Public Safety Committee on June 11th, 2009

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

—get rid of their addiction.

[Don Head]

We can provide you with some of the research materials on the efficacy of the program itself. We know for a fact that individuals who go through substance abuse treatment have a much higher rate of being successful once they are released into the community than those who do not. We can provide the committee with research materials on that subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for appearing before the committee today.

I want to talk about the use of segregation and solitary confinement. I think one of the reasons the committee decided to embark on our study was the tragic circumstance of Ashley Smith, which I think we're all familiar with. The impression I get is that behavioural problems in prison that stem from underlying mental health problems have often been treated, on a behavioural model, by segregating the person.

I have also developed the distinct impression that inmates do not have access to regular effective programs of therapy that can meaningfully treat their mental health issues. I'm sure there's a variety of reasons for that. I know there's difficulty recruiting mental health professionals; it's a challenge. But I want to know if you can tell us a little more about where you think we need to go in that regard and what resources you may need to provide inmates under your control with that kind of treatment.

[Don Head]

Yes. In terms of the first point that you raised around segregation, you're absolutely right, the correctional investigator pointed that out in his testimony to this committee.

One of the problems we've always had in corrections is that when individuals act out, our first response is to respond to that outward behaviour. Sometimes that behaviour is violent and could result in harm to others or harm to the individuals themselves. Our response has always been to try to contain that behaviour so that we can move in the direction of stabilizing the individual and then making the best assessment or determination of what next steps to pursue.

Now, unfortunately, with individuals with mental health problems, we sometimes find ourselves in a bit of a recurring situation. The individual acts out, we take the appropriate measures, which may include placing the individual in segregation, get them stabilized, release them back into the population, and then that behaviour starts again. Unless we have the means to get these people plugged into some of the more specific programs they need to keep their behaviour stabilized, or get them access, for example, in some of the more severe cases, to our treatment centres, our psychiatric centres, we have some problems in terms of this cycle.

It is a challenge. It's a challenge every day for the women and men who work the floors of these institutions, because there is no question in my mind that they are trying to find the most humane, safe, and secure way to deal with that behaviour and be respectful to the individual. It is a challenge with some of the more severe cases.

In terms of your question around the issue of access to programs, particularly for mental health offenders, I think one of the things I would definitely plug is the need to have support, and continued support, for the initiatives and for the funding we got for our community mental health initiative and our institutional mental health initiative. We're still a far way from having the absolutely 100% right formula for everybody, but these are very critical steps in terms of our addressing the problems that we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

This funding has allowed us to move light years from where we were 10 years ago. We still have a long way to go, and we have as much work to do in terms of making sure there's support beyond the correctional system, so that when these people do return to the community they stay out longer and eventually, hopefully, do not come back into conflict with the law.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I want to move to substance abuse. Statistics seem to be pretty consistent that four out of five people who enter a federal correctional facility have a substance abuse problem. I've heard figures around 70% to 80%. I really liked the phrase that Mr. Sampson used about having a penitentiary within a hospital. I might amend that to suggest that it should be a penitentiary within a treatment centre. If 80% of the people entering the system have serious substance abuse issues, it would seem to me that one thing we'd have to do is make our federal penitentiaries, or large parts of them, actual drug and alcohol treatment centres.

I was also somewhat surprised to see that on the $120 million dedicated to the drug file in prisons--and Mr. Holland pointed this out--all of that money was directed at drug interdiction. Not one penny was dedicated to treatment or harm reduction. I'm just wondering about that. It seems to me that we're completely missing the boat if we're putting money into drug interdiction instead of putting a lot of resources into drug treatment.

Anybody who's familiar with drug and alcohol treatment knows that availability of drugs and alcohol is not an issue, okay. There are many people walking the streets of Canada who are recovering alcoholics and drug addicts and they're two minutes away from getting drugs and alcohol if they want it. It's not an availability issue; it's a treatment issue. I'd like your comment on whether you think it's misdirected to put a tenth of a billion dollars into drug interdiction and not put money into drug treatment in prisons when we have such a high need.

[Don Head]

I'll answer that question, but I have just a quick point of clarification.

For the roughly four out of five offenders who have substance abuse problems, it's as general as that; it doesn't mean that they all have serious substance abuse problems. That phrase has been used several times in different fora, and it's not the statistics that we produce. Eighty per cent have a substance abuse problem. About 50% had that substance abuse problem played out at the time that they committed their offence. Having said that--

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Head, I want to interrupt you for a second before you carry on. I was quoting from a Government of Canada website, from the Executive Summary: A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, issued by then minister Stockwell Day. This is from the government itself. It says: “It is not surprising that drug abuse and trafficking is an issue within the penitentiary walls given that about 4 out of 5 offenders now arrive at a federal penitentiary with a serious substance abuse problem.”

I'm quoting from the government, sir. Is that wrong?

[Don Head]

I'm just clarifying that it is a serious problem. There are serious cases within that 80%, but not all 80% have a serious drug problem. That's why, when we deliver our programs, they range between low-intensity, moderate-intensity, and high-intensity programs. That's an important piece for us.

In terms of the question around the funding that's made available for us, as I mentioned earlier, one of the things we need to make sure we have in place right at the beginning is a safe and secure environment in which the staff can work. More importantly, it's that the offenders can participate in the programs or interventions that they feel they need. Although there was a significant portion of that $122 million directed towards the interdiction side of the House, we also received, as a result of previous funding in budget 2007 and budget 2008 and through the strategic review reinvestment portfolio, an infusion of money for four programs. That programming money will allow us to advance the agenda that I mentioned earlier around our integrated correctional program model, which will allow us to get offenders involved in programs, as I say, right at the time of admission, including addressing the substance abuse problem, regardless of the level of intensity, right from the beginning of the sentence and not waiting for many, many months into the sentence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you very much.

We'll go over to the government side now. Mr. MacKenzie, please, for seven minutes.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panel for being here.

As Mr. Ménard mentioned, he was involved in the legal profession for a long time, and some of us on this side have the same story from a different perspective.

One of the things I think the law enforcement side would say is that over the last 30 or 35 years, mental health issues within the provinces have changed a great deal. It certainly used to be one of the tools in the tool box that police officers had, which was to properly, I think, use the mental health act across the country and to frequently divert people who had mental health issues from the criminal justice system into the mental health system.

I recognize that corrections, both at the provincial and the federal level, are now ending up with people who make it very difficult for the correctional system to deal with. What would be ordinarily offenders with a problem...more importantly, now we have mental health issues, people who have a problem who end up being dealt with in the criminal system. Perhaps—I'm not accusing anybody of anything—the tools have changed a little bit in an unfortunate way.

When you talk about the need for treatment--as all of my colleagues have, and we would agree there's a need for treatment--the difficulty, as I understand it from both what you've told us here and what we've read, is that proverbial “you can take the horse to water, but you can't make him drink”. We can have great programs—I believe we do and we perhaps need more—but there is no mechanism. I think Mr. Holland addressed this. There is no mechanism to force that treatment on someone who doesn't wish to take it.

I don't know if you're in a position now where you would have some suggestions as to how we might do that. Do you need more resources if they were available? Or is the problem a bigger one in that we need to find a way to get the people who need the help to get the help?

[Don Head]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question.

It's a combination of several things.

As I mentioned briefly earlier, about 20% of the offender population absolutely refuse outright to participate in programs. These individuals have become a significant challenge for us. They are the ones who, to be honest, will probably be coming back through the provincial doors, and ultimately our doors, for years to come. We need to find a way to have them become more motivated to participate in the programs.

There is no question that the majority of offenders who participate in the programs do want to make a life change, and they're quite committed to that. They see that their involvement in programs is the first step in doing it. It's not the one that's going to cure everything that brought them into conflict with the law, but it's a first step in the right direction.

We need to do something as well with the other 20%. We need to expand our capacity in some of the areas around our programming. I think we have a good start in the funding we've received to date, and we look forward to having that carried on in subsequent years so that we can advance our integrated correctional program model.

We believe we need to have some changes made to our infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of the programs, but more importantly, to reinforce this program learning on a day-to-day basis back in the living units, in the recreation areas, and in the other areas the inmates participate in during the day. Our current infrastructure actually works against us in doing this, and we need to have some changes there.

I would also suggest that there needs to be some consideration as to how we find approaches or avenues to motivate the offenders who are not motivated to participate in programs. Right now, if you have two offenders, one who chooses to make a difference in his life and participate in programs and one who chooses not to, both would enjoy the same privileges within the walls of our facilities. It's very difficult, if you choose not to.

One of the experiences I had in both the territorial and the provincial systems is that offenders knew, based on the earned remission system, that it was unlikely they were going to lose remission. They would normally earn the one-third off; therefore, they would just wait out their time. We're seeing, with a lot of the younger offenders who are coming into the federal system, that they're carrying that attitude over and are just waiting until their two-thirds mark to be released at statutory release, and they believe they're therefore going to be free and clear. Unfortunately, in the federal system, as you know, they're still under our supervision for the last third, in contrast with the situation in the provincial system.

We need to find a way to get those individuals motivated to participate in programs both in the institution and in the community in order to continue to produce the public safety results that Canadians expect from us.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

At this point, the only reason for an offender to take part in these programs is their own volition. If I understand you correctly, the person who volunteers has to be motivated to do it, and peer pressure within the institution would obviously come into play a great deal, particularly on the negative side. You've indicated that. There has to be some reason for some people to take advantage of these programs, and the current automatic remission does not help that program.

[Don Head]

That's right. Again using the scenario of the two offenders, both will enjoy the same privileges throughout their sentence. Although those who participate in programs may move through the system and down to lower levels of security more quickly—or just may move, period—the rest of the privilege regime is the same.

We need to find ways, and we're trying to do it now, whereby those who are not motivated to participate in programs cannot exert an undue influence on those who are trying to make a life change. We're trying to find a way—short of putting them in segregation, because that's a very extreme measure, as you're well aware—of separating them in the living areas, so that those individuals who are really committed to making a change and are motivated, as most of them are, are allowed to carry on along the right path, so that they will get the programs, get the interventions, get the assistance, and get the counselling they need to get out into the community and hopefully make a move in the right direction.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think Mr. Sampson wanted to comment.

[Rob Sampson]

I would encourage the committee to take a look at our recommendation number two, which speaks to the issue of motivation. The panel recommended amendments to the CCRA, which included a recommendation, in section 4, that inmates be required to actively participate in their correctional plan and in programs designed to promote their rehabilitation and safe integration. It's not in the CCRA now. The panel's recommendation was that it should be—in order to provide encouragement within the institution. Apart from all the other issues, like infrastructure or staffing, which are not insignificant, you need to have the legislative direction to tell the inmate that it's his obligation to engage. It's part of the system's obligation to deliver. Giving the system an obligation to deliver, with no obligation on the part of the inmate, will get you the same results as you are getting now.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to all of you for being here.

Mr. Head, you have either the hardest or best job in the country, I'm not sure which. I think you have one of the most important jobs. Thank you for your work and for being here.

I want to check out some numbers. I am trying to get a framework in my head. The prison population changes. Are there 30,000 to 35,000 in federal incarceration?

[Don Head]

On any given day, we have about 13,500 incarcerated and just over 8,000 in the community under our supervision. That's around 22,000 under federal responsibility. The number you're citing sounds like a provincial number.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It includes the provincial number. So there are 22,000?

[Don Head]

Yes, 22,000 under federal responsibility.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

What are your projections for the prison population over the next five years?

[Don Head]

We're projecting increases based on what we would call normal growth. We are projecting about a 0.5% increase on the men's side. On the women's side, it looks as if the increase could be as high as 2% or 3%. We've done our projections in relation to what we commonly refer to as Bill C-2 minimum mandatory penalties. We're projecting that there will be a sustained increase of just over 380 offenders. We're still trying to finalize the projections around the credit-for-time-served bill.

I came back last night from a meeting of federal-provincial-territorial heads of corrections. We talked about what this legislation would mean provincially, territorially, and federally. Some refinements to the numbers will be necessary, and we are trying to narrow down the assumptions, but we are anticipating growth.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

We have normal growth and we have political growth. That's what I would call it.