Bill C-12 (Historical)

Drug-Free Prisons Act

An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act

This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Parole Board of Canada (or a provincial parole board, if applicable) to cancel parole granted to an offender if, before the offender’s release, the offender tests positive in a urinalysis, or fails or refuses to provide a urine sample, and the Board considers that the criteria for granting parole are no longer met. It also amends that Act to clarify that any conditions set by a releasing authority on an offender’s parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence may include conditions regarding the offender’s use of drugs or alcohol, including in cases when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender’s criminal behaviour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Welcome, colleagues, to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, meeting number 47. Pursuant to the orders of the day, we will be doing the order of reference for Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. We will be doing clause-by-clause consideration pursuant to standing order 75(1).

Clause 1, the short title, is postponed until later in the discussion.

(On clause 2)

Colleagues, we have an amendment from the Green Party. Does everybody have a copy of the amendment? You should.

[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.

[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.

[Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for inviting me back.

I'm joined today, Mr. Chair, by the executive director and general counsel of the Office of the Correctional Investigator, Dr. Ivan Zinger.

Given the panel format and the limited time we have, I'm going to be very brief in my opening remarks. I will provide some information and context about urinalysis testing in federal corrections, and I'll make some general observations about the Correctional Service of Canada's zero-tolerance approach to drugs in prison.

Let me say at the start that the scope of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, is actually not quite as ambitious as its short title, the drug-free prisons act, would otherwise imply. If enacted, the proposed legislation could lead to the cancellation of parole granted to an offender if, prior to the release, the offender tests positive for illicit drug use or fails to provide a urine sample, and the Parole Board of Canada considers that the criteria for granting release are, as a consequence, no longer met.

The bill would also amend the CCRA to clarify the parole board practice of setting release conditions involving an offender's use of drugs or alcohol.

The window of opportunity targeted by this bill is very narrow. As far as I'm aware, there's no published information on the number of offenders whose parole grant was denied subsequent to a positive urinalysis test before release. As members might be aware, the parole board already takes into consideration positive urinalysis results or refusal to provide a sample when making parole eligibility decisions. The board also frequently imposes a “do not consume” or “abstain from drugs and alcohol” prohibition on those on parole or statutory release and temporary absences. Bill C-12 would simply put these practices into legislation.

As with most legislation, there are intentional and unintentional impacts. It's important to be clear about the purpose, limits, and results of drug testing in federal corrections. A urine sample may be requested on three grounds. One is as part of a random drug-testing program. I know you heard a lot about that from the commissioner. This targets up to 10% of the population each month. Another is on the basis of reasonable grounds to suspect drug use. The third is for community contact and regular monitoring, usually to enforce the conditions that I spoke of just a minute ago.

Last year the Correctional Service of Canada requested nearly 14,000 urinalysis samples from federal inmates, representing 63% of the incarcerated population. Approximately 81% of those requests were based on random selection; 10% were based on reasonable grounds—the suspicion of drug use; and 9% were requests based on community contact, usually to enforce a condition.

In terms of results, 6% of randomly generated samples tested positive. Another 7% refused to provide a sample. By far the most common drug type found in both random and reasonable grounds urinalysis testing is tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. This drug accounts for 80% of all random and 83% of all reasonable grounds positive results. Depending on the type of request, the next most common drug found in positive results is opioids, followed by amphetamines, methadone, benzodiazepines, and cocaine.

The number of drug tests and the number of drug seizures in federal penitentiaries has been increasing. Over the past five years alcohol was involved in nearly 53% of all contraband seizures. THC accounted for 34.5% of all drug seizures. Opiates accounted for almost 8%, although it's unclear whether this number included prescription drugs such as methadone.

In other words, alcohol is the most used and most seized contraband intoxicant behind bars. I'll come back to that in a minute.

Behind these numbers is a series of policy considerations relevant to the study of Bill C-12.

First of all, urinalysis testing targets drugs. It does not detect alcohol or deter alcohol use. This is a very important distinction, given the links between alcohol use, addiction, and criminality. Just over half of federal offenders reported being under the influence of alcohol and/or other intoxicants when they committed the offence that led to their incarceration. Four out of five offenders arrive at a federal institution with a past history of substance abuse and dependancy. The use of alcohol and drugs is a criminal risk factor for a significant proportion of the offender population; however, urinalysis testing is ineffectual in monitoring or reducing the risk linked to alcohol use and dependency.

Second, the high proportion of positive tests for THC reflects a reality that this drug can be detected in the urine up to five weeks for chronic users. Other drugs, such as cocaine or opiates, for example, are undetectable in a matter of hours or days. As published CSC research suggests, the high proportion of positive results for THC may be an indication that it is the offender's drug of choice, or the results may be an artifact of the various times drugs are detectable in urine.

Whatever the case, Bill C-12 contemplates cancelling a parole grant on the basis of a positive drug test regardless of when the drug was ingested. Without condoning drug use, we should be clear-sighted about the consequences of proposed legal measures. This is not about making federal prisons drug-free or treating substance abuse. It is about punishing illicit drug use in prison.

Third, the number of urinalysis samples requested of incarcerated offenders has more than doubled in the last five years. Over that same period, the number of urinalysis samples requested in the community has actually decreased by nearly 13%. Five years ago, close to 75% of all drug testing samples were requested from offenders being supervised in the community. Today it's close to a fifty-fifty ratio of institutional versus community testing. Based on the number of samples requested, the urinalysis testing regime is becoming increasingly skewed towards institutional corrections. Questions linked to frequency and efficacy of drug testing raise legitimate issues of public safety benefit and value for money.

Fourth, while there has been a significant increase in institutional testing in recent years, the rate of positive urinalysis results has remained remarkably stable. Indeed, when positive results attributed to legally prescribed drugs are removed, the annual rate of positive random urinalysis results in a federal prison is running at a constant rate of about 7.5%. Despite stepped-up interdiction, surveillance, and suppression efforts, the jury is still out on whether drug use in federal prisons is up or down. Drug misuse is a problem, but the extent, cause, and best means to address it are far from clear-cut.

On comparison, a higher proportion of positive urinalysis results and refusals are identified through the use of reasonable grounds versus random testing. This suggests that reasonable grounds testing is an accurate and effective method of monitoring illicit drug use behind bars. Correctional staff are already using their appropriate authority and discretion.

My point in providing this context is to suggest that Bill C-12 is largely unnecessary. The parole board already has the power and authority to cancel or revoke parole based on illicit drug use. Furthermore, this bill will not move us any closer to the stated goal of drug-free prisons.

A better and more cost-effective way to prevent crime is to put more of our limited resources into addiction treatment and prevention programs. Zero-tolerance or punitive-based approaches to drug use and abuse and addiction simply do not work in prison. Interdiction and suppression measures alone will not eliminate the demand or supply of contraband drugs and alcohol in a correctional context. CSC's anti-drug strategy needs to include a more comprehensive range of treatment, prevention, cessation, counselling, harm reduction, and support measures aligned to the needs of offenders whose criminal risk is linked to addiction.

Thank you again, Chair, and committee members. I look forward to your questions.

[Rebecca Jesseman, Director, Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for inviting me to be a witness this morning to discuss Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act.

My name is Rebecca Jesseman, and I am a director at the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, CCSA. I am pleased to represent the organization on behalf of our interim chief executive officer, Rita Notarandrea, who was unable to be here today. She asked me to pass along her sincere regrets.

For those of you who are not familiar with CCSA, the organization was created over a quarter of a century ago as Canada's only national agency with a unique legislated mandate to reduce the harms of alcohol and other drugs, and improve services for those with substance use disorders.

For over 25 years CCSA has been providing evidence-based substance abuse research, policy advice, and practical tools to improve front-line services to Canadians. Our position at the crossroads of governments, public and private partners allows us to achieve the greatest collective impact through collective action. We do so under the guise of the “National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs”, Canada's addiction strategy. This framework was developed in 2005 by a wide range of committed organizations and individuals from across Canada. It lists 13 priority areas for action, one of which is on responding to the unique needs of offenders.

As we have heard, the majority of offenders entering Canada's federal prisons have a history of substance use disorders. Public Safety Canada's website states, "Three out of four inmates come into Canada's federal correctional institutions with substance abuse problems. For approximately half of federal offenders, there is a direct link between their substance use and criminal behaviour."

Substance abuse is a known risk factor for reoffending. If substance use problems are not adequately treated within the institutional setting, this can impact an offender's chances for successful reintegration.

There is no question that keeping drugs out of the hands of offenders inside institutions is a worthy goal. Interdiction plays an important role in preventing access to contraband in prisons and we applaud the use of evidence-based technologies and intelligence gathering. However, honourable members are aware how difficult it is to keep alcohol and drugs outside of prison walls. A 2010 survey by Corrections Canada found that 34% of men and 25% of women in federal prisons admitted using drugs in the past six months of their incarceration.

Knowing that one-quarter to one-third of federal offenders are using drugs and alcohol within institutions points to a need for greater treatment services not only within the prison walls, but also in the community upon their release. This should be part of the offender's correctional plan.

Providing evidence-informed treatment that responds to the unique needs of offenders within institutions and in the community is the most effective way to reduce substance use problems among Canada's offender population. It is also an effective way to improve community safety by preventing recidivism.

A 2006 systematic review by the Campbell Collaboration found that substance abuse treatment can reduce recidivism by up to 20%. A study conducted by CSC found that for every dollar spent on institutional substance abuse programs, $2.69 was saved relating to reductions in length of stay and readmissions. We therefore know that treatment is an effective and cost-effective way to reduce recidivism and improve community safety.

However, CSC's expected results for 2014-15 state that only 48% to 52% of inmates with an identified need for substance abuse programming will complete this programming prior to their full eligibility date.

Releasing offenders into the community with conditions to abstain from alcohol and drug use without providing them with the tools and the community connections to avoid such use increases the likelihood of breaches of parole.

Mr. Chair, proposed Bill C-12 would increase the severity of consequences for offenders if their drug use is detected through urinalysis after being granted parole. Although we know that substance use increases the risk of recidivism, increasing the penalties associated with use is not the most effective way to address the issue. Addiction is a chronic relapsing brain condition that must be treated as a health issue and not a poor life choice.

CSC has been recognized internationally for the quality and evidence base of its substance abuse programming. In fact, CCSA is now working with CSC and provincial corrections partners to identify and implement best practices in addressing substance use among offenders, focusing on providing support during the transition from the institution to the community.

This transitional time is a difficult period of adjustment where offenders are exposed to risks such as stress, and people or situations associated with their previous substance use and other antisocial, high-risk behaviour.

Parole provides offenders with an opportunity to re-enter the community with supervision that can help them to identify and address risk factors, including those associated with substance use.

Introducing conditions that make parole more difficult to obtain or easier to revoke risks taking away that opportunity to safely reintegrate as a law-abiding and productive citizen. If offenders are consistently denied parole and only released at warrant expiry, they do not have the benefit of supervision and supported access to community resources that can help to address their needs.

It is also worth noting that stigma and discrimination are important barriers to addressing alcohol and drug use disorders. Although the evidence clearly indicates that these disorders are health conditions, they have long been treated as failures of an individual's character. Taking a punitive approach to substance use reiterates that stigma. It encourages individuals to be secretive about their substance use, therefore preventing opportunities for intervention and increasing higher-risk patterns of use.

In this regard CCSA is also proudly working with partners in the recovery community to promote a recovery-oriented approach to alcohol and drug use in Canada, and to remove the stigma of substance use disorders, because we know that treatment works and that recovery from addiction is real, attainable, and sustainable. In fact, just this week we hosted over 50 partners from across Canada during the first national recovery summit, held here in Ottawa over the past two days and attended by the Minister of Health. All participants agreed on common goals, including a stigma-free and recovery-based approach to addressing substance use disorders.

The best way to promote drug-free prisons is by making sure that offenders have access to proper treatment inside institutions and in the community. This involves an evidence-based continuum of services and supports that address the complex health and social needs associated with alcohol and other drug-related disorders, and it involves breaking down the silos of institutional versus community-based programs and supports.

We applaud the government's interest in ensuring safer institutions and communities. We are proud to contribute to this dialogue and look forward to assisting in any way possible with an evidence-based approach to addressing substance use in prisons and promoting successful transition from the institution to the community.

Thank you. I'd be pleased to take any questions.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much. Those were good explanations.

Mr. Grabowsky, you said that you weren't sure that Bill C-12 is a necessary tool. I find that to be a good point.

Are there tools that you consider necessary for the correctional officers you represent? In other words, are there truly useful tools that could counter the drug problem in the penitentiaries or help you in your work?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our three guests for being here today.

It is extremely interesting to hear you talk about Bill C-12. I know that each and every one of you has a lot of experience and have seen things change in the last few decades.

I would like to come back to a question that Mr. Easter asked and the answer that Ms. Pate gave.

Ms. Pate, you said that women in our penitentiaries have difficulty accessing programs. Could you tell us a little more about that? What is the difference for women? What's changed in recent years?

[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.

[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]

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?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for appearing.

I'll start with the Parole Board. Under Bill C-12, I don't believe—and I could be wrong on this—that if an offender fails a urine test or fails to take it, the board would absolutely cancel the parole. Is that true or is it not?

I will put my question this way. Does the board itself have any discretion over the offender's parole if he or she fails the urine test or fails to take it? Is any discretion left with the board, or is the legislation absolute that the parole will be cancelled?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the officials and the minister for joining us in this committee. It's greatly appreciated.

I'm glad we are talking about Bill C-12 today, but especially about the issue of drugs and substance abuse in our prisons. I think everyone here agrees that there is a problem in our penitentiaries, from coast to coast to coast, and that we cannot ignore it. I think it has to be addressed. It's interesting to hear the comments and questions from around the table.

We all know that inmates in our prisons will have to reintegrate into society. It is our duty, as parliamentarians—and especially yours, as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness—to ensure that these individuals become upstanding citizens once they are released. That is why we have to make sure the best tools are available. The figures you are showing us on treatments and substance abuse have given me a lot to think about.

You talked about the positive aspect of testing that has been done and treatments available to those inmates. You specified that therapy was available to 95% of prisoners.

I would like to know whether there is currently a waiting list and, if so, whether it's a long one. Are all those inmates, who account for 95% of the prison population, undergoing treatment or are they on a waiting list?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The committee will have to consider important bills over the coming weeks and months. Thank you for having me again this morning as part of the study of the bill on drug-free federal prisons.

Once again, I want to thank committee members for inviting me here today to discuss this important legislation, the drug-free prisons act.

The bill before you today aims to provide the Parole Board of Canada with new tools. That body has to ensure that prisoners stop using drugs, be it in the prison system or in the community—for instance, when they are on parole. Mr. Chair, it is important to understand that the objective of Canadian correctional services is rehabilitation. The idea is to take into consideration an inmate's situation when they are incarcerated and be able to provide them with tools that will help them reintegrate into society in a constructive manner.

In order to assist us in our deliberations on this important bill, I am pleased to be joined by the assistant deputy minister, Kathy Thompson; the commissioner of Correctional Service of Canada, Don Head; and Harvey Cenaiko, the chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada. On behalf of all of us, I thank them for their important work to keep us safe.

As the committee members know, the sale and use of drugs in our penitentiaries is not a new problem or one that is easy to resolve. We must first recognize that a problem exists and take steps to understand its pervasiveness and be able to eradicate it.

Approximately 75% of inmates entering federal prisons have a history of drug or alcohol use. This means that 15 out of every 20 inmates will require some sort of substance abuse programming as part of their correctional plan.

In order to correct these behaviours, one of the biggest problems we need to resolve is the fact that drugs and other contraband continue to enter and circulate in our correctional institutions.

While it seems logical that prisons should be free from drugs, the problem persists. Every year, our correctional officers work to remove these illegal drugs. In fiscal year 2013-14, we saw 2,406 drug-related seizures in federal prisons. The rate of seizures has been steadily increasing since our Conservative government was elected.

Over the past few years, our government has invested in measures that help correctional services control the smuggling of drugs into our federal prisons.

In our economic action plan 2008, we allocated $122 million to help develop a tougher approach to drug interdiction in our federal prisons.

Correctional Service Canada has expanded its drug detector dog program, which I have had an opportunity to look at. The agency has strengthened its ability to obtain security intelligence in institutions, increased the number of offenders under supervision in communities and helped establish stronger partnerships among law enforcement agencies.

Building on those significant investments, we have taken strong legislative actions to place a greater emphasis on offender accountability.

That is the goal of the Safe Streets and Communities Act. This piece of legislation adds a legal obligation to establish a correctional plan that encompasses a wide range of elements, including drug addiction. As soon as inmates start serving their sentence, we want to equip them with tools that will help them reintegrate into society free of addiction to alcohol or drugs.

That important bill also established tough mandatory sentences for those caught trying to sell drugs on prison grounds.

However, there is still work to be done. The bill on drug-free prisons will constitute another legislative tool for dealing with this ongoing problem.

It will be part of our ongoing efforts. In 2011, our Conservative government made a commitment to Canadians to work to eradicate drugs from behind bars. We will ensure that every federal inmate will undergo drug testing at least once a year, that every federal inmate who is found to be in possession of illicit substances will face appropriate additional charges, and that any parole applicant who fails a drug test will be denied parole.

We are already seeing progress when it comes to the first two points. Correctional Service Canada has taken decisive action to help honour the commitment to subject each inmate to testing annually.

Urinalysis to detect levels is a key measure for corrections staff. To this end, the CSC increased its monthly random urine testing from 5% to 8% of inmates and then, in April 2013, from 8% to 10%.

This approach has yielded concrete results. In 2013-14, correctional services carried out more than 16,000 urine analyses in prisons—a 114% increase over 2011-12.

As our government increased testing and enforcement, the logical results followed. The percentages of positive tests and refusals have declined, which indicates that the availability of drugs has substantially decreased. This progress is the result of our government's strong actions.

Furthermore, CSC is working to fulfill our second commitment. CSC is now taking the commonsensical step of automatically referring cases of drug possession to law enforcement for appropriate action. As well, efforts are under way to impose tougher institutional fines on inmates found guilty of disciplinary offences; so if you are caught with a positive test in a penitentiary, you will face the consequences.

Our government is currently considering a regulatory reform that will be necessary to increase those charges. The Drug-Free Prisons Act will help us fulfill the third commitment from our 2011 platform—denying parole to applicants who fail a drug test. You can understand the logic behind this, Mr. Chair. Our goal is rehabilitation. We want inmates who still have substance abuse problems to benefit from the available rehabilitation programs and break free from their addiction before being released.

To do this, we are proposing two amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that are meant to provide additional legal tools to the Parole Board of Canada, which is represented here this morning by its chairperson, Mr. Cenaiko.

First, this bill would ensure that the Parole Board has the explicit authority to cancel parole after it is granted if an offender fails or refuses to take a urine test before he or she is released.

If an offender fails their drug test or refuses to participate, Correctional Service Canada would have to pass that information on to the Parole Board of Canada. That information would enable the board to review its decision, if it deemed it necessary.

Second, the bill would clarify the parole board's authority to apply a special condition that requires offenders to abstain from using drugs and alcohol once they are released on parole.

This authority is another important tool for fighting against illicit drug use and breaking the crime cycle beyond the bars of our prisons.

If offenders do not abide by these conditions, their parole can be immediately revoked.

Those two changes will help put more emphasis on offenders' responsibility. The ball will be in their court in order to help each and every one of them take control of their condition.

That is exactly what we promised Canadians in the last election and we are proud to deliver.

Mr. Chair, our Conservative government has a credible plan for tackling the issue of drugs in our prisons.

The challenge we are facing is complex, Mr. Chair.

Drugs are illegal in our penitentiaries, but we have to face this reality and take steps to eradicate it. We have used three measures to do this since we took office. Two of those measures have already been implemented. This morning, with the committee's support, we will be able to adopt a third measure, which is part of our commitment to eliminating the presence of drugs in our prisons.

I am now available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I want to welcome all of our colleagues.

Colleagues, welcome back after a bit of a frosty break. As far as the temperature is concerned, I'm sure we can heat up the room here as we move forward. Of course we're all envious of Mr. Garrison's 15 to 20 degrees above Celsius.

This is meeting number 45 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Our orders of the day are to study Bill C-12, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Appearing before us as a witness today is the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. He will be with us for the first hour. Accompanying Mr. Blaney for the duration from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is Kathy Thompson, assistant deputy minister of community safety and countering crime branch. We also have, from the Correctional Service of Canada, Don Head, commissioner. From the Parole Board of Canada, we have Harvey Cenaiko, chairperson.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us go right to our meeting.

Minister, I presume you have an opening statement. You have the floor, sir.

Drug-Free Prisons Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak for a few moments on Bill C-12.

Bill C-12 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to, in effect, do what is done in practice now. It would give clear legal authority to an existing practice of the Parole Board, which we support, and that is urine testing for drugs when making decisions on parole eligibility.

What makes me crazy is the way the Conservative government holds up a piece of legislation like this, which would do an important yet fairly mundane thing by ensuring that current practice is maintained, and dubs it the drug-free prisons act. We know that the government is doing, frankly, nothing about dealing with the question of addictions in our prison system. It is an utter shame.

Estimates are that nearly half of the male population in prison and over two-thirds of the female population in prison have some form of mental illness and an addiction associated with it. Yet the government continues to cut back on rehabilitation programs and other tools and strategies that could properly be used to treat and help focus the individuals who are facing these particular challenges.

Here we are. The government is going to make sure that it is able to find out whether someone has been using drugs. It has been able to do nothing about the fact that prisoners can access illegal drugs in prison, but it is going to ignore its absolute, dismal failure on that end of things. It is going to throw them back into prison. There are no programs to help them deal with the addictions. What is the government going to do? Is it going to keep firing people back into jail, keep the doors locked, and keep throwing other people in for the same kinds of problems and never deal with them?

How is that keeping our communities safe? How is that dealing at all with the problem that exists, to a lesser degree, but is nonetheless a problem?

It reminds me that there is a service in my community of Dartmouth run by the Freedom Foundation, which is a recovery house for men. They have 14 beds. The foundation provides services to men who acknowledge that they have addictions and are committed to dealing with them, and it does so at a fraction of the cost that would be faced if there were any programs in prisons. Certainly the cost of warehousing people in prison is a fraction of the cost that would be spent if the government invested in programs like the Freedom Foundation to help men make this transition to a drug and alcohol-free life.

The foundation has served over 1,000 men over the past 25 years and has helped them become drug and alcohol free. It is a remarkable program. It supports the kinds of issues the government would if it were truly concerned about drugs in prisons and in society, if it were truly concerned about helping Canadians deal with addictions, which, in far too many cases, are associated with incarceration. Then once and for all we would begin to deal in a substantive, productive, and constructive way with the issue of making our communities safer and more productive.