of the matter is that everybody who operates in the system now knows that. If Parliament wants to make it manifestly clear through legislation, that's—

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Is that not fair to the public, though? I mean it's not just the organization. This is fair for the public, that we have.... Everybody inside the organization, as you pointed out, knows these things, but the greater Canadian public doesn't operate in this day to day and manage and manipulate these settings. The Canadian public has an opportunity and a need to know. Do you think there's value in that?

[Howard Sapers]

Yes. I guess we'll never know how many members of the public will understand the difference once the bill passes.

I do want to be brief. When conditional freedom is revoked, I think the person who was no longer conditionally free would consider that to be punitive. That's not to say they don't have a responsibility to live up to the conditions.

My bottom line point is that the process seems to be working fairly well. When we look at success rates of those on day parole and full parole, grant rates, the work the parole board does, and the quality of the work the parole officers do, that seems to be working. This could provide some public clarity, but I'm not sure it's going to have any impact on operations or outcomes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Sapers, and thank you, Mr. Leef.

Now we have Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I thank the witnesses for their presentations, all direct and forthright.

Sitting here listening to the discussion, the more I hear about this bill the more I wonder why we're spending time on a bill that really is of little significance. I think Mr. Berner had it right. It may be politically savvy, the drug-free prisons act, but it's really not doing that at all. Also, it's not in any way dealing with the problem. That's the reality of the world. I have to say there are better things we could be doing than looking at a piece of legislation that we really don't need.

Assuming the bill's going to pass, because it's going to, I have one question on the bill itself. Is there any risk in this bill, cost to public safety, that we should be concerned about? I don't see it, but you folks may.

If there's not a risk to public safety by passing this bill, what can we do with the bill to actually deal with the problem that you stated, Ms. Jesseman? You said, “Addiction is a chronic relapsing brain condition that must be treated as a health issue and not a poor life choice.” This bill is doing anything but that. It's showing a sense of direction from the government that believes in penalties rather than rehabilitation. Is there anything we can do under this bill, on your second point, to actually deal with the problem, rather than portraying with smoke and mirrors that we're going to keep prisons drug-free?

I have two questions. Are there any risks caused by this bill? How can we improve it to actually deal with the problem, rather than just smoke and mirrors?

[Rebecca Jesseman]

In response to the first question, I thought Ms. Latimer put it very well in her statement that the legislation is consistent with current parole authorities. So insomuch as an increased risk to public safety, I agree, I don't think it does.

In terms of what we can do in order to better promote recovery from addiction through legislation, parole officers also already have the tools to direct parolees to community services, and to promote their access to those services. How to better enshrine that in legislation I would leave to my colleagues at the Department of Justice. I'm afraid I don't have expertise in writing legislation. If there could be some recognition of the disease of addiction as a health issue requiring treatment, really shifting the language to recognize that status would be, I think, helpful on many levels.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Berner.

[David Berner]

First of all, public safety I don't think is threatened by this bill. The bill is a kind of rubber stamp to what exists. I agree with you; it's pretty simple and straightforward. It doesn't accomplish a lot, but it's okay. It doesn't do more harm.

In terms of could we do anything in the bill itself, the only thing I can think of off the top, Mr. Easter, is if there were a sentence or a paragraph in there that the federal government was now going to dedicate itself to studying how to really deal with addictions....

Let me make a very quick statement. Here's the analogy. In the last 11 years, I have had two identical medical procedures, five years apart. The second time I had the procedure, the procedure itself had improved dramatically, which just shows you that medical science is always trying to improve itself. Corrections Canada, with whom I've been involved off and on for 50 years, is firmly lodged in the 17th century and has not changed a whit.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

Turning to you, Howard, and really going beyond the bill, you do say in your remarks that a better, more cost-effective way to prevent crime is to put more of our limited resources into addiction treatment and prevention programs. You go on to talk about CSC's anti-drug strategy.

There is a cost to this bill. It takes more resources. It probably takes more correctional officers' time, etc.

What's the balance here in terms of Corrections Canada? Are the results of this bill going to draw down on moneys that should be spent in a more cost-effective way in terms of treatment itself?

[Howard Sapers]

The Correctional Service of Canada has a number of challenges in terms of meeting the mandate that's been given to it by the government. That mandate has become complicated in recent years because of changes in the population of offenders that are coming into prison being indicators of mental illness, of addiction, gang affiliation, etc., and just compound those issues. Whenever there is a diversion of resources away from doing very specific assessment and program planning and program development, and if that diversion goes more into the security side of the business, the imbalance that we already see in terms of the resources being made available for the Correctional Service to deliver on its twin mandate of safe and secure custody but also timely and safe release just grows. Most of the money spent in corrections right now is not spent on programs. A very small percentage is spent on program interventions.

You had asked earlier about public safety implications. Of course, we can only speculate, but when we see a diversion of resources away from treatment interventions, program interventions, supervision interventions, then we know we're going to undermine the way the system was designed to work. The best chance for success is gradual release under supervision in the community. We know that those offenders who benefit from proper program interventions delivered at the appropriate time, and then get the benefit of conditional release and spend time under the supervision of a parole officer in the community, are the offenders who return to crime much less frequently and have the greatest success. You want to make sure that you don't undermine that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We're well over time.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments and questions today.

To our witnesses, Mr. Sapers, Mr. Berner, and Ms. Jesseman, on behalf of the entire committee, thank you so much for taking the time to bring to the attention of the committee the experiences you've had recently and over many years. Thank you very kindly for your attendance here.

The meeting is adjourned.